Study finds atheists distrusted.

[Occam's Spork]

Psychologists at the University of British Columbia and the University of Oregon say that their study demonstrates that anti-atheist prejudice stems from moral distrust, not dislike, of nonbelievers.
"It's pretty remarkable," said Azim Shariff, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the study, which appears in the current issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
The study, conducted among 350 Americans adults and 420 Canadian college students, asked participants to decide if a fictional driver damaged a parked car and left the scene, then found a wallet and took the money, was the driver more likely to be a teacher, an atheist teacher, or a rapist teacher?
The participants, who were from religious and nonreligious backgrounds, most often chose the atheist teacher.
The study is part of an attempt to understand what needs religion fulfills in people. Among the conclusions is a sense of trust in others.
A new study finds that atheists are among society's most distrusted group, comparable even to rapists in certain circumstances.

"People find atheists very suspect," Shariff said. "They don't fear God so we should distrust them; they do not have the same moral obligations of others. This is a common refrain against atheists. People fear them as a group."
Shariff, who studies atheism and religion, said the findings provide a clue to combating anti-atheism prejudice.
"If you manage to offer credible counteroffers of these stereotypes, this can do a lot to undermine people's existing prejudice," he said. "If you realize there are all these atheists you've been interacting with all your life and they haven't raped your children that is going to do a lot do dispel these stereotypes."

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

[garfield]

LOL thats a fairly desperate post Dib, feeling threatened much? ;D all those darn atheists, looks like you aint been praying hard enough, you need to get your biggest, thickest, bible full of bullshit and smack yourself as hard in forehead with it as you possibly can, I believe this may help ;D

[pim]

You're refreshingly "left" on the God question, garfield. It's unsustainable given you're out there on the extreme loopy "right" with all the Jesus freaks on guns, bashing foreigners, climate change denial and on just about every screwy conspiracy theory that's doing the rounds. You're ripe for conversion, it seems to me but in the meantime I quite enjoy your posts on this board.

I think Dib is just having a lend of us. Tell us, Dib, is there also a study showing that people who eat muesli for breakfast are more trusted than people who eat corn flakes?

[garfield]

I'm neither Left nor Right or any other label you care to hang on me, I am in reality and its very lonely here unfortunately.

[pim]

Oh, I see. So it's OK for you gratuitously to label people both individually and collectively, to stereotype them and to make the most outrageous claims about their motives. But not the other way round?

The plop plop of bullshit starts early this morning!!

[Occam's Spork]

You know why I like you, Pim?
You say what everyone is thinking.

[Occam's Spork]

Feb 19, 2013 7:20:38 GMT 10 @garfield said:

LOL thats a fairly desperate post Dib, feeling threatened much? ;D all those darn atheists, looks like you aint been praying hard enough, you need to get your biggest, thickest, bible full of bullshit and smack yourself as hard in forehead with it as you possibly can, I believe this may help ;D

I can see you rely on scientific data, only when it suits you and your mindset.

[pim]

Feb 19, 2013 8:40:37 GMT 10 Occam's Spork said:

You know why I like you, Pim?
You say what everyone is thinking.

Kind of you to say so Dib, I've always appreciated the way you stay out of board wars and character assassinations.

But before we found the Mutual Admiration Society, I'd like to take to task these so-called "findings". The sample group is all north american? That makes it suspect from the start. The reason is what we call here "american exceptionalism". There are attitudes and mindsets in the United States that would, quite frankly, be dismissed as crackpot if they were held by a small minority but figures show that they are held by a large majority which makes it all a bit creepy.

For example: God’s creation of the Earth, Noah and the flood, Moses at the Red Sea: These pivotal stories from the Old Testament still resonate deeply with most Americans, who take the accounts literally rather than as a symbolic lesson.

