31 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Here is the video:



Lots of people that are atheists. I was actually kind of surprised by some of the people (especially the entertainment people at the end).

Also gives some interesting statistics, like:
"Born Again Christians": 27% chance of divorce
"Mainstream Protestants": 24% chance of divorce
"Atheists and Agnostics": 21% chance of divorce


...plus, it has catchy background music. [tung]

[sdxl]

I didn't realized there are that little atheists in the US. Those poor atheists must have it hard with that many religious people.

[Live Forever]

Yes, as innumerated by hank, as well as in the video, (and many other places) atheists are among the most despised, and least trusted major groups in the United States, lower than homosexuals, immigrants, Muslims, etc.

[Bruce Klein]

Nice find, Nate...

Perhaps Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin were not included because they are consided Agnostic?

[Anne]

The weirdest part about being an atheist in America is that the discrimination only starts happening once people find out you're an atheist. You can be the kindest, most intelligent, most ethical person in your neighborhood and people are all too happy to consider you a human being so long as they have the impression you're a believer. But once they find out you don't believe as they do, they start asking you if you're going to go around killing people and robbing houses!

The freakiest thing about religion to me is how it makes people compartmentalize their minds. It boggles my mind how some people can exercise scrupulous critical thinking skills when it comes to purchasing a car or house, but fail to apply these same rigorous standards to larger questions. And I would bet that if an openly-atheistic individual ran for public office, believers wouldn't vote for them regardless of how many other things they agreed with in that person's philosophy.

[Centurion]

Quick cleetus, to the barn and get the pitchforks. We have ourselves a heathen!

[Athanasios]

people compartmentalize their minds

To me, that is the scariest, and most self-destructive, thing about people. I would go so far as to say that it IS the human problem.

[Anne]

To me, that is the scariest, and most self-destructive, thing about people. I would go so far as to say that it IS the human problem.

Over the years (as Aubrey DeGrey pointed out at the HETHR conference back in May), humans have shown something of a trend toward greater ethical consistency in policy and behaviour, and the optimistic part of me can definitely see how the establishment of voting rights for women and minorities, and the abolition of slavery (at least in the US and much of the more developed world) indicate a move in this direction. However, I think that organized religion perhaps serves as one of the remaining (and stubborn, due to its memetic strength) bastions of ethical INconsistency. The inconsistency is in many ways prompted by this capacity to compartmentalize.

[stephen]

Here's the actual summary of the survey.

Honestly, it's not all that surprising, and most definitely DOES NOT indicate a hostility towards atheists. The survey question was:

...please tell me how much you think people in this group agree with YOUR vision of American society -- almost completely, mostly, somewhat, or not at all?"

Whites, African-Americans: 90%
Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Christians: 80%
Immigrants, Homosexuals: 70%
Muslims: 64%
Atheists: 54%

Like I said, this isn't that surprising. Someone who believes in a God isn't going to say that an atheist has the same vision of society as they do. Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation... none of those matter as much as deeply-held fundamental beliefs. And Islam is extremely similar to Christianity, so no surprise there, either. Most of the poll options here are not philosophical. Imagine if the poll included a couple other philosophical options...

Democrats: 50%
Republicans: 50%
Libertarians: 3%

Does that mean that Libertarians are the most vile, hated creatures in the US? OMG! I better issue a press release and make some YouTube videos!! Here come the angsty threads...

[Centurion]

In my opinion ethics and religion are often blurred together at times when it is not needed. It is possible to be ethically sound and not religious, while it is also possible to be religious and act with questionable ethics. The problem is that people usually have an idea of their own of what ethics is, one which defines their own personal code of ethics in as rose tinted a light as possible.
Take for instance the classic standpoint of Thrasymachus' that justice is the exploitation of the weak by the strong. This would be just the kind of viewpoint that would console the consciouses of those in power in times where authority was much more harsh and commanding in nature.

This kind of delusion can be evident in Bush's belief that God had sent him into Iraq and that he was doing his bidding by bringing that country to the brink of an abyss. I'm pretty sure Christians who attack atheists have some similar kind of justification or delusion, that what they are doing is right in their eyes and that of their God therefore it is automatically ethical and just.

[Live Forever]

Here's the actual summary of the survey.

