Atheists most distrusted minority?

[Swift]

It annoys me when people say "I prayed to God and he answered my prayer." Actually, a lady on Fox News said this yesterday after a car chase cam to an end and she was expressing her joy that he hit no pedestrians. God had nothing to do with it, he just didn't hit anyone. Simple as that. Or when Jeff Gordan says "I'd like to thank God for giving me the strength to win this race." No, you just ate a healthy breakfast.

Well, you don't even know if there is a God or not. So how can you say that there expressions of thanksgiving are in vain?

 

[Keef]

My belief is that their prayers are futile because I do not believe there is a God. However, I also believe that a God will never be proven to exist or not, so you and I both should not and can not accept this opinion as fact.

 

[Wolfe]

Swift -- you've misinterpreted the definition of an agnostic. Agnostics believe that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists, so they neither believe in one, nor do they denounce the existence of one. They stand in the middle, with religious peoples on one side and atheists on the other.

So, an agnostic-atheist would be someone who says, (as Event put it) "well, I don't think there's a god, but there's no way to prove it either way."

An agnostic-Christian would be someone who says, "I think that God exists, but I admit that there's no way to prove it."

 

[Kylehnat]

Why distrust atheists? The worst people in the world are religious fanatics.

 

[niky]

Don't go there... don't open the box... nooooO!

I often think of myself as an atheist, but agnostic will do.

The poll results are probably a factor of the poll respondents being very religious. The more religious you are, the more you distrust people who aren't.

More religion = more black and white

Less religion = more gray

The question is not whether you're comfortable with black and white definitions of morality (obviously, we all were at some time... when you're a little kid, all morality is black and white), it's how well you cope with the fact that in the modern world, it's difficult to apply a black and white morality to conflicting cultural and social situations and values.

I like the gray, but it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. And you can't get any grayer than atheists.

Thus, nobody likes them godless 'uns.

 

[Ev0]

I think lots of the distrust arises from the whole 'either you're with us or you're against us' mentality.

And I also find the 5% figure to be quite low; nearly everyone I know who is around my age is an atheist.

 

[Max_DC]

Sorry for being off topic, but is Roman Catholic your nationality then? I'm confused...

I'm with Pako...

Roman Catholic is a religion, not a nationality. Unless you were born in vatacant city.

So, how can you be a catholic and not believe in God?

I'm German, but I am nevertheless "Roman Catholic". You know I was christened/ baptized etc. My parents were in catholic aswell, but they quit because of Church taxes ( yes, Germany might be the last place on earth where the government takes taxes for the Vatican ).... I don't have to pay these taxes yet since I still study. I'll probably quit my membership in a few years, sometimes it's useful for your job though, so I might also stay catholic a little longer.

 

[HondaRacer]

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/burningbush.html

This article is a very interesting argument for atheism. I would consider myself agnostic, possibly atheistic, but I think because I was raised Christian I'm still holding on to some part of it deep inside of myself.

I can honestly say that my notion of faith was crushed though when I discovered that Santa Claus wasn't real.

 

[TsLeng]

I would say I distrust religious fanatics/hippocrits more than anything else.

They can twist and turn, use religion to their advantage all the while duping those gullible 'believers' under them.
And their favorite quote is 'shut up, you don't know about my religion'



Atheist, as long as they don't harm anybody, why care?

 

[Touring Mars]

Why do I need a God in order to be moral? I direct my own morality.

I'd agree with the contention that the root of this 'distrust' of atheists is down to a common belief that atheists somehow 'lack moral fibre',or that somehow, by abandoning the (irrational) concept of a supernatural creator, an atheist somehow also abandons those notions of morality that are described or proscribed in the Bible... while the Bible (and religious faith in general) may indeed provide a source for moral guidance, neither is infact a source of morals themselves... you learn moral behaviour from your parents and a myriad of other influencing factors in your childhood/adolescence... I don't believe for a second that not having the Bible or religious faith in your life means that you will be morally disadvantaged/inferior/challenged... infact, rationality and humanism (two concepts that most atheists subscribe to) are actually a very solid basis for learning (and indeed living) with high moral standards.

Paraphrased from here:-

"Physicist and Nobel prizewinner Stephen Weinberg says about religious belief: 'Without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.' Richard Dawkins agrees. It is more moral, he says, to do good for its own sake than out of fear. Morality, he says, is older than religion, and kindness and generosity are innate in human beings, as they are in other social animals. The irony is that science recognises the majesty and complexity of the universe while religions lead to easy, closed answers.

