Why Are Atheists The Most Mistrusted Group In America?

[woodsmoke]

That wouldn't surprise me. I would be surprised, though, if more would vote for a convicted child molester than an atheist.

Tell 'em said convict repented and converted to Christianity in prison, the atheist will go right back down to the bottom of the list.

[★ Citsonga ★]

That wouldn't surprise me. I would be surprised, though, if more would vote for a convicted child molester than an atheist.

Tell 'em said convict repented and converted to Christianity in prison, the atheist will go right back down to the bottom of the list.

OK, you got me there. Sad, but you're right....

[Guest I Love Dog]

Mistrusted by Americans? Or just American (right-wing) Christians?

 

That's a good question really. I for one don't actually think we (atheists) are the most mistrusted group in America. Now, I don't know if it's mainly "just" right wing Christians that mistrust us the most, but I still don't think we are the most mistrusted group in America. I mean c'mon.. It just doesn't make sense really. Top 10 most mistrusted? Maybe.

I'm afraid we are.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1&page=1

 

So sad!

 

This saddened me, too. I thought Australia was too secular to worry about bus ads promoting "Reason".

 

[Non-Redneck]

I Love Dog,

I suspect they may be afraid of the more conservative Muslims blowing up buses that have that slogan on them. Or possibly evangelical Christians threatened a boycott and they didn't want to lose advertising revenue.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I Love Dog,

I suspect they may be afraid of the more conservative Muslims blowing up buses that have that slogan on them. Or possibly evangelical Christians threatened a boycott and they didn't want to lose advertising revenue.

 

You are probably spot-on correct. The whole world seems to worry about Muslims. I don't think Australia has enough Christians to threaten a boycott(just joking, although I think Christians are down to about 40% of the population in Oz now.You can buy a closed-down church to live in just about anywhere in Australia now, Christianity is fading so fast.

[Vomit Comet]

I just had a vision of the sequel to the "Wolf Creek" movie with the psycho guy relocating to an abandoned outback church and pretending to be a vicar to win the trust of hapless road trippers.

[Guest I Love Dog]

I just had a vision of the sequel to the "Wolf Creek" movie with the psycho guy relocating to an abandoned outback church and pretending to be a vicar to win the trust of hapless road trippers.

 

 

[BuddyFerris]

Thestrange thing is the only place I've ever encountered or heard of fearof atheists is here on this board. I grew up in an overwhelminglyreligious community and I don't recall anyone having much of an opinionabout atheists. When I first got on the internet back in the early 90sor maybe late 80s I recall seeing an atheist on an xian AOL forum andfound him to be just a curiosity.

 

Ditto. Interestingly,and contrary to the media commentary, atheists aren't a group. Nor areChristians, for that matter. The fundamentalists (a relatively smallpercentage of self-proclaimed Christians) are deeply divided withirreconcilable differences separating various sects; the mainstreammoderates find little fellowship across denominational lines, and themore liberal emerging churches aren't particularly concerned about theissue.

 

Among atheists, the rabid, viscous sort are rare, perhapslike the fundys in their fervor, but they don't represent atheists ingeneral. They're perhaps a bit of an embarrassment to the generalunbelieving population, much like the fundamentalist extremists are tome.

 

As far as being the most mistrusted group in America, theABC reported U of M study (based on 2000 samples and an annoyingly poorquery set) is no authoritative analysis; take a look for yourself. Ifwe were to take a genuinely unbiased poll, I'd expect politicians totop the list by a fairly wide margin.

 

Apart from myparticipation on this site, my friends and I haven't had occasion toactually talk about atheists in any context in the last 50 years that Irecall. But then, most of the people I've been close with over theyears have been reasonable, rational people. Pleasingly, most of thefolks on this site with whom I've corresponded are also reasonable andcarefully honest. Politicos whom I've met, on the other hand....

 

Buddy

[florduh]

I don't think anyone has asserted that atheists are a common topic of conversation. The point is that if asked, most people reflexively put atheists in last place when it comes to marrying their daughter or holding political office and so forth.

 

Of course if the choice was to use a babysitter who was a convicted child molester or one that is a law abiding atheist, the point is nullified. Everything else being equal, polls have consistently indicated that atheists are not to be trusted.