Honestly, it's not all that surprising, and most definitely DOES NOT indicate a hostility towards atheists.  The survey question was:

...please tell me how much you think people in this group agree with YOUR vision of American society -- almost completely, mostly, somewhat, or not at all?"

Whites, African-Americans: 90%
Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Christians: 80%
Immigrants, Homosexuals: 70%
Muslims: 64%
Atheists: 54%

Like I said, this isn't that surprising.  Someone who believes in a God isn't going to say that an atheist has the same vision of society as they do.  Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation... none of those matter as much as deeply-held fundamental beliefs.  And Islam is extremely similar to Christianity, so no surprise there, either.  Most of the poll options here are not philosophical.  Imagine if the poll included a couple other philosophical options...

Democrats: 50%
Republicans: 50%
Libertarians: 3%

Does that mean that Libertarians are the most vile, hated creatures in the US?  OMG! I better issue a press release and make some YouTube videos!!  Here come the angsty threads...

There are other polls as well, for the question asking people what "your overall opinion of [the group] is very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?"


source


Also, in a poll in 1999 on voting, only 26% of respondents said they'd consider voting "for a political candidate who doesn't believe in God" (even without any reference to the possibly emotionally laden term "atheist"), and 69% apparently wouldn't even consider such a possibility. And, in 2003 (after September 11, mind you), 47% of respondents said they'd ignore a candidate's being a Muslim, or see it as a plus while 49% said the candidate's being a Muslim would make it less likely that they'd vote for him, though presumably for some respondents, there would remain some possibility that they'd vote for the Muslim candidate. (source)

When talking about the poll you site, there are a lot of different sources taking it to mean that they are the "Least trusted minority in America".

I think it is rather intuitive that they are the least liked, but I don't think it really matters if they are the least liked, or just very unliked, the fact still remains that atheists are seen as "evil" or "untrustworthy" by many.

[kylyssa]

The weirdest part about being an atheist in America is that the discrimination only starts happening once people find out you're an atheist.  You can be the kindest, most intelligent, most ethical person in your neighborhood and people are all too happy to consider you a human being so long as they have the impression you're a believer.  But once they find out you don't believe as they do, they start asking you if you're going to go around killing people and robbing houses!

I was raised in a small town and once my lack of belief was exposed my life became hell on earth. As an
adult I moved away and live a relatively peaceful existence as a closeted atheist. The few times it's slipped
out I was subjected to various sorts of abuse both physical and verbal. The second most traumatic occurrence
in my entire life sprung from students in my grade school learning I was an atheist. Sustaining a bone-
breaking beating as a child tends to teach you silence. Before my religious status leaked I was a relatively
well-liked student and had never previously suffered physical abuse at my classmates' hands.

I have little doubt my job and my husband's would be in jeopardy (or at least made so miserable we'd
leave of our own volition) were my lack of belief to be disclosed to the wrong people.

It's so cool being able to openly admit to atheism in relative safety on the internet.

[chubtoad]

where were Feynman, Hawking, and de Grey?

[advancedatheist]

Over the years (as Aubrey DeGrey pointed out at the HETHR conference back in May), humans have shown something of a trend toward greater ethical consistency in policy and behaviour, and the optimistic part of me can definitely see how the establishment of voting rights for women and minorities, and the abolition of slavery (at least in the US and much of the more developed world) indicate a move in this direction.

I've heard Aubrey in one of his growing body of articles and interviews online state that developed societies pursue other life-valuing policies like providing universal healthcare, abolishing the death penalty, restricting firearms ownership and avoiding gratuitous use of military force. These practices tend to discredit the conservative christian notion that a "culture of death" has taken over secular Western societies.

[stephen]

A Practical Guide for Religious Conversation
by Stephen

Lucky you! You've been invited to a dinner party! "Yes!", you think to yourself, "I love good wine, intelligent conversation, and the hostess is HOT." As your excitement wanes, concern sets in -- "Will they accept my religious views?" That's right, no one knows you are a [atheist/mormon/wiccan]. What ever shall you do!?! At any moment, you fear, the party could turn ugly as the ignorant masses turn on your progressive viewpoint...!