 

[Duke]

I'd agree with the contention that the root of this 'distrust' of atheists is down to a common belief that atheists somehow 'lack moral fibre',or that somehow, by abandoning the (irrational) concept of a supernatural creator, an atheist somehow also abandons those notions of morality that are described or proscribed in the Bible... while the Bible (and religious faith in general) may indeed provide a source for moral guidance, neither is infact a source of morals themselves.

I have literally had religious people ask me directly how I could possibly have any morals if I didn't believe in a god. On this forum, even, among others. It's like they simply couldn't conceive that there was an independent concept of "right and wrong" outside of religious scripture.

 

[Swift]

An agnostic-Christian would be someone who says, "I think that God exists, but I admit that there's no way to prove it."

No, sorry. That person is an idiot. A Christian is some that believes in God as much as they believe in the ground they walk on. One CANNOT be an agnostic and a Christrian at the same time. It's an oxymoron.

Sure, you've got people out there that are, quite frankly, too afraid of what will happen if they say they are a christian so they try to play middle of the road. But just like the late Pat Morita(Mr Miagi) said in Karate Kid, "Right side OK, left side OK, Middle sooner or later *squish* just like grape."

So can we get away from the Christian-agnostic thing now please?

I'm German, but I am nevertheless "Roman Catholic". You know I was christened/ baptized etc. My parents were in catholic aswell, but they quit because of Church taxes ( yes, Germany might be the last place on earth where the government takes taxes for the Vatican ).... I don't have to pay these taxes yet since I still study. I'll probably quit my membership in a few years, sometimes it's useful for your job though, so I might also stay catholic a little longer.

Hmm...things must be different in Germany then. But either way, a catholic is someone with a specific belief set, what you're talking about is a group affiliation. That's fine, it just has nothing at all to do with religion, spirituality or God.

 

[Max_DC]

Hmm...things must be different in Germany then. But either way, a catholic is someone with a specific belief set, what you're talking about is a group affiliation. That's fine, it just has nothing at all to do with religion, spirituality or God.

You're absolutly right : that has nothing to do with my beliefs. But in the statisics I am catholic,, you know ? I'm a member so to say. Maybe like those GTP members who have 0 posts and who visited this site 3 times in total. They are members, but they don't believe in GTP ....
So all I wanted to say is, that there statistics say : 5% atheists on this planet.
And I think that this number is too low. Many young people are members of their local church, because their parents/grandparents/society wants them to go there, but who says that they believe in god ?

 

[Wolfe]

No, sorry. That person is an idiot. A Christian is some that believes in God as much as they believe in the ground they walk on. One CANNOT be an agnostic and a Christrian at the same time. It's an oxymoron.

faith (n.)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Sure, you've got people out there that are, quite frankly, too afraid of what will happen if they say they are a christian so they try to play middle of the road. But just like the late Pat Morita(Mr Miagi) said in Karate Kid, "Right side OK, left side OK, Middle sooner or later *squish* just like grape."

So you're saying that all agnostics are just Christians in denial?

Beliefs aren't black-and-white -- very often there are more than two choices or viewpoints on any moral, religious, or scientific topic.

If someone doesn't practice a religion, that doesn't automatically make them an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as a god, just as strongly/devoutly as someone who believes that there is such a thing as a god.

An agnostic is simply someone who hasn't been convinced by the arguments on either side, and believes that no one can really know whether or not a god exists.

So can we get away from the Christian-agnostic thing now please?

I didn't intend to emphasize the Christian-agnostic thing, nor was it my main point. You seemed to have misinterpreted the definition of "agnostic," and I was explaining what it meant.

 

[Swift]

faith (n.)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

Yes, and? I know exactly what faith is. I'm not talking about faith, I'm talking about being a Christian. Christians don't have doubts about the existance of God. At times they may waiver in faith as noone has perfect faith. But that doesn't mean that every five minutes they need someone to convince them that God exists.

So you're saying that all agnostics are just Christians in denial?

Beliefs aren't black-and-white -- very often there are more than two choices or viewpoints on any moral, religious, or scientific topic.

If someone doesn't practice a religion, that doesn't automatically make them an atheist. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as a god, just as strongly/devoutly as someone who believes that there is such a thing as a god.

An agnostic is simply someone who hasn't been convinced by the arguments on either side, and believes that no one can really know whether or not a god exists.

I'm saying an agonostic christian is like a liberal-libertarian. You can't be one and the other at the same time. It simply doesn't work.

