Why Are Atheists The Most Mistrusted Group In America?

[Neon Genesis]

It was perhaps a surprise to arrive in conversation at the point where there were actually two visibly valid viewpoints with credible supporting elements and no particularly animosity on either side.

Since when? You've just admitted there is unjust animosity and I don't recall anyone denying there's unjust animosity on the secular side, yet now you're going back to denying there is any and it's all in our heads or something? I still don't get your point nor do I get what the surprise is.

 

We managed it, or at least some of us did, with comfortable acknowledgments on both sides. It was a fairly non-threatening exchange of ideas and insights.

You just denied there's any animosity yet now you're turning around in one sentence later and saying we acknowledged there is?

[BuddyFerris]

It was perhaps a surprise to arrive in conversation at the point where there were actually two visibly valid viewpoints with credible supporting elements and no particularly animosity on either side.

Since when? You've just admitted there is unjust animosity and I don't recall anyone denying there's unjust animosity on the secular side, yet now you're going back to denying there is any and it's all in our heads or something? I still don't get your point nor do I get what the surprise is.

 

We managed it, or at least some of us did, with comfortable acknowledgments on both sides. It was a fairly non-threatening exchange of ideas and insights.

You just denied there's any animosity yet now you're turning around in one sentence later and saying we acknowledged there is?

 

I'm not sure I understand your thoughts here, Neon. Ah, perhaps I haven't been adequately precise. Let me annotate the quotes to which you refer.

 

"It was perhaps a surprise (to the participants in the conversation here, the 2 or 3 who developed the thoughts) to arrive in conversation at the point wherethere were actually two visibly valid viewpoints with crediblesupporting elements and no particularly animosity on either side (of the conversation among those few here)."

"We managed it (the conversation), or at least some of us did, with comfortableacknowledgments on both sides (regarding the tone of our culture, both regarding atheists and Christians). It was a fairly non-threateningexchange of ideas and insights."

 

In the thread, we've generally described that there exists an unfair opinion in our culture regarding the trustworthiness of atheists in general. The opinion is justified on the basis of the behavior of some atheists whose method of expression is more often assault and insult than reason. The unfortunate by-product is that non-believers in general get a black eye thanks to the activities of the few.

 

In the thread, we've also generally described that there exists a strong disrespect among atheists regarding the reasonableness of Christians in general. The disrespect is justified on the basis of the behavior of some Christians whose practices are legalistic and intolerant. The unfortunate by-product is that Christians in general get a black eye thanks to the activities of the few.

 

Of course there are strong feelings in our culture which are inappropriate for application in the largest context. To say that atheists are untrustworthy (the thread's beginning point) is to reveal a prejudice based on some small set of events or experiences and lacking in reasonable perspective.

 

To say that atheists in general are deliberately obfuscatory for the sake of asserting their supposed intellectual superiority to believers on every issue would be an exaggeration, of course. Only a few, perhaps, qualify as such. The same applies to perhaps a few who call themselves Christians.

 

We might hope for reasonableness in our own thinking and a desire to understand those with whom we disagree. They often see what we cannot. A reasonable exchange is to the benefit of both, at least as best I can determine.

 

I hope that clears things up a bit, Neon.

Have a great week.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Why Are Atheists The Most Mistrusted Group In America?

The extremists - Madalyn Murray O'Hair in her day, Michael Newdow today. Like any group, the wing nuts make all the rest look bad.

Precisely.

 

And evangelical extremists paint a picture of intolerance and smug superiority that makes mainstream Christians wince.

 

Shall we allow those few to call us to war against one another? Or shall we affiliate reasonably on the basis of common values and goals? Can we join together to battle HIV/AIDS? Can we agree to invest our national energy in assisting the less fortunate, feeding the hungry?

Of course we can. And do.

 

Buddy

[Godtastic]

Atheists are mistrusted because we are feared. Feared because we question authority and the status quo. We have independent thoughts. We are different, and little to no effort is spent to understand us.

 

Also, we eat babies.

 

Now that I've eaten my first baby for the day.....Yumm!

 

Babies? Should I serve baby with red or white wine?

[Vomit Comet]

I think atheists in America are frequently guilty of excessive self back-patting.

 

First of all, in the rest of the world y'all are absolutely nothing special. Saying you're an atheist in Australia or the Netherlands is about like saying you're an Ivy Leaguer at a Fifth Avenue cocktail party. It's so common and banal that nobody gives a shit, and they'll even get snooty at the fact that you're bothering to mention it.

 

Second of all, I think American atheists underestimate what their (popularly perceived) acerbic elitism and nit-picking reactionarism does for their P.R. The average American probably automatically thinks of some kneejerk legalistic type with lawyer friends using his 8 year old daughter as a pawn to try and strike "Under God" from the Pledge or to keep nativity scenes off the city hall lawn. But here's the rub: the average American really doesn't give a shit about the "Under God" part, and they don't give a shit about the true meaning of Christmas, either. But one of the shortcomings of the American people is that they get rather annoyed if you don't leave well enough alone. The average American sees that shit as harmless fluff.

 

The average American isn't far off from the average Italian. The average Italian guy would jump at the chance to snort cocaine out of a hot chick's woo-woo while his wife sits at home with the kids, and he'll show up in church for weddings and funerals and that's about it. "Marry 'em and bury 'em" as they say in the northeastern U.S. But if you say "the pope's an asshole" then Giuseppe the plumber might start shouting at you. The average American is a good bit more uptight, but the Bible Belt aside they put about as much credence into this Jesus bullshit as the average Italian does.

[Shyone]

I think atheists in America are frequently guilty of excessive self back-patting.

