UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[driveway]

[MarchHare]

Just out of curiosity though, what reputation is it that we deserve? It sounds like you are agreeing with this "atheists are as distrustful as rapists" thing.

Was it Calgaryborn who said he is friends with a murderer but would never be friends with a gay person, or am I thinking of someone else? If that was CB, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he views atheists as being worse than rapists.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm all for the separation of church and State. Can you tell me which church has been unduly influencing the government?

Other than diplomatic relations with Vatican city I'm guessing you won't find any. What atheists have been doing in America and Canada is demanding the silencing of religious expression in public spaces. They are demonstrating a monsterous intolerance towards the Christian faith. No wonder then are despised in return.

I included a list in this post, you may find it helpful!

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=218

[Boblobla]

Are you sure they weren't talking about therapists? Because no one trusts them.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Really Atheists in general have gone out of their way to attack Christianity in North American. Of all the enemies of the cross of Christ atheists have been the most abnoxious. We don't see Muslims or Jews attacking Christmas and demanding crosses be removed from public property. You guys got the reputation you deserve.

I actually haven't met a single atheist that hates Christmas from a religious standpoint. I haven't met anyone really that feels that way. Lets just say, hypothetically, that atheists did "attack" Christmas. How is that worse than what religious fundamentalists have done to each other for centuries? As SebC pointed out, planes into buildings. If you want to keep going back through history, atheists never coerced Christians into their beliefs under punishment of torture and death. There is no "you started it" and it shouldn't even matter. Holding a grudge is not a step forward into making things better for each other.

This is what I don't understand about you, CB. You don't agree when people blanket the entire Christian population by using small examples of extremism and intolerance from groups such as the WBC and such, and yet you're completely fine with doing the same for all atheists.

Some people seem to have difficulty differentiating between the individual and the group (and this goes for people on both sides of the fence.) One bad experience labels an entire group which leads to the perpetual unneeded distrust of one another.

Aside from all that; how can you possibly consider atheists to be worse than rapists? (I'm not saying you in particular, CB, but you sidestepped the question last time it was posed to you.)

[Itse]

Some people are pricks, some are not. Some pricks are atheists, some are religious.

I don't see much of a correlation.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

And again beyond any of this I don't like the idea of judging anyone based on either opinion.

Why wouldn't you judge people based on their opinions? Seriously.

How else are you going to judge them? By their appearance?

I guess you could judge them by actions as well.

But we always form judgements about those around us. Their opinions are a good place to start.

If you asked me the depth of religious fervor or indifference among my co-workers, with one exception, I wouldn't know . . . . . and that's probably the most common experience of most Canadians.

I remember turning up for a funeral once in a small town and finding people I knew that I would have never guessed singing in the church choir.

I'm basically agnostic, not militant about it one way or the other, but I don't get the sense others around me place me in the category of a rapist on moral matters.

Atheists are not indifferent . . . . which makes them the same as the more fervently religious.

What religious fanatics fail to grasp is that a firmly defended separation of church and state actually enhances their freedom to worship. You shouldn't have to be an atheist to understand that.

And you do have to wonder about the ability to reason with someone who seriously thinks the dinosaurs walked the Earth 5,000 years ago. How can you not judge someone when they say that to you?

Cowperson

[photon]

Originally Posted by Itse

Some people are pricks, some are not. Some pricks are atheists, some are religious.

I don't see much of a correlation.

Ah but the religious ones aren't true members of their religion while the atheist ones are pricks because of their atheism you see.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Atheists are not indifferent . . . . which makes them the same as the more fervently religious.

Anti-theists are not indifferent and makes them comparable to the more fervently religious.

Assigning an attribute to an individual for a non-belief is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

What's to say that there's nothing beyond our perception?

What atheist (or anti-theist) sentiment is that argument relevant to?
Who has made the claim that your argument addresses?

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

However a lack of evidence doesn't preclude it. Perhaps there is a greater consciousness out there. We as humans can only understand so many dimensions of things. What's to say that there's nothing beyond our perception?

Negative evidence isn't useful in a rational discussion of critical thinkers. It's functionally the same as saying "you can't prove Santa doesn't exist".

No critical thinking rational adult believes in Santa. Period. But people chuck that when you change the word "santa" to "god".

Despite equal evidence for both.

That's a pretty serious disconnect IMO. The only reason I can see for it is that most of the hardcore religious folks were indoctrinated at a very young age. That must make it harder to break free.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I included a list in this post, you may find it helpful!