I didn't intend to emphasize the Christian-agnostic thing, nor was it my main point. You seemed to have misinterpreted the definition of "agnostic," and I was explaining what it meant.

I understand that, I just wanted to clearify the misunderstanding.

 

[Famine]

Just to run to Wikipedia again...

Atheism in the United Kingdom
A poll in 2004 by the BBC put the number of people who do not believe in a god to be 40%, while a YouGov poll in the same year put the percentage of non-believers at 35% with 21% uncertain. In the YouGov poll men were less likely to believe in god than women and younger people were less likely to believe in god than older people.

Atheism in the United States
A Gallup poll in 2005 showed 5% of the US population feel that a god does not exist. A poll in 2004 by the BBC showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in God to be larger, at 10%.

 

[Wolfe]

Yes, and? I know exactly what faith is. I'm not talking about faith, I'm talking about being a Christian. Christians don't have doubts about the existance of God. At times they may waiver in faith as noone has perfect faith. But that doesn't mean that every five minutes they need someone to convince them that God exists.

I'm saying an agonostic christian is like a liberal-libertarian. You can't be one and the other at the same time. It simply doesn't work.

You said, "a Christian is some that believes in God as much as they believe in the ground they walk on," but my understanding of Christianity, and religion in general, was that it is based on faith rather than empirical evidence, or the search for such evidence. Is it not true that some Christians believe that, if you feel the need to prove that God exists, you simply don't have enough faith in him?

I never said anything about doubt. My fictional example agnostic-Christian said that he/she believes -- whole-heartedly and devoutly -- that God exists, even though it's impossible to prove it.

Admitting the impossibility of proof is what constitutes the "agnostic" part of the equation.

 

[Keef]

I believe that any sensible person, wether religious or not, knows that it is impossible to prove the existence of a God. It's only the hardcore religious freaks that say "Look, you see that tree? That's proof that God exists!" I think everyone will agree, at least I hope, that it is truly impossible to prove a God's existence.
If you think it is possible, share your ideas. Go on, then.

 

[Wolfe]

I believe that any sensible person, wether religious or not, knows that it is impossible to prove the existence of a God. It's only the hardcore religious freaks that say "Look, you see that tree? That's proof that God exists!" I think everyone will agree, at least I hope, that it is truly impossible to prove a God's existence.
If you think it is possible, share your ideas. Go on, then.

Actually, many people believe in miracles and divine intervention, which provide more than enough proof for them...

 

[Canadian Speed]

People’s faiths are often questioned... It wouldn't be normal to never question... It's our very nature to do so... So I think it's possible to kind of be agnostic and Catholic, or any other religion for that matter, at the same time, though I really don't think it's a correct term to use... You’re still a “what ever” going through a period of doubt. If you’re simply spiritual, okay, call your self agnostic all you want. But if you’re still holding some part of a faith or religion to heart, then in reality, you should class yourself in that category. Like if you celebrate Christmas but don’t believe in God, you’re a Christian to some extent and that would be the defining religion. If you’re celebrating Hanukahs, but don’t believe in Yahweh, you’re still Jewish… Perhaps a better term for what I mean is “non practicing”. Just like atheism… That’s a big leap… It means that in your heart of hearts, there is no God, no super power, nothing at all… If you have a glimmer of a doubt that there is something or could be something out there, then you truly aren’t an Atheist… I can see that where the problem arises from… and I guess if you’d want to, you could call yourself a “non-practicing atheist”, but really, what would be the point. With atheism it’s all or nothing as it places itself to the extreme “negative”(as in void or absolute zero) of everything else. I agree with those that say take a stand and make it black and white… In this matter, or in any matter, most people are just to afraid to make a stand on what they truly believe and/or think most of the time… Most don’t know what to think. Mainly because all of our lives, we’re being told what to think, without acutely doing it for ourselves. It is possible to be of a faith, but to a lesser degree. People are often to quick to jump to another “bracket” to class themselves, with atheism and agnostic being the new buzz words for religious people doubting something. Take it from me, the non-practicing gansta’ rapper. I mean, I don’t rap, I don’t have bling, write songs, wear the clothes, speak like one, associate with other rappers or even like the music… But in my heart, I pure Wesside! Also, ganstas are cool at the moment so I want to associate myself with them.

 

[Swift]

I never said anything about doubt. My fictional example agnostic-Christian said that he/she believes -- whole-heartedly and devoutly -- that God exists, even though it's impossible to prove it.

