Why Atheist are disliked...
Offline Without citing the stats that have been done so on numerous occasions, we understand that surveys show that Atheist are one of the least liked people around (in America at least). But the reason for this is not because Atheist do not believe in God, but because the impression that popular atheist give off, the only one that most people in the US come in contact with, is not likable. Imagine if I came over for dinner and said that atheist are dipshits, if i was shown the door, or punched in the face it wouldn't be because I was a theist.
When Christianity first appeared on the scene the hostility directed towards it wasn't so much because of it being the new religion, but rather because of it's exclusiveness, a belief in the exclusivity of truth, that their religion and god are true, while all other religions and Gods are false. Popular atheism, such as that which is promoted by this site, present an atheistic belief in exclusivity as well, the "we know the truth, and those that don't also accept our truth are just bat shit crazy". The term atheist comes accompanied with the stench of anti-theism.
For most religious people who rarely ever come in contact with atheist, when asked a survey about what they think of them, can only draw their impressions from the Sapients, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens of the world. So when asked a question of if one would mind having an atheist president, the question for the individual being surveyed becomes would you mind having someone like Christopher Hitchens as president.
Imagine if someone asked you what you think of theist, and if your encounters and impressions of theist were only the Jerry Falwell type, that impression probably wouldn't be good, and would rather be quite negative. If someone asked you if you would mind having a theist as president, with only the Jerry Falwell image as the impression, you'd be shaking in your boots too. Fears of theocracy and the teaching of creationism in schools would abound.
Questions about if you would vote a theist, or an atheist as president are questions that have us probing what the role of that person's belief would be in our everyday life. Would they preach on the stage that we need to rid the world of religion, that theism is a mental disorder, remove children, such as myself, from my loving but fundamentalist christian parents for raising me up as a Christian. The more viable these fears become, by the misanthropy and anti-theistic views that abound amongst vocal atheist, those in the limelight, the less inclined individuals are going to be to view the hypothetical atheist, the hypothetical presidential candidate in a favorable light.
Speaking from experience, I've been a disbeliever for much of my adult life, and it wasn't something I tried to conceal and hide all that much either. I hid it from my religious mother, not because I feared she would disown me or love me any less, but because it would mean that in her already tough life, she'd have something else to worry about. And also because I knew in her circumstance that it was only her religious belief, in a faith in God of purpose and meaning, could she find any hope in this life of hers. Her religion was a source of tremendous comfort for her, even I myself viewed it as a delusion, a fantasy at the time.
Though I was an atheist, I didn't hold resentment towards the religion I was raised in. My impression of Christians wasn't tarnished by a few bad images of them. My childhood was filled with fond memories of the church where we used to burn toilet paper in the bathroom stalls, and play hang man in the pews.
My friends had long known that I was a disbeliever, in fact my sister, and many of them often think that I'm still an atheist, and I smile at the accusations, rather than being offended by it. I used to blog about my disbelief all the time, the circumstances, and the questions that led me there. Not once did someone turn to me with derision, or attempted to spit in my face for being a disbeliever. Friends and strangers who knew, welcomed me all the same. My disbelief was a personal choice, a product of sincere reflection, not one that I felt compelled to be evangelical about. Often time questions and doubts about their own faith were brought to me even before they'd seek out their religious leaders.
If someone such as myself, at the time were to run for president I'm sure I'd get their votes as well. Their impressions of this atheist wouldn't be based on the popular images of them, such as the atheists that run sites such as this, and engage in evangelical campaigns, but rather personal knowledge of one that doesn't fit that misanthropic mold.
If we didn't have a rich history of theistic presidents, most of you would be just as skeptical about a hypothetical future one as president as many American Christians are. It's only because we know by our history that not all theistic presidents are George Bush, we have our Clintons, and our Obamas as well.
To quote Hitchens: "People say they wouldn't vote for an atheist. How do they know they wouldn't? They haven't had an offer from a decent atheist yet. I don't think thats a real question for an opinion poll to be asking. [...] If republicans had been asked in the 1970's: would they vote for a divorced, ex-movie actor, they probably would have said no."