 

>snip>

 

The average American is a good bit more uptight, but the Bible Belt aside they put about as much credence into this Jesus bullshit as the average Italian does.

You may be right, but I wouldn't know. I'm from a little dangling part of the Bible Belt with a mixture of firm evangelicals and Roman Catholics.

 

Are they sincerely religious? Well, yes, and they go to church "religiously." I can imagine that some parts of the US may be more likely to bluster about Under God and Don't Burn the Flag and such, and perhaps others don't care much.

 

Many of the "partially religious" are just aggressive enough, or passive aggressive enough, to give tacit support to any religious activity. "Hell yeah, I think prayer ought to be in schools." They may not attend church, may not know anything about the Bible, and have no idea about what everyone else thinks. They don't care about that, but something (peer pressure?) makes them vote religious, act religious and verbally agree with anything that comes out of a religious person's mouth. It's like patriotism, and I think they may be confused. "You don't believe in God, then get the hell out of my country!"

 

It's not a matter of credence. It's about mob or pack behaviour. "We are Americans. WE believe in God, the flag and apple pie."

 

Some don't think about it until confronted in some way, much like the Italian that gets upset about someone insulting the Pope. It's just as dangerous, and there is power in the mob.

[Vomit Comet]

Some old-timer told me that back in the 50s, if an entrepreneur tried to build a dance hall in a town, a local preacher would often show up at the site and loudly denounce it. The workmen would stop working and put down their tools while the preacher went on his tirade, out of respect for a man of the cloth. Even if the workmen were hard-drinkin' hard-fightin' types who almost never darkened the doorstep of any church.

 

Today they think he was just some loon, and the foreman would call the cops if the preacher didn't leave when politely asked.

 

Now, in the Protestant countries of northern Europe, you're either "in" or you're "out." If somebody in the Netherlands calls himself a "Christian" then everybody knows he goes to church at least once a week and takes the shit really seriously. That's the only kind of person that would deign to refer to himself as a "Christian."

 

I wish our society was like that, because it chaps my hide that the fundies can claim over and over again that "this here's a Christian nation!" If you go by all the American householders ticking off boxes on the Census form, then yeah, it is. We can say that Northwestern Europe (and much of Eastern Europe as well) is "Post-Christian" because only the people who actually go to church and actually take that shit really seriously deign to call themselves "Christian." That's the way it ought to be, if you ask me.

[Shyone]

Some old-timer told me that back in the 50s, if an entrepreneur tried to build a dance hall in a town, a local preacher would often show up at the site and loudly denounce it. The workmen would stop working and put down their tools while the preacher went on his tirade, out of respect for a man of the cloth. Even if the workmen were hard-drinkin' hard-fightin' types who almost never darkened the doorstep of any church.

 

Today they think he was just some loon, and the foreman would call the cops if the preacher didn't leave when politely asked.

 

Now, in the Protestant countries of northern Europe, you're either "in" or you're "out." If somebody in the Netherlands calls himself a "Christian" then everybody knows he goes to church at least once a week and takes the shit really seriously. That's the only kind of person that would deign to refer to himself as a "Christian."

 

I wish our society was like that, because it chaps my hide that the fundies can claim over and over again that "this here's a Christian nation!" If you go by all the American householders ticking off boxes on the Census form, then yeah, it is. We can say that Northwestern Europe (and much of Eastern Europe as well) is "Post-Christian" because only the people who actually go to church and actually take that shit really seriously deign to call themselves "Christian." That's the way it ought to be, if you ask me.

Most modern studies include both self-described religious belief and church attendance. You could accomplish the same by simply looking at Church attendance, but it would piss off a lot of people who go to church and who don't go to church. "How dare you say I'm not a Christian because I don't go to church once a month/week/year?"

 

The Church goers don't want ot seem like a small minority, and the non-church goers don't want to be identified as atheists (or non-believers). It's hypocritical in the extreme, but that's America.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Second of all, I think American atheists underestimate what their (popularly perceived) acerbic elitism and nit-picking reactionarism does for their P.R.

But even if atheists had the nicest love your enemies turn the other cheek "PR" they could find, some Christians would still find an excuse to distrust and hate atheists. It's been what, over ten years since Madalyn Murray O Hair died and Christians still use her as the poster girl for atheists and their excuse as to why all atheists are evil godless liberals that want to take away their god and their guns. Granted I don't always agree with everything the "New Atheists" say, but that Christians would still mistrust us because of our PR reminds me of this cartoon: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/05/beware-the-militant-atheists/

[qec]

 

 

Second of all, I think American atheists underestimate what their (popularly perceived) acerbic elitism and nit-picking reactionarism does for their P.R.

But even if atheists had the nicest love your enemies turn the other cheek "PR" they could find, some Christians would still find an excuse to distrust and hate atheists. It's been what, over ten years since Madalyn Murray O Hair died and Christians still use her as the poster girl for atheists and their excuse as to why all atheists are evil godless liberals that want to take away their god and their guns. Granted I don't always agree with everything the "New Atheists" say, but that Christians would still mistrust us because of our PR reminds me of this cartoon: http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/06/05/beware-the-militant-atheists/

 

But the fact of the matter is, that at the end of the day society at large (not just Christians) will judge all "Atheists" by the image the New Atheists project. Now you may not like that but that's just how things will go amongst the general public. Since the New Atheism primarily defines itself by what it's against "Religion/Xtianity" and not what it's for, we will by definition all be seen as Infamous. This will only damage the public view of Atheism in the long run, and put us on par with Evangelical Fundamentalists. If I where a liberal Christian I would absolutely love New Atheism and support it wholeheartedly, precisely because it would make Atheists look like Infamous Fundamentalists in the public eye.