Rule #1: 8 out of 10 people could CARE LESS about religion. You interact with these people (the majority of the US) by saying the following: "I don't really get too involved in religion." OR (* Shrug Shoulders*) "I'm an agnostic." OR "I don't know, but did you hear about what the Dems/Repubs did yesterday?"

Rule #2: 1 out of 10 people will be a lets-talk-about-god Christian. Unless you want to troll, avoid this person. They will be tolerated at the party only because Christianity is the majority religion in the US. People will probably avoid talking with him.

Rule #3: 1 out of 10 people will be from a passionate minority. They will offend everyone else at the party. 100% of the self proclaimed atheists I've personally met fall into this category. They're just as obnoxious as the lets-talk-about-god Christian, because they force Rule #1 people to think / talk about religion. Rule #1 people don't WANT to think about religion.

Bottom Line: If you feel persecuted for your religion/philosophy in the United States, you're probably in one of the second two groups... and don't realize it.

[Live Forever]

Good tips stephen. In real life I generally just ignore people that talk about their religious affiliation, or use the stuff you said in rule 1, about not really caring about religion.

I do feel for people like kylyssa who suffer greatly for what they believe, as I know the rules are not the same for Christians as opposed to Muslims or Atheists or whomever else.

Unfortunately it is the fundamentalists (note: not the majority) that are the ones that cause conflict between the fundamentalists of the other group. In short, "can't we all just get along?" [alien]

[DJS]

My sense of etiquette is very similar to Stephen's. The golden rule of *No politics, No religion* can be expanded to include all topics that involve personal identity.

Social events are usually suppose to be fun and playful, so being dark and serious is a sure fire way to get yourself ostracized. If you find yourself continually coming back to nonsuperficial topics you have two options: (1) stop going to social events and save everyone the incovenience of your presence (2) get some new material.

Unlike Stephen's personal experience however, I have known quite a few traditional atheists who observe the golden rule as well as quite a few who don't...bad taste knows no bounds.

[sdxl]

BTW, did anyone see the last episode of 30 Days?

[Live Forever]

BTW, did anyone see the last episode of 30 Days?

Yes, I sure did. The one with the atheist living with the Christians for 30 days. I thought it was very good. Both sides, by the end, seemed to be at least a little bit more accepting of each other. The atheist did not, I think, make the best logical arguments for the absence of a god, but she was a very likeable individual (one reason they probably used her), and seemed very caring and loving. The Christians seemed kind of close minded (which I expected) when confronted with someone they were uncomfortable with, saying things like "I feel so sorry for her kids not being raised to believe in God" and things such as that, but towards the end started being a little more accepting, if not open minded. I thought it was funny how when all of the Christians prayed (for their Bible study, or their meals) the atheist lady would just kind of look around, probably thinking "What the heck am I supposed to be doing?", haha.

I really enjoy that 30 Days show, (all of the ones for the first season were really interesting. They even had one on life extension.) and am looking forward to the one where Morgan Spurlock spends 30 days in prison.

[kylyssa]

Bottom Line: If you feel persecuted for your religion/philosophy in the United
States, you're probably in one of the second two groups... and don't realize it.

Well, or you live in a small town and made a horrible mistake at ten years old. My mistake
was when asked by my public school teacher why I didn't bow my head and pray during
the obligatory pre-lunch grace I did not lie, I said I wasn't religious. This led to her deciding
to educate the class about my "beliefs" which led to a brutal assault upon my person by
classmates and older students. I entered fourth grade a lefty and left it a righty, the nerve
damage to my left hand never healed completely and I still can't sleep on my left side.
Not to get all girly, but the emotional damage was worse. You just aren't the same after a mob
tries their damnedest to kick you to death. Two more minutes of "alone time" with my good
little Christian classmates and it would have been a "tragic incident."

The harassment didn't slow until my parents trained me on how to fake religion. It never totally
stopped. I've slipped up a few times over the years in trusting people I shouldn't have and failing
to lie when I should have and I've paid the price.

Do not assume every atheist is a big mouth about it. What is the law is not always the reality.
Many things are legal in this country but they are still not safe.

And I refuse to talk religion with anyone except online or with my spouse.

[sentrysnipe]

Regarding the movie, I felt that it was too dramatic and reliant on statistics. I wish the guy came up with something more convincing for the "believers" yet entertaining at the same time.

