One of the most recent surveys about American attitudes toward atheists is one carried out by the University of Minnesota. Some results:
When asked to identify the group that "does not at all agree with my vision of American society":
Atheists (39.6%)
Muslims (26.3%)
Homosexuals (22.6%)
Conservative Christians (13.5%)
Recent Immigrants (12.5%)
Jews (7.6%)
Responses to the statement "I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group":
Atheists (47.6%)
Muslims (33.5%)
African Americans (27.2%)
Asian Americans (18.5%)
Hispanics (18.5%)
Jews (11.8%)
Conservative Christians (6.9%)
Whites at (2.3%)
Gallup polls also consistently indicate that about half of Americans would not vote for a qualified candidate for President if they knew he/she was an atheist.
Here are the percentages of people from the 1999 Gallup poll saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic:
Atheist (48%)
Muslim (38%)
Gay (37%)
Mormon (17%)
Woman (8%)
Jewish (6%)
Baptist (6%)
Black (5%)
Catholic (4%)
Would you be upset, angry, and/or worried if you lived in a country where nearly half the people said that a member of a group with your religious views didn't share their vision of the country, didn't want you to marry their children, and wouldn't vote for a member of your group for President?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Why yes, yes I would.
Didn't you post this two years ago on your other blog?
Did you ever explore why people resoundingly reject atheism. Could it be the sweet and pleasant way your thought leaders present their ideas. I can go back to a significant number of your posts and show you where you don't come across very loving and accepting.
But here is why atheism is not widely accepted. Because most atheism is based on a very extreme version of egotism and narcissism. It tends to be an extremely sick version of the wounded feeling function that western civilization has been suffering under for about 150 to 200 years. I've blogged about this issue and I encourage you to read Robert Johnson's stuff to understand this issue.
Most people recognize that meaning, purpose and the joys that life has to offer comes from valuing and being valued by other people. Atheism does not address that and your spokes people do not value people, they value being right.
Being right is a very lonely place. Being connected is a beautiful place. You can have your beliefs and you can be connected. However many beliefs will drive you to be alone.
Beliefs are the most important thing you have and what you believe about the world around you will drive all your behavior. Are your beliefs driving you to be alone. Do you believe that being right is justification to say horrible things to people. That will drive those people away from you and you will become a unsafe person to your friends. When you lose trust, you lose the ability to connect.
When atheist recognize that life is about being connected and not about being right, then they have a shoot at being accepted back into society.
You are not reviled, you are unsafe to share with.
> Because most atheism is based on a very extreme version of egotism and narcissism.
Could you please provide some justification for this statement?
> Most people recognize that meaning, purpose and the joys that life has to offer comes from valuing and being valued by other people. Atheism does not address that and your spokes people do not value people, they value being right.
No shit. Atheism isn't a moral philosophy, it's a specific belief about nature. You might as well decry vegetarianism because it does not address "valuing and being valued by other people". All those poor lonely vegetarians, if only they could learn to love.
And that's probably the problem. Most people polled are probably under the same misconception you are, equating atheism with something like nihilism.
Can you point me to any, ANY atheist who does not believe human connection is vital to happiness?
> Being right is a very lonely place. Being connected is a beautiful place. You can have your beliefs and you can be connected. However many beliefs will drive you to be alone.
You crack me up, man. You think being connected requires being wrong? What does that say about the basis of your connections?
When one's ideals are unpopular, that's the most important time to stand up for them.
Can you even accept the possibility that the atheists you know might not be as arrogant and lonely as you claim? That negative reactions of Christians and other theists might be based more on a misperception that because their own moral compass requires existence of a god, that everyone else's must as well?
> When atheist recognize that life is about being connected and not about being right, then they have a shoot at being accepted back into society.
*back* into society? Ha! To what golden age of acceptance would atheists be returning?
*Insert everything Philip just said here because it was brilliant.*
Mark said... Because most atheism is based on a very extreme version of egotism and narcissism.
