The Sickening Predjudice of Believers

[BibleStudent]

Believers being he most untrustworthy and irrational group on the planet, refuse to trust the most principled and rational group on the planet ??Oh the Irony !

 

(bold mine)

That's a pretty arrogant thing to say, don't you think? I'll grant you that, generally speaking, the non-theist can stand toe-to-toe with any theist on a number of issues....and even topple them on some. However, I think it is fair to say that we all have limits to our abilities and different desires for how we go about using them. To make such a broad and sweeping statement as that has a real 'us brains-versus-them idiots' tone to it.
 
The results of the study speak for themselves. Instead of pissing and moaning about it, do something constructive to fix it.

[velkyn]

That's a pretty arrogant thing to say, don't you think? I'll grant you that, generally speaking, the non-theist can stand toe-to-toe with any theist on a number of issues....and even topple them on some. However, I think it is fair to say that we all have limits to our abilities and different desires for how we go about using them. To make such a broad and sweeping statement as that has a real 'us brains-versus-them idiots' tone to it.
 
The results of the study speak for themselves. Instead of pissing and moaning about it, do something constructive to fix it.

why would this be, that non-theist can be quite equal to theists, when theists supposedly have a "fortress" in their god?

[dloubet]

I am curious as to how you can prove this to be a fact without getting all anecdotal on me.

I'm not gonegolfing, but let me take a crack at it.

The claim is: Believers being he most untrustworthy and irrational group on the planet, refuse to trust the most principled and rational group on the planet ??

Let's see. Are believers untrustworthy? Well, you can't use reason to predict what they're going to do, because they can act on the arbitrary dogma of their particular beliefs, so yeah, you can't trust them not to do something completely non-sequiter.

Are believers irrational? Well duh! Their beliefs are not arrived at by reason, so by definition they are irrational, and many build their whole lives around that irrationality.

Are atheists more principled? In contrast to believers that act out of obedience, yes, atheists are much more principled. Atheists have to think about what they're doing and why, and not just follow an arbitrary list of rules. Acting out of obedience is not morality, it's amorality.

Are atheists more rational? Well they certainly aren't stained by the irrationality of belief in gods. Sure, they may hold other beliefs not arrived at by reason, but compared to believers they are lacking a major component of irrationalism. All else being equal, believers have a huge additional helping of irrationality compared to atheists.

So yeah, the claim is justified.

[Mr. Blackwell]

So yeah, the claim is justified.

So you just lump all atheists together as one group with a unifying characteristic? I thought that sort of thing was only done by irrational people to justify their prejudices. Perhaps I am wrong about this?

I guess I was also wrong in my assumption that you can't just lump every single theist into one category. What's it called when people do that sort of thing? Is it like saying all black people are a certain way? Or all women? Men? Why would you use that kind of rationalization to divide theist from atheist?

I don't think the claim is justified at all. I remain unconvinced.

[dloubet]

So you just lump all atheists together as one group with a unifying characteristic?

Yes. A lack of belief in any gods. Did you think the definition was something else?

I thought that sort of thing was only done by irrational people to justify their prejudices. Perhaps I am wrong about this?

Yes. You're wrong. For instance, if someone self identifies as a nazi, do you feel it's unjustified to have certain expectations about that person?

I guess I was also wrong in my assumption that you can't just lump every single theist into one category.

Why would you have assumed that? Do not theists, by definition, believe in gods?

What's it called when people do that sort of thing?

Categorization.

Is it like saying all black people are a certain way?

You mean they mostly have an abundance of melanin greater than white people? Yeah. Wouldn't you agree? (Yes, I'm aware of exceptions.)

And yes, all women are female, and all men are males. Is there anything else you need me to explain? (Yes, I'm aware of exceptions.)

I'm aware that the weakest part of my claim is that atheists have to think about their actions and not just follow rules. I suppose some just follow rules as an easy alternative to figuring things out for themselves. But since all atheists do not believe in gods, divine dogma is not a part of their behavior, unless it is forced upon them.

[gonegolfing]

So yeah, the claim is justified.

So you just lump all atheists together as one group with a unifying characteristic? I thought that sort of thing was only done by irrational people to justify their prejudices. Perhaps I am wrong about this?