Most people don't dislike atheist just because they don't believe in God. Most of this dislike stems from what they believe the opinion of the atheists views on their religion are. If you believe someone doesn't like you, thinks of you as an idiot, as delusional, or what not, you're probably not going to like them that much either. Trust me, I know, i often call the beliefs of some atheist here on this forum as idiotic and delusional, and let's just say I haven't made many friends here.
- Login to post comments
Offline OrdinaryClay wrote:Way to over-simplify.JillSwift wrote:You seem to be either projecting or equivocating. Since you don't actually explain your argument, and rather expect me to be able to guess at your claim by re-reading my own posts, I can't say for sure which.
I made a claim. You said mine was based on feelings. You made a claim and say your is not based on feelings, that it is verifiable via google. I say mine is verifiable via google, and therefore mine is no more based on feeling then yours.
I said you can verify what I said two ways:
First, verifiable via a Google search, are the biases from psychology that make general observation untrustworthy. This is a testable claim. Feel free to test it.
Second, via a real sample of posts you could collect and classify to see what the real feelings are of atheists toward Christians. This is also a testable claim. Feel free to test it. My prediction is based on my own samples of posts on forums like this one, where I find people do have a strong tendency to equate a person and their ideology. This is another testable claim. Feel free to test it.
My conclusions are based on those samples, not on a feeling.
You conclusion is based on a feeling. You said yourself it was anecdotal observations - open to the biases I mention. A feeling generated by those biases.
You can't just claim our conclusions as equal because you want them to be. I've tested my claim, have you tested yours?
I thought you wanted it simple.
Your Psychological analysis is an interpretation and in no way has to be the operative psychology in play.
Can I see your sample data and your analysis?
- Login to post comments
Offline I thought you wanted it simple.
Your Psychological analysis is an interpretation and in no way has to be the operative psychology in play.
Can I see your sample data and your analysis?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
- Login to post comments
Offline pauljohntheskeptic wrote:No, it's called tolerance. ...
It is absurd because there are belief systems you would not tolerate. There are always belief systems someone would not tolerate.
Perhaps you are confused between imposition of a belief system upon others and tolerance of another's beliefs.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Offline Wow, like I said you sure live in a seething tempest. Like I've said I've seen a lot of bad human behavior, but not because of Christianity. Always in spite of Christianity. What did the person who was taken from the will do? What exacatly were the beliefs that got them removed?
Being gay, in this case. And so far, the mother is balking, so I can credit her with that.
Yes, I'm very sure atheists do good deeds, but when you look at the overall private world charity it is dominated by Christians. I don't think this is coincidence.
So you don't think the Shepherds in your community have empathy? Man, you live in a weird town. I have lived in many small towns and the pastors and church elders have been very compassionate, empathetic and forgiving men. Like I said there are always human problems, but it has always been because of bad human choices and not because of Christianity.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
- Login to post comments
Offline Should I really break out my stats book and point out the fallacies from both sides here?
All either side shows is the following:
1] There are atheists who attack the beliefs rather than the person.
2] There are atheists who attack the person rather than the beliefs.
Question is, who is the majority?
I don't think anybody has posted sample sizes, standard deviations etc..... let alone something to measure it by,
So blah, both are based on ancedotes and conformation bias.
- Login to post comments
Offline Yeah.
...Uh, who has the burden of proof though, again?
(I know, I know.... that's a tough one for theists 
)
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Offline Yeah.
...Uh, who has the burden of proof though, again?
(I know, I know.... that's a tough one for theists
Both sides Kevin. They are both making positive claims.
Just because somebody can't prove that 1] is the majority does not mean that 2] is the majority. Just because somebody can't prove that 2] is the majority, does not mean the 1] is the majority.
So let's do a run down on this topic thus far
Position 1] unproven as majority.
Position 2] unproven as majority.
All we have is "X atheist said such and such"
Not even my personal experiences with atheists is an ancedote and not proof, Jill's personal experience with atheists is an ancedote and not proof.
Or even replace "Majority" with "Significant number" same problem.
- Login to post comments
Offline Should I really break out my stats book and point out the fallacies from both sides here?
All either side shows is the following:
1] There are atheists who attack the beliefs rather than the person.
Yes.
2] There are atheists who attack the person rather than the beliefs.
Yes.
Question is, who is the majority?
Why? You intend to do a statistical analysis and do a projection of the direction of atheist behavior
or do you plan a correlation of data to those who attack the person having read books by Dawkins and Harris etc.
