Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why Are Atheists The Most Mistrusted Group In America?


Major Tom

Recommended Posts

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

... I feel like you're dancing around some point you want to make.

Perceptive, my friend. Of course there's more; I'm hoping we might perhaps move beyond simple opinions.

I mistrust the objectivity of the polls precisely because they are opinions, poorly extracted, inadequately explained. That doesn't mean there aren't genuine differences that underlay those imprecisely expressed and interpreted opinions. We can offer our own 'opinions' on 'why' indefinitely without conclusion.

 

I'm curious if there are in fact significant differences though that can be objectively evaluated and described; differences that might be the reason such opinions would be held and expressed in the first place.

 

For example, among atheists, would they be more or less likely to volunteer for community service than non-atheists? Would they be more or less likely to give to charity (secular and/or church sponsored) than non-atheists? Would they more likely care for the elderly or leave it to the government? Would they support aid programs, domestic and foreign, or resist them? Would they be more or less likely to support armed intervention in an ongoing African genocide?

 

We've suggested that we share ethical norms, character qualities, social values. Do we?

Opinions aside, what facts do we have to support that contention?

 

While I'm inclined to agree that many of us do share elements of a common vision for ourselves and our families, I suspect there may be categorical differences that are the origin of the opinions that keep surfacing in the polls.

 

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • BuddyFerris

    19

  • Ouroboros

    15

  • Vomit Comet

    15

  • Neon Genesis

    14

For example, among atheists, would they be more or less likely to volunteer for community service than non-atheists? Would they be more or less likely to give to charity (secular and/or church sponsored) than non-atheists? Would they more likely care for the elderly or leave it to the government? Would they support aid programs, domestic and foreign, or resist them? Would they be more or less likely to support armed intervention in an ongoing African genocide?

It would be a fair comparison, if we could avoid situations like the following story (see link), and guarantee equal rights for charities: http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/10/hospital-slaps-down-wiccan-charity.htm

 

On the other hand we have agnostic/atheists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who gives back to society.

 

Or Robert W Wilson, retired hedge-fund manager, atheist, giving 22 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program.

 

But of course that doesn't show what individual atheists does. I (or we--my family) gave to Idol Gives Back last year, but this year we won't, because they show was centered around God and that Jesus was giving and blessing and yada yada. Even though they had Sara Silverman (one of the sexiest atheists I know) as one of the presenters.

 

God forbid that atheists would give money or time to charity...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
Sara Silverman (one of the sexiest atheists I know) as one of the presenters.

YES!!! What is it about her?

 

We could search out the charitable activities of celebrity atheists

On the other hand we have agnostic/atheists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who gives back to society.

Or Robert W Wilson, retired hedge-fund manager, atheist, giving 22 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program.

and we could recount personal anecdotes. I won't enumerate my own charity endeavors, but I will say the two most generous and helpful people I ever knew are atheists. I know an atheist who feeds and gives clothes to the homeless and I've known a few Christians who donated very generously - to the church building fund, which is technically a charity.

 

I doubt that information carries any more weight than a poll result, and I don't know what relevance we can attach to it. It's just my experience. As I said, I perceive people to be essentially the same regardless of labels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I perceive people to be essentially the same regardless of labels.

Yes, I believe so too.

 

Our best friends are Catholics. They go to church every Sunday. But funny thing is that her parents, and some of their other best friends are not religious at all. I don't think anyone is atheist, but they're for sure very secular or even agnostic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there more Christians in prisons than atheists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there more Christians in prisons than atheists?

 

 

Likely moreso when finally on the "inside". I guess in Italy, the majority of inmates are Catholic; in fact I've heard you can get the shit beat out of you if you slander the Pope in many Italian prisons. Or worse. I guess it wouldn't be a good idea to piss off a bunch of Sicilian assassins doing multiple life sentences while they're having a Mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

The Dutch are still culturally influenced by hard-ass old Calvinists that have long turned to dust, even though most contemporary Dutch are irreligious themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't there more Christians in prisons than atheists?

 

- In America, atheism is associated with education. Most prisoners aren't very educated.

 

- The redneck with a plastic Jesus on his dashboard who goes to prison after knocking some guy's eyeball out of the socket in a bar fight isn't exactly the Church Lady.

 

- Nor is the cholo who's killed five different people in his gang career, just because he has the Virgin Mary tattooed on his back.