[mitkat]

My sense of etiquette is very similar to Stephen's.  The golden rule of *No politics]personal identity[/i].

Social events are usually suppose to be fun and playful, so being dark and serious is a sure fire way to get yourself ostracized.  If you find yourself continually coming back to nonsuperficial topics you have two options:  (1) stop going to social events and save everyone the incovenience of your presence (2) get some new material.

Unlike Stephen's personal experience however, I have known quite a few traditional atheists who observe the golden rule as well as quite a few who don't...bad taste knows no bounds.

I agree totally, and with Stephen's points. I have several friends who are brutal atheists, and they have gotten quite outspoken about it at times - not that I have a major ideological problem with that, it's just f**king annoying and self-involved. It's the same polarized with the silly Christians with the good book in their hand and the fear of god on their breath (which is right up in your face). I commented on this thread because some Jehovah's Witnesses talked to me and my crew of co-workers today at a community centre during our break. It was the usual rant, trying to give us copies of the watchtower and all that. Keep in mind, my students are 18, 18, and 19. After about three minutes of me smiling, I just told them to straight-up "please go away, we aren't interested". Did I over-react? I don't think so. If that was on the radio, I'd of turned that bad boy off. It was making the kids uncomfortable, and it was ruining my green tea. Testify!

Also, kylyssa, where are you from? In Canada, we gave up praying and religion in school some time ago (also "God Save The Queen")

[kylyssa]

Also, kylyssa, where are you from? In Canada, we gave up praying and religion in school some time ago (also "God Save The Queen")

I was raised in "smalltown" Michigan, USA and I'm 36 if that puts the incident into a time frame.
As little as ten years ago in my current city I was spat on by someone I thought was a friend
when in discussing the location of my upcoming wedding it slipped out that I'm atheist. Western
Michigan is very Christian Reformed, it's best not to talk religion here.

[stephen]

I was raised in "smalltown" Michigan, USA and I'm 36 if that puts the incident into a time frame.
As little as ten years ago...

It blows my mind to hear your stories, kylyssa. Don't take my post in the wrong way, I've just never experienced people as hostile as you portray. I spend a lot time in small towns and the South, too...

Maybe it's the age group. Most of my interactions are with people in their early 20s, and holding such a vicious prejudice against atheists is something we think of as outdated as racism. (Another prejudice I've never seen or experienced in my lifetime.) It's something from the "old days".

Most of the people I know will say "Yeah, I'm a Christian." But aside from saying it, it rarely shows up in any other form in their life. It's not nearly a strongly held enough belief to cause animosity or even heated discussion.

I see more hostility regarding political and economic views in A DAY than I've seen from religious or racial issues in MY LIFETIME.

(I'm sorry you've experienced such.)

[kylyssa]

Admittedly, my most horrible experience with religious hatred occurred in childhood and
came at the hands of children. As an adult I've never experienced its like.

I have a lot of friends in their early 20's and I must say your generation has got something
going on. I first noticed it with some of my interns at work a few years back. They were
teen-aged girls who had virtually no anti-academic prejudice and were quietly liberal. I'm
pretty sure they wouldn't have given a rat's ass about my non-religious standing. I think in
part my exposure to this fresh, new attitude led me to seek out younger people. I currently
hang out with quite a few twenty-somethings.

Maybe some of the educational system is actually working, maybe it's the Internet but things
seem to be improving drastically on some fronts.

Honestly, I'd really like to know where the change is coming from.

[phylodome]

And yet we sit here wondering why the thinkers of our generation find themselves oppressed, ostracized, and largely forced into a hermetically sealed chasm of belief. Adherence to socially normative behavior is in fact the driving force that sustains long-term information cascades such as oppressive fundamentalists on both sides of this line. This is no speculation; these are facts of the network sciences that undergird civilization at every moment in time.

