For jobs that require a lot of trust, people tend to prefer the faithful
Image: iStock/Classix
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Atheists are one of the most disliked groups in America. Only 45 percent of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist presidential candidate, and atheists are rated as the least desirable group for a potential son-in-law or daughter-in-law to belong to. Will Gervais at the University of British Columbia recently published a set of studies looking at why atheists are so disliked. His conclusion: It comes down to trust.
Gervais and his colleagues presented participants with a story about a person who accidentally hits a parked car and then fails to leave behind valid insurance information for the other driver. Participants were asked to choose the probability that the person in question was a Christian, a Muslim, a rapist, or an atheist. They thought it equally probable the culprit was an atheist or a rapist, and unlikely the person was a Muslim or Christian. In a different study, Gervais looked at how atheism influences people’s hiring decisions. People were asked to choose between an atheist or a religious candidate for a job requiring either a high or low degree of trust. For the high-trust job of daycare worker, people were more likely to prefer the religious candidate. For the job of waitress, which requires less trust, the atheists fared much better.
It wasn’t just the highly religious participants who expressed a distrust of atheists. People identifying themselves as having no religious affiliation held similar opinions. Gervais and his colleagues discovered that people distrust atheists because of the belief that people behave better when they think that God is watching over them. This belief may have some truth to it. Gervais and his colleague Ara Norenzayan have found that reminding people about God’s presence has the same effect as telling people they are being watched by others: it increases their feelings of self-consciousness and leads them to behave in more socially acceptable ways.
When we know that somebody believes in the possibility of divine punishment, we seem to assume they are less likely to do something unethical. Based on this logic, Gervais and Norenzayan hypothesized that reminding people about the existence of secular authority figures, such as policemen and judges, might alleviate people’s prejudice towards atheists. In one study, they had people watch either a travel video or a video of a police chief giving an end-of-the-year report. They then asked participants how much they agreed with certain statements about atheists (e.g., “I would be uncomfortable with an atheist teaching my child.”) In addition, they measured participants’ prejudice towards other groups, including Muslims and Jewish people. Their results showed that viewing the video of the police chief resulted in less distrust towards atheists. However, it had no effect on people’s prejudice towards other groups. From a psychological standpoint, God and secular authority figures may be somewhat interchangeable. The existence of either helps us feel more trusting of others.
Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings may shed light on an interesting puzzle: why acceptance towards atheism has grown rapidly in some countries but not others. In many Scandinavian countries, including Norway and Sweden, the number of people who report believing in God has reached an all-time low. This may have something to do with the way these countries have established governments that guarantee a high level of social security for all of their citizens. Aaron Kay and his colleagues ran a study in Canada which found that political insecurity may push us towards believing in God. They gave participants two versions of a fictitious news story: one describing Canada’s current political situation as stable, the other describing it as potentially unstable. After reading one of the two articles, people’s beliefs in God were measured. People who read the article describing the government as potentially unstable were more likely to agree that God, or some other type of nonhuman entity, is in control of the universe. A common belief in the divine may help people feel more secure. Yet when security is achieved by more secular means, it may remove some of the draw of faith.
The findings on why we distrust atheists also point towards another potential way of reducing such prejudice: by reminding people of charitable and altruistic acts committed in the name of atheism. In recent years, there has been a growing number of virtual communities dedicated to those interested in atheism. Some of these communities have begun to organize charitable efforts. For example, the Haiti earthquake led members of Richard Dawkins’ foundation to launch a campaign entitled Non-Believers Giving Aid. In December the Reddit.com online atheism community managed to raise over $200,000 worth of donations for Doctors Without Borders. It is possible that greater public awareness of altruistic atheists may help alleviate some of the distrust that many Americans feel towards nonbelievers.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at The Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
156 Comments
Add Comment..just wait till the lot at pharyngula (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/) get their teeth into this one! Hope they go easy on the profanities, though, it gives such a bad impression of atheists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a horribly written article! When I first saw the headline, I thought there would be some evidence that given a particular situation an atheist would behave in a less ethical way than a believer. There was none. The article implies that "there may be some truth" that people behave better if they believe God is watching over them. However, the evidence presented just shows that people behave better if they believe that someone is watching them. If this were truly the case, the number of believers of any religion that believe in an all-seeing God would have a lower percentage of inmates in prison compared to the percentage of believers in the general population and non-believers would have a higher percentage compared to their general population. And, in fact, it is just the opposite. I am disappointed that Scientific American would publish this article in that way because there are some interesting issues raised in the last few paragraphs. Its almost like Scientific American borrowed the National Enquirer headline writers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is one of those studies providing data for a fact which everyone knows. But there's nothing surprising about this. It comes naturally from the never-ending torrent of religious propaganda that is part of daily life, especially in the U.S., to the extent that no political candidate could ever hope to win an election as an avowed atheist, and the fact that atheism flat out denies the fundamental premiss of religion. In other words, atheism is under a public propaganda attack that never ceases. The next step, for scientists and atheist, is to begin showing how atheists are just as moral as anyone else, probably no more and no less. The notion that believers are especially moral should be laughable, given all the counter-examples, but the propaganda pushes back with great effectiveness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you joking? "This belief may have some truth to it"? The article makes no attempt to justify this claim made in the title. In fact, while atheists make up 8-16% of the general population they represent only two tenths of a percent of prison population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe data is definitive. Christians are far less likely to "behave better".
People are generally prejudice. Atheist are getting persecuted because they are now the minority just like Christians were in 1st century. Statistics about what people feel or trust can be manipulated. Hard statistics about what people did or chose to do are better. This study just shows people tend to be prejudice and associative. Only education and more articles about facts can people change their notions. Fact like: Bill Gates, the biggest donor/benefactor the world has ever seen is an Atheist. Facts like Catholic priest abuse children and are protected. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory is great. You're being watch by a supernatural judge, so you don't misbehave. The facts are different, however. Religious people behave no better than others--perhaps a little worse. The pious front they put on is only a front; underneath they are like everyone else. And we're not just talking about the big public cases of scandal and hypocrisy. You see it in everyday life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Scriptures teach that everyone knows God is there" this is why Scriptures are wrong most of the time and people like me can't trust or believe it. Based on prison statistics it's obvious that people who believe in God don't know what they are doing w/ their lives and are willing to believe wrong things. This is how they follow the wrong paths in life and try adjust by joining groups who claim to be moral like the Phoenician hypocrites that they become. It just proves that the opposite of what generally is believe and that is that Atheist are more moral and just.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the extent that individual and/or group religious beliefs and/or dogma rebukes common ethical norms such as toleration for the religious or non-religious beliefs of others it should be limited and controlled by the state. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does this to a limited extent. The first English immigrants came to the USA in order to flee religious persecution. At the time of the America Revolution, the world was in the midst of The Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment which, in part,precipitated the same. These philosophical movements decried that religious and governmental authoritarianism which resulted in so much persecution. At the time of the American Revolution, the American citizenry was much LESS religious than it is now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe American Revolution has been designated the Deist Revolution because of it's precepts which were based upon the philosophies of the Age of Reason and Enlightenment and the fact that many of it's leaders (Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine) were Deists (not atheists).
As our nation becomes more authoritarian, Orwellian, and Machiavellian, the natural result of the same would be for the American citizenry to increasingly embrace those intolerant and oppressive religious precepts which embrace and conform to the same.
I am a Deist ( I don't believe in any particular religion)who believes in a God, a Life after Death, a Heaven, Satan, a Hell, and Angels.
No. It is clear to me that many of our Founding Fathers (Jefferson, Franklin, Paine,-even Washington) could not be elected to public office today because of their Deist religious beliefs.
how silly and the SA editorial board should be ashamed of allowing this article to be printed. Harkens back to a quote from an English Police Officer when asked about why crime was increasing in England to which he replied "fewer people are worried about going to Hell."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisseriously - what if you didn't know they didn't believe in some god - unless you walk around just insecure ? also i share the same view of the word/term Atheist that Sam Harris does, i don't believe it should exist - we don't call people non-physicist or a non-murderer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe Steven Weinberg said it best: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's because religion is the greatest fount of hypocrisy ever created. Just look at all the news stories of pedophile priests, mega-church pastors who don't walk-the-talk, "Christian" and "Muslim" groups spewing judgmentalism, intolerance & hatred, etc. Religious people do the right thing in order to avoid Hell & get into Heaven; atheists do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Which is more moral? Doesn't downtown dave's Scripture say something about the virtue in doing right with no expectation of reward?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is most sad there are so many people who are unable to even perceive that their belief in a creator deity is only the 'truth' within their personal faith-based beliefs. Many are so singularly indoctrinated they use the term (capitalized)god, referring to only the Judeo-Christian version. They'll ask the question, 'Do you believe in God?,' when what they mean is, 'Do you actually not believe in the god that I 'know' exists?' Maybe they're right, but then again I have
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyet to have anyone show me any proof other than the strength of their personal faith (and, sadly, if challenged, they usually get angry).