[BuddyFerris]

I don't think anyone has asserted that atheists are a common topic of conversation. The point is that if asked, most people reflexively put atheists in last place when it comes to marrying their daughter or holding political office and so forth. ... Everything else being equal, polls have consistently indicated that atheists are not to be trusted.

 

I've seen a few; most are unpersuasive when examined. If true, though, why might that be?

Buddy

[florduh]

I don't think anyone has asserted that atheists are a common topic of conversation. The point is that if asked, most people reflexively put atheists in last place when it comes to marrying their daughter or holding political office and so forth. ... Everything else being equal, polls have consistently indicated that atheists are not to be trusted.

 

I've seen a few; most are unpersuasive when examined. If true, though, why might that be?

Buddy

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

Do you mean that you don't put much stock in the polls because you and your friends aren't prejudiced against atheists? But should the polls truly reflect common attitudes, why do people have those attitudes? Well, that's what's been addressed in the earlier posts in this topic.

 

Articles are written by Christians that assert by not believing in their god, people can't behave morally. They have asserted in print that the desire to do immoral acts is a reason people become atheists. I asserted that due to such misunderstanding many tend to see atheists as uncontrollable elements of society that just can't be trusted. Others have input their thoughts as to the anti-atheist bias.

[BuddyFerris]

Do you mean that you don't put much stock in the polls because you and your friends aren't prejudiced against atheists? But should the polls truly reflect common attitudes, why do people have those attitudes? Well, that's what's been addressed in the earlier posts in this topic.

 

Articles are written by Christians that assert by not believing in their god, people can't behave morally. They have asserted in print that the desire to do immoral acts is a reason people become atheists. I asserted that due to such misunderstanding many tend to see atheists as uncontrollable elements of society that just can't be trusted. Others have input their thoughts as to the anti-atheist bias.

The polls that I've found reported and perhaps the ones to which you refer are generally unpersuasive. The questions are often formed prejudicially, lacking legitimate objectivity. Those conducted by the media are the worst of the lot, but even surveys by academics are often of questionable validity. For example, the question, "Would you object to your daughter marrying a (a.) Christian, (b.) Jew, (c.) Moslem, (d.) Atheist." The structure of the multiple choice implies the best and worst of the categories and elicits the strongest knee-jerk response. The use of the word 'object' implies that you probably should. The structure is inherently polarizing and argumentative.

 

A more reasonable and revealing question in the same vein, but one which doesn't lend itself to polls because it's an essay rather than multiple choice might be, "If your daughter were considering marriage to a fellow from a different cultural background than her own, what concerns would you have and what advice might you offer in the circumstances described below.

 

The fellow is from a good home, stable career, financially sound without significant debt, politically conservative, and established in the community. So far, so good. Now what if he were:

(a.) from a broken home, and estranged from his parents?

(b.) previously married

(c.) carrying significant debt from college?

(d.) politically radical, either left or right?

(e.) a formerly convicted felon?

(f.) moderately religious or non-religious

(g.) radically religious or anti-religious

 

What are the areas in which you'd want to encourage discovery and development? What advice might you offer?

 

The above question might take days to answer honestly. Polls don't have time for such thoroughness, but in passing up the legitimate questions in favor of quick answers, they bias the results inescapably. Simple polls are imprecise at best, and quite often, they're an illegitimate regurgitation of the sponsor's expected results. The question often limits the answer to a less than complete set of choices.

 

As for Christians writing articles about how atheists can't be trusted, you can probably imagine my response. As I've suggested, atheists aren't a homogeneous group. What might be true of one might not be true of another. One might be a nice enough person that just doesn't believe in God; another might be a radical Christian hater. Christians similarly can't be collected into a group and described. One might be a nice enough person that does believe in God; another might be a narrow-minded fundamentalist who writes demeaning articles about atheists.

 

Such generalizations and categorizations are perhaps counter productive when we are genuinely trying to understand ourselves and others honestly.

 

That said, there are cultural/behavioral differences between secularists and believers.

Curious?

Buddy

[florduh]

Such generalizations and categorizations are perhaps counter productive when we are genuinely trying to understand ourselves and others honestly.