I guess I was also wrong in my assumption that you can't just lump every single theist into one category. What's it called when people do that sort of thing? Is it like saying all black people are a certain way? Or all women? Men? Why would you use that kind of rationalization to divide theist from atheist?

I don't think the claim is justified at all. I remain unconvinced.

Oh for goodness sakes Jayb ! 

I read your other response to me and do you seriously want to go down that road ? It's blatantly obvious that my statement is true and so don't even !!

I did not say that all theists themselves were untrustworthy or irrational through and through. I distinctly made reference to groups at large and as a whole, and the fact that their group beliefs or group nonbelief positions make either part of the statement true.

Theists as a group are untrustworthy as it is quite obvious that they are trying to jamb their unproved primitive dogmas into every nook and cranny of our modern society. Atheists are rightly and rationally trying to fight that and stop it. Theists as a group are irrational because the requirement to be a theist in the first place is an irrational attachment to belief in a god/supernatural belief.

Atheists have no authoritative dogmas to assert and as a group can be trusted more so for that reason, and we have no god beliefs and therefore as a group are more rational in this sense.

For a person of your superior intelligence I'm finding it hard to understand why you're arguing these facts. 

[Mr. Blackwell]

@ doublet

You over simplified the categorization analogy. We are not talking about physical traits which are objective and unavoidable. We are talking about personality traits. An example of a prejudiced point of view would be to look at the crime rates in America and a sample of race populations in the prison system and "logically" concluding that black people can't be trusted because they are as a whole drug addicted murdering criminals. The example of the Nazi party is not the same. That political movement has very specific tenants. If you don't agree with those tenants and swear allegiance to them then you are not a Nazi. By comparison, if someone claims to be a Christian we have no idea what they stand for specifically until they tell us. Same for atheists.

I'm aware that the weakest part of my claim is that atheists have to think about their actions and not just follow rules. I suppose some just follow rules as an easy alternative to figuring things out for themselves. But since all atheists do not believe in gods, divine dogma is not a part of their behavior, unless it is forced upon them.

Then you agree that it is irrational to defend the claim that atheists are the most principled and rational group on the planet? Or would you like to try a different approach? I mean, you, gonegolfing and others might be right about that but it needs to be demonstrated to be true.

[Mr. Blackwell]

I have run out of time to add a full response but I did want to ask

For a person of your superior intelligence I'm finding it hard to understand why you're arguing these facts. 

What is this? Sarcasm?

But seriously, I think I addressed most of the issues in my response to doublet, there is something else I want to add however it will have to wait.

[dloubet]

We are not talking about physical traits which are objective and unavoidable.

I am. I'm talking about definitions that carry necessary implications.

An example of a prejudiced point of view would be to look at the crime rates in America and a sample of race populations in the prison system and "logically" concluding that black people can't be trusted because they are as a whole drug addicted murdering criminals.

It would also be wrong. An excellent example of why I'm not making a claim like that.

The example of the Nazi party is not the same. That political movement has very specific tenants. If you don't agree with those tenants and swear allegiance to them then you are not a Nazi.

You're right, it's not the same as your racial example above, it has to do with necessary implications of definitions. The same thing I'm talking about.

By comparison, if someone claims to be a Christian we have no idea what they stand for specifically until they tell us. Same for atheists.

The definitions of theist and atheist are clear regarding the one quality that separates them: God belief. Theists do, atheists don't. There are necessary implications we can draw from this that appear to be all around us.

Then you agree that it is irrational to defend the claim that atheists are the most principled and rational group on the planet?

No. I merely pointed out that it may be the weakest part of the claim, not that it has been refuted.

Would you agree that theists as a whole would say that they allow their theistic beliefs to influence -- in part -- their decisions? I mean, what would be the point of having a theistic belief if it didn't affect your life in some way? Well, atheists don't have that particular irrational influence on their decisions, and so as a group they are less irrational than the other group that does have that additional irrational influence.

Principled is a harder sell and depends on what kind of definition you're using. I would say that a principled person in addition to having a code to live by understands the reasons behind that code. If he doesn't, and just follows rules, then we can justifiably call a computer "principled", and that robs the word of much of its meaning. I would argue that theists, in general, fall on the "follow the rules" side of that dichotomy, with many believing that their god's reasoning is beyond human understanding. They have a code to live by, but don't understand why it is the way it is. Atheists don't have that excuse. In general they have to concoct their own code during their lives, and since they themselves come up with their own code, they understand why it is the way it is.