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”

Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/?page=all

What can you do with people like that? I tellya, that sort of stuff goes down like a lead balloon in a godless country like the wide brown land Down Under. In the US (dunno about Canada) if a candidate for political office declares his/her atheism that's enough to make that person's political career sink like a stone. The current Australian Prime Minister was asked during the last election campaign (2010) if she believes in God. Her answer was "No I don't". It's true that today she hangs on to the Prime Ministership by the skin of her teeth and her Government is in the minority in the Australian Parliament, but that has everything to do with issues related to things she's said and done on the environment, the economy on refugees and a spot of political backstabbing and skullduggery. It has nothing to do with her declared atheism. A previous Prime Minister from back in the 1980s, Bob Hawke, declared his agnosticism in answer to a question. He was elected and re-elected four times. I think it goes back to our convict past: the first 60 years of Australian colonial history were basically ones of transporting 160 000 convicts from Britain to Botany Bay (also a shipload from Canada, but that's another story). These convicts formed the bloodstock of the core Australian population today. They held a "muster" in 1988 of all those who could verify they were descended from a particular woman convict who was transported on the Second Fleet in the 1790s. No fewer than ten thousand people showed up. These convict were hardly religious. A church service was a church "parade" and you were lashed if you failed to attend. Religion as such tended to be represented by clergy who were part of the system that oppressed the convicts. It was "top down". So many Australians, to this day, tend to be sceptical of religion and to dismiss "bible bashers" as "god botherers" and "ratbags". I suspect that if your "study" had been undertaken with an Australian sample the results would have been quite different.

Then there's this gem:

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith. There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.


www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

So the more formal education you have, the less likely you are to take the Bible literally. It also follows that the more formal education you have, the more likely you are to be an atheist. So ... following your logic - and I stress this is your logic, but hey I'm having fun with it ... the more formal education you have, the less likely less educated (and therefore more religious) people will find you trustworthy. A type of law-of-diminishing-returns, I guess!

So what's the prognosis? Education is bad because there's a risk it might make you sceptical? Stay dumb, barefoot and ignorant if you want to be trusted?

[Occam's Spork]

Feb 19, 2013 9:09:26 GMT 10 pim said:

So the more formal education you have, the less likely you are to take the Bible literally.

That's a circular notion, and a loaded question, since you haven't demonstrated this to be so.

[Occam's Spork]

I'll let Pim answer for himself.
He doesn't require an advocate.

[garfield]

Dib is living proof that Noah had two fuckwits on the ark ;D

[Occam's Spork]

Feb 24, 2013 15:57:57 GMT 10 @garfield said:

Dib is living proof that Noah had two f***wits on the ark ;D

And you are proof that man is de-evolving. ;D

[pim]

I'll allow the neologism to pass through to the keeper, but to use your sophistry-laden "logic", Dib, to "de-evolve" <shudder> is to evolve.

Thank you for finally conceding the point that evolution takes place.

[Occam's Spork]

Feb 25, 2013 8:25:57 GMT 10 pim said:

Thank you for finally conceding the point that evolution takes place.

I never completely denied it, pim.
I accept that some genetic changes do occur, that allow for various species of dogs, etc. Even cancer is a form of genetic mutation.

The kind of evolution I deny is the postulate that we evolved from a lower species.

[Occam's Spork]

Feb 25, 2013 17:09:20 GMT 10 @buzzock said:

With all the Roman catholic sexual abuse of children, people should not trust priests.

Have you considered the possibility that there are Roman Catholics priests that DON"T sexually abuse children, Buzz? Or has your bigotry poisoned you to the point of blindness?

[Occam's Spork]

Feb 25, 2013 8:25:57 GMT 10 pim said:

I'll allow the neologism to pass through to the keeper, but to use your sophistry-laden "logic", Dib, to "de-evolve" <shudder> is to evolve.

Thank you for finally conceding the point that evolution takes place.

So you agree that evolution is a directionless process?
If this is so, then how can you rely on your faculties to give you an accurate account of human development?

All things considered, there is a pretty good chance you'd be wrong. And only a snowball's chance in Hell that you'd be right.

[pim]

Apparently in the vastness of the universe, there are so many variables that even a snowball's chances in hell are considered good enough odds that any given scenario will happen somewhere.

As for "higher" species evolving from "lower" species, I think I'd rather defer to Richard Dawkins on that one. I think he'd dispute "higher" and "lower".