You should understand that some people consider the religious stance to be the arrogant one, not atheism. In a world without the creation myth, our existance is the result of some extreme probabilities followed by millions of years of slowly improving. To me, the idea that there is an All Powerful God who created the entire Universe and every thing in it.. and that God is interested in your day to day life... that's the one that sounds arrogant to me. Why would such an incredible, awe-inspiring, unbelievably powerful creature be interested in some random schmuck like me? I'm not technically an atheist (although in many ways it's hard to tell me apart from one), but from my perspective I'm unimportant in the grand scale of the universe. I was raised as a Christian, so speaking from experience, the Christian perspective is that the Universe, the Earth and all the animals and plants in it were made specifically for me (us). That there is an epic struggle between Satan and Yahweh wherein I'm in focal point. Will I ally with God or Satan? Can Satan tempt me away from the grace of God? If I stay with God, I'll be rewarded with everlasting life on Earth or in Heaven (depending on which parts of Revelation you read and which you ignore). All of THAT sounds like I'm pretty important and therefore seems like the arrogant stance to me.
> *Insert everything Philip just said here because it was brilliant.*
Thanks, dude!
> You should understand that some people consider the religious stance to be the arrogant one, not atheism.
I agree. There are more or less accepting, more or less arrogant on both sides of the argument. But the topic of Derek's original post had concrete examples of our society strongly disapproving of atheists. I've seen no concrete examples of arrogance or intolerance in the other direction.
> Because most atheism is based on a very extreme version of egotism and narcissism.
Could you please provide some justification for this statement?
Narcissism is a coping mechanism for dealing with pain or hurts and getting emotional support or needs met that is fundamentally self destructive. It is very common in gifted people but not limited to. From Wikipedia: Lack of empathy is a hallmark of narcissistic disorders, and sufferers find it extremely difficult to understand others' (and their own) emotional states and impact. This makes maintaining close or intimate relationships significantly harder. They may find it difficult to perceive or admit this, or may interpret it as a virtue.
Now the issue is why is the general view of Atheist negative. Well because people like Richard Dawkins and others make fun of and ridicule people who do not believe as they do. They do this in a very unempathitic way.
Also I understand a term Narcissistic supply because I use to feed on it(emotionally) a lot. Almost all the reading of atheistic literature I read is full of narcissistic supply. This can take the form of getting very angry at how stupid people are. Anger is a powerful way to alter mood and provide distraction.
The ego:
The Ego comprises that organized part of the personality structure which includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego, although not all of the operations of the ego are conscious.
According to Freud,
“ ...The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world ... The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces [Freud, The Ego and the Id (1923)]
The point here is that the emphasis on rational thought over valuing or passion. Ego is rational but not valuing. Atheism seems to be putting a strong emphasis on the ego side of ourselves and demeans the id and super-ego.
> Most people recognize that meaning, purpose and the joys that life has to offer comes from valuing and being valued by other people. Atheism does not address that and your spokes people do not value people, they value being right.
No shit. Atheism isn't a moral philosophy, it's a specific belief about nature. You might as well decry vegetarianism because it does not address "valuing and being valued by other people". All those poor lonely vegetarians, if only they could learn to love.
And that's probably the problem. Most people polled are probably under the same misconception you are, equating atheism with something like nihilism.
Can you point me to any, ANY atheist who does not believe human connection is vital to happiness?
I thought atheism was a specific belief in the existence of God. I'm very interested in hearing why it's about nature. I'm not saying atheist don't value relationships or people. What I'm saying is that in your communications, if atheist spokes people valued staying connected to people over being right, atheist spokes people would come across more trustworthy. And therefore atheist would poll better.
> Being right is a very lonely place. Being connected is a beautiful place. You can have your beliefs and you can be connected. However many beliefs will drive you to be alone.
You crack me up, man. You think being connected requires being wrong? What does that say about the basis of your connections?
When one's ideals are unpopular, that's the most important time to stand up for them.
I'm not saying you have to be wrong to be connected. What I'm saying is express your thought and beliefs but first and foremost express them in a respectful and caring way for those who have different beliefs. Your thought leaders do not do that. Take the flying spaghetti monster for example. Even if God didn't exist at a minimum, believers, equate everything beautiful and meaningful they have and experience with God. To compare that with a flying spaghetti monster is not making friends and influencing people. It's demeaning to my beliefs and makes me less interested in hanging out with people who would say that about something as important as my belief in God.
Can you even accept the possibility that the atheists you know might not be as arrogant and lonely as you claim? That negative reactions of Christians and other theists might be based more on a misperception that because their own moral compass requires existence of a god, that everyone else's must as well?
yes of course, some of the problems expressed in the poll is an issue with the other side. But you can not control them. you can only change your behavior. It can be better, it will never be perfect.
Wow. Just wow.
You want to talk about arrogant? Reread what you just wrote.