[gonegolfing]

I have run out of time to add a full response but I did want to ask

For a person of your superior intelligence I'm finding it hard to understand why you're arguing these facts. 

What is this? Sarcasm?

But seriously, I think I addressed most of the issues in my response to doublet, there is something else I want to add however it will have to wait.

Look, there's nothing that you could add to disprove my statement. So don't knock yourself out.

Did you read the article? And look at the study itself ? If not then stop being so lazy and do so. If you did read all the information, then your foolishly denying the facts or being a stubborn argumentative pendantic dick.

If you're not botherted by the truth of the data then that's your business, but who are you trying to kid with this nit-picking argumentation ?

[joebbowers]

A charleton selling snake-oil to dumbass hillbillies is obviously going to call anyone who tries to stop him a liar. Chuches rake in uncounted billions in donations from gullible saps, you think they want that to stop?

[Mr. Blackwell]

Look, there's nothing that you could add to disprove my statement. So don't knock yourself out.

Believers being he most untrustworthy and irrational group on the planet, refuse to trust the most principled and rational group on the planet ??

Oh the Irony !

 

Vs. This from the article

The antipathy does not seem to run both ways, though. Atheists are indifferent to religious belief when it comes to deciding who is trustworthy.

“Atheists don’t necessarily favour other atheists over Christians or anyone else,” he said. “They seem to think that religion is not an important signal for who you can trust.”

Now that's something really special right there. Why would you say something in direct opposition to an article you provided to support your claim?

Did you read the article?

Did you?

If you're not botherted by the truth of the data then that's your business

Oh I am concerned but I am not surprised. I don't need scientific survey polls to tell me what is common sense. Does the study offer a solution? If it does I will go read it. If it doesn't then the only purpose it serves is to justify atheist indignation. And if that be the case then the study is useless to me.

Here is what I was wanting to add. It doesn't prove your opinion wrong I just think its funny. And don't worry, I didn't knock myself out over it





 

[free]

@JBW  I think you're missing the point that atheists and theist shouldn't be grouped and then have their trustworthiness declared.  There are untrustworthy people in both groups.  And to GG's claim that theists are untrustworthy, that is ONE person, not a population of atheists.  The article and ONE person who read it might agree on some things and disagree on others!

[Mr. Blackwell]

@JBW  I think you're missing the point that atheists and theist shouldn't be grouped and then have their trustworthiness declared.  There are untrustworthy people in both groups.  And to GG's claim that theists are untrustworthy, that is ONE person, not a population of atheists.  The article and ONE person who read it might agree on some things and disagree on others!

With all due respect I did not miss the point that people shouldn't be grouped and then have their trustworthiness declared. That is precisely the point I was trying to make.[1]

GG made the statement that theists are the most untrustworthy group on the planet and how that was ironic because they did not trust the most trustworthy group of people on the planet, atheists.

I called him out for that opinion. He defended his statement as a fact. And now here we are.

He did point out that he did not say "all" theists themselves were untrustworthy or irrational through and through. He  distinctly made reference to groups at large and as a whole. Which is why I made the absurd observation that based on the statistics black people, as a whole, are criminals and should be held in suspicion.

1.	albeit in a round a bout way

[free]

@JBW  I think you're missing the point that atheists and theist shouldn't be grouped and then have their trustworthiness declared.  There are untrustworthy people in both groups.  And to GG's claim that theists are untrustworthy, that is ONE person, not a population of atheists.  The article and ONE person who read it might agree on some things and disagree on others!

With all due respect I did not miss the point that people shouldn't be grouped and then have their trustworthiness declared. That is precisely the point I was trying to make.[1]

GG made the statement that theists are the most untrustworthy group on the planet and how that was ironic because they did not trust the most trustworthy group of people on the planet, atheists.

I called him out for that opinion. He defended his statement as a fact. And now here we are.

He did point out that he did not say "all" theists themselves were untrustworthy or irrational through and through. He  distinctly made reference to groups at large and as a whole. Which is why I made the absurd observation that based on the statistics black people, as a whole, are criminals and should be held in suspicion.