Simple polls provide basic raw data. Some polls are better than others. None are a complex social treatise. The better ones do, I think, indicate what people think in a general way, but not why.

 

We all have opinions and biases that show up on the polls.

 

Do you favor building a wall with armed guards along the Mexican border?

 

Should we have prayer in schools?

 

Do women have the right to an abortion?

 

Do you mistrust all Muslims?

 

Should America elect an atheist president?

 

Should we elect a woman president?

 

All those poll questions are complex in their implications and have many modifiers and ramifications, but the answers indicate a general feeling or trend among the population. Poll questions never cover all the nuances or address the reasons one might have for their answer. The bias against atheists has been generally established by how people have responded to polls and we're just trying to figure out the reasons they may have for their particular bias.

 

We elect people to government office by simple polls when we vote. Whether or not you have reservations about the candidate you vote for, or if you are simply voting for what you consider to be the lesser evil are issues that don't get addressed. The vote merely indicates what the majority thinks is best, but not why. It's the same with any simple poll.

 

 

That said, there are cultural/behavioral differences between secularists and believers.

There are differences (sometimes huge differences) between believers. Are you like Fred Phelps? Do you handle snakes? Speak in tongues? Worship on Saturday? Are you a pacifist or do you support evangelical Republicans? Would you bomb an abortion clinic? Is your church the only true church? Do you believe in inerrancy? Is the Apocrypha included in your canon?

 

The secular population has a wide range of cultural and behavioral difference among themselves as well. Among both groups there are good and bad. Child molesters and thieves come from both believers and secularists. People are just people. When a criminal is discovered the secularists says he's a sociopath and isn't a part of our normal society, and the believer claims he was not a True Christian.

 

So I don't see any major differences between society's sub-groups, be they Christians, Atheists, Muslims, Scientologists or Star Wars fans. Astounding good, hideous evil, and everything in between has come from all of them, because they are all simply people who are more alike than they are different.

[Ouroboros]

The polls that I've found reported and perhaps the ones to which you refer are generally unpersuasive. The questions are often formed prejudicially, lacking legitimate objectivity. Those conducted by the media are the worst of the lot, but even surveys by academics are often of questionable validity. For example, the question, "Would you object to your daughter marrying a (a.) Christian, (b.) Jew, (c.) Moslem, (d.) Atheist." The structure of the multiple choice implies the best and worst of the categories and elicits the strongest knee-jerk response. The use of the word 'object' implies that you probably should. The structure is inherently polarizing and argumentative.

I general I would agree with you, but one of the studies were done by a university in 2007 and subsequently presented in the American Sociological Review, and I know that sociologists take a great pride and take good care of devising the surveys to avoid leading questions. It's part of the ethical code they adhere to. The study was showing America distrusting atheists the most. I don't have a copy of the survey or the questions, but as I said, I don't think they intentionally were leading them. http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted

 

It would be so much better if we could look at the questions used, but I couldn't find the survey online (without paying for it).

 

(Btw, I have personal experience of Christians making statements against atheists. They didn't know my view, and somehow, for some reason, most people I meet assume I'm Christian!?)

[Shyone]

I don't think anyone has asserted that atheists are a common topic of conversation. The point is that if asked, most people reflexively put atheists in last place when it comes to marrying their daughter or holding political office and so forth. ... Everything else being equal, polls have consistently indicated that atheists are not to be trusted.

 

I've seen a few; most are unpersuasive when examined. If true, though, why might that be?

Buddy

It's simple logic, but based on a flawed premise.

 

Premise: God is necessary for morality.

 

Absence of morality leads to crime, violence, and duplicitous behavior

 

Atheists deny god.

 

Atheists are therefore immoral.

 

One cannot trust someone with no morals because the absence of morality causes untrustworthy behavior.

 

Simple! The only problem is the premise. God is not only unnecessary, but actual harmful for a variety of reasons.

[Ouroboros]

Personally, I think a large part of the distrust is based on the false assumption that atheism is equal to Communism. It's a lingering effect of McCarthy's propaganda. Most people still think that atheists are against free market, freedom of speech, and rational morality. And perhaps this has been strengthened by several non-theistic philosophers showing leftist tendencies. Everyone knows that the commies are evil and eat babies, atheists are commies, therefore atheists eat babies.