I am glad people feel their beliefs with such strength. I wish they could understand that it does not make it any more true for someone else. Nor does someone's disbelief in their creator deity make someone else's personal faith-based beliefs less 'true'. Believe what you want. Good for you. (I don't often get the good tiding in reverse, which, within their own beliefs, is quite pious)
It all comes down to this: "Theists, encountering someone not believing in their deity, feel they must call them atheists or fiends."
Sadly, the ones I am addressing are very rarely able to understand this (and hope that I 'wake up' and see what they believe is 'obvious').
"That's because religion is the greatest fount of hypocrisy ever created" how ironic that you choose to believe someone is inferior to you intellectually because they choose to believe in 'hypocrisy" something that has no solid proof and you choose not to believe in something not yet defunked but judge them nevertheless based on their belief system. Sure it was created to control the masses but we are all equal regardless of worship, belief or lack thereof. I don't think you should underestimate someone just based on their dopamine level. Christmas lights are pretty don't go raining on everyone's parade hating people because they believe and then you won't get judged either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou clearly misundestood my statements. My dislike isn't for religious people, it's institution of religion itself. By pushing suppressing individuality, it hold people back from realizing their full potential and does more harm than good. You also appear to be confusing the words hypocrisy and hypothesis. A hypothesis is an unproven idea; hypocrisy is a failure to "practice what you preach". Many of the worst evils this world has ever seen were prepetrated in the name of religion - the Crusades, the Inquistion, the witch hunts, the forced conversion of Native Americans, the Troubles in N.Ireland and 9/11, just to name a few. All people do indeed deserve to be treated equally, but even though most religions officially espouse that principle, many of their followers don't act that way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also assume (incorrectly) that I'm an atheist. I'm actually a pantheist - I believe in an impersonal universal spirit (something like the Hindus' Brahman) that is the source of everything, pervades everything and in which everything will ulitmately be reunited. I also believe that there are as many paths to this spirit as there are beings to travel them, that each individual's relationship with the spirit is unique and intesely personal and that relgion's one-size-fits-all my-way-or-the-highway approach does everyone a serious disservice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If people do good only because we fear punishment or hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Scandinavians high level of social security appears to be a result of loving one another, whereas people professing to believe in God appear to be competing with one another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is easier to trust people treating us as they wish to be treated than to trust people competing with us.
Atheist,as a group, are the most moral people I know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas it an Atheist that sent the Crusades into the Middle East?
Are the people now talking about a jihad...Atheist?
Didn't Bush send us into the Middle East claiming god was on our side.( He even used the word crusade)
Wasn't the war against Native Americans sold to the public in the name of god?
Slavery too?
Belief in god is how they sell wars, for the most part.(It may not be the real reason but the people are easily swayed when their god is behind them)
More people have been killed in the name of some "God" than any other reason!
Science flies mankind to the moon and beyond. Religion flies men into buildings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust what is an atheist? I am reminded here of Jack Reacher's response to a concerned reverend's question 'Are you an atheist?": 'We're all atheists.You don't believe in Zeus or Thor or Neptune or Augustus Caesar or Mars or Venus or Sun Ra. You reject a thousand gods.Why should it bother you if someone else rejects a thousand and one.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis must be a slow science day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe in higher forms of organization, but I don't worship them.
MadScientist..."atheists do the right thing because it's the right thing to do." Yes, but in atheism, there are no guiding principles as to what it right or wrong. The individual is free to subjectively decide that on there on. Therein lies the issue of trust, at least for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I can't believe anyone brings up statistics about prisoners. Just because someone puts "Christian" in the slot for religion when filling out papers for prison, doesn't actually mean by any stretch of the imagination that the person is a practicing Christian. The fact that they are going to prison is a very good indication that they are not.
Since an overwhelming majority of people in the USA are religious, and we are the most (by far) violent industrialized nation in the world, this idiotic article's conclusions are equally idiotic. Compare this with the Scandinavian countries, secular as can be, that up to the 1980-90 were very law-abiding and compassionate (I moved to the USA from Sweden in 1981, so I have lost touch a little). Finally, one could say that when religious people are good, it is because of fear of punishment, while atheist are just inherently good :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt takes alot of study in order for one to actually HONESTLY claim to be atheist as opposed to agnostic. To claim to be atheist one has to be well read , much like a PhD. There are those people , pharangula for example , who claim to be atheist AND a scientist. One might wonder exactly how much TIME these atheists have expended in their research of comparative religion. I would expect atheists , the better part of them , to have expended very little time in the study of comparative religion and therefore are claiming atheism on principle as opposed to actual hard work and study. Evidenced by the sheer number of retractions in the Science community , this community being coincidentally populated by Science majors who again coincidentally are veritably all atheists. Science and religion "don't mix" according to most Science majors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am an atheist - and I certainly trust other atheists less than my Christian friends, mostly from experience. Before I spent a lot of time with other atheists (I have always been one) I would have echoed many, many of the sentiments of outrage expressed here. I saw the religious mindset as a handicap and would use the term "believer" to mean anyone that was not an atheist. In reality, there are bad people of all stripes, but my experience in business of the last 25 years, and endless college, is that atheists talk big but are generally less trustworthy and frankly, are slackers as a group. I would suggest that the common atheist pick up a little humility and stop screaming at the "stupid believers" if they want to be taken seriously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFocusing on the good atheists do, over a long period of time seems to benefit atheists the most. I don't see any fault in the article, but I do see a lot of denial in the readers.
Alternatively, I don't trust someone who I believe is only behaving well precisely because they think someone is watching them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine, a group of people who suspect another group that doesn't share a belief in the same myth. /sarcasm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Faith" in fairy tales and myths is a curious way to live one's life, but it's difficult, if not impossible to show these people the light. It's clear that attrition is slowly changing the culture and with time we will become more secular.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Just because someone puts "Christian" in the slot for religion when filling out papers for prison, doesn't actually mean by any stretch of the imagination that the person is a practicing Christian. The fact that they are going to prison is a very good indication that they are not."
That is a very biased and hypocritical viewpoint. You are going on the assumption that christians can not sin or commit crimes- so if a christian commits a crime he must not really be a christian.
According to most christians I know- everybody sins. (looking at the research, christians do it more than atheists).
I trust actual research more than the biased rambling of someone who is unable to see that their religion does indeed have faulty followers.
EMPATHY: I haven't seen one mention of the trait of empathy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does someone need the threat of punishment from a god if they have enough emapthy to treat others in the same that they would like to be treated? The thought that many faith-based individuals don't understand this is of great concern.
Humans (and many other species) have it to varing extents. It is what has always been needed for our species to survive. We have always lived in mutual dependent communities that require some degree of support, coorporation, and trust. Evidence for this is most historically prominent in the parent-offspring relationship. Nine months in the womb and at least 12 years to the ability to be independent from parents (historically). Humans naturally desire to have more offspring so the offspring can care for them when they become sick, disabled, or old. This is still evident today when comparing rich nations with trusted safety nets to poor nations without safety nets. Humans can not survice alone.
Empathy is a part of human nature. Empathy came first -- even before humans -- and religions with empathetic beliefs (i.e. The Golden Rule) came second to describe how well this behavior works (i.e. the first attempts of a social science). Prehistoric humans definitely recognized that chaos reigned when empathy was at its lowest (no causality implied).
However, not everyone has empathy in the same degree. And empathy is directly correlated with the degree of similarity and contact between individuals and communities (people have less empathy for people who are more different from themselves).
This study only shows that most of the population is as dumb as a tree stump....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the great mass murderers in history were (are) religious individuals...
A lot of people here claiming how rightious atheist are and how many people have been killed in the name of religion. Well lets not forget the millions of people killed by atheist countries such as the USSR and China. Let not forget it was atheist scientist who believed in Eugenics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtheisim is a religion of it's own and has no more or less moral authority than any other religion out there.
I wonder which religious organization(s) paid for this "study"? This "article" (notice the double quotes around "study" and "article") is nothing more than a paid advertisement for the highly-profitable multi-trillion-dollar-per-year religion industry. They count on tithes to keep their profit margins high, at to get tithes they need people coming into their churches. Hence advertising such as this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeeping peoples' minds enslaved is also very important to the other corporations, and to governments. They very much count on fostering a "big brother Yahweh is watching you" feeling in people in order to to keep them cowed and pliant. And nothing serves that purpose better than a constant bombardment of pro-religious and anti-atheist propaganda in the (corporate-owned, religion-controlled) media. It's so sad to see that Scientific American has also fallen pray... er, prey... to this.
Who paid you? The GOP? The Catholics? Please tell.
And how much did they pay you? $10,000,000? $100,000,000? I'm curious.
"The article implies that "there may be some truth" that people behave better if they believe God is watching over them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving just read the whole article I find this assertion to be wholly without basis.
To the contrary, the article simply reports the findings of this study, however flawed it may be.