1.	albeit in a round a bout way

It seems that I did miss a post you made before I made that comment, for that I apologize. 

I feel somewhat foolish that not reading carefully and missing that one post really changes where I stand here actually.
You are right, throwing it back at the theists is just as bad as the original article.  The argument can be made that if you replaced 'atheists' with 'blacks', 'latinos', 'Muslims' etc, that this would cause a major reaction.  "Study find that Latinos are seen as less trustworthy than rapists."  Saying the same thing about atheists, or theists, is just as bad.

[Herenow]

I am very new to all of this and after reading the first sentence of the article, "Religious believers distrust atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists, according to a new study by University of B.C. researchers." I find I'm falling even further down the totem pole. Besides being gay (and having already come out of the closet once) and a feminist, I'm learning that my new-found acceptance of non-belief is yet another hurdle to surmount. Sigh......

[Mr. Blackwell]

I am very new to all of this and after reading the first sentence of the article, "Religious believers distrust atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists, according to a new study by University of B.C. researchers." I find I'm falling even further down the totem pole. Besides being gay (and having already come out of the closet once) and a feminist, I'm learning that my new-found acceptance of non-belief is yet another hurdle to surmount. Sigh......

Welcome! Hope you find some comfort here.

I'd bet the people surveyed for this poll would blame your sexuality and feminism on the fact that you don't believe.

You are in a tuff spot if you pay attention to polls. It has been my experience that if you treat people with respect most of the time that respect will be reciprocated.

[free]

I am very new to all of this and after reading the first sentence of the article, "Religious believers distrust atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists, according to a new study by University of B.C. researchers." I find I'm falling even further down the totem pole. Besides being gay (and having already come out of the closet once) and a feminist, I'm learning that my new-found acceptance of non-belief is yet another hurdle to surmount. Sigh......

Just another hurdle to make you an even stronger person than I'm sure you must be already. 

Being a feminist myself and working for Orthodox Jews is my greatest hurdle.  I have 16 year old high school students tell me they can't wait to graduate and be a good subservient wife...

[Traveler]

...I have 16 year old high school students tell me they can't wait to graduate and be a good subservient wife...

WTF??? Now you've made me feel sad. Seriously. In this day and age to have women buy into their own servitude just saddens me to no end.

[free]

...I have 16 year old high school students tell me they can't wait to graduate and be a good subservient wife...

WTF??? Now you've made me feel sad. Seriously. In this day and age to have women buy into their own servitude just saddens me to no end.

Working at this school ha been one of the most eye opening experiences of my life.  I had never been around people in any religion who are as orthodox as my students and their families.  Women (even a visitor, say delivering mail) aren't allowed in the building if they aren't wearing a skirt, they have three special Torah scrolls that in the case of a fire three students are required to remove from the building (you know instead of escaping the fire), I can't (not that I would) wear a Crucifix or any other non-Jewish artifact, I'm supposed to wear a Yarmulke but I refused, I could keep the list going.  My girls for the most part aren't as extreme as the maybe 10% that buy into the subservient life.  The boys are more religious (don't need to think hard to figure out why!) and only a few would you consider 'average' high school students.

Two things bring me joy at least: I get to teach a little on cosmology and tell them their religious teachers are wrong and in my three years there so far four students have come out atheist to me looking for advice. 

[changeling]

Being a feminist myself and working for Orthodox Jews is my greatest hurdle.  I have 16 year old high school students tell me they can't wait to graduate and be a good subservient wife...

Just curious. Since you show your gender as male.
Are you a male feminist, or pro feminism?

[Traveler]

Just curious. Since you show your gender as male.
Are you a male feminist, or pro feminism?

There's nothing that says you have to be a woman to be a feminist. From  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism ...

fem·i·nism noun \?fe-m?-?ni-z?m\
Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

...

[changeling]

That definition shows the definition of feminism.
I was thinking more along the lines of the actual feminist.

According to the National Organization for Men Against Sexism,
a man can not truly be a feminist, however he can be pro feminism.

A quote from that organization.