 

- Almost everybody in America is "Christian", even many people who think Jesus probably didn't exist and who only go to church for weddings and funerals.

 

In Europe, on the other hand, if you call yourself "Christian" it means you go to church regularly and actually take that shit seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely moreso when finally on the "inside". I guess in Italy, the majority of inmates are Catholic; in fact I've heard you can get the shit beat out of you if you slander the Pope in many Italian prisons. Or worse. I guess it wouldn't be a good idea to piss off a bunch of Sicilian assassins doing multiple life sentences while they're having a Mass.

 

Italians give less of a fuck than their American Catholic counterparts. By uptight American standards, Italian Catholics are flaming hypocrites who don't take it seriously at all.

 

My boss is Italian. He said this once: "here in America the priests feel all guilty about it. Back in Italy they don't give a shit, they fuck the pretty girls anyway!"

 

The Italians don't share our same notion of "hypocrisy", and aren't too big on "guilt" either. As long as you confess every now and then, and get your Last Rites done on your way out, it's all good. Very, very, very, very few Italian Catholics fit the bill of what we Americans would call "serious Catholics" or "fundamentalists." They're also easy to identify, too, or at least the women are. They're the only women wearing fully-covering outfits in the summer, as opposed to showing a mile of cleavage like all the other Italian women do. You can spot one from a mile away.

 

As for Sicilian thugs at mass, you see this among Mexican-American prisoners, too. Imagine a Mexican Mafia assassin who's killed dozens of people who has a rosary tattooed around his neck. He'd probably shank you twenty times if you talked shit about La Virgen, but he probably never went to church when he was on the outside and probably lost his virginity when he was 13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

... I feel like you're dancing around some point you want to make.

Perceptive, my friend. Of course there's more; I'm hoping we might perhaps move beyond simple opinions.

I mistrust the objectivity of the polls precisely because they are opinions, poorly extracted, inadequately explained. That doesn't mean there aren't genuine differences that underlay those imprecisely expressed and interpreted opinions. We can offer our own 'opinions' on 'why' indefinitely without conclusion.

 

I'm curious if there are in fact significant differences though that can be objectively evaluated and described; differences that might be the reason such opinions would be held and expressed in the first place.

 

For example, among atheists, would they be more or less likely to volunteer for community service than non-atheists? Would they be more or less likely to give to charity (secular and/or church sponsored) than non-atheists? Would they more likely care for the elderly or leave it to the government? Would they support aid programs, domestic and foreign, or resist them? Would they be more or less likely to support armed intervention in an ongoing African genocide?

 

We've suggested that we share ethical norms, character qualities, social values. Do we?

Opinions aside, what facts do we have to support that contention?

 

While I'm inclined to agree that many of us do share elements of a common vision for ourselves and our families, I suspect there may be categorical differences that are the origin of the opinions that keep surfacing in the polls.

 

Buddy

I think that to answer this would require so many different subcategories that it would be difficult to even understand.

 

The atheist versus the "theist in name only" who never goes to church.

The atheist versus the theist that was pressured by the people in church to volunteer or donate.

The atheist versus the altruistic theist.

 

Of course, there are different types of atheists as well. We are hardly a monolithic group.

 

Rich atheists

Poor atheists

Generous atheists

Miserly atheists

 

So how many rich and generous atheists are there versus rich and miserly? And how does that compare to the rich theists of each type.

 

When you get down to it, if you're looking for some major difference in the groups to justify a prejudice, the best you will come up with is the "greater percentage" or the "more time".

 

Incidentally; whether atheists give more or less, or theists of every flavor are better or worse, has absolutely zero bearing on the truth of religion any more than the hypocrisy of any individual televangelist makes Christianity untrue. Unless you claim that "all Christians donate, but no atheist donates, and this is the proof of the Holy Spirit moving upon Christians", there is no truth claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, among atheists, would they be more or less likely to volunteer for community service than non-atheists? Would they be more or less likely to give to charity (secular and/or church sponsored) than non-atheists? Would they more likely care for the elderly or leave it to the government? Would they support aid programs, domestic and foreign, or resist them? Would they be more or less likely to support armed intervention in an ongoing African genocide?

On the other hand we have agnostic/atheists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who gives back to society.

