Aethism and Agnosticism in the world.

[Dooey Jo]

Well I know that most of the strong believers that I've met takes some kind of pride in that they can't possibly be proven wrong (in their world, that makes them right, of course).

You should introduce them to Sagan's dragon.

I do. To them, that's being childish (it's a very fascinating experience, being called childish and/or immature by someone who believes that some diseases are actually caused by demons).

[Glocksman]

There's a post over at the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog entitled "Hostility to Atheism - The Last Socially Acceptable Prejudice?" that has some interesting statistics.

Linka

A new study by University of Minnesota sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerties and Douglas Hartmann confirms the longstanding research finding that public hostility towards atheists is considerably more widespread than that towards any other ethnic or religious minority group. Edgell, et al. conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups and found that prejudice against atheists topped the scale. For example, almost 40% of respondents characterized atheists as a group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society." Note that the question did not ask whether the respondent disagrees with atheists on some issues (which would be a perfectly understandable and noninvidious view), but asks if they are a group that does not at all share his views.

The figures for other groups on this question (with rounding to whole numbers):

Muslims: 26%

Homosexuals: 23

Conservative Christians: 14

Recent immigrants: 13

Jews: 8

Scholars have long recognized that a key indication of tolerance for a group is willingness to accept intermarriage with its members. Here too, intolerance for atheists leads the pack. Below are the percentages of respondents stating, with respect to particular groups, that "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group" (rounded to whole numbers):

Atheists: 48

Muslims: 34

African-Americans: 27

Asian-Americans: 19

Hispanic-Americans: 19

Jews: 12

Conservative Christians: 7

Obviously, some people simply oppose intermarriage with any religious group other than their own. However, this cannot explain the high opposition to intermarriage with atheists, as it is clear from the results that numerous non-Jewish and non-Muslim respondents are willing to accept intermarriage with Jews and in some cases with Muslims, but unwilling to do so in the case of atheists. A particularly interesting point is that hostility towards Muslims on both this question and the previous one lags well behind hostility to atheists - even despite 9/11.

The Minnesota results are consistent with other survey evidence going back for years. For example, atheists consistently score at the bottom when respondents are asked whether they would be willing support a "qualified" presidential candidate nominated by their party who was a member of a particular group (even homosexual candidates, the next most unpopular, are less widely rejected).

Other, more qualitative, indicators of prejudice also point to widespread hostility towards atheists, even as compared to other relatively unpopular groups. For example, despite considerable antagonism towards homosexuals in many quarters, there have been quite a few openly gay members of Congress, including even some conservative Republican ones such as Rep. Jim Kolbe and Rep. Steve Gunderson. By contrast, there has never been, to my knowledge, even one openly unbelieving congressman or senator, despite the fact that atheists and agnostics are roughly 3% of the population (about the same as the percentage of gays, and a bit larger than the percentage of Jews). Nor has there ever been an openly atheist president, vice-president, governor, Supreme Court Justice, or member of the Cabinet. While I certainly would not argue that justice requires proportional representation of atheists in these bodies, the absence of even one open atheist in high political office is still striking.

Similarly, organizations such as the Boy Scouts have taken considerable flak for their refusal to accept gays. But the Scouts have gotten far less criticism for their equally categorical rejection of atheists. As in the case of intermarriage, I have no principled objection to groups limited to people who share their particular religion (e.g. - an all-Catholic or all-Jewish group). The Scouts however, accept members of any and all religions - no matter how odious their beliefs on various issues may be - but reject all avowed atheists and agnostics. I am not arguing that the government should force the Boy Scouts and other similar groups to accept atheists. In my view, it shouldn't. However, that should not stop us from criticizing their bigotry.

A common argument for various forms of discrimination against atheists is the claim that atheism is a belief system, not an involuntary identity like race or homosexuality. It is indeed sometimes appropriate to show hostility towards people because of their reprehensible beliefs (e.g. - in the case of KKK members). But we generally reject such categorical hostility towards members of most religious groups such as Jews or Catholics. The same principle should apply to atheists - especially since atheism, unlike some religions, is actually compatible with a very wide range of views on moral and political issues. For example, there have been prominent socialist atheists (e.g. - Marx), prominent libertarian ones (e.g. - Ayn Rand), and even notable conservative atheists such as Whittaker Chambers. The only common belief that all atheists share is denial of the existence of God, and that should not be a sufficient reason to hate them or discriminate against them as a group.

To avoid misunderstanding, I am NOT suggesting that the position of atheists in the United States is worse than that of homosexuals or African-Americans. In fact, I believe the opposite is actually closer to the truth. However, the data do strongly suggest that hostility towards atheists is more widespread (even if perhaps less intensely felt) and considered more socially acceptable than racism and homophobia. Even if the survey results are biased by the unwillingness of some respondents to admit racist views, it is still noteworthy that fewer people seem to have such inhibitions about admitting hostility towards atheists.