The interesting paradox of the situation lies in the fact that mitkat calls his outspoken friends "self-involved". In reality, or at least from a reasoned perspective, one who defends the "mob consciousness" in it's quest to extinguish all other frames of reference, because of his own inability to confront social scorn, must truly be viewed as the self-involved party. In a common psychological experiment used to determine the effects of adherence to self-known truths in the face of peer objection, 1 subject is placed in a room with 7 other planted subjects. The group is then presented with four vertical lines on different slides shown at random, one on the left side of the slide, and a group of three on the right. The goal of the group is to decide which of the three bars on the right matches the length of the bar on the left. Now, the lengths are fairly obvious, and anyone should be able to determine which bars are the same length. The interesting point, however, is that the 7 planted subjects are to give the wrong answer and maintain group adherence to this norm. The test subject is then left utterly confused between their own reality, in which they obviously see the correct answer, and the groups reality, which directly and illogically contradicts that of the individual. In most cases involving weak-minded subjects, apparently such as mitkat, the subject gives in; the subject gives up one's position due to the fact that they simply do not possess the mental fortitude to stick to what they know is true, they yearn for the acceptance of the group. Upon examination of the implications, one can see how easily truth might be obscured in light of historically pre-disposed societies; one might see how crucial it is to restore a balance in our fractured notions of dualism, no matter how outdated they might be.

Now, what implications can you extrapolate from this in light of contemporary society's battle between athiests and those who strictly adhere to the literal interpretation of religious texts, whether that be the bible, koran, tora, or other? First of all, we should clarify that neither of these groups is the norm, as most Americans remain largely ignorant and apathetic with respect to the details of religious history. This being the case, we can see why most social gatherings have come to represent a rather disgustingly homogenous search for ego-centric gratification (disappointingly not in the Stirnean manner either); aside from my opinions regarding their worth, this remains the truth for a society largely dulled by a purposely maligned educational system. Though i have wondered a bit off subject, i did have a point to this line of questioning, and that is the fact that those who will, in a publically social environment, adamantly defend fundamentalist religion and those who will adamantly purport the testaments of athiesm both find themselves in the minority of society; unless you run in certain circles near the bible belt or in largely athiestic cliques.

In any case, not taking a proactive stance regarding information dissemination surely dooms your beliefs to an early grave in the dustbins of history. That being said; it is in the best interests of both extremes to engage in aggressive ideologies of social engagement, as this will provide each with the greatest potential of "infecting" a network with their structure of beliefs. Objectively, at the moment, even though both of these groups are in the minority, the normative scales are largely tipped against the Athiests because of our nation's massively christian undertones. Because of this, it is not only the right, but the duty of the Athiests to speak even louder, to be even more adamant in their pursuit of equality and truth, to fight tooth and nail for understanding amidst a largely lobotomized society.

It is only when confronted with such direct opposition, in terms of network dynamics only when one can begin to balance the threshold of information cascades (as in the experiment above when only half the group are planted subjects, the decisions of the individual again return to normalcy and confidence in self-examination) that our country might finally break its stupor of ignorance.

You might question the validity of my assertions on the basis of apathy, because after all, you were "only speaking" of happy, light, meandering social interaction. Just remember that historically speaking the elite have always utilized their social gatherings as a forum for debate and plotting, and the masses have been controlled because of their apathetic nature and hesitance to do the same.

[mitkat]

The interesting paradox of the situation lies in the fact that mitkat calls his outspoken friends "self-involved".  In reality, or at least from a reasoned perspective, one who defends the "mob consciousness" in it's quest to extinguish all other frames of reference, because of his own inability to confront social scorn, must truly be viewed as the self-involved party.

My few atheists friends are just that - outspoken and self-involved. I do not hold them up as the paradigm of atheism, nor do I see them as lone loudmouths in an increasingly obnoxious "reality", as you might put it. Certainly from your no doubt reasoned perspective, you can plainly see that some people are just that, some people.

In a common psychological experiment used to determine the effects of adherence to self-known truths in the face of peer objection, 1 subject is placed in a room with 7 other planted subjects.  The group is then presented with four vertical lines on different slides shown at random, one on the left side of the slide, and a group of three on the right.  The goal of the group is to decide which of the three bars on the right matches the length of the bar on the left.  Now, the lengths are fairly obvious, and anyone should be able to determine which bars are the same length.  The interesting point, however, is that the 7 planted subjects are to give the wrong answer and maintain group adherence to this norm.  The test subject is then left utterly confused between their own reality, in which they obviously see the correct answer, and the groups reality, which directly and illogically contradicts that of the individual.  In most cases involving weak-minded subjects, apparently such as mitkat, the subject gives in; the subject gives up one's position due to the fact that they simply do not possess the mental fortitude to stick to what they know is true, they yearn for the acceptance of the group.  Upon examination of the implications, one can see how easily truth might be obscured in light of historically pre-disposed societies; one might see how crucial it is to restore a balance in our fractured notions of dualism, no matter how outdated they might be.