 

Or Robert W Wilson, retired hedge-fund manager, atheist, giving 22 million to the Archdiocese of New York to fund a scholarship program.

 

But of course that doesn't show what individual atheists does. I (or we--my family) gave to Idol Gives Back last year, but this year we won't, because they show was centered around God and that Jesus was giving and blessing and yada yada. Even though they had Sara Silverman (one of the sexiest atheists I know) as one of the presenters.

 

Hello HanS, always glad to hear your point of view.

 

We might mention various individuals and their charitable activities, but are there differences between the two groups (atheists and non-atheists) that might be visible and measurable? You know me, 'deeds not words' speak most clearly.

 

Which of the two groups would you expect to be more generous to secular charities?

Which of the two groups would you expect to be more likely to volunteer for practical, helpful work?

Which of the two groups would you expect to be supportive of foreign aid to genuinely distressed countries?

Which of the two groups would you expect to support peace keeper initiatives in the world?

etc.

 

Do you think the answers might contribute to each group's opinion of the other?

 

We've said that the two groups probably share equally concerns about ethical issues, character issues, etc. Opinions aside, are there facts to support that?

 

_______________________________________________________

The link re the Wiccans is interesting, and even as it's presented by a pro-atheist, it's revealing of strong bias on both sides.

 

And a fun side note; the question and answer options the article presents at the end.

Quick Poll: Should charities accept the donations of Wiccans, even if Christians get upset?

1. Yes, this is another way Christian bigots marginalize religious minorities

2. No, Wiccans are immoral and sinful. Their donations are tainted

3. I don't know

4. I don't care

Like the other polls we've discussed, the options for answering are inadequate and will ensure the poller gets the results he expects in support of his position. The poll tells us more about the person who formed it than about the people surveyed.

 

The charity controversy was over implied association between the Wiccans and St. Jude; one is uncomfortable with the other being seen as somehow endorsing or approving the other.

 

It's sort of like your withholding contributions to 'Idol Gives Back' because of the last show's Jesus tone. The charity itself addresses poverty in the US and Africa and has nothing to do with religion, but the association offends you nonetheless. No?

 

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perceptive, my friend. Of course there's more; I'm hoping we might perhaps move beyond simple opinions.

...

I'm curious if there are in fact significant differences though that can be objectively evaluated and described; differences that might be the reason such opinions would be held and expressed in the first place.

...

We've suggested that we share ethical norms, character qualities, social values. Do we?

Opinions aside, what facts do we have to support that contention?

...

Buddy

... whether atheists give more or less, or theists of every flavor are better or worse, has absolutely zero bearing on the truth of religion any more than the hypocrisy of any individual televangelist makes Christianity untrue. Unless you claim that "all Christians donate, but no atheist donates, and this is the proof of the Holy Spirit moving upon Christians", there is no truth claim.

 

The thread question, why are atheists the most mistrusted.... I thought we might consider the practical things rather than the rhetoric, actions rather than opinions as an answer to the posed question. Instead of theories about why atheists are the least trusted in our culture, what differentiations are visible and perhaps obvious to us all.

 

I wasn't intending to defend either the prejudice or the legitimacy of either side, friend, but you're correct. The possibility that atheists might be more or less generous, more or less supportive of certain humanitarian efforts, etc., doesn't make their philosophical position either right or wrong. Nor does the lesser or greater generosity of regular church goers prove that their God is or isn't real.

 

It does suggest though, that there are a few or perhaps dozens of differences between the two groups in the way they live in relation to their families, communities, and world. Rhetoric and opinion aside, the awareness of those differences perhaps forms a practical gulf that hinders comfortable co-existence and trust.

 

From their behavior (only)... Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
It does suggest though, that there are a few or perhaps dozens of differences between the two groups in the way they live in relation to their families, communities, and world.

 

I don't think it necessarily suggests that at all. It's the natural human fear and mistrust of things they don't understand coupled with the irrational feeling that any minority that looks, acts, or thinks differently than the majority is somehow inferior and possibly a threat to the status quo.

 

There is ample evidence of the good and bad done by every group in the family of Man. All people generally have the same goals as individuals. The majority of people are law abiding, hard working folks who want a better life for their children. Some people race motorcycles while others collect stamps. Religious people as well as the non-religious can become addicted to drugs, cheat on their spouse, or steal from their job. There are both Christians and atheists who are pedophiles. Both groups have individuals who feed the hungry.