I find these 'studies' to be wholly unsurprising. The United States has become more and more obsessed with religion and more and more dominated by religious people and a demand that religious thinking is influential in public policy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is hardly surprising therefore to find that there is a widespread deep prejudice against anyone who does not share their personal beliefs.
Most people trust those more who think as they do. As an atheist I'm inclined to place more trust in my fellow atheists, of which there are a fast-growing number. My earliest exposure to religion took place as a child when my aunt married a Baptist minister. He soon persuaded my grandfather on his death bed to ensure his trip to Heaven by leaving his home and savings to the church (meaning himself). He thereby pauperized my family during an economically difficult time (W.W. II)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've yet to meet anyone whose morals were not inversely proportional to their religiosity.
the title is disgusting
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off, as many have pointed out, religious people don't actually behave better; secondly, Christians also believe that even if they do "sin", they can be forgiven. Even murderers can be forgiven just by praying, according to their beliefs. So, while some may be reigned in by thinking God is watching, others may just think (consciously or not): "Oh well, I feel like doing this and I'll just ask for forgiveness later."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an atheist, I don't rely on a some guy in the sky making a list of who's naughty or nice to dictate my behavior. I don't even think that it's okay if nobody knows or I don't get caught. Ethical behavior for me depends on my own self-respect; I don't lie, cheat, steal or harm others because, even if I they don't know about it - I do. I am bothered by my own low opinion of myself when I do things that I wouldn't want done to me. People with a well-developed conscience based on ethical reasoning don't depend on authority figures to tell them what is right and wrong. As many atheists have reached their position through a process of critical thinking (not rebellion against authority as so many seem to think), they are far more likely to act ethically and morally than the religious with their childish notions of reward and punishment. I think the crime statistics bear this out.
David,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You are going on the assumption..." I think you are the one that's going on the the assumption that I'm going on an assumption. I never said Christians don't sin, but I will admit a biased person might be able to interpret that from my statement. Christians certainly do sin and commit crimes and go to prison.
Many people say they are Christians because they were raised to believe they were Christians, despite the fact that they never attend church or any religions functions, read the bible or pray. I'm basing this off of information, not research, that I read, primarily personal testimonies, of people who were converted to Christianity in prison, via a prison ministry I supported way back in the late '70's to early 80's.
By the way, I was raised Christian, became an ardent atheist in my early adult years and am now an agnostic. So, without biased rambling, can you tell me exactly how am I being a hypocrite?
"Many people say they are Christians because they were raised to believe they were Christians, despite the fact that they never attend church or any religions functions, read the bible or pray."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it a bizarre thing to suggest that to be Christian, you have to do any of these things ? Surely being Christian is a state of belief, not of action. Many people are thoroughly Christian, yet do not believe in organised religion, don't feel they need to read a book they are familiar with, and find prayer unsatisfying.
Another case of fundamental Christians trying to define people and restrict people.
Also, this article just plays to the belief that you can't be good without god. I'm an atheist - and I'm also an registered nurse. In a recent poll, nurses were right behind firefighters as the most trusted and trustworthy profession. Every day I am entrusted with people's lives; I must also provide comfort and empathy. No one has ever told me that I can't or don't do this because of atheism. I'm sure it would come as a shock to some religious people, but if asked to pick the atheist out of a lineup of nurses, they would find it impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA colleague, that offered me joining a free-masons society, said about the subject of atheism: "You can't imagine the bizarre rationales people finds in order to justify themselves engaging into fornication". Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Yes, but in atheism, there are no guiding principles as to what it right or wrong... Therein lies the issue of trust, at least for me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- You'd rather trust someone who abandons their own moral compass and hands off that responsiblity to a bunch of strangers (usually long-dead ones)?
"It takes alot of study in order for one to actually HONESTLY claim to be atheist as opposed to agnostic."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou must be using a different definition of atheist. Atheism doesn't require study, only disbelief. you don't need to study to be a believer (just look at all the people who call themselves Christians, but have never read the Bible), so why should you need to study to be a disbeliever? If you're convinced that there is no god, you're an atheist. If you're not convinced one way or the other, you're an agnostic.
"I certainly trust other atheists less than my Christian friends, mostly from experience...my experience in business of the last 25 years..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould it be that they're untrustworthy because they're business people, not because they're atheists? Judging by the nightly news, the great god Money rules the business world & puts profit above morals.
This is only because the majority of Christian Americans equate Satanism with Atheism. They believe it is the same, and refuse to separate the two.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis sublimation of belief in a higher authoritarianism explains communitarians who feel comfortable under the gaze of six million surveillance cameras in GB, and the evangelism of nanny state enthusiasts like Bloomberg in the US
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am old enough to remember when Scientific American was not publishing embarassing amateur theology and atheology every issue (or update of the webpage). It used to be just articles well written on scientific issues. In fact if you look at old enough issues you'll find the "Amateur Astronomer" column was once full of articles and projects submitted by clergymen! Imagine, an era when people were taken seriously *despite* belief. I look to Sciencedaily.com for the serious stuff nowadays, the sensational tabloid nonsense lives here. You once had a good publication. Now it's run for the benefit of atheists who like to read about themselves. I never met anyone who ever thought they wold read anything pro or con about theology in this publication. It didn't occur to me 40 years ago when I first started reading it that it would be taken over by propagandizing narcissists. Grow up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Many people say they are Christians because they were raised to believe they were Christians, despite the fact that they never attend church or any religions functions, read the bible or pray."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I'm not mistaken the Bible quotes Jesus as sayin "whosoever believeth in me", not "whosoever goeth to my church, readeth my book and sayeth my words." So, if you believe you're a Christian, you are one.
Most atheists rate higher than average in intelligence. Most prison inmates are dumber than the norm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore, the percentage of atheists among the imprisoned is less than that among the non-imprisoned.
First off, I very much agree with nr 31, Cramer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I want to put in my pennies worth, just the same.
10-15 years ago, I heard the Dalai Lama say something like this: The easiest way to be a good person, is to follow the mainstream religion where you live, it is harder to follow a non-mainstream religion, and even harder, but better still, to be a good person without religion.
I think that is spot-on.
I am a dane, the mainstream religion in Denmark is indifference, my son reported from a job in a polling agency, that the most common answer to religion was, "err, christian, I guess?"
2,4% of the population go to church on a weekly basis, most are what we call 4-wheel christians, baptism, confirmation/communion (at 14, of your religious beliefs), marriage (maybe several) and burial.
Danes are, according to lots of surveys, among the happiest people in the world, trust other persons more than most, etc.
I think, that empathy is part of our survival kit, man wouldn't have succeeded without it (Eg. birth, without helpers, is a really risky bussiness), empathy is part of our DNA, and science can (at least) claim, that many (other) animals show empathy.
I have always thought, that religion, no matter which, has three parts.
First, to explain the natural phenomena, life, death, thunder etc.
Second, to boost, or probably rather benefit from (the already inbred in our DNA), natural "goodness/cooperation" in our actions (a wolf, that shows its throat to a superior wolf is sure to be spared (instinct), a man/woman prostrate is liable to be spared, but less in a war).
Third, but not at all least, to give the clergy an easygoing and rich life.
In my country, muslims are more than 50 % more criminal than average, when discounted for their socioeconomic status, but I think a major part is due to their rather new status as immigrants, and that their parents are often analphabets, and/or with poor knowledge of danish, they can't help their kids with their homework (the girls are doing fine, though?)
Sounds like you think a person is whatever they say they are, regardless of rules of admission.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore, I am God, as far as you're concerned.
Get on your knees and worship me, or else!
I'm an atheist. The issue is not those who dislike atheism but those who defer and give too much 'weight' to religious groups. Most folks really don't care much one way or the other and best to call the bluff of the whackos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere in Canada when the Pope visits we hear about his 'flock' of 10 million Canadian Catholics. What a crock...perhaps a million or so go to Mass and or give a horse's behind about what the Pope says.
If there is a heavden..who would the God want around his dinner table for eternity...Mother Theresa, Billy Graham or Pat Robinson kissing his holy ass for eternity? wow..think of the conversation...we love you, we love you, we.... God "shut the f...up!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNa, he'd rather have Einstein, Darwin for stimulating conversations... maybe throw in an Oscar Wild for witticism and perhaps a Hitler now and then for some black humour.
I am a atheist, and I can assure you that my morals and ethics are on a level that no Christian or Muslim can even begin to approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExample: Rule number 1# Thou shall not kill. I believe and live that rule though I'm an atheist. It doesn't say thou shall not kill each other, it says thou shall not kill. I don't eat meat but I'm not a vegan. I do eat eggs, milk and cheese which does not require taking a animal's life. Man does not need to kill to feed themselves, yet many Christians and Muslims seem to take great pleasure in slaughtering defenseless animals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdowntown dave (and others).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is this "if you cannot be honest with me about god etc". I am perfectly honest about god, any god. There isn't one. There is no (need/evidence for a) god, any god, as there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR ONE!