I don't think anybody has posted sample sizes, standard deviations etc..... let alone something to measure it by,
So blah, both are based on ancedotes and conformation bias.
You hold a really great position on the side lines don't you. Not a follower of the god of Abe but still consider a god must somehow be out there somewhere.
It allows you to instigate and stand back and watch.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
- Login to post comments
Wow talk about projection.
Atheists claiming that Theists are generalizing atheists, while at the same time generalizing Theists.
Oh and for the record, I know that not all atheists do this.
My, your experience has indeed been a tempest. Yes, I must have lived a sheltered life because I have been a Christian for a very long time and have never seen the tumult you have experienced. My relatives have been Christians for a very long time and none of them have experienced the tumult you describe. I have met and fellowshipped with many, many Christians and have never herd such stories. Petty differences, jealousy, gossip, poor choices by individuals have certainly messed lives up a long the way, but nothing like the hell you describe. It has never been their faith that destroyed them, on the contrary it has always been their bad choices. Hmmm ... don't know what to tell you, dude.
Why did you help the homeless? Me? Well, ... Jeremiah 18:6.
Ah, then given your faith in the ability of people to keep separate their perception of the behavior from their perception of the person I can only assume you do indeed fully trust the premise of "Hate the sin, love the sinner".
Personally, I take the evidence on face value. When a person demonstrably opposes the behavior as opposed to the person I accept this as fact until proven otherwise. When people clearly attack the person and not the behavior I treat it for what it blatantly is. You know the "proof is in the pudding" idea.
So we can dispense with the charade and get to the actual point, thank you.
So you are claiming these feelings you have are true and based on evidence, and this is justified by saying I can google it. Well my feelings can be googled to.
You mean the same motivation that drives schoolyard taunting.
Now I'm assuming you actually don't have native American rituals in your backyard (or maybe you do?), so I will point out that what was important in my question was your reaction to being in the African culture, so I assumed you were physically present in the African village. Try and imagine yourself with people and not interacting over the internet. Same question.
"Likely" means that your sample will have a high likelyhood of matching mine. Samples do not, however, always match so I can't say that your sample would definately match mine. It's not a matter of "feeling".
In-group versus out-group perception errors are a matterr of a member of one group being unable to dissasociate the person from the ideology of the out-group. Again, this is not about the feelings, but an observed fact.
You seem to be either projecting or equivocating. Since you don't actually explain your argument, and rather expect me to be able to guess at your claim by re-reading my own posts, I can't say for sure which.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
No, it's called tolerance. Believe what you will and allow others to do the same. Something that many find themselves unable to do as you have just expressed. No one says you have to bow on bended knee 6 times a day while Muslims pray nor should atheists be required to give you the satisfaction of involving them in your worship of fantasy. Though you have the right to worship the thin air if you so choose it should not be held against you in any way as long as you are able to properly function in a society. This does not mean that one can't try to get others to see the errors of their ways but only that they have the right to choose their own beliefs and live with their choice in respect. I may think you are completely living in fantasy land with your god beliefs but so long as you don't allow it to interfere with your job, others lives, or impose your values or beliefs on a diverse society you can pray to the Anunnaki sky gods for all I care. When you come to a forum such as this one, you open yourself to debate and critic. It's no different then if an atheists goes to a religious website though far more dissent is allowed here then on any theist website that I have visited. If I go into a church with the sole intent of argument, I disrespect the beliefs of the members of the church and should be properly escorted from their property. This does not mean that I can't use my constitutionally protected right of free speech to argue against practices that a given religion might pursue that harm others. It's just respect of rights must be shown.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
I totally agree with this approach pauljohn. Peaceful coexistence is the best that could be hoped for.
Why is it absurd? It seems perfectly logical, and fair to me.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Trimming for brevity. See the previous posts for context.
I have read Isaiah. Cutting out the context does wonders, doesn't it? Isaiah was condemning a wayward nation, and claiming the rejection of their particular sacrifice as being normative, in light of Exodus and Leviticus is simply avoiding the issue.
Leviticus 17 is completely clear on the subject:
Indeed, the story told in Exodus 12 is tied to directly to Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. Thus, the importance of being without blemish and whatnot.