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=218

Gozer when a religious organization is confronted by a proposed or current law that is offensive to their religious beliefs they should have every right to support political action against said laws. The separation of church and State shouldn't mean that any aspect of life that the State involves itself in must be off limits to the church.

In the one case you site the church and State were separated by a free vote of the people of California. That is a pretty reasonable separation and is in line with what the Framers invisioned.

Again the Framers concern was the forming of a state church like the one in England. The fact that the Mormon church got charged is an example of a bad application of the law. They should have taken the case to the Supreme court.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Gozer when a religious organization is confronted by a proposed or current law that is offensive to their religious beliefs they should have every right to support political action against said laws. The separation of church and State shouldn't mean that any aspect of life that the State involves itself in must be off limits to the church.

Obvious moving of the goalposts from your stance at the time.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=193

It would have been polite to address my argument instead of moving on to your usual brand of canting.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In the one case you cite the church and State were separated by a free vote of the people of California. That is a pretty reasonable separation and is in line with what the Framers envisioned.

The church and state were separated by a vote on state law that was heavily influenced by the church?
You lost me.
Without addressing the constitutionality of it, I personally don't object to the church's right to influence state law; I encourage prosthelytizing.
But that logic seems tortured.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Again the Framers concern was the forming of a state church like the one in England. The fact that the Mormon church got charged is an example of a bad application of the law. They should have taken the case to the Supreme court.

Save the Danbury Baptists lecture for another thread.

The church was charged by the "fair political practices committee" for continuing to lie about it's political support after already admitting it had lied; luckily for them churches are immune from audits.

You asked for a church that has been improperly influencing the government, I was reminding you of one that I had posted in May.

You're moving that goalpost too with the Supreme Court comment. What criteria will you deem acceptable?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Yasa

I actually haven't met a single atheist that hates Christmas from a religious standpoint. I haven't met anyone really that feels that way. Lets just say, hypothetically, that atheists did "attack" Christmas. How is that worse than what religious fundamentalists have done to each other for centuries? As SebC pointed out, planes into buildings. If you want to keep going back through history, atheists never coerced Christians into their beliefs under punishment of torture and death. There is no "you started it" and it shouldn't even matter. Holding a grudge is not a step forward into making things better for each other.

Does your history include the old Soviet Union's treatment of Christians and Jews? They were the first official atheist State. How about China's treatment of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists? They are officially an atheist State. There are millions of christians in China meeting illegally is house churches. China has only allowed a few sanctioned churches and these have to submit their sermons/instructions to government censorship. They are also openly monitored with a government agent sitting in services.

Originally Posted by Yasa

This is what I don't understand about you, CB. You don't agree when people blanket the entire Christian population by using small examples of extremism and intolerance from groups such as the WBC and such, and yet you're completely fine with doing the same for all atheists.

Some people seem to have difficulty differentiating between the individual and the group (and this goes for people on both sides of the fence.) One bad experience labels an entire group which leads to the perpetual unneeded distrust of one another.

I thought the survey's results were not surprizing and commented on that. If you lived in a Southern State that had a high occurance of black or Hispanic crime I might be nervous if I met a group of them while alone late at night. Your reaction would niether be racist or uncalled for. The fact that the majority of blacks and hispanics are law abiding doesn't change the experiences of your neighborhood. Now if a black man commited a crime here where I live in Creston I wouldn't associated it with black men everywhere because there is no pattern of experiences. The fact that he happened to be black wouldn't even matter.

The Westborough Baptist church has something like 50 members. Even if you lived in the same community as the WBC you would have 10 times the examples of Chistians who don't behave as they do and won't associate with them. Comparing the WBC to all Christians would be like me comparing one black crime in Creston to the general behaviour of black men. It would be unjust.

The crimes that Muslim fundamentalists have committed in dozens of country is a little different. First of all they have been extremely violent which brings them to our attention. Secondly, there has been tens of thousands involved directly and many more involved indirectly. Millions more within the Muslim faith hold some level of support for these fundamentalists. This in perspective is a religion of something like a billion people so it is a fraction of the faithful involved. On the other hand, their religious book does appear to call for holy war against non-believers. That is of some concern to me.

I think the reason why Muslims didn't score higher on the survey is because our personal experiences is with the peaceful majority.

Our personal experiences with Atheists however aren't positive. Atheists have filed lawsuits to control christian expression in public space. Atheists are intolerant of crosses, prayers, statues of the ten commandments. They attempt to reframe American history to remove its rich christian heritage; Highlight the abuses of priests and religious leaders if you will but, don't ignore the work in orphanages, education, medicine, soup kitchens, prisons ect.