I am watching, from the UK, the run-up to the US presidential election later this year and am horrified at the allegiance of the voting public to your IMMORAL and AMORAL candidates (despite what each claims!). If republicans vote for any one of them, and he (or she) wins I really worry for the well-being of the US (and more importantly the rest of the world).
Has no-one told you that the content of the bible, the koran, the torah, or any theist book purporting to tell the truth or give guidance to the uncritical masses is largely man-made fiction, and certainly not ethical nor reasonable.
It has been decreed that the teaching of creationism in UK free schools is to be not permitted as there is neither evidence for any 'creation' nor 'intelligent design'. I think that more thought and intelligent reading should be the order of the day. Please do not think my thoughts are directed solely to Americans; I have similar reservations about our members of government in the UK. They think it is expeditious to believe in an entity for which there is absolutely no proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an atheist I found it was my morals that would not allow me to believe such god myths as such would be a lie.
As for trust, to trust someone who believes in mythical beings who controls their lives means trusting to someone who isn't very good at basic reasoning or would do, say, believe anything to be in a/the group.
Anyone with any kind of reasoning skills who would actually study their, other religions would quickily see it's all a scam for money, power.
That's some twisted logic!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"just look at all the people who call themselves Christians, but have never read the Bible"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually all one HAS to "believe" to BE a 'Christian' is to believe there was a man named Christ. If your dad , uncle , brother , sister , man in the street talked to you about Christ and convinced you there was a man named Christ. You are NOW a Christian. If you believe you actually HAVE to read the Bible to BE a Christian , you are wrong , imho BUT in order , as I said , HONESTLY say one is an atheist as OPPOSED to a simple agnostic takes research , lots of it. But you will notice I said , honesty , and as anecdotal and scientific evidence show , atheists really aren't UP on honesty.
Jellyroll says, "Na, he'd rather have Einstein, Darwin for stimulating conversations..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there was a god, do you actually believe Einstein would be able to provide that god with a stimulating conversation? Wouldn't God know all? Einstein would be like a child to a god that knows all. But at least Einstein would be a good listener and understand what god is telling him.
Billy Graham and other self-righteous humans would probably be trying to dictate to God what is right and wrong. God would tell these self-righteous humans to go to hell where they can continue to dictate to sheepish idiots. I.e. if there was a god.
Still more sloppy thinking and silliness from SA. First of all, I challenge anyone to tell me what an atheist is. Someone who doesn't believe in God, you say? And which God is that? The Christian God? The God of Islam? Any God? Second, I don't think it takes a genius to figure out why people don't like those who call themselves "atheists." It's the same and rather obvious reason why they don't like those who, for example, call themselves "communists." Those who IDENTIFY themselves in these ways (e.g., atheist, communist) are perceived as taking up a negative, hostile, and "in-your-face" stance to what others hold near and dear. The same is true for other groups: strongly "pro choice" people don't trust those who IDENTIFY themselves as strongly "pro-life," and vice versa.There is no great mystery here and nothing unusual or unexpected to investigate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious people are prone to deceit others and themself. That is why they give false promises and also beleive them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll polititians that the religious people elect, are both religious and liars (at least here in Ukraine).
It is no wonder that most (almost all) rascals in prisons are religious. It is their way of life.
hey stupid not believing in your big daddy in the sky doesn`t in any way require dishonesty it just means we DO NOT BELIEVE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGnatham,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are correct that many people do not like the word atheist; however, I do not believe the bulk of the bias arises from whether the term is used in the 1st or 3rd person (or the term itself, regardless of its use).
I did not choose not to believe in a god. It just happens over a long period of time (a decade). It is similar to choosing a mate. Someone can not force you to fall in love with a mate.
What other term should people use to describe people who do not believe in a god? Oh, I guess that's the definition of atheist. It is interesting that some people need to make it all about themselves, as if an atheist chooses to be an atheist just to be "in-your-face" to theists and diests. The definition of that is self-centered.
This shows the discrimination that exists against atheists. Most atheists prefer not to share their lack of belief in a god with others.
One of the things that may reduce the acceptability of atheists is the development of the aggressive militant evangelistic atheist, by which I mean the in-your-face atheist who tries to marginalize and stigmatize anyone who doesn't share his views. These people can be as offensive as religious fanatics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never been a religious person and I consider myself an agnostic (an atheist who hedges his bets) but I've been dismayed at the raw hostility some atheists, including some close friends, express toward believers. The never attack Jews, regard Muslims as backward (but it's their culture, you see) and absolutely despise Christians (except for icons of the religious left, such as Martin Luther King).
What I see going on with evangelistic atheists is a kind of angry sadism. Religious belief is very difficult to explain or defend logically and these people are sitting ducks for nasty ridicule. It can be a pretty humiliating experience to have your core beliefs described in hostile, negative terms.
Conservative Christians are regarded as depraved, insane and all racist even if they're Black. I've seen religious women reduced to tears by aggressive atheists who have to realize they're not winning points by these tactics. All they're doing is venting their anger and contempt and often creating sympathy for the victim of this kind of attack.
Whenever I hear someone aggressively announce their religious beliefs, or lack of, I suspect someone is either on a superiority kick of one kind or another. I suspect we'd all be better off if we were more tolerant and just let people believe what they wish. Fanaticism, whether from religious believers or non-believers, is always a bad idea. The best thing may be just to keep your opinions to yourself.
I had a Catholic upbringing and as I grew up I became an atheist. It was mostly due to the logic inconsistencies of religious belief, but something else helped: the sometimes spectacular distance that separates believers' words and their behaviour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a result of that, I started trying to find logical reasons to be moral, and found it not to be hard at all.
Take murder, for instance. Why sould we not commit murder?
Well, it destroys social trust, it fosters the rule of force over the rule of reason, it creates so much uncertainty that it makes us spend most of our energies ensuring personal security, and so on. No need for a god to tell us that.
Human morality is a human creation designed to let us live together in greater harmony. It does change with the times as society itself changes and the mechanics of our colective relation to others evolve.
To go looking for it in some text written long ago in a completely different society is, apart from a bad idea, to lock the morality of our current life to a long dead set of circumstances.
The ancient Romans called early christians atheists because they did not believe in Roman gods. So an atheist is someone who does not believe in the god you believe in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristian religion grew so fast that Roman authorities made it the official religion of the empire at the end of the C4th and believers in the old Roman gods became the atheists.
The church became the authority on how people should live their lives after the Roman empire collapsed and Europe sank into the Dark Ages for about 1,000 years until growing numbers of people questioned the church's metaphysical explanations of physical phenomena, such as why night follows day (answer, the earth spins as it revolves around the sun).
Among christian countries the US is second only to Poland in the belief that religion has an important role in life.
Despite describing itself as the Land of The Free, the US has an imprisonment rate (738 per 100,000) second only to the USSR, five times the average for OECD countries (136) and more than three times the next highest, which happens to be Poland (228).
The US spends a greater proportion of its GDP than any other country on external control of individual behaviours through law enforcement and its legal system.
This article simply points to the seemingly paradoxical fact that, in a country in which freedom of action by individuals is proclaimed with almost religious fervour, individuals lack a sense of personal, internal values to guide their actions. They believe that control of personal behaviour comes from outside the individual and place little trust in an individual's internal values.
Maybe it is time that Americans took up Victor Frankl's suggestion to balance the Statue of Liberty, the symbol on the east coast of personal freedom of action, with a Statue of Responsibleness on the west coast as a symbol of personal responsibility for an individual's actions. Perhaps then there might be greater belief that individuals guided by personal values can be trusted more than individuals who have to look outside themselves for values to guide their personal actions.
www.ideasintuitionandthinking.com
Too bad the prevalent belief that religion decreases crime is quite likely the opposite of the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFood for thought:
http://kalinbooks.com/atheism-religion/22-ways-religion-promotes-crime/
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdear downtown dave,
first off youre on a site for science, not fairy tales. the link above is to a graphic that shows just how nonsensical that fairy tale stuff is. your book contradicts its self over 100 times and more im sure. i've read the bible, thats why im an atheist
well if you were a good practicing christian according to your book, you'd stone gays, unmarried non virgins, not let women teach you, not consume a retarded amount of food. and maybe you've never had a world history lesson but there was this horrendous thing called the crusades that took place in the name of christianity. i dont need a bunch of stories made up to explain science to the uneducated massed (before most of todays scientific knowledge had become know). i told my mom about a horrible car accident i witnessed the other day, she said "say a prayer for them", but i had done better. i had gotten out of my car and went to help them with a friend. see, i actually did something instead of some lipservice. but i guess that still makes you the better person.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy feeling is that I distrust anyone that believes the purported edicts of a fictitious being should bear more weight in their moral choices than real people and events. If you can't trust yourself over all others, then I don't trust you. ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have always thought, that religion, no matter which, has three parts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a 4th one - to codify survival necessities in primitive societies as a matter of divine will, in order to ensure that society's continuity. For example, "Don't eat pork, because it's a SIN and god will smite you" tends to carry more weight in the minds of the masses than "Don't eat pork, because we're in the desert & can't preserve it adequately and you might get sick & die", particularly if you don't know about trichinosis.
its precisely the lack of religion, so no. we dont do the whole cult chanting to invisible people in the sky or a zombie like christians. and hitler promoted the hell out of god. communism isnt built out of the idea of no god, its built from attempting to make everyone equals. and since the religious are fanatic enough about themselves religion had to be removed. i dont agree with communism but if you dont understand its principles please dont use it to justify your stupidity
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It doesn't say thou shall not kill each other, it says thou shall not kill."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the correct translation of the commandment is "thou shalt not commit murder." There are several offenses punishable by death unde Old Testament law, which would be in direct conflict with the commandment if it was "thou shalt not kill".
