Panic over the Unknown: America hates Atheists (The Jury Expert)

http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/article.cfm/1/22/2/America-Hates-Atheists

Contempt for out-groups--those members of society that are identified as "not like me"--is as old as time. But for all the awareness of bias, hate crimes, and prejudice against minorities, some get overlooked. Atheists are the most mistrusted, reviled, and disliked minority in the United States, according to numerous studies. Jews, African Americans, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, and even the much-mistrusted Muslim communities are all held in higher regard by the average American than are Atheists. The threat of spiritual alienation is more compelling than anything other than immediate injury.

It may be surprising that we Americans are more suspicious of atheists than we are of Muslims, but there you have it! Bias works in mysterious ways. Gad Saad's blog post last year1 (Atheists Are the Most Mistrusted Group: They Are Evil and Immoral!) cast a bright light on a 2006 study published2 (but previously largely unnoticed) by researchers from the University of Minnesota.

. . .
The "Most Hated" Group In America

The American Mosaic Project at the University of Minnesota is focused on diversity in America with a particular focus on race and religion. Mosaic Project researchers asked survey questions to determine Americans' reactions to situations involving members of various out-groups (e.g. a person's feeling about one their children marrying a Jewish or Muslim or Catholic or atheist person)3. Researchers expected (in our post 9-11 reality) that 'Muslim' would be the most prejudiced category. Understandable hypothesis, but incorrect. 'Atheist' was by far the 'lightning rod' category on multiple queries and atheists were even described as "evil and immoral".

These findings are surprising considering bias in America has traditionally been thought of as surrounding race and ethnicity. Clearly, acts of anti-Semitism are present, and both Muslims and Catholics experience active prejudice, but the level of passion against atheists is exceptional.

. . . more

that actually challenges the suppositions of the test takers. Jews, Muslims, etc. may all be different, but at least they believe in God. An atheist, on the other hand, disagrees with your entire belief system, and that tends to put people on the defensive.

atheists are still moral, hold jobs, have families, and can even be happy, which destroys the argument for needing a sky daddy to tell you what to do.

It is always chilling to me when people say that without God people would become sexually licentious serial killers--as if a supernatural cop were the only thing holding back the person making the argument from going wild themselves.

Just because I stopped believing in the Canaanite volcano god Yahweh and his offspring does not mean that I stopped caring about what happens to people. To the contrary, the fact that I don't obey the book of ancient rules telling me who is good and who is going to burn for all eternity in a lake of fire means that I am far less judgmental. Nope... no "Got mit uns" here...

they are in the context of whatever religion they choose.

Some people are going to assholes no matter what--if they are evangelicals, they'll just do it without cussing and drinking.

On the other hand, I've met Christians and others who are the kind of people who would bring cookies to the human sacrifice if they were Satan worshippers.

I had a certain moral sense before I was religious, and was attracted to the faith because it seemed to line up with those values. As I saw more places where they diverged from what I knew to be right and how little of the ''factual'' basis for the faith was in fact factual, I left.

But apart from swearing and a few other mild bad habits, I haven't changed much except that I see more people as part of my in group and fewer and fewer as the dangerous ''other.''

Joseph Campbell, whose work I credit with the final dissolution of my religious belief, once said that religion is the defense against the religious experience. It is my belief that religion has its roots in the mystical experience. The mystic through various practices is able to experience a shift in consciousness and transcends the ego -- or the idea of self -- and understands that there is no "other" only one. When the mystic attempts to explain the experience the use of metaphor is the only way to describe it. Thus the cultural influence of the mystic colors the poetry that is set down. Later priests and theologians reinterpret the metaphor as something more literal and thus give rise to ritual and dogma.

I am certainly agnostic but I have not dismissed the idea of spirituality. I am fairly sure that an atheist can have such a transcendental experience -- it just a matter of peeling off the layers of ones chosen identity until you realize the idea of a self is merely a concept. From there you begin to understand that all things are defined by their relationship to others. There are plenty of people of all faiths who have come to that conclusion and you can tell by fruit they bear.

a meaning beyond that moment.

It's better to let reason determine your actions.

An example of this is the many ''charismatic'' Christians I met who measured their faith by the mystical, ecstatic experiences they had--so when they were depressed or bored, they thought God left them.

Let the facts determine your acts and your feelings will take care of themselves.

When one starts on the path trees are just trees and mountains are just mountains.

As one goes further down the path one sees that trees are not trees and mountains are not mountains.

Then as one goes a long way on the journey trees are once again trees and mountains are again mountains.



The aim of the mystic is to understand the transcendental experience within the context of everyday life -- not to keep searching for a repeat of the experience.

I agree that reason should be the guiding factor for our actions, but I also realize that humans are emotional beings.

And it is clearly evident that you can move more people through an emotional appeal than you can with a reasoned argument. You are free to believe in the supremacy of reason (and I truly wish people were more inclined to use reason) but that does not change human behavior one bit.

to corral those who, like animals, are driven exclusively by emotion.

And that is the double edged sword of emotion. A truly unscrupulous fiend can press on the reptilian emotions of fear and aggression to drive people to commit heinous acts. And I think you would agree with me that critical thinking is the antidote against such poison. However one should not discount the mammalian emotions of joy and love as counters to fear and hate. So I'm a great advocate of reason, love, and joyful expression.

choose."

After all, isn't the true test of ethics what you do when no one is watching you? No god = no one watching what you do.

In at least some Christian sects, they can do whatever the hell the want, ethical or not, because their god will forgive. Apparently forgiveness is automatic, although I cannot figure out why that would be so.

people wonder why I am anti-social

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's sick, really. And it explains our decline.

And full of BS. But that's just me.

:)

Such is the state of our savage nation.

It's a tribal vestige used to maintain control.

More of that conservative projection, I guess. fundamentalists only have moral values because of their fear of god, otherwise they'd be serial rapists and killers.

...the on-line version of the entire Popular Science catalogue.

http://www.popsci.com/archives

Plug in the word 'ATHIEST' and read the articles from the late 19th century. Christians have not changed their argument ONE IOTA over 100+ years. Fascinating history.

(Search also "TORTURE" for more great historical essays about the Christian churches. Amazing stuff.)

;)

Thanks for posting that link.

At our cores, humans are tribal creatures. At least with other religions, they can understand what they believe to be the underlying driver of the other tribe. With Atheists, it just can't be understood, because the driver is (usually) just personal reason, not a broader tribe.