Admitting the impossibility of proof is what constitutes the "agnostic" part of the equation.

Actually, many people believe in miracles and divine intervention, which provide more than enough proof for them...

That's very correct. Though not the only way that I "prove" God to myself and others.

 

[Pupik]

Just to run to Wikipedia again...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia/Atheism
...
Atheism in the United States
A Gallup poll in 2005 showed 5% of the US population feel that a god does not exist. A poll in 2004 by the BBC showed the number of people in the US who don't believe in God to be larger, at 10%.

(my underlines, of course)

I wonder if the wording of these two statements might have something to do with the variation. Existence of something verus disbelief of something aren't really opposites, since people can have a lack of belief in whether drinking and driving is a dangerous thing, for example.

As stated above, it's tough to admit to people that you don't believe in God; people will automatically think your evil or Satan, because a lot of religous and moral upbringing makes them think there's only two sides, and that life is very dualistic. Some people also think that athiests are out to brainwash them in return. And that you can't have your own core values and judgements, and even if they resemble anything like their beliefs, they just think you're just "stealing" from their beliefs.

Strangely, I've had people tell me I'm a good Christian when I do something nice, without a second thought. I usually return a half smile when I hear that. I do hate to open their personal Pandora's box.

I had a chemistry professor that put athiesm in an interesting way (he did like to walk off in a tangent every 5 minutes, which could get interesting): "I'm a scientist. I feel the need for proof of everything. That's why I don't believe in God; I have no proof, nobody's ever shown me proof. But if someone can show me proof, or I can prove God exists, then I am no longer an athiest. You, as scientists should do the same with anything that requires faith, whether it's religous, or otherwise. I'm not telling you to stop believing in God, only that you prove or disprove to yourself that he exists, and then make a decision."

 

[Kylehnat]

As stated above, it's tough to admit to people that you don't believe in God; people will automatically think your evil or Satan, because a lot of religous and moral upbringing makes them think there's only two sides, and that life is very dualistic.

Yup. It's somewhat of a taboo in this country to not believe in God. And the ensuing argument that you will get from some people as to why you should accept the Lord as your savior is very annoying. Hence, it is often easier to just go with the flow.

Strangely, I've had people tell me I'm a good Christian when I do something nice, without a second thought. I usually return a half smile when I hear that. I do hate to open their personal Pandora's box.

Me too. I was doing a landscape restoration with a group of people, and at the end of the day, someone stood up and said "God has done great work today! Thank you, Christians!" God? I'm the one holding the shovel in my aching arms, not Him. Christians? That's a bold assumption. I did it because it would make the community look better, not because I'm trying to stamp my ticket to heaven. Apparently others were doing the latter.

 

[Swift]

I did it because it would make the community look better, not because I'm trying to stamp my ticket to heaven. Apparently others were doing the latter.

No, we do things like that because they need to be done. Just like you. We're not "better" because we do those things. Also, you can't get into heaven through good works. If you could, everyone would be "good" just to get in.

 

[James2097]

Atheists distrusted... I'd trust an atheist doctor MORE with my life than a religious one. The atheist would possibly be a little more responsible, knowing the finality of life when you die.

You only get one life, better take good care of it and make the most of it! Morals just happen naturally, as leading your life in such a way is clearly the most pleasing and comfortable way to live. Having friends is what humans thrive on - if we have no morals, we have no friends. Obviously. Morals are universal, not really specifically religious. Good, well respected people will have a strong general set of morals/values not completely dissimilar to religious teachings. Religion is just for people that can't work it out for themselves and need guidance. Hence why so many convicted criminals turn to God in jail!

But of course atheists are mistrusted... They often-times challenge the concept of religion with logic. If the majority is religious, of course they are gonna feel annoyed/mistrustful/uncomfortable around atheists. Atheists can be a little blunt too – definately part of the cold-logic outlook. Doesn't mean they don't have hearts of gold hidden underneath... All humans are the damn same! The sooner we all realise this - wait - we haven't realised this nor ever will (at least with 100% understanding) since humans first encountered another slightly "different" human from a another tribe – they are (obviously!) mistrustful!

We're all the bloody same underneath. Very similar morals, very similar values. But put us all in together we've got no hope. Thats why multiculturalism doesn't really work in hindsight.