 

To assume that secularists live a different kind of life than the religious types is simply bias and ignorance. It is no different than assuming the black family down the street is on welfare and eats fried chicken and watermelon every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does suggest though, that there are a few or perhaps dozens of differences between the two groups in the way they live in relation to their families, communities, and world.

 

I don't think it necessarily suggests that at all. It's the natural human fear and mistrust of things they don't understand coupled with the irrational feeling that any minority that looks, acts, or thinks differently than the majority is somehow inferior and possibly a threat to the status quo.

 

There is ample evidence of the good and bad done by every group in the family of Man. All people generally have the same goals as individuals. The majority of people are law abiding, hard working folks who want a better life for their children. Some people race motorcycles while others collect stamps. Religious people as well as the non-religious can become addicted to drugs, cheat on their spouse, or steal from their job. There are both Christians and atheists who are pedophiles. Both groups have individuals who feed the hungry.

 

To assume that secularists live a different kind of life than the religious types is simply bias and ignorance. It is no different than assuming the black family down the street is on welfare and eats fried chicken and watermelon every day.

I'll grant you your statement, friend, and I'll suggest that perhaps it's more an opinion than fact-based position, which is fine. Moving beyond, though, do we have facts to support that all people generally ...? We might say similar things, but our actions suggest we actually believe and choose otherwise, do they not?

 

If I suggest that secularists live a different kind of life than the religious types, you suggest that it's simply bias and ignorance.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not. We're less persuaded by what someone might say about themselves than we are by their actions, are we not. In spite of what opinion we might have about this group or that, what's the likelyhood of a group responding to a real-life circumstance according to their stated ethics, our supposed common goals for our lives and our children?

 

If there really are differences in life values and goals, then there may well be reason behind the variously expressed opinions. If we're honestly trying to understand ourselves and our world, we'll consider such things and make the attempt to choose the best path for ourselves. This doesn't have anything to do with God, the church, or religion, by the way; just honesty. And the knife cuts both ways, of course.

 

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
If I suggest that secularists live a different kind of life than the religious types, you suggest that it's simply bias and ignorance.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

I have no idea what kind of proof you're looking for. I know Christians, Atheists, Muslims and Jews. Perhaps if you befriend a few "secular" people you'll see how they live as I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I suggest that secularists live a different kind of life than the religious types, you suggest that it's simply bias and ignorance.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

I have no idea what kind of proof you're looking for. I know Christians, Atheists, Muslims and Jews. Perhaps if you befriend a few "secular" people you'll see how they live as I have.

"Secularists live a different kind of life"?

 

Other than not attending church services, I don't know what possible differences there are generally. I agree with Florduh that we need some examples. I realize you don't want to pigeon-hole atheists or reveal deep biases, but do you think that atheists really eat babies?

 

Maybe we need to list 1,000 behaviors and get your opinions on all of them, then do a statistical analysis and verify or refute your "different kind of life" hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello HanS, always glad to hear your point of view.

 

We might mention various individuals and their charitable activities, but are there differences between the two groups (atheists and non-atheists) that might be visible and measurable? You know me, 'deeds not words' speak most clearly.

I think deeds speak more clearly, but my point is, since I have experience of charitable non-theists, both here and in Sweden, that people are either good or bad, regardless of religion.

 

Let me exemplify it with yet another anecdote: I met a student at school last year, who had been to Iraq for two terms. He was studying Arabic, and I was curious to why. He told me that he planned to go back at some point. And that surprised me even more--my ignorance and prejudice showed its head--and I asked again, "Why?" He told me that their hospitality and generousness was amazing and he wanted to go back and meet the people again. My obvious prejudice could be seen it that I never expected to hear that kind of report regarding Muslims. But he was convinced they were more generous than most Americans he had grown up with. How can that be? This evil religion can have good people?

 

Another anecdote is when our neighbor got breast cancer, my wife cooked food for her and her whole family (of three kids) several times a week. She even shaved her head to support her through the very tough time of chemotherapy.

 

I have examples of Jews being extremely (seriously) generous. (Who would have thought that). We have some rich Jewish friends, and they are the most generous (to a fault) people I have ever met. During the time when my son was in the hospital the first time, they took care of us financially. No strings attached. No interest. No due date. And they did it just because. And we were Christians at that time.