"Another case of fundamental Christians trying to define people and restrict people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL!!! Did you even read the last paragraph of the comment you replied to? Jump to conclusions much?
"If I'm not mistaken the Bible quotes Jesus as sayin "whosoever believeth in me", not "whosoever goeth to my church, readeth my book and sayeth my words." So, if you believe you're a Christian, you are one. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot necessarily. Jesus also said (paraphrase) that on that (judgement) day many will come to me and say they are mine, that they healed the sick and cast out demons in my name. But I will say away from me for you were never mine.
"well if you were a good practicing christian according to your book,.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay I respectfully refer you to the last paragraph of comment 40.
"see, i actually did something instead of some lipservice. but i guess that still makes you the better person."
Why the personal attack? FYI, I routinely donate to a variety of charities to help the less fortunate. Only one of them has any basis in any religion, and that's because it's the only local charity does anything significant for the homeless.
At least one false premise undermines this article, namely, that confessions of group membership loyalty significantly predict behavior consistent with the group’s published behavioral norms and expectations. It is simply not true, especially of decisions related to existential crisis. Secondly, a behavior inconsistent with a group norm does not ipso facto compromise the norm; it just declares the members’ behavior is NOT the norm. For example, to say there are more ‘Christians’ than atheists in prison is irrelevant to Christianity, as this group’s norm clearly forbids lying, murdering and stealing – the behaviors that land one in prison. It is more intellectually honest to say Christians in prison were not Christians during the activities that led to their incarceration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly if this (false) premise is true would one care that one was or was not an atheist, and only then if it were found that atheists have a group norm of uncivil behavior. My limited sense of the data is the present atheist evangelical effort are encouraging folks to “be nice” because it is reasonable and rational, not because an omniscient, omnipotent God is watching. But this is equally silly, as a strict reading of evolutionary theory demands that DNA will simply replicate in the best host organism within that organism’s physical environment. Truth, morality, and civilized behavior are essentially parlor games and crowd control, as ultimately, the individual that successfully behaves, adapts, and reproduces is the only truth left standing. It is, therefore, entirely rational do act in any manner in one’s self interest, even if inventing group associations to control behavior is a means to do so.
I wished the article would have recognized that human beings only occasionally make decisions based on rational analysis; most routine decisions are subconscious or emotional and not the product of breaking the frontal cerebral cortex into a sweat. We don’t trust, or not trust someone because we thought things through; rather, we mentally triaged the decision based on stereotypes, prejudices, and habits.
The rational atheist is someone I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to until they hypothesize that God does not exist because this God will not subject themself to the scientific method. Any God that fell for that fallacy is surely not clever enough to be a God one should concern oneself with. As C.S. Lewis quipped about Aslan , “He’s not a tame lion.”
"Actually all one HAS to "believe" to BE a 'Christian' is to believe there was a man named Christ...BUT in order , as I said , HONESTLY say one is an atheist as OPPOSED to a simple agnostic takes research , lots of it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou misunderstood the point I was making. Study ISN'T required to be be a believer, and it's not required to be an atheist, either. All you need is conviction. Study just makes you an educated atheist.
For better or worse, atheists are known by their loudest members.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe loudest members act illogically.
That is, they attempt to use science (which is more or less the rules governing physical characteristics) to disprove "GOD".
"GOD" is outside of science.
Therefore, weather you believe in GOD or not, science can't be used to disprove "GOD".
To do so, is illogical.
So, to most people, the loudest Atheists are silly.
Silly people can't be trusted.
Please do not confuse people with GOD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are good, bad, indifferent, sometimes at exactly the same time. All people are corrupt. You, me, Mother Thersa....
GOD loves us all, not because we are good or bad, but because GOD is love.
I did that for 45 years. Confused people with GOD; and
I rejected GOD.
GOD never rejected me.
GOD will judge us. Eternal life or death.
But knowing who we are, GOD has a plan for us to achieve eternal life.
The plan is simple.
1. Believe in the Father, thru Jesus.
2. Honest repentence for your sins, past and future.
That's all.
I can't recall to whom the following quote should be accredited but I wholeheartedly agree with it. "There are good people who do good things and bad people who do bad things. However, the only thing that can make good people do bad things is religion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too felt this was a weak and feeble effort. The most distrustful people I know are "very Religious". In fact, this was one of the reasons I started to doubt the dogma in my early teens. I will hire a competent atheist for whatever I need help with before any with a religious leaning. It's come to light that atheists for the most part are smart, ethical and understand how precious this one life is. Anyone who belives in lfe after death cannot be trusted to do the best thing for others, or the planet for that matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt least 2 comments mentioned prisoners not being atheists. A large number of prisoners believe in New Age, Wicca, or Satanism. They choose their religion. Their religion influenced them. They believe in a higher power. Their higher power serves their ends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally, I would trust an Atheist first.
Then there is that good upstanding Jew, Bernie Madoff.
Checks must still be made.
Atheists do not use science to disprove god. They only show science cannot prove god. Big difference. You cannot prove non-existence. You can only prove existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe burden of proof lies on those making a positive claim - the existence of something. Atheists have nothing to prove. Either it is self-evident or it requires proof of existence. If you see it, it's self-evident. If you don't see it but claim that it is there, it requires proof of existence.
Why is it silly for non-believers to be ethical? You assume that theism is the only valid reason for ethical behavior. You are speaking for yourself not for everybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is sillier to be ethical out of fear of punishment and expectation of infinite reward from unseen supernatural beings. If they are hiding, they are not clever but malicious. Or is it just the imagination of the faithful desperately searching for a reason to be ethical?
Hmmm...interesting thing is my experience is that everyone else tend to be more ethical/honest than so called "Christians"...after all, as their bumper sticker reads "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" my experience is this gives them license to do just about anything. I taught my children and teach my grand-children that you are honest and ethical because it is the correct way to be, not that it is because some etherial being might be watching. As a great philosopher once asked:"Is it good because God likes it, or does God like it because it is good?" I hope that those who believe think it is the latter, but my experience is that many of them think it is the former.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing, atheists are well aware that others think atheists are more dishonest. Because of that we can't be completely honest in many of their relationships. I don't want to be fired because someone thinks that my lack of belief makes me less ethical, so I don't tell my employer or my co-workers. I also don't want to know what their religious views, or lack thereof, are. You can not judge a book by its cover. You can not judge a person by their religious affiliation, or lack thereof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to ask you: Did you really choose your religion? Can you really choose to believe something, or do you simply believe it? Can you choose to believe in unicorns? You either do or you do not believe in unicorns. Atheist can not choose to believe in a god, they simply do not believe it. Can they change such that the do believe? Of course, just like those who do believe can change and not believe, but it is not by choice. If I could simply choose to believe in a god I would, it would make my life so much easier because I would not be surrounded by people who think I am somehow evil just because of what I believe, or don't believe, about the super-natural. It would be nice to believe that I will still exist after I die, but I can't just decide to believe that. Get over the belief that people choose who they are, it is a myth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy personal experience with atheists is that they do not conduct themselves in morally, ethically or honestly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure. But they are outnumbered by the theists who killed and raped. Hitler and the Nazis were Christians. In the Crusades and the Inquisition, Popes ordered the murder of Muslims and heretics. Pedophile Catholic priests, etc., etc. Evil is not the monopoly of atheists. One is evil, the other is evil and hypocrite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne part of the bible that many seem to stumble around on, is at the beginning of the first new testament church. Everyone gave all their belongings to the church and the church redistributed them as the holy spirit saw fit, towards the needs of the people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo mention of capitalism is made. But the bible thumpers and pulpit screamers skirt by the philosophical ramifications of the intentions in this simple verse.
Being a good steward of what god has given does not appear to mean, creating a monopoly to rip off/price gouge fellow christians for oil and gas billionaire revenues so global warming can wipe out our grandchildren.
Our latest 700 billion dollar weapons manufacturers/military profit bonanza doesn't seem to appear to be biblical either but hey, he who dies with the most expensive toys wins don't they?
No matter, if the bible was written in Alaska, hell would be slightly below 0 wouldn't it?