 

[Swift]

You only get one life, better take good care of it and make the most of it! Morals just happen naturally, as leading your life in such a way is clearly the most pleasing and comfortable way to live. Having friends is what humans thrive on - if we have no morals, we have no friends. Obviously. Morals are universal, not really specifically religious. Good, well respected people will have a strong general set of morals/values not completely dissimilar to religious teachings. Religion is just for people that can't work it out for themselves and need guidance. Hence why so many convicted criminals turn to God in jail!

Sorry, but you just made universal morals very relative. Morals happen naturally? Ok, so if you naturally happen to not care to much about what happens to others and you find people that are the same, would it not be possible to become friends?

So, how does that scenario fit into what you were just saying?

We're all the bloody same underneath. Very similar morals, very similar values. But put us all in together we've got no hope. Thats why multiculturalism doesn't really work in hindsight.

That's the wisest statement you've ever made on this board that I've read.

 

[Danoff]

Morality comes from pure simple logic.

 

[Swift]

Morality comes from pure simple logic.

But not for everyone.

 

[Keef]

Everyone has a different pure, simple logic. For a convienence store robber it's pure: "I need money to provide for myself and family but I can't get a job and can't afford school." It's simple: "I go in the store, take the money. Those business owners are rich anyway, they don't need it." Bill Gates's habit of drowning charities with money is pure logic: "There are many more people out there that could use this money much more than I." It's simple: "One man doesn't need all this money so I'll handd it over to others for free." Of course, he may have a belief that the government just abuses the money it makes in taxes so he's just getting rid of it as quick as posible so they don't get it. But I thought the first one sounded nicer. Anyhow, those two people have very different morals when it comes to property and who deserves what, but they both have a certain way of thinking and a method to get there.
So who doesn't have pure and simple logic? I realize children don't have a method of thinking, but they can't grasp morality, either, so give us an adult example.

 

[James2097]

Sorry, but you just made universal morals very relative. Morals happen naturally? Ok, so if you naturally happen to not care to much about what happens to others and you find people that are the same, would it not be possible to become friends?

Slightly different from what I was intending, but I'll answer your question anyways..

If you happen to just not care about anyone, and neither does your new friend? Sure you have that in common, but doesn't it mean you can't really be friends in the purest sense of the word? Surely the definition of a friend is someone you care about, even just a little. You have to care about them enough, to the point of realising that person's survival benefits your own. If you don't have the value system in your head that lets you care for anyone at all (even for purely personal gain through collective gain)... you can't ever truly gain any morals...

As humans ARE without a doubt tribal animals... We function and succeed better in our environment when looking out for each other and the common good, we "naturally" developed morals and values that give some rules as to how we should behave in this society. Some of these rules would have been learned the hard way by trial and error "If I steal that dude's food he will kill me, but if I share my food with him, he will save my butt when a tiger comes!"... I'm not saying we always had morals, but that the development of those morals can and probably has happened regardless of religious teachings. I believe its the natural way for humans to exist. People that acted with good morals and respected their friends did better because they soon became happily part of a successful tribe/group. These kinds of moral behaviours slowly lead to us becoming moral, civilised beings, as we could achieve so much more together as a species (both personally and collectively) when behaving morally (as you get back the good that you give, and more. This creates a solid foundation in the society of respect and value of each person. We can act more confidently and know we are working to the same goal for everyone to benefit much more than they could working by themselves). Whether this is catching fish, hunting mammoth or building the Ancient Greek Empire, or indeed the Empire State Building... its very similar in concept. Even wanting the economy to do better - everyone benefits indirectly.

I'm saying morals benefit everyone, basically. If you act fairly, you will be treated fairly likewise. If you value someone else's life, they will most likely value yours. Its a win-win, and what you can achieve together is greater than the sum of the parts (as proven by the rise of civilisation and the spread of humans to every part of the globe). Thats why I think people naturally gained a moral perspective on life... they soon found it worked for them in the long run (moral thought may have needed a tipping point in human intelligence to work... You need enough brains to think about the future further than "damn I'm hungry, I'll steal your food"). Plus, we NEED to have family and friends close (I think this is in our damned DNA somewhere, its such a strong universal thing) so we have some company and a greater chance of survival. Obviously we need some rules that let us hang onto those people we need to survive.

In some ways, I think religion could be kinda like a way to get people to play by the rules, so that everyone benefits (right from caveman times to now). But if you understand the rules already and the good they do to society (and hence you!) to stick to them, it doesn't neccessitate the need to be religious to act morally.

Danoff is right in that it just takes the first logical idea to realise moral behaviours benefit us. it just takes a little intelligence to think beyond the immediate future into the next day, and then the day after that....