When discussing the foibles of fictionalized characters, you often run into problems with continuity. But your god did make it clear, over and over, that burnt sacrifices were a "pleasing aroma," in addition to setting up the whole sacrificial system in the first place. So, it's not a stretch at all. Besides, did not your Jesus tell his followers that the Pharisees were teaching correctly but being hypocrites?
Well, that is my point, right there. You agree that Jesus' death was a sacrifice of atonement for your sins. Whether his followers get to share in it is irrelevant. You can dance around the word atonement all day, but the fact is that the atonement was for sin, and the action was a blood sacrifice.
You are welcome to your opinion, but it should be noted that your beliefs are rejected by the majority of Christians. You should make it clear that your views represent a tiny fraction of Christians. You can prove me empirically wrong by pointing to, say, where the Catholics and Orthodox expound this view(as they represent the majority of Christians alive). Or maybe even a council. If I were to ask one of their theologians to comment, how would they view your beliefs?
I do. I think you are ignoring vast sections of text. But I'm not going to debate you on theology, as I have no horse in that race.
Do you not understand why we adhere to the scientific process? It is precisely because we are well aware of the propensity to self delusion. That's why emotions do not count for anything.
That's funny, because I live my life precisely by a set of principles I work out. When I come upon new information or a reconsideration of old information, I adjust my principles. This is most evident in my evolving beliefs about abortion, but it touches all facets. And, yes, I do live by those principles. You have trouble doing so, but while I have had plenty of understandable opportunities to do so, that "shit" has never gone out the window.
See, there is that irrationality. Your emotions are moved, and you are ready to proclaim someone as god.
And yet you felt the need to seek out a forum of people who are hostile to you and expound on your beliefs.
And I took the time to point out that it was an appeal to emotion.
Of course you don't need to have empirical proof to be a theist. That is evident from your posts.
I must have missed the bit where Martin Luther King, Jr was nailed to a piece of wood.
As I have stated before, I do plenty for the poor without resorting to emotion-driven beliefs about deities.
I will lay it out. I loved the bible, and I loved god. I dedicated my life to the service of Christ. When I began to see how the silly notions propounded by Christians did not add up, I went back and reviewed my beliefs. When they were found lacking any solid evidence, I discarded them. None of it was automatic, none of it was done without a great amount of anguish. My disgust with the religion only came later, when I began to see how it corrupted and destroyed otherwise rational people, and I resolved to do my best to oppose it in my sphere of influence.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I'm sure most Christians also think that child abuse is something that only happens to other denominations(well, I doubt the Catholics can hold onto that belief anymore). I'm sure that most Christians would never imagine their loved ones converting, say, from Lutheran to Catholic, and then listening to the Lutheran pastor tell them that all Catholics were hellbound. It happens a lot. Just recently, I watched one member of a family demand that another be taken out of his mother's will because he "wasn't right with god." Do you think that anyone at their church had a clue? If I weren't close to one of the parties, I wouldn't know.
I do it because I have human empathy. I have been dirt poor, and next to homeless(my parents always managed to at least find a friendly family member to live with). I need no reason beyond that.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
I made a claim. You said mine was based on feelings. You made a claim and say your is not based on feelings, that it is verifiable via google. I say mine is verifiable via google, and therefore mine is no more based on feeling then yours.
It is absurd because there are belief systems you would not tolerate. There are always belief systems someone would not tolerate.
I said you can verify what I said two ways:
First, verifiable via a Google search, are the biases from psychology that make general observation untrustworthy. This is a testable claim. Feel free to test it.
Second, via a real sample of posts you could collect and classify to see what the real feelings are of atheists toward Christians. This is also a testable claim. Feel free to test it. My prediction is based on my own samples of posts on forums like this one, where I find people do have a strong tendency to equate a person and their ideology. This is another testable claim. Feel free to test it.
My conclusions are based on those samples, not on a feeling.
You conclusion is based on a feeling. You said yourself it was anecdotal observations - open to the biases I mention. A feeling generated by those biases.
You can't just claim our conclusions as equal because you want them to be. I've tested my claim, have you tested yours?
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Wow, like I said you sure live in a seething tempest. Like I've said I've seen a lot of bad human behavior, but not because of Christianity. Always in spite of Christianity. What did the person who was taken from the will do? What exacatly were the beliefs that got them removed?