If you'll re-read my comments Mr. Cramer, you'll see that it is not the fact of being an atheist that is the problem. Rather it is the public self-identification of one as an atheist. Since atheists are by and large negative, if not hostile , to religion, is it any wonder that people resent those who are hostile to whatever it is that they hold near and dear. Atheism is simply a paticular instance of a more general problem----disliking and not trusting those who are hostile to one's fundamental values.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you don't see it but claim that it is there, it requires proof of existence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, if you follow the Douglas Adams school of thought, god's existence is dependent on faith, which is negated by proof. So anything that conclusively proves god's existence actually ends up terminating it.
"Why is it silly for non-believers to be ethical?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that, in all of jrosen07's talk about evolutionary theory & self-interest, s/he forgot that Man is a social animal. Anyone who consistently goes against societal norms (aka ethics/morals) will eventually find themselves cast out and, thus deprived of the opportunity to perpetuate their lineage. Any individual who fails to consider the group's interests when pursuing their own will not be one "that successfully behaves, adapts, and reproduces". It's called "enlightened self-interest" and it's a cornerstone of civilization.
Why hasn't biological science, such as evolutionary anthropology plus psychology,come into the fray, as the only scientific method to explain this Pro-versus-Anti-God mindgame?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's 'as easy as' going back to our human grass-roots level,by
doing some observational study of our pack animal status, and seeing our 'Godly- or Un-godly' Clubbishness as that which it really is: namely, plain tribalism on a wider scale. Anybody outside our own in-group is automatically an outsider, and therefore not to be trusted. It's something like 'brand loyalty', nothing else, even when we deal with our religion,as the ultimate after-life insurance industry!
Gnathan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, you have it exactly correct: "public self-identification."
Yes, most atheists who are vocal about their beliefs do come across a hostile.
But how many atheists are not vocal? How many apparent Christians are just going through the motions? I would guess it could be more than 1/3 of the US population that are atheists. How many are vocal? Less than 1%?
I believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and I do occasionally go to church (on my own). I just do not believe that Jesus was a god, nor do I believe any god or afterlife exists.
It seems to me that many Christians do believe in God, but not the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. This is definitely evident in the Republican party. It's mostly the hypocrisy that makes the hostile atheists publically vocal. The truth hurts. I don't see too many Christians voting Republican who would "turn the other cheek" or follow the Golden Rule. Did you see Ron Paul get booed when he advocated following the Golden Rule?
Watch the Republican Debate tonight at 8pm ET on CNN. The candidates and the crowd will most likely exhibit values that are in conflict with the teachings of Jesus.
"Everyone gave all their belongings to the church and the church redistributed them as the holy spirit saw fit, towards the needs of the people."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf any church tried this today, there'd be throngs of self-proclaimed Christians up in arms, calling them "commie bastards".
"Did you see Ron Paul get booed when he advocated following the Golden Rule?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's because the GOP golden rule is "the one with the gold makes the rules." They also forget about the reciprocal nature of the original GR - others will do unto you as you do unto them (aka "what goes around comes around"). If Jesus were alive & preaching today, a lot of the fundamentalist GOPers would be blasting him as a liberal & some would probably be looking to crucify him all over again.
Most people pray out of imminent dread. We go to Him when we need Him: old school thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat amazes me is that there are so many comments, it's a science site, not religion.
As for the science indicated, It's based on how people say they might react to an atheist. As far as I know, the question rarely comes up in these situations. Except in the case of the president.
I don't see God looking over me, I see me carrying my memories to Them in the end. Otherwise, there would be no free will.
Yes, it changes my social approach, dramatically.
Thank God for the Gods!
I find the most egregious of unethical behaviour is practiced by religious people. Do not trust anyone who promotes themselves as so-called god fearing Christians/Muslims/Hebrews/or whatever because they could be anything but.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs always try to get to know the person whether religious or not. Not always safe because they may still be corrupt or evil.
Religion is smokescreen that is many times used to delude one into a totally false impression.
It,s hard to distinguish the evil or deluded or stupid religious/non-religious people who really are out to hurt you or your family or steal from you. They may be sincere in their own minds but they are the most dangerous people of all.
With all due respect to Ms. Grewal the conclusion that "people dislike atheists because they distrust them" sounds most unscientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrust, like respect, is something people earn, and that by their behaviour. So a better question would be "what it is about atheists that more than half of Americans find objectionable? Is it their stridency, their apparent condescending attitude, their seeming arrogance, the fact that nowadays they appear to offend some of the faithful by placing billboards on buses that scream "there is no God, so just be good for goodness sake?" Or could it be that many have a problem with the fact that, today, railing against the 'gods' has become the means through which some atheists achieve fortune and notoriety?
Also, the idea that people are better behaved when they "think that God is watching over them" has no basis in fact. If that were true how would one account for abusive priests, money grabbing preachers, "suicide" bombers and religious "terrorists?"
This article has been helpful however, because it has strengthened my belief that scientists should stick to science, about which they know a lot, and keep away from religious matters, about which this article clearly demonstrates they know very little.
It's not about whether or not you are an X or O, it's about who you trust. And under what circumstances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I must say, oh are we ignorant. We can't prove a God exists. But existence itself is just a human concept.
Quoting God from the lips of pharisees is suspect.
The bible, and other sacred script, is a springboard into deeper thought. If a sentence or two inspires you, go inside yourself and check it out. But please, don't base our laws on this. We have no need for a Taliban in the free world.
I especially resent the attack against my intelligence by offering a choice between evolution and creationism. One I should learn in science, the other in church. Let the person decide how to apply these concepts. Just because we know how They did it doesn't mean They didn't do it. A lot of criminals would love that logic.
In other words, do not trust anyone who is unwilling to jettison the rational part of their mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many out of the closet atheists in Congress? None.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many Jesus of the Everlasting Nazarene in COngress? One.
Why did Tony Bliar sya he had to wait until leaving the PM position to become a
Cathaholic? Because the B Ritish public would have derided and laughed at him.
Here in Australia our female PM has no hesitation announcing she is an atheist, and she is in a de facto relationship. What are the prospects for the USA electing a female defacto-ed atheist as president?
This mistrust of atheists is a USA phenomenon in the world of European Christianity and says a lot more about sick America than it does atheiists.
Dave, there is one other possibility you may have overlooked: The scriptures are mistaken on the point you mention. I know, you won't ever agree with this. But between you and me, there is only a 50% belief in the scriptures. Not only that, but you have no actual evidence in your favour. So... maybe you should ease up on the atheists a little, they may actually not be lying about not believing in God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHell is one helluva incentive to behave oneself. Besides, as a Christian myself, I can say hell in Greek means sheol or the grave, not a place of torment. And no, I'm not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormon, or whatever... I just happened to actually dust off the Bible and read it cover to cover, then do some research into it. Shouldn't one do that before they invest blind faith in some belief or worldview?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll other things being equal, I would trust an atheist over a religious person any day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wouldn't trust either one with my soul.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only way to tell one from the other is to hang around they're death bed.
We have birth and death, everything between is an illusion.
God won't talk to us, so we might as well get on with living the way we chose. All they ask is to be remembered.
For the record, the Bible teaches that all of us are sinners and have fallen short of perfection. So, the Atheists out there that believe all of us (religious or not) can be messed up are in agreement with the Bible. Proclaiming Christians that don't acknowledge that they're no better than believers in other faiths or non-believers haven't understood the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConversely, those that think the world would be a better place without religion are naive. People are selfish at their core and this leads to the oppression you'd like to eliminate. Getting rid of religion doesn't solve the problem. The Soviet Union worked pretty hard to suppress religion, but that didn't stop them from committing numerous atrocities against their own people. Religion is just one of the tools people have used to exploit one another, they've also used wealth, influence, education, beauty, and military power. The problem is not our institutions, the problem is us.
For the atheists out there, I hope you realize that when you say religion should be eliminated you sound like the religious people you most despise (judgmental, oppressive, etc.).
So tell me, why is this article here? It may be immensely interesting to Atheists, but this is not Scientific Atheist magazine. We're all sick of reading religion-atheism junk in SciAm. Get back to science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly in the USA. try this in somewhere like Australia or france or N.Z. You's get quite a different set of results. Australia even has a self confessed female, single( living with partner), childless, atheist as Prime Minister. You can see Australia sinking into teh abyss as we speak!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo all these god bothering adults will only do the right thing because they think a "god" is watching them and toting up the good and bad of their lives. Are we children that we need this sort of "parental" supervision. Where is the evidence that God, heaven, hell or any other superstition exists.
If you were in a dangerous situation and someone came to save you- would you ask if they were an an atheist or not???