NOTE: the link to the Minnesota data above is to a summary on an atheist website because this is the most thorough description I was able to find on the internet. However, the study itself was not conducted or funded by any atheist organization.

CORRECTION: After checking, it turns out that I was wrong to say that Whittaker Chambers was an atheist even after becoming a conservative. However, I stand by the broader point that atheism is compatible with a wide range of moral and political views, including conservatism. Thus, hostility towards atheism on the grounds of its alleged political and/or moral implications is unjustified.

Thoughts?

[Lord Zentei]

Well I know that most of the strong believers that I've met takes some kind of pride in that they can't possibly be proven wrong (in their world, that makes them right, of course).

You should introduce them to Sagan's dragon.

I do. To them, that's being childish (it's a very fascinating experience, being called childish and/or immature by someone who believes that some diseases are actually caused by demons).

Ah, the joy of witnessing psychological projection in action. I guess they reject the notion of "burden of proof fallacy", then or perhaps only some unfalsifiable postulates of invisible beings are "childish".

OK: how about a different take on Sagan's dragon... use one that is an actual character in some beleif system or other, only not well known, so they'll call it "childish"... then you point out to them that they are in fact insulting XYZ million people. Then ask them to define where the difference lies between these "dragons".

Doubtless they'll wriggle and accuse you of whatever, but it's still hilarious.

[Surlethe]

You should introduce them to Sagan's dragon.

I do. To them, that's being childish (it's a very fascinating experience, being called childish and/or immature by someone who believes that some diseases are actually caused by demons).

If they were honest, they'd admit Sagan's dragon is just as likely as God to exists; the beautiful thing about faith is that, as long as you're consistent about it, you can't be proven wrong, but it's hypocritical to be inconsistent. Unfortunately, most people of faith don't think enough about it to be consistent in it, so you run up against "childish" and claims of that nature.

[CarsonPalmer]

Doeey Jo, I don't know you're situation, but if they weren't trying to convert you, do you really need to try and disprove their religion? Is there really a point? Of course, if they were insulting you for being an atheist, that's different.

[Zero]

After Glocksman's little article there, I sincerely hope I never have aspirations towards marriage with a chick who's family is part of that 48%.

[Zor]

Whoot! Twentieth Place for the true north Strong and Free!

Oh Canada!

ZOr

[defanatic]

Is atheism normally spelt like that? It seems like a rather common error.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Is atheism normally spelt like that? It seems like a rather common error.

It's "theism" with "a" as a prefix. Not that hard to remember.

[Zadius]

Is atheism normally spelt like that? It seems like a rather common error.

Spelt like what? The mispelling in the subject line? No, I don't think it's that common an error in my experience.

[Dooey Jo]

Doeey Jo, I don't know you're situation, but if they weren't trying to convert you, do you really need to try and disprove their religion? Is there really a point? Of course, if they were insulting you for being an atheist, that's different.

It's a public message board, and if they just say something like "I believe this and that", then I don't really give a damn. However, they have a nasty habit of insulting not just me, but everyone that does not accept them as the preachers of truth that they think they are. For instance, everyone who does not believe in his particular god are alcoholic parasites, according to one. All atheists are liars, says another...

Also, many of them tries to convert everyone they see, usually through stuff like "science/evolution is evil" and "I have found the truth, so can you", "why do you hate God" etc., and I'd really hate it if anyone actually bought into that, so I disprove their claims. They don't like that though, so they call me things, and they do it when I say pretty much anything, not just when I'm making interesting comparisons between gods and invisible dragons. Do note that I once got banned from a sub-forum there for saying basically "Hey fuckhead, how's about you stop calling me immature and address the fucking points instead?" (and also "Grow a brain" when he said "Grow up", but that was a thread about climate changes, earthquakes and plane crashes), so showing that they are stupid and don't know what they're talking about is about everything I can do...

And hell, I even get "fan mail" sometimes, so I guess it's appreciated

[defanatic]

Is atheism normally spelt like that? It seems like a rather common error.

It's "theism" with "a" as a prefix. Not that hard to remember.

Which is my point. I seem to pick up quite a lot of "ae"s instead of "a"s. I'm just asking where it comes from.

[houser2112]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

On the way in to work this morning, somebody called in to the inane morning show we were listening to when the topic was American Idol. Apparently, the latest victim of being voted off was a hefty black woman (Mandisa, I think her name was). The woman calling in said that she and her coworkers felt a kinship with her because they were also hefty, until Mandisa "went all Jesus on them". At this point, they all called in to have her voted off.

So, I guess there's a sliver of hope in the world for atheists in this one small aspect of society. I hope no one minds the thread necromancy too much...