Just look at the amount of threads that have been started on this site ridiculing religion and especially Christianity. Look at the books that atheists have published in recent memory. In this neighborhood and the one the survey was taken in there isn't much positive to say about atheists. if your the kid on the school ground always picking fights don't be suprized if your victims don't like you.

Originally Posted by Yasa

Aside from all that; how can you possibly consider atheists to be worse than rapists? (I'm not saying you in particular, CB, but you sidestepped the question last time it was posed to you.)

I suspect the survey gave a scale of 1 to 10; The 10 being the most negative. If both atheists and rapists scored a ten it doesn't mean they are equal.

And for the record I can't respond to every post directed to me so when confronted with several I just pick one or two.

[MarchHare]

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Obvious moving of the goalposts from your stance at the time.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=193

It would have been polite to address my argument instead of moving on to your usual brand of canting.



The church and state were separated by a vote on state law that was heavily influenced by the church?
You lost me.
Without addressing the constitutionality of it, I personally don't object to the church's right to influence state law; I encourage prosthelytizing.
But that logic seems tortured.



Save the Danbury Baptists lecture for another thread.

The church was charged by the "fair political practices committee" for continuing to lie about it's political support after already admitting it had lied; luckily for them churches are immune from audits.

You asked for a church that has been improperly influencing the government, I was reminding you of one that I had posted in May.

You're moving that goalpost too with the Supreme Court comment. What criteria will you deem acceptable?

In brief, I was wrong in the other thread. I wasn't aware that they had broken any laws. They as you have shown did break the law. I do however question the constitutionality of the law. They weren't influencing government but, rather people. They should have the right to influence people's opinion and especially on something like marriage. Marriage is sacrament in at least one christian denomination and it has a special religious and eternal significance in Mormonism.

The christian sect I belong to wouldn't collectively involve themselves in a political vote because of what it sees the purpose of the church to be. It would and does encourage personal involvement in politics. I've never heard the Pastor publically endorse a candidate or party but, he certainly has a public view on marriage, abortion, ect.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In brief, I was wrong in the other thread. I wasn't aware that they had broken any laws. They as you have shown did break the law. I do however question the constitutionality of the law. They weren't influencing government but, rather people. They should have the right to influence people's opinion and especially on something like marriage. Marriage is sacrament in at least one christian denomination and it has a special religious and eternal significance in Mormonism.

The christian sect I belong to wouldn't collectively involve themselves in a political vote because of what it sees the purpose of the church to be. It would and does encourage personal involvement in politics. I've never heard the Pastor publically endorse a candidate or party but, he certainly has a public view on marriage, abortion, ect.

so does this church.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/kentucky-ch...003419318.html

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Why wouldn't you judge people based on their opinion(s)? Seriously.

Cowperson

That's not what I said. I'm talking about this specific opinion. If someone says "Oh in my opinion murder is okay" then obviously you have a negative opinion on them. Why would an opinion on the existence of God sway you to think positively or negatively on a person?

Edit: One disclaimer I should have included: Why would an opinion on the existence of God sway you to think positively or negatively on a person if they're not being a dick about it? :P

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

so does this church.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/kentucky-ch...003419318.html

Yup and he and the 9 members who voted the same way have a right to hold that view in America. Likewise, atheists have the same right to say all the negative things they want about religion and shouldn't be suprised if like this little church they aren't well received.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Jon Stewarts above statement has a faulty leap in logic. He assumes that just because all the Presidents have identified with the christian faith they wouldn't allow attacks against their supposed faith. Actually all these Christian Presidents have supported the free speech the founders of this country inserted into the constitution. They all support the right of people to speak freely even if they don't like what is being said.

[Yasa]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Does your history include the old Soviet Union's treatment of Christians and Jews? They were the first official atheist State. How about China's treatment of Christians and Tibetan Buddhists? They are officially an atheist State. There are millions of christians in China meeting illegally is house churches. China has only allowed a few sanctioned churches and these have to submit their sermons/instructions to government censorship. They are also openly monitored with a government agent sitting in services.

Fair enough on the history of Soviet and Chinese treatment towards religion. While I was brisk and inherently wrong with my statement, my point was more with the sentence that followed it. It doesn't matter who started it. Persecuting an entire group of people because they persecuted your ancestors is a terrible excuse to perpetuate violence and inhumane treatment. It's a school yard mentality.

I don't hold you responsible for any atrocities done in the name of your religion, nor would I treat you as such. I would treat you based on your current actions and who you are as a person; religious beliefs aside. That's how I operate. If you decide to physically attack me, I'll be pissed off at you and not Christianity.