 

And I have more examples like this. I can go on and on.

 

My point is that it's not religion that makes a person good or bad, but a good person makes a good religion, and a bad person makes a bad religion. Religion isn't the answer, it's only the reflection of humanity.

 

Which of the two groups would you expect to be more generous to secular charities?

Which of the two groups would you expect to be more likely to volunteer for practical, helpful work?

Which of the two groups would you expect to be supportive of foreign aid to genuinely distressed countries?

Which of the two groups would you expect to support peace keeper initiatives in the world?

etc.

I don't know. I think that kind of statistics would be just as skewed. Since the word "atheist" means "someone who is evil," you will get the same answers.

 

The label "atheist" represents the worst kind of human in American society. It doesn't mean that how they define the label is correct. It seems like the word "atheist" is a collective word for anything that a person does not like.

 

Do you think the answers might contribute to each group's opinion of the other?

I'm not sure. How would it?

 

We've said that the two groups probably share equally concerns about ethical issues, character issues, etc. Opinions aside, are there facts to support that?

The only facts I have are real life experience. My country, when I grew up, was very generous regarding foreign aid. I think it was #1 for a while in foreign aid per capita. Agnosticism and atheism were extremely prevalent back then (and perhaps still). I was in the minority of True Christians™ and I was blind for people's hospitality. One day I did wake up and realize how kind and generous some non-believers had been and parts of my worldview started to crumble.

 

If we can't trust the survey this thread is discussing then how could we trust any other survey about people opinions about each other?

 

Like the other polls we've discussed, the options for answering are inadequate and will ensure the poller gets the results he expects in support of his position. The poll tells us more about the person who formed it than about the people surveyed.

That's why a good poll usually have something like:

 

"Do you hate marshmallows?" "Strongly disagree," "somewhat disagree," "neutral," "somewhat agree," "strongly agree."

 

It gives the person a chance to answer on a grading scale instead. Some polls even have 1-10.

 

The "atheist" survey didn't say: "Do you hate those evil bastards who call themselves atheists?" "Absolute, they're fucked up," "No, but I'm an idiot."

 

A poll can be leading, but the poll we're talking about gave the person a chance to grade his answer.

 

The charity controversy was over implied association between the Wiccans and St. Jude; one is uncomfortable with the other being seen as somehow endorsing or approving the other.

 

It's sort of like your withholding contributions to 'Idol Gives Back' because of the last show's Jesus tone. The charity itself addresses poverty in the US and Africa and has nothing to do with religion, but the association offends you nonetheless. No?

Yes, it offends me. No one thanked Allah or Krishna for the money. It should be fairly presented. When it is presented as "Jesus gave us this money," when in reality atheists also contributed, and other religious people as well, then it is a gross misrepresentation of where the money came from and who they should really thank. It wasn't the tone. It was the: "Thank God," and "Thank you Jesus," that was coming out of the performers mouths.

 

I'm offended because it wasn't Jesus or God doing the miracle, and by rubbing personal religious views in the face of people like me will be off-putting.

 

So it's not about being associated with them, since I'm openly can admit I gave money to them, but the thing that I was betrayed.

 

If I had given my money to a Christian charity, I would have been fine, since then I wouldn't expect anything else. But to give to a non-Christian charity, which then proves to be the opposite, then it's a matter of sailing under false flag. If I want to give money to a non-Christian charity, then I expect the charity to be non-Christian. I don't want to risk my money goes to some preachers pocket, and if they're already lying about who they are, they might very well be lying about something else. Christians shouldn't lie, but they do.

 

Imagine if you would give money to a charity called "Jesus saves," and then a few moments later, when it's too late, you discover they were a Satanist Church and they would take the money and run. Would you feel betrayed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phanta, I'm so sorry. I know those kids in particular mean a lot to you. I wish I could come up with something I could say that would make things a little better for you, but... :shrug: So [hugs] to you, and if you feel the need to rant a bit this is a good place.

 

Buddy, it looks to me like you're still dancing around that point, so can I ask you to be more specific? How exactly do you think atheists as a group differ from Christians as a group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I know Christians, Atheists, Muslims and Jews. Perhaps if you befriend a few "secular" people you'll see how they live as I have.