Let's compare the indigenous peoples of our respective countries because it helps us approach this issue as equals. I know probably as little about Canadian First Peoples (or is it "First Nations"?) as you'd know about the indigenous inhabitants of our Wide Brown Land. Is that a fair statement?

Here's what I know - or can infer - about the indigenous peoples who had to themselves the land that Toronto is now located on before any whitefellas, French or English, came to North America. Were they nomadic? I don't really know but I suspect they were. The "teepees" (forgive me if my terminology is incorrect - I'm doing my best here and I know so little I'm afraid my "best" isn't very good!) seem to me to be structures that could easily be dismantled and transported to a new location. How am I doing? But here's the kicker! Did they practise any sort of agriculture? I have an idea they did practise a limited form of agriculture. Am I wrong? What about metallurgy? I don't think they did. We're talking Stone Age technology aren't we? What about inter-tribal trade? Only guessing here but I'd be surprised if trade within pre-Columban North America wasn't rich and extenive. If you want to correct me and tell me I'm totally wrong and have no idea then I'll happily bow to your superior knowledge.

Now, what if we pose the same questions regarding Australia's indigenous inhabitants pre-European contact: Nomadic? Yes! Housing? Definitely not teepees, in fact they threw up structures called "humpies" fashioned from materials that were accessible and available wherever they were and simply left them when they moved on. Weapons? No archery, they made and used spears - very good spears of many types for many purposes which they wielded with great skill, but no bows & arrows. Agriculture? Nope! Their culture and economy was a hunter-gatherer one. But they traded. I've seen charts devised by anthropologists of ancient Australian trade routes and they covered the entire continent.

Let me tell you that the great British explorer both our countries have in common - James Cook - had with him a Tahitian Polynesian named Tupou whose value was huge when it came to dealing with New Zealand Maoris since he could communicate with them and there were all sorts of cultural reference points in common (NZ Maoris after all were transplanted Tahitians - who'd transplanted themselves quite a few centuries previously). But his reaction to the first Aborigines that Cook's expedition came across was an extremely negative one. Here was the first contact between Polynesian culture and Aboriginal culture and it wasn't a happy one. Tupou definitely thought in terms of "higher" and "lower" in relation to these people.

What is clear is that pre-European contact Australia was inhabited by a collection of peoples speaking hundreds of different languages and with as much variety as exists between the nations of Europe, but living in a paleolithic hunter/gatherer culture.

What would you say, Dib? How do you compare the First Nations of each oif our countres? Do we use the terms "higher" and "lower"? To be honest I think those terms are part of the problem and they obscure more than they shed light.

Take dogs. I like dogs - or rather they seem to like me. I don't have a pet, but if I go to a friend's house and they have a pet dog, it generally bounds up with its tongue hanging and its tail wagging. I prefer labradors. I detest "dogs" that are little and ratty. I loathe chiahuahuas.

But leaving that aside, we're told that dogs are descended from wolves. So even a disgusting little chiahuahua has distant wolf ancestors. I'm at a loss to figure how your "higher" and "lower" paradigm applies in this case.

Take crocodiles. We have quite a few of them in northern coastal regions in this country. The saltwater crocs are the ones that'll grab you, kill you in their death roll and take your body somewhere so that it can eat you. The salties are big sons-of-bitches. They can grow to over 6 metres, or about 20 feet. It seems that their remote ancestors were Cretaceous monsters that grew to something like 40 feet!! Now that is one big bugger of a croc! How is the "higher"/"lower" paradigm working for you here, Dib? It isn't working for me!

Is there a purpose to all this? An evolutionist like Dawkins would argue that there isn't. Now Dib I have to respect that. I don't know what the North America equivalent of the Royal Society is but from where we sit if a scientist is admitted to the Royal Society on the basis of his/her work in his/her speciality then that carries a certain weight, a certain status, a certain prestige. So Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a world authority. If he says that there's no purpose then I'd have to take him a lot more seriously than I'd take somebody who posts on NTB. On the other hand the Pope (oh that's right, there isn't one right now but there will be soon) might argue that there is a divine purpose behind a chiahuahua evolving from a wolf, or a sparrow evolving from a dinosaur or a butterfly evolving from a grub which somehow changed into a flying creature to feast off the nectar of flowers when they evolved from whatever it is that flowers evolved from.