Now if a black man commited a crime here where I live in Creston I wouldn't associated it with black men everywhere because there is no pattern of experiences. The fact that he happened to be black wouldn't even matter.

To clarify what you're saying; if you were attacked multiple times by a black person, you would begin to dislike all black people as you would associate it with a pattern of negative experiences? Crime, and general jack-assery is not a product of race. It's a product of culture and surroundings.

Atheists (just like everybody) come from all walks of life. If you've had multiple negative experiences with atheists acting like dicks, that's most likely because they were raised to be dicks. They could subscribe to any religion or non-religion and still have the same attitude.

I would bet that you have come across several atheists in your life that you wouldn't have ever known were atheists, but since they were kind and respectful, you never really thought anything of it.

The Westborough Baptist church has something like 50 members. Even if you lived in the same community as the WBC you would have 10 times the examples of Chistians who don't behave as they do and won't associate with them. Comparing the WBC to all Christians would be like me comparing one black crime in Creston to the general behaviour of black men. It would be unjust.

Just the same, you comparing the actions of a handful (say 50-100?) atheists to the entire population is unjust. The WBC was just one example. Having lived in the Bible-Belt, I've experienced obnoxious actions and treatment from multiple people that claim to be Christian. I still don't judge the entire population. It's your individual actions that define how I treat you, not your belief in a diety.

The crimes that Muslim fundamentalists have committed in dozens of country is a little different. First of all they have been extremely violent which brings them to our attention. Secondly, there has been tens of thousands involved directly and many more involved indirectly.

Ok. I brought up 9/11 in response to the idea that atheism is more dangerous than religious belief. Although, if a foreign power invaded your country and killed family or friends, I'm sure you would do what you could to have them leave. Not necessarily in the name of your religion. I'm not justifying their actions, but I digress.

Millions more within the Muslim faith hold some level of support for these fundamentalists. This in perspective is a religion of something like a billion people so it is a fraction of the faithful involved. On the other hand, their religious book does appear to call for holy war against non-believers. That is of some concern to me.

Do you have any sort of stats to this, or is it just a wild guess you pulled out of the air? Do you treat all followers of Islam as terrorist enemies because of the recent actions?

Our personal experiences with Atheists however aren't positive. Atheists have filed lawsuits to control christian expression in public space. Atheists are intolerant of crosses, prayers, statues of the ten commandments. They attempt to reframe American history to remove its rich christian heritage; Highlight the abuses of priests and religious leaders if you will but, don't ignore the work in orphanages, education, medicine, soup kitchens, prisons ect.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your experiences with atheists are negative because of lawsuits and intolerance of your beliefs. You judge an entire group of people negatively as a result. Non-violent actions, to that. Blanketing all atheists based off that is no different than atheists describing all Catholics or Christians as pedophiles as a result of the priest abuses. Do you know for a fact that everyone volunteering for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, Red Cross foreign aid, etc. or donating to charitable organizations are infact Christians? How do you know some are not atheists? Simply put, you don't. You assume, because you assume all atheists are selfish people. I apologize if I'm putting words into your mouth, but this is how you come across.

In the same breath, you speak about re-framing American history, an action that many Christians participate in as well. As far as I'm concerned, things such as "In God We Trust" on the money and "One Nation Under God" in the pledge of allegiance are products of the 50's that should be removed.

Just look at the amount of threads that have been started on this site ridiculing religion and especially Christianity. Look at the books that atheists have published in recent memory. In this neighborhood and the one the survey was taken in there isn't much positive to say about atheists. if your the kid on the school ground always picking fights don't be suprized if your victims don't like you.

Ass holes always speak the loudest for any group. The WBC speaks loudly, despite being a substantially small population and yet people will base their opinions of you because of them. Islamic fundamentalists made the negative name for Muslims around the world. The police are put in a bad light when brutality makes the news. So on and so forth. The loudest and rudest person will uninentionally be the spokesperson for their subscriped opinion. I hate that it's like that, but that's just how it is. Not taking it upon yourself to break free from preconceived notions is on you, and by not doing so you're just fueling the fire for these people.

I suspect the survey gave a scale of 1 to 10; The 10 being the most negative. If both atheists and rapists scored a ten it doesn't mean they are equal.

It absolutely does mean they're equal in that sense. If 10 is a rapist, then an atheist (as horrible as we are) should be nowhere near 10. I am not physically or mentally harming anybody with my beliefs. I am not raping anybody! If an atheist ranks 10 on that scale, then a rapist should be a hell of a lot higher. That's a very ridiculous thing to say.

And for the record I can't respond to every post directed to me so when confronted with several I just pick one or two.

Understandable.