 

My friends and associates span the gamut, friend, and over the years, they number in the hundreds if not thousands. For the last forty-plus years, we've lived about half of the time outside the US in non-western cultures, and our friends have been pretty much from every walk. We've covered a lot of the US as well. Rich and poor, religious and not, educated and not, etc. We perhaps have had a better look at cultures and lifestyles than is common.

 

How exactly do you think atheists as a group differ from Christians as a group?

 

In another thread last month, we ran across a Hoover Institution, Stanford University study that suggests differences in life choices by secular and religious folks. It isn't the first such to suggest that there are foundational and presuppositional differences at the root level. The two groups often use the same language for things like virtue and character, nobility and selflessness, but they differ impressively in how they put those words into action.

 

Addressing the thread's premise, I can't help but wonder if the issues of trust and affinity aren't affected by that reality. There are a number of fear and prejudice elements, particularly in the public rhetoric which are easily dismissed as aberrant inaccuracies. But do the generalized groups have real differences that stem from their foundational philosophy? I suspect they do, and suspect that we probably are aware of such things.

 

So how do we respond to those issues?

Are we honest enough to see and disown what might exist in ourselves that is unworthy?

Can we say sincerely that such a philosophical and behavioral taint is unfortunate?

Or do we defend the indefensible acts of others because failing to do so would somehow jeopardize our own position?

 

And the knife cuts both ways, of course. Mainstream Christianity (the moderate folks) are less than perfect with flaws that spring from their foundational philosophy. Such taints as intolerance and harsh judgment of others are unfortunate, and cause hurt to many. Fundamentalists are an embarrassment for many reasons, no question. Thoughtful folks, one would hope, will see these things clearly and reach for better. Of course, if they don't have the chance to see, they don't get the chance to change.

 

Shall we benefit from such examination, or shall we presume we're right and ignore the opportunity.

 

Another anecdote is when our neighbor got breast cancer, my wife cooked food for her and her whole family (of three kids) several times a week.She even shaved her head to support her through the very tough time of chemotherapy.

Thanks so much for telling that story, pal. What a perfect illustration of unselfishness; your wife is a fine human being indeed and an encouragement to the rest of us as she actually does the work of loving. Tell her that, if you will, on my behalf. It's a sweet story.

 

Buddy

P.S. Our children learn little from what we say and much from what they see us do.

Adults do the same, but they tell themselves that what they say is more important.

Would that I had a child's heart; it would save a lot of wasted words and effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
My friends and associates span the gamut, friend, and over the years, they number in the hundreds if not thousands. For the last forty-plus years, we've lived about half of the time outside the US in non-western cultures, and our friends have been pretty much from every walk. We've covered a lot of the US as well. Rich and poor, religious and not, educated and not, etc. We perhaps have had a better look at cultures and lifestyles than is common.

 

Then why are you asking these questions if you have so much direct experience? What pervasive differences have you observed between the groups in question?

 

Just give us the bottom line. I'm getting bored, friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for telling that story, pal. What a perfect illustration of unselfishness; your wife is a fine human being indeed and an encouragement to the rest of us as she actually does the work of loving. Tell her that, if you will, on my behalf. It's a sweet story.

I will.

 

P.S. Our children learn little from what we say and much from what they see us do.

Adults do the same, but they tell themselves that what they say is more important.

Would that I had a child's heart; it would save a lot of wasted words and effort.

Agree. My brother used to say: kids don't do what we tell them to, they do what we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another anecdote is when our neighbor got breast cancer, my wife cooked food for her and her whole family (of three kids) several times a week.She even shaved her head to support her through the very tough time of chemotherapy.

 

 

Wooooow...... Your wife is Super-Woman Hans. Congratulations man, congratulations. That is pretty incredible. :twitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If there really are differences in life values and goals, then there may well be reason behind the variously expressed opinions. If we're honestly trying to understand ourselves and our world, we'll consider such things and make the attempt to choose the best path for ourselves. This doesn't have anything to do with God, the church, or religion, by the way; just honesty. And the knife cuts both ways, of course.

 

Buddy

I recommend checking out this survey that's the most comprehensive survey done on the non-religious and religous believer's impressions of them: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/profiles_of_the_godless_results_from_a_survey_of_the_nonreligious/ One of the interesting findings they found from the survey were that religious people tended to feel less threatened by agnostics than atheists. The idea was that perhaps religious believers saw agnostics as being more open to God than atheists and felt like they still had a possiblity of converting to their religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think deeds speak more clearly, but my point is, since I have experience of charitable non-theists, both here and in Sweden, that people are either good or bad, regardless of religion.