So much nonsense
People don't distrust atheists but they feel jealous of their courage to face the world of coward conformists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's hardly surprising that the religious dislike us atheists. After all, if all you have to offer to people who ask "Why do you believe?" is something like "I believe, so there!", you're not going to feel good about yourself and you'll resent them for showing you the weakness of your position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBigbooey; The problem with you're logic, is that not all people want religion. It's not an option, it comes at the end of a sword. Is that what you mean? The Indians that we dominated with our brand of monied religion destroyed a complex spirituality. It did this dirty deed with connivance and blood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the arm of the government, it cannot get strong without gov blessings, that soften the spirit of the target for repression by the troops.
May I point out that Catholicism forced it's unwanted way into the early colonies.
So why have religion in a sci mag? Because it disturbs the mind in a clinical way. Needs to be studied in the Sunlight of the public arena. It is to powerful to be examined by a few, behind closed doors.
It's the GMO of spirituality.
"It's not about whether or not you are an X or O, it's about who you trust."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it's about the X's & O's. It the age-old Us-vs.-Them story. Protestants & Catholics don't trust each other because of different church heirarchies & rituals. Christians, Jews & Muslims all follow the same god, but don't trust each other because of different interpretations of that god. Monothesists don't trust polytheists because the follow many strange (to the monotheists)gods. Theists don't trust atheists because they don't believe; atheists don't trust theists because they do believe. The more "not-Us" you are, the less you're trusted. The only thing that will bring everyone on earth together will be confirmed contact with extraterrestrials - the ultimate "not-Us".
"Hell is one helluva incentive to behave oneself. Besides, as a Christian myself, I can say hell in Greek means sheol or the grave, not a place of torment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept that Hell doesn't come from the Greeks. The Greek underworld was called Hades, which was divided into realms of reward & punishment - Elysium & Tartarus. The concepts for the Christian Heaven & Hell were plagiarized from the greeks, but the name "Hell" comes from Hel, the Norse goddess of the underworld. Her domain, Helheim (or Niflheim, depending on the source) was where those who didn't die a heroic death. It wasn't a palce of punishment, but it was cold, misty & dismal.
Oh now, let's not confuse ETs with GDs,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe center verse of the bible says "Better to put trust in God than confidence in man" But my favorite is "In my father's house are many mansions". I don't preach scripture, but I will not fear referring to it.
The many mansions is cool, there seems to be room for all.
One quote supposedly from God is: "My mind is incomprehensible to man", Which explains the many false preachers and false religions.
The psychology of blind faith followers is an interesting subject.
People who profess to know Gods plan are either psycho, drunk, just plain delusional, or power mongers.
EG: Right Wingers.
Rome was insulted when JC rode his ass through the gates of Rome. I wonder if it was out of vengeance that they marched with his bloody cross?
A good subject for the psychology of Western Civ perhaps?
"Rome was insulted when JC rode his ass through the gates of Rome."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJC never went to Rome. He rode his ass into Jerusalem. Rome nailed him up because he was preaching treason - the idea that there was an authority higher than the emperor - and that's what they did to enemies of the state.
I stand corrected. Yes, He denied Earthen power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, why do the right wingers think they can use Him to rule here on Earth?
Calling him king is an insult to he who denies Earthly power. Now they call him god. Through the lips of the children of the father of lies.
Remember, we are approaching this through a psychological lens.
I think the key here is how faith, or lack of it, affects our perceptions of who we might, or not, trust. Most importantly, why?
Many of our laws are just that also. We have contempt of court, whether or not it is contemptible is not in question. That is power for power's sake. Like being arrested on suspicion of resisting arrest. What the hell?
The problem of trust seems to spring from the myriad perceptions one gains as one travels through the mind paths of religion or spirit. We tend to get stuck at some signpost, proclaiming it the ultimate light. When we really need to move on. Instead of collecting together like some putrid swamp denizens.
From group mind springs the 'us' vs 'them' mentality.
Our neo police are a good example of this.
Scilo says, "Rome was insulted when JC rode his ass through the gates of [Jerusalem]."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven with the Jerusalem correction that statement is mostly likely not true. The Romans allowed the Jews to practice their religion so it is doubtful that they were insulted or threatened by the worship of the Jewish god. It was the Jewish high priest (Caiaphas) and his power elite that were insulted and threaten. The Romans simply wanted to maintain order.
Even evangelical "followers of Jesus" are strating to come out against religion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/hate-religion-love-jesus-video-goes-viral/?hpt=hp_c3
"The Romans simply wanted to maintain order."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I agree that they weren't insulted, they were threatened. Order wasn't something the Romans merely WANTED, it was a REALLY BIG DEAL with them. And Yeshua ben Yosef was an agitator who was THREATENING to upset that order.
You are correct; however, I did not say the Romans were not threaten by not maintaining order. I said the Romans were not threaten by the Jews worshipping their god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn all fairness, I really wasn't there. I'm not so sure were here either. This thread is getting rewoven.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI confess I took license. I was going after the idea of what might make an empire march in the name of some God.
I went fishing I suppose.
History is always in argument because it seems written by the victor.
But what is the mentality behind this adherence to the unknowable?
I know my relationship with Deity very well, but to lay that on someone else is absolutely unethical.
He rode an ass, which was an insult to the horse riders. That gate was a victor gate that the kings men rode through.
JC made a statement about Earthen power in that act. That is what I get from it.
I do not treat the written stories lightly, they all have a deep meaning that requires discernment. To each his own conclusion. We shouldn't be hasty to judge, might be just the medicine we need at that moment, who knows?
When I read his rant on the pharisees, I can plainly see modern priests in they're stead.
When I read the Pentateuch, I plainly see that the word God means a race of Gods. Just like the word man means mankind. Who knows?
There are studies, of the effects on us, of adherence to singularity. It goes against the grain of diversity that is found in creation and/or evolution.
The gnostic faith had many deities, The Catholics maintained 'there can be only one'.
Christian and Muslim are singularity warriors. More expansive religions, Hindu, vedic, voodoo, and such, do not kill the infidels and savages.
I'll give you something out of my personal experience; We are not God servants, we are they're children. Act accordingly, try to grow up in spirit. But this requires, like Christ showed, a disdain for licking the hand of power. Dogs don't go to heaven. Wolves do. Less ye be hot or cold, I will spit you from my mouth.
Atheists are not godless, they serve something. But they can't call it father or mother. As spiritual children, they risk being adopted by anything of greater power than themselves. Maybe that is why we don't trust them.
Belief or no no belief in god cannot be related to trust. They are mutually independent. It is ironical that many people who believe in god think that even if they make mistakes we can ask god to forgive. It happens in countries like India where majority of population is god fearing. Many people sin/make mistakes and go to god and offer money/gold etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who believe in god is a heterogenous group. They dont need to think too much to believe in god. However, atheists have to be quite knowledgeable to choose to be atheists.
I dont believe in the reported findings, as it is based on survey.
What if someone doesn't believe in a God but does believe in a natural order of morality and doesn't trust someone filled with ancient superstitions based on food borne disease about what meat you should eat getting there dogma around your children. Then come the old superstitions about sex and the sexual repression and the sublimations and perversions related to it being around your children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is impossible to derive an objective conclusion, or even hypothesis, regarding trust from a simple question. I only trust people that have PROVEN themselves trustworthy and I believe that the same is true for all clear-thinking people. The thought that you could possibly trust someone that you don't know because of some supposed "belief", or lack thereof, is rediculous on its face.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the 130 comments, it is clear that this article is ONLY intended to create controversy and comments. Then SA can show its advertisers (Shell Oil...YUCK!!!) how many visits there are to this site. Religion and global warming, by far, create the most traffic, with commenters returning multiple times to repeat the same arguments.
I come here for entertainment. I go to ScienceDaily for information.
"And if there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse. If souls exist, there would be no sociopaths. Ask the psychologists if that is true. If belief in soul makes a person not a sociopath, then it is belief not the reality of soul that makes people change their behavior. Belief in something, no matter how noble and sincere, does not make it true.
"If people possess immortal souls, it should be possible to logically deduce this by objective analysis of their actions."
False. Their actions only reflect their belief. It does not prove whether or not their belief is true.
I read your story. It's nonsense. Soul does not explain why people want to live rather than die. On the contrary, following the logic of your story, if the immortal soul exists, people would choose death to experience his soul that transcends physical death. Termination of life is logical to experience the soul.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution can explain why people want to live. Natural selection favors those who want to live. Those who do not rage and despair have better chances of survival. Those who rage and despair died quickly, left few offsprings and became rare or extinct. Those who want to kill themselves and others didn't lived long because either they succeeded in killing themselves or others killed them in self defense.
Cold logic and the law of nature explain why most people would rather live than die.
"I said the Romans were not threaten by the Jews worshipping their god."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure they were, because the worship of the Jewish god forbade them from also worshiping the Roman gods, including their living god-emperor. That was a threat to the Roman order that they couldn't just let slide; thus, the crucifixions, the Masada massacre, the burning of the 2nd temple, the forced Diaspora, etc.