[qec]

Personally, I think a large part of the distrust is based on the false assumption that atheism is equal to Communism. It's a lingering effect of McCarthy's propaganda. Most people still think that atheists are against free market, freedom of speech, and rational morality. And perhaps this has been strengthened by several non-theistic philosophers showing leftist tendencies. Everyone knows that the commies are evil and eat babies, atheists are commies, therefore atheists eat babies.

 

For some odd reason, no one ever accuses me of being a Communist. Funny enh? Btw, I can pick you up another baby at the McAtheist behind the abortion mill if you like Hans; it's on the way home.

[Ouroboros]

Btw, I can pick you up another baby at the McAtheist behind the abortion mill if you like Hans; it's on the way home.

a super sized McBaby, yummy.

[Vomit Comet]

Residual McCarthyism. That very well could have a lot to do with it.

 

If you look at rhetoric from back then, half the time they tacked the word "Godless" on. "Godless communists, godless communists." It really must have stuck.

 

As for the "godless" bit. Well, Slovenians told me that in the old Yugoslavian days, "it's not that you couldn't be religious, it's just that it was best to keep it under wraps. It wasn't something people could be open about." Then again, Yugoslavia was markedly less oppressive than the rest of the Communist world. They were not a Soviet satellite, for starters, mainly because Tito prevailed against the Nazis without Stalin getting involved. They were kind of an anomaly, in other words. Not sure how it would have been in other Eastern European countries.

 

Also, in Western Europe, communism isn't as much a bad word as it is here. "Socialism" certainly isn't, that's for sure. The EuroCommunists had a huge chunk of the Italian parliament throughout the 60s and 70s. "Western Marxism", which was actually more opposed to Stalin than it was to western Capitalism, was a product of Germany. Also, the bulk of the French and Italian Resistances against the Nazis/Fascists were Communists, so after the war they were heroes.

 

I general I would agree with you, but one of the studies were done by a university in 2007 and subsequently presented in the American Sociological Review, and I know that sociologists take a great pride and take good care of devising the surveys to avoid leading questions. It's part of the ethical code they adhere to. The study was showing America distrusting atheists the most. I don't have a copy of the survey or the questions, but as I said, I don't think they intentionally were leading them. http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/atheists_are_distrusted

 

It would be so much better if we could look at the questions used, but I couldn't find the survey online (without paying for it).

 

Yes indeed. And not only that, but the ASR is the #1 most prestigious and rigorous sociology journal in the entire world. If anybody manages to get an article in there, you can be absolutely rest assured that they absolutely were not fucking around.

[Ouroboros]

Residual McCarthyism. That very well could have a lot to do with it.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

I know I have nothing to back it up with, but I've been thinking about it, and my view is that it's somewhat reasonable to believe there's a connection. (a lot of think, view, believe here)

 

Yes indeed. And not only that, but the ASR is the #1 most prestigious and rigorous sociology journal in the entire world. If anybody manages to get an article in there, you can be absolutely rest assured that they absolutely were not fucking around.

Correct. The chapter about ethical surveys is in Sociology 101. The discipline would crash and burn if they started to fiddle around (not that it doesn't happen anyway, but if they're caught, they pretty much lose their career).

[BuddyFerris]

Thoughtful comments.

The University of Minnesota study, conducted by university staff sociologists, is available at REPORT.

Here's an excerpt...

 

The second question asked whether the

respondent would approve or disapprove if his

or her child wished to marry a member of each

of a list of groups. This item is a standard

measure of group prejudice, with reluctance to

accept intermarriage typically interpreted as an

indicator of underlying intolerance. It was part

of a series of questions given in a split-half format

to investigate views of a wider range of

groups within survey time constraints; the item

on intermarriage with atheists was asked of half

of our respondents. We interpret it here as a

measure of personal trust and acceptance, an

evaluation of who is thought to be capable of

being caring and moral, able to make one’s child

happy, and to treat other family members well.