"Although I believe that men can be pro-feminist and anti-sexist, I do not believe we can be feminists in the strictest sense of the word in today's society. Men, in this patriarchal system, cannot remove themselves from their power and privilege in relation to women. To be a feminist one must be a member of the targeted group (i.e a woman) not only as a matter of classification but as having one's directly-lived experience inform one's theory and praxis.

A clear analogy can be made between male profeminism and anti-racism. Men cannot really be feminists anymore than whites can be black nationalists. However, men can be pro-feminist and whites can be pro-black nationalists. At the same time it is not enough to simply be a member of the disenfranchised minority to be either a feminist or a black nationalist. Feminism, like black nationalism requires political consciousness and even activism. "

Besides, I was merely curious whether free was male or female.
It doesn't matter one way or the other.

[free]

That definition shows the definition of feminism.
I was thinking more along the lines of the actual feminist.

According to the National Organization for Men Against Sexism,
a man can not truly be a feminist, however he can be pro feminism.

A quote from that organization.

"Although I believe that men can be pro-feminist and anti-sexist, I do not believe we can be feminists in the strictest sense of the word in today's society. Men, in this patriarchal system, cannot remove themselves from their power and privilege in relation to women. To be a feminist one must be a member of the targeted group (i.e a woman) not only as a matter of classification but as having one's directly-lived experience inform one's theory and praxis.

A clear analogy can be made between male profeminism and anti-racism. Men cannot really be feminists anymore than whites can be black nationalists. However, men can be pro-feminist and whites can be pro-black nationalists. At the same time it is not enough to simply be a member of the disenfranchised minority to be either a feminist or a black nationalist. Feminism, like black nationalism requires political consciousness and even activism. "

Besides, I was merely curious whether free was male or female.
It doesn't matter one way or the other.

If you want to play semantics, I am a male who is pro-feminism.  I was an active member of the Women's Center at my alma mater, my Masters Thesis was about the social reasons women are discouraged from desiring careers in math and science, etc. 

But yes, I am a male.

[Herenow]

It has been my experience that if you treat people with respect most of the time that respect will be reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree!

Just another hurdle to make you an even stronger person than I'm sure you must be already. 

The older I get, the more effort it takes to jump those hurdles!

[changeling]

If you want to play semantics, I am a male who is pro-feminism.  I was an active member of the Women's Center at my alma mater, my Masters Thesis was about the social reasons women are discouraged from desiring careers in math and science, etc. 

But yes, I am a male.

Thanks free,

No semantics intended. Because of our different interpretations of the definition of the word feminist,
I wasn't certain whether you were male or female.

We know nothing about the people who post here other than what what they tell us.
I enjoy your posts and I just kind of like thinking I know a little about those to whom I listen.

[gonegolfing]

I am very new to all of this and after reading the first sentence of the article, "Religious believers distrust atheists more than members of other religious groups, gays and feminists, according to a new study by University of B.C. researchers." I find I'm falling even further down the totem pole. Besides being gay (and having already come out of the closet once) and a feminist, I'm learning that my new-found acceptance of non-belief is yet another hurdle to surmount. Sigh......

Welcome! Hope you find some comfort here.

I'd bet the people surveyed for this poll would blame your sexuality and feminism on the fact that you don't believe.

You are in a tuff spot if you pay attention to polls. It has been my experience that if you treat people with respect most of the time that respect will be reciprocated.

Which is why it's a fact that theists are one of the most untrustworthy, bigoted, and irrational groups on the planet   

That's a good bet and a great statement.

[free]

<snip>
Which is why it's a fact that theists are one of the most untrustworthy, bigoted, and irrational groups on the planet   

If you're not careful I'm going to tell JBW32 on you!

[free]

If you want to play semantics, I am a male who is pro-feminism.  I was an active member of the Women's Center at my alma mater, my Masters Thesis was about the social reasons women are discouraged from desiring careers in math and science, etc. 

But yes, I am a male.

Thanks free,

No semantics intended. Because of our different interpretations of the definition of the word feminist,
I wasn't certain whether you were male or female.

We know nothing about the people who post here other than what what they tell us.
I enjoy your posts and I just kind of like thinking I know a little about those to whom I listen.

Yes, it is nice to get to know each other.  I somewhat regret not making an introduction thread.  Is it too late 100 posts in?