Dawkins argues that if there is any constant factor in evolution it's the "selfish gene". A theologian might argue - and probably does! - that it's all part of a divine plan whose complexity and extent is beyond the grasp of mortals like thee and me. Where does "truth" lie in all of this? The truth lies in the awe and majesty that people like Darwin and, in our own time, Dawkins, experience at the mere contemplation of this. Others will look for the Divine and the Numinous in all of this. The point about "who's right and who's wrong?" is that it misses the point. So what is the point? Whatever "the point" is, it has to start with awe and majesty. The "truth" always needs to be approached with a certain humility. It's something that religion has always understood and that's its strength. But some atheists understand it too.

[garfield]

Mar 1, 2013 14:41:37 GMT 10 pim said:

Apparently in the vastness of the universe, there are so many variables that even a snowball's chances in hell are considered good enough odds that any given scenario will happen somewhere.

As for "higher" species evolving from "lower" species, I think I'd rather defer to Richard Dawkins on that one. I think he'd dispute "higher" and "lower".

Let's compare the indigenous peoples of our respective countries because it helps us approach this issue as equals. I know probably as little about Canadian First Peoples (or is it "First Nations"?) as you'd know about the indigenous inhabitants of our Wide Brown Land. Is that a fair statement?

Here's what I know - or can infer - about the indigenous peoples who had to themselves the land that Toronto is now located on before any whitefellas, French or English, came to North America. Were they nomadic? I don't really know but I suspect they were. The "teepees" (forgive me if my terminology is incorrect - I'm doing my best here and I know so little I'm afraid my "best" isn't very good!) seem to me to be structures that could easily be dismantled and transported to a new location. How am I doing? But here's the kicker! Did they practise any sort of agriculture? I have an idea they did practise a limited form of agriculture. Am I wrong? What about metallurgy? I don't think they did. We're talking Stone Age technology aren't we? What about inter-tribal trade? Only guessing here but I'd be surprised if trade within pre-Columban North America wasn't rich and extenive. If you want to correct me and tell me I'm totally wrong and have no idea then I'll happily bow to your superior knowledge.

Now, what if we pose the same questions regarding Australia's indigenous inhabitants pre-European contact: Nomadic? Yes! Housing? Definitely not teepees, in fact they threw up structures called "humpies" fashioned from materials that were accessible and available wherever they were and simply left them when they moved on. Weapons? No archery, they made and used spears - very good spears of many types for many purposes which they wielded with great skill, but no bows & arrows. Agriculture? Nope! Their culture and economy was a hunter-gatherer one. But they traded. I've seen charts devised by anthropologists of ancient Australian trade routes and they covered the entire continent.

Let me tell you that the great British explorer both our countries have in common - James Cook - had with him a Tahitian Polynesian named Tupou whose value was huge when it came to dealing with New Zealand Maoris since he could communicate with them and there were all sorts of cultural reference points in common (NZ Maoris after all were transplanted Tahitians - who'd transplanted themselves quite a few centuries previously). But his reaction to the first Aborigines that Cook's expedition came across was an extremely negative one. Here was the first contact between Polynesian culture and Aboriginal culture and it wasn't a happy one. Tupou definitely thought in terms of "higher" and "lower" in relation to these people.

What is clear is that pre-European contact Australia was inhabited by a collection of peoples speaking hundreds of different languages and with as much variety as exists between the nations of Europe, but living in a paleolithic hunter/gatherer culture.

What would you say, Dib? How do you compare the First Nations of each oif our countres? Do we use the terms "higher" and "lower"? To be honest I think those terms are part of the problem and they obscure more than they shed light.

Take dogs. I like dogs - or rather they seem to like me. I don't have a pet, but if I go to a friend's house and they have a pet dog, it generally bounds up with its tongue hanging and its tail wagging. I prefer labradors. I detest "dogs" that are little and ratty. I loathe chiahuahuas.

But leaving that aside, we're told that dogs are descended from wolves. So even a disgusting little chiahuahua has distant wolf ancestors. I'm at a loss to figure how your "higher" and "lower" paradigm applies in this case.