 

Let me exemplify it with yet another anecdote: I met a student at school last year, who had been to Iraq for two terms. He was studying Arabic, and I was curious to why. He told me that he planned to go back at some point. And that surprised me even more--my ignorance and prejudice showed its head--and I asked again, "Why?" He told me that their hospitality and generousness was amazing and he wanted to go back and meet the people again. My obvious prejudice could be seen it that I never expected to hear that kind of report regarding Muslims. But he was convinced they were more generous than most Americans he had grown up with. How can that be? This evil religion can have good people?

I neglected to comment appreciatively about this one, HanS. It's a good illustration of good people in real life. I had a similar experience on my first trip to Djibouti. I picked up a fellow and his son walking across the desert and carried them the last few miles home. Over the next few days, they pretty much adopted me. I've been back to their little shack in the slums over the last couple of years; we've shared meals and stories and songs. Wonderful family, quite Muslim, and quite receptive to me and my partner. The oldest son and I still correspond every week or so.

 

I have to admit, it was an eye-opener for me. I didn't expect as a Christian to be welcomed into a Muslim family. As your student friend observed, they were more open and hospitable than modern day Americans, more reminiscent of small town America as I remember it in the 50's.

 

I agree, at the individual level, people are either good or bad regardless of religion.

 

The thread's premise, though, deals with the way atheists are seen in general. Is public opinion the result of stupidity, intellectually laziness, and wicked intent? Or might there be traits that are somewhat common and causative? The same question, of course, applies to the way non-believers see Christians. There were many things about my youthful attempts at being a good Christian that were poorly conceived. Had they not been pointed out to me, I'd never have known. I even learned a lot from you guys here. Does such willing self-consideration exist among atheists? Perhaps, but from the offerings so far on this thread, we haven't seen much suggesting that it has crossed anyone's mind.

 

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there really are differences in life values and goals, then there may well be reason behind the variously expressed opinions. If we're honestly trying to understand ourselves and our world, we'll consider such things and make the attempt to choose the best path for ourselves. This doesn't have anything to do with God, the church, or religion, by the way; just honesty. And the knife cuts both ways, of course.

 

Buddy

I recommend checking out this survey that's the most comprehensive survey done on the non-religious and religous believer's impressions of them: http://www.centerfor...e_nonreligious/ One of the interesting findings they found from the survey were that religious people tended to feel less threatened by agnostics than atheists. The idea was that perhaps religious believers saw agnostics as being more open to God than atheists and felt like they still had a possiblity of converting to their religion.

 

Thanks, Neon. It's an interesting study. It supports what HanSolo said earlier about the connotations of the word 'atheist'. The term carries a lot of baggage that, in most western minds, means a lot more than just 'unbeliever'. Americans may equate 'atheist' with cold war threats of being swallowed by the Soviet menace, and with a cultural change mechanism that will undo centuries of vision and value establishment. It seems to threaten the very definitions of what is good and right and just.

 

In real life, of course, those who choose the label of 'atheist' wont necessarily have a different value set that the rest of the population. They may well be thoughtful, compassionate, and helpful contributors to their communities. They may have the same standards for right behavior and the same goals for their children as the religious folks. By calling themselves 'atheist' though, they take on the baggage associated with the word.

 

The study talks a bit about folks for whom their unbelief is a simple part of who they are as compared to those who are defined by their atheism. The latter group are much like Christian fundamentalists in that virtually every encounter and every relationship includes their stance against the existence of a god. Such zeal is not often easily received from either group, leaving a bit of a distasteful residue which affects the recipient's attitude toward the group as a whole.

 

The fervent frontal assault, whether it be from a Christian fundamentalist or an aggressive atheist, is likely to be seen as threatening. It passes judgment on all who might disagree. An interesting and fairly recent example is 'Blasphemy Day'. There could hardly be a more deliberately polarizing and divisive activity, yet it was established as such with expectation of some benefit. If atheists were concerned about their acceptance and participation in the cultures of the world, such activities would probably be focused a bit differently.

 

Thoughts?

Buddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.