 

Again,notice the narrowness of the question, the stated limits of the survey,and the interpretation thereof, all pretty much like I describedearlier. While sociologists are careful, that doesn't mean they're notoff the mark. The questions are inadequate, the choices of responseare incomplete, the implied correct response moves to the strongestinterpretation, presuming either the best or worst case.

 

If an undergrad turned in that question set, a savvy professor would give him a 'C' at best. How would I know that?

 

Iwill grant that the term 'atheist' is perhaps more often associatedwith historical representations in people's thinking, e.g. the Russiancommunist/atheist paradigm as HanS points out. It's unfair then ofcourse to classify all non-believers with a label that lacks preciseand up-to-date usage in common language. Residual McCarthyism as VCsuggested isn't a bad description; vestiges remain of the cold war erawhen communist/atheist/red menace language was common and stronglyevocative.

 

The opinion surveys we've considered, even the best of them, are suspect and unpersuasive. There are likely issues, though, between atheists and non-atheists that aren't based on opinion.

 

Do the non-atheists have any real reason to be concerned about atheists? Non-representative extremists aside (on both sides), are we the same in our ethics and character and social values? Are we trustworthy in them?

Buddy

[florduh]

Residual McCarthyism. That very well could have a lot to do with it.

 

The people who were caught up in McCarthyism are even older than I or dead!

[Ouroboros]

Again,notice the narrowness of the question, the stated limits of the survey,and the interpretation thereof, all pretty much like I describedearlier. While sociologists are careful, that doesn't mean they're notoff the mark. The questions are inadequate, the choices of responseare incomplete, the implied correct response moves to the strongestinterpretation, presuming either the best or worst case.

Except that they were not "yes" and "no" questions. They were "almost completely agree," "mostly," "somewhat," and "not at all." So they gave the respondents a way of grade their answer.

 

 

If an undergrad turned in that question set, a savvy professor would give him a 'C' at best. How would I know that?

 

Iwill grant that the term 'atheist' is perhaps more often associatedwith historical representations in people's thinking, e.g. the Russiancommunist/atheist paradigm as HanS points out. It's unfair then ofcourse to classify all non-believers with a label that lacks preciseand up-to-date usage in common language. Residual McCarthyism as VCsuggested isn't a bad description; vestiges remain of the cold war erawhen communist/atheist/red menace language was common and stronglyevocative.

Yes. That's true. I see what you're saying. It would be better if they perhaps used a less negative term, like non-theist, unbeliever, or agnostic.

 

The opinion surveys we've considered, even the best of them, are suspect and unpersuasive. There are likely issues, though, between atheists and non-atheists that aren't based on opinion.

I agree that statistics is unreliable. But do consider that the survey used very general terms like Muslim and homosexual, and they got less negative votes. So what we can see is that perhaps people won't be negative to a non-theist marrying their daughter, but it does prove that a large part of the population have a very negative view of what an atheist is and stand for.

 

Do the non-atheists have any real reason to be concerned about atheists? Non-representative extremists aside (on both sides), are we the same in our ethics and character and social values? Are we trustworthy in them?

Buddy

No group is homogeneous. And there are plenty of versions of non-believers, as there are of Christians. And you got a point, maybe the poll is showing a problem in the understanding of what the terms mean, rather than a real animosity to a certain group, belief, or unbelief?

[Ouroboros]

Residual McCarthyism. That very well could have a lot to do with it.

 

The people who were caught up in McCarthyism are even older than I or dead!

It could still be residual in society. The label hasn't changed meaning much. And they are our fathers, mothers, or grandparents.

[florduh]

Do the non-atheists have any real reason to be concerned about atheists?

No. And I'm sure nobody thinks about it much unless asked point blank.

 

Non-representative extremists aside (on both sides), are we the same in our ethics and character and social values?

Yes. I believe I already pointed out the similarities we all share regardless of our sub group.

 

Buddy, the intent of this post was to examine why, according to polls, atheists are mistrusted by the majority. Since these things have been and are continuing to be discussed, is there some other point you're trying to make? I get that you have a problem accepting the poll results, but what are you driving at with all this?

 

When you say the polls are unreliable does that mean you think people generally DO accept atheists as equals and trustworthy citizens? Are you asserting that believers have higher moral standards? That they don't? I'm trying to understand. I feel like you're dancing around some point you want to make.