Take crocodiles. We have quite a few of them in northern coastal regions in this country. The saltwater crocs are the ones that'll grab you, kill you in their death roll and take your body somewhere so that it can eat you. The salties are big sons-of-bitches. They can grow to over 6 metres, or about 20 feet. It seems that their remote ancestors were Cretaceous monsters that grew to something like 40 feet!! Now that is one big bugger of a croc! How is the "higher"/"lower" paradigm working for you here, Dib? It isn't working for me!

Is there a purpose to all this? An evolutionist like Dawkins would argue that there isn't. Now Dib I have to respect that. I don't know what the North America equivalent of the Royal Society is but from where we sit if a scientist is admitted to the Royal Society on the basis of his/her work in his/her speciality then that carries a certain weight, a certain status, a certain prestige. So Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and a world authority. If he says that there's no purpose then I'd have to take him a lot more seriously than I'd take somebody who posts on NTB. On the other hand the Pope (oh that's right, there isn't one right now but there will be soon) might argue that there is a divine purpose behind a chiahuahua evolving from a wolf, or a sparrow evolving from a dinosaur or a butterfly evolving from a grub which somehow changed into a flying creature to feast off the nectar of flowers when they evolved from whatever it is that flowers evolved from.

Dawkins argues that if there is any constant factor in evolution it's the "selfish gene". A theologian might argue - and probably does! - that it's all part of a divine plan whose complexity and extent is beyond the grasp of mortals like thee and me. Where does "truth" lie in all of this? The truth lies in the awe and majesty that people like Darwin and, in our own time, Dawkins, experience at the mere contemplation of this. Others will look for the Divine and the Numinous in all of this. The point about "who's right and who's wrong?" is that it misses the point. So what is the point? Whatever "the point" is, it has to start with awe and majesty. The "truth" always needs to be approached with a certain humility. It's something that religion has always understood and that's its strength. But some atheists understand it too.

Pim likes to waffle a bit so I'll just give you the short version dibbo ... dib you're fucked in the head mate! ;D

[pim]

Never mind, Garfield, you're not to be taken seriously. And that's fine if all you want is to be the board jester/clown. But don't whinge when we decide not to take you seriously - OK?

Oh, and on that "when" thing. Y'know - "when we dicide not to take you seriously"? We've passed the "when" point. We're talking "now".

[garfield]

Mar 1, 2013 18:18:06 GMT 10 pim said:

Never mind, Garfield, you're not to be taken seriously.

Well I have noticed of late that you are taking me seriously and much cockroach like scurrying has been going on in order to try and prove that you haven't ;D

[Occam's Spork]

Mar 1, 2013 14:41:37 GMT 10 pim said:

Apparently in the vastness of the universe, there are so many variables that even a snowball's chances in hell are considered good enough odds that any given scenario will happen somewhere.

Perhaps.
But using that line of logic: For every single percent the chances of likelihood increase; in every square foot of the universe invariably the chances of unlikelihood increase in manifold.

[Occam's Spork]

Mar 1, 2013 21:51:14 GMT 10 @buzzock said:

people do not trust Roman Catholic priests any more - now that all the abuse is known about

Buzz is practicing his non-sequiturs, I see.

[Occam's Spork]

Pim,
It seems from the context of your post, you didn't completely understand what I was telling you.
I'll try to explain further when time permits.

[fat]

Mar 1, 2013 23:24:11 GMT 10 @buzzock said:

oh it follows

people do not trust Roman Catholic priests because of all the rape of children.

Buzz - there are a number of things I find wrong with your statement.

First - there are still many people within and outside the Roman Catholic faith who still hold priests in high esteem and trust them.
Second - not all rapes of children are perpetrated by Roman Catholic priests.
Third and most important - Every Roman Catholic priest I know and or have known would defend a child against any sort of assault(sexual or otherwise) with their very life if necessary and every Roman Catholic priest I know and or have known would decry assault(sexual or otherwise) against a child (or an adult for that matter) as being amongst the worst wrongs one person can do to another.

Sorry Buzz but your sweeping vilification of all things Catholic or Christian is wearing quite thin.

[garfield]

Get god to smite him fat ;D