"He rode an ass, which was an insult to the horse riders. That gate was a victor gate that the kings men rode through. JC made a statement about Earthen power in that act. That is what I get from it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe rode an ass through that particular gate because that's what the Jewish prophecies said the Messiah ("Annointed One") would do. In Jewish society only 2 types of people were annointed - the High Priests of the temple and the Kings. That's why Matthew 1:1-17 & Luke 3:23–38 trace out Joseph's lineage through the King David - even while also claiming divine parentage for JC (likely a later addition, or Joseph's ancestry would have been irrelevant)- Jesus' ride was a proclamation that he was the Messiah and the new King.
"Jesus' ride was a proclamation that he was the Messiah and the new King."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should note that it indicates that JC was proclaiming to be Messiah/King in the JEWISH intrepretation, not the Christian one.
"When I read the Pentateuch, I plainly see that the word God means a race of Gods. Just like the word man means mankind. Who knows?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the Pentateuch is quite explicit in its identification of a singular god. Does "thou shalt have ne other gods before ME" ring any bells. Me, as in singular, as in one god and no others.
"The gnostic faith had many deities"
Not true at all. Gnostic sects are generally monadic - they believe in a singular supreme being. The typically also believe in other subordinate divine 'beings', such as the demiurge & the Aeons, but these are just aspects of the Monad ('the One').
"I only trust people that have PROVEN themselves trustworthy"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed. Trust needs to be earned. Belief in someone who hasn't earned it isn't trust, it's FAITH. Theists can trust individual atheists, once they get to know them, but they're unlikely to have faith in athesists as a group, because the atheists don't share their faith in god(s).
There's a Major oversight in your logic. The non-exisitence of a "next world" doesn't mean that you can escape facing consequences for your actions, it only means that you'll face them in THIS world. There may not be a god to judge you, but there are plenty of other human beings who can do so. Thus, souls or no, the ratioanl thing is to do whatever will keep you from being cast out of the group. But I already discussed that back in comment #97.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am an atheist and i know with certainty that i am more honest than most religious people i have known. i find this article insulting. from my own experience i would say that atheists tend to be more ethically reliable than religious people (and it is no coincidence that are very few atheists in prison). christina anne knight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristina, you say you "know with certainty" that you are more "honest" than "most religious people (you) have known".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease explain what you mean by "honest" and "religious". Then explain, please, what have led you to this "certainty". Could it not be that you "have known" a lot of "dishonest religious" people? Or that you have a tendency to consider "religious people negatively?
Also where is the hard documented evidence that "It is no coincidence that(there)are very few atheists in prison? To which "prison(s)" do you refer? And to what research or survey materials can you direct us so we can check the facts for ourselves? Our must we just accept your "experience(s)"?
I am asking these questions, respectfully, because SA is about science, and science is about evidence and reason, not emotions, feelings and prejudices.
So I look forward eagerly to your response.
"it is no coincidence that are very few atheists in prison"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not coincidental, but it has nothing to do with atheists' ethicality relative to theists'. It has everything to do with demographics. Atheists make up less than 2% of the US population, so it's only logial that they'd also be a minority in prison.
So... If I don't believe in your god I'm being dishonest, and thus I'm likely to be dishonest about other things as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, your belief in a god, without any credible evidence there is one, is being dishonest. Thus, I can't trust you on anything else -- such as your original statement, for example.
At my company we have a very simple policy on religious versus atheist. If during the interview process you display or indicate a religion you will not be hired.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn atheist we trust.
Where is all this ( more) nonsense coming from talking about Jesus as if the guy existed. Where is the eveidence there was a "Jesus". That story is another myth . Down trodden people were/are always waiting for the saviour( which JC didn't manage to do for anyone).Ironically the Roman emporer Constantine took a political decision to make Christianity the religion of the empire. For first 300 years the Christians were a raggedy minor cult.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll cultures have always had "religions" of some sort- but how many people didn't believe but were forced to say they did on pain of death or something worse.
You know the most barabric part of the Jesus story - is the idea that a god would send his son to earth as a man , to die a totally vile death to save our little souls. Blood sacrifice.So much nonsense- still the best word for all this.
The logistics of heaven or hell as a final "resting" place are beyond imagination- besides the cartholic Church some time ago said there was no heaven or hell and no limbo. If it is good enough for the pope then.....
My Mum died recently and she wasn't afraid as an atheist. She didn't want to end up anywhere. She had had a long , good life but she'd had enough and didn't want to keep living. She knew she was dying and she went peacefully.I feel sorry for the believers who on their death beds may get worried that they have not done enough to get into heaven.However they can be comforted in the thought that they are immortal. Becasue the atoms they are made of are not destroyed and will be taken up in some other form.
Honestly do people still believe in all this- when will they become rational intelligent independent thinking adults.
You are aware that there are law forbidding discrimination based on religion, aren't you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are aware that there are laws forbidding discrimination based on religion, aren't you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not discriminating against one or a group of religions. I treat all the same. My employees are free to do whatever they want in their off time, however, no one should expect me to hire anyone who shows clear signs of insanity during the interview process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Where is the eveidence there was a 'Jesus'."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry 1st century Roman historian Josephus's text 'Antiquities of the Jews'. Book 18 Chapter 3.3 addresses Jesus's execution by Pontius Pilate and Book 20 Chapter 9.1 refers to the death of "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". These are probably the strongest evidence for the existence of a historical man called Jesus (Yeshua) of Nazareth.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XVIII#Chapter_3
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews/Book_XX#Chapter_9
If this is the case, how come the Catholic paedophile scandal happened (and continues to happen)" These were priests & bishops, for god's sake! How come Pope Innocent carried out the genocide of the Cathars? How come 9-11?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's because believing in a god gives you an excuse not to think for yourself. I saw the light (and gave up religion) 20 years ago after 40 years of active church membership. My donations to charity have not decreased, my moral responsibility has not been abandoned, I just treat Creationists, Mormons and Scientologists with the contempt they deserve.
Bah! How bad an article can make it into SA? This may set the new low water mark. Where is the science to eliminate the obvious hypothesis, "Atheists are distrusted because people have been taught at every turn that atheists are not trustworthy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've got to account for that variable.
But the deeper question is WHY does every major religion teach that atheists are to be distrusted, shunned, avoided, perhaps even killed?
Could it be because the practitioners of various faiths KNOW that we will call them on absurdity in ways that their co-religionists of a different stripe never will? We just aren't "team players" in terms of supporting any sect, OR the broader concept of god belief.
We are distrusted because they KNOW we will not go along with their extortionist threats that hold the believers in thrall: eternal hellfire, loss of "God's Love" etc.
We are distrusted because we pay attention to "the man behind the curtain" in every instance of man-made religion. (i.e. all of them) They know that our sharp eye on their scams undermines their source of revenue, in the same way a "rat" is distrusted in a Mafia family because he undermines the secrecy of how they make their money. We are a threat to their flock's perpetual increase, and hence to their income and power.
People in luxury and prosperity tends to forget GOD.. Scandinavian countries moving away from GOD should have something to do with that than social security?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUgh, you are an idiot. Sorry but it's true. You don't think Atheists distrust Christians? There is no way in hell I would trust a Zealot with a child. At least our distrusts our founded in reality. Your distrust is based on assumptions that your book is right and that we believe in it.....which is why you are an idiot. If we don't believe in your book we certainly don't believe in your god so we aren't lying to anyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is odd because this information is rather old. It is from 2008 or 2009. At least the same information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is odd also in that the truth of the matter is that the religious person is much more likely to act unethically due to the policy of confession and forgiveness.
Atheist do not have a "get out of jail free card" in the sense as religious people often do so we have to act ethically to begin with.
If you distrust Atheists because your scriptures tell you to then well....you are an idiot. Which in turn makes me question the critical thinking/comprehension skills one has to have such a definitive assertion towards someone else. This is what frightens me about religion....anything goes. I can't remember the last time Atheists were caught in a child molestation scandal, or Atheists that suicide bomb abortion clinics and innocent people. I can't remember the last time Atheists murdered people because they thought they were witches with special powers. I can't remember the last time an Atheist killed someone because they weren't an Atheist. And the list goes on and on and on. You want to talk about trust?????? I trust that I am more ethical and moral than any of those people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...When we know that somebody believes in the possibility of divine punishment, we seem to assume they are less likely to do something unethical."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, isn't that what religion is all about? The threat of eternal damnation and punishment if you don't do what the man in the funny hat and red shoes tells you to do? Religion was invented by man for the control of their fellow man and subjugation of women. And as soon as our civilization realizes this, the better off we will be.
Atheists think they OWN science and that it's somehow exclusive to them, but when science doesn't work in their favor they act like pouty little bawl-babies who aren't getting their way lol. If SA played the bitter atheist game and slammed on religious people, you'd probably say it was a well written article. Well,too bad. Take your lumps. That's a good little heathen LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sounds to me like some atheists can't handle the truth. Guess what? You don't OWN science and if you can't handle the fact that Scientific America is writing an article that doesn't put you in a flattering light, oh well. Atheists can dish out criticism but they can't take it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this