Yes, yes, this is all very interesting, let me just use Occam's razor to cut through all this well-crafted but wickedly worthless wordiness (not too shabby, huh?). You seem to have greatly misunderstood what I have said. I normally would not care, but going off on this "weak-minded" business is a bit much, ivy-leaguer. You are incredibly pretentious and do not know anything about me, my beliefs, my knowledge. Since you're new here, why don't you wonder and look at some of my posts from the year or so I've been actively involved in this forum. You will see with your god-hating little peepers that I have no interest in being relegated to a well-crafted box that I am set to reside in with "peers"I am not one for peer pressure, nor do I need or crave acceptance from any group or organization.

You see yourself as a very intelligent and "reasoned" individual. That's great, I'm sure mom and dad are very proud. How many clubs do you belong to, sweetheart? The fact is, I dislike strong atheists just as much as I dislike the hardcore religious numbers as they are both insidiously indoctrinating with their pushy preaching.

In any case, not taking a proactive stance regarding information dissemination surely dooms your beliefs to an early grave in the dustbins of history.

I'm going to give you a gold star for this one.

Because of this, it is not only the right, but the duty of the Athiests to speak even louder, to be even more adamant in their pursuit of equality and truth, to fight tooth and nail for understanding amidst a largely lobotomized society.

I can see it now. Louder! LOUDER! TESTIFY! Sing those godless praises to the empty heavens! Besides, those people mostly chant, sing (inside, no less), or meditate (that's quiet), so you've got them licked. All you need to do now is go door to door.

You might question the validity of my assertions on the basis of apathy, because after all, you were "only speaking" of happy, light, meandering social interaction.  Just remember that historically speaking the elite have always utilized their social gatherings as a forum for debate and plotting, and the masses have been controlled because of their apathetic nature and hesitance to do the same.

I just might! Being barraged by ideologies, either atheist or theist is hardly happy, light, meandering social interaction. It's jarring, repetitive, and often condescending scripted rhetoric that can nullify the forementioned moods. Also, I would hardly of placed my old high school friends as the "elite", whatever elite you refer to, be it financial, social, academic (whic I'm sure you consider yourself a part of), etc. The term elite will soon no longer be recognized. Thanks for breaking your apathy and finally posting, but in the future, please keep it to a minimum, or at least get to know ol' mitkat a little.

[Mind]

One thing the religious meme has going for it is dedicated volunteers. The meme is set-up to reward those who give up their time, money, and lives for its propagation. A lot of religious memes even equate pain and suffering with future (albeit imaginary) rewards. I don't know too many atheists who would give up their worldly possesions and all of their time in order to propagate atheism. It is an uphill battle, but it is not futile (see Europe).

[mitkat]

Sorry if I came off as abrasive and cynical also. In my life, people have usually judged me with one look, and it's been hard not to judge them in the very same deserving fashion; being good to ignorant people is hard (as I'm sure you know going to Yale), and I can't always be bothered. I can make mistakes in judging someone's writings online just like some do in regards to a morphological appearance. I would sincerely like to believe that since we've been evolving for thousands of years with direct face-to-face contact and body language, and then the telephone - still with a huge range of emotion and understanding, that text-based communication leaves much to be understood and desired for the time being, and that sometimes, things need and deserve extra explanation.

I'm Tim, and it's nice to meet you too.

[phylodome]

I'd certainly agree. In fact, i've lately become rather obsessive about enumerating my concerns regarding the after-effects of what I usually label "the dark ages of online social networking". I have actually begun the research/outline phase of writing a book on the many downsides to MySpace.com, one such social networking tool that i really feel is dangerously teetering on the edge of becoming a commercially driven analog device. Corporations are no longer so much trying to meet demand as proactively dictate it....but i guess all this should go under another thread.