You equate atheism with narcissism because atheist is inherently self-destructive. Seriously, dude, you really going to need a ladder to get down off of your high horse or you might snap your neck trying to climb down.
How about Pastor John Hagee who said that Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans because God was punishing gays? Do you consider that condescending? Do you consider that insulting? How about to all of the people who died or were raped in the Superdome waiting for help, do you think they deserved those things because God was punishing gay people? Do you feel that gay people should be killed because of the lifestyle they choose?
I don't have a problem with your definition of narcissism, or the other psychological concepts. But you're still failing to provide much in the way of data. Derek's post included survey results based on polling 2000 American households. You offer a subjective opinion of Richard Dawkins.
I've read lots of Dawkins, and there have certainly been a few times I've found him to have a chip on his shoulder about religion.
But even if he is an arrogant asshole, he's just one dude. Sam Harris seems pretty patient and empathetic to me. As did Carl Sagan. If you just want to focus on rudeness and lack of empathy from thought leaders, I'd say the worst of the atheist/skeptic side calls its opponents silly and ignorant, and the worst of the faith/religion side calls its opponents un-American and morally depraved. Which one is more narcissistic? Less tactful? Does the latter get a pass just because it's in the majority?
As for the id, ego, and superego - well, first of all those concepts came from a scientist, not a priest. Second, I don't see how atheism denies passion. I know few people more passionate about his work than your go to example, Mr. Dawkins. And yet you criticize him for the very times his passions rise to angst.
> Ego is rational but not valuing. Atheism seems to be putting a strong emphasis on the ego side of ourselves and demeans the id and super-ego.
I agree that most atheists probably value skepticism and science more than theists. But I'd wager their values of morality, right vs wrong, etc., which I think is what you're getting at in the id and superego realm, are at least as strong as theists on average.
>I thought atheism was a specific belief in the existence of God. I'm very interested in hearing why it's about nature.
Either nature (as in the natural world) was created by a god or it wasn't.
>if atheist spokes people valued staying connected to people over being right, atheist spokes people would come across more trustworthy. And therefore atheist would poll better.
First off, you've not demonstrated to me any clear evidence of what atheists value. And I don't get what you're recommending - if an atheist were to value connectedness more, and being right less, how would that manifest in his or her behavior?
>What I'm saying is express your thought and beliefs but first and foremost express them in a respectful and caring way for those who have different beliefs. Your thought leaders do not do that. Take the flying spaghetti monster for example.
C'mon, dude. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is now your example of atheism's thought leader? I bet nobody reading this blog can even name the author without a wiki search.
>Even if God didn't exist at a minimum, believers, equate everything beautiful and meaningful they have and experience with God. To compare that with a flying spaghetti monster is not making friends and influencing people.
Congratulations, you win the debate against whomever was claiming the Flying Spaghetti Monster was an attempt to make friends with those who believe in God.
> It's demeaning to my beliefs and makes me less interested in hanging out with people who would say that about something as important as my belief in God.
The only serious use of FSM in rational discourse is as a specific argument against some justifications provided for the existence of God. Any argument for the existence of God that also applies to FSM is not a good argument. It's the equivalent of Sagan's "dragon in my garage" and Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot.
I don't think anyone begins and ends the debate with "Look at the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Religion's so silly. Case closed."
There's no question that the common perception of atheism is akin to what you're claiming. But I believe it has more to do with the demonization of atheism in America's pulpits than with Richard Dawkins being rude or pot shots from an internet meme.
I will bottom line it because there seems to be a lot of different threads.
Yes there is a problem with the way Atheist are percieved in the world. But it takes two to tango.
If you want to be percieved in a more positive way. Then you can effect only one part of the problem. Your part. Act in a more positive way.
If you think that atheist thought leaders or your two blogs for that matter or warm and wonderful places to come for christians, then I can't help you.
Own your part of problem and focus your efforts on your problems. Complaining about other people will not make it better and create an attitude that will only make it worse.
we will reap what we sow.
How about Pastor John Hagee who said that Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans because God was punishing gays? Do you consider that condescending? Do you consider that insulting?
I don't think those words are strong enough for how I feel about what he said. To call my God hateul is the worst thing a person can say to me. He was committing blaspheme and a horrible horrible sin.
How about to all of the people who died or were raped in the Superdome waiting for help, do you think they deserved those things because God was punishing gay people?
No I don't think that but I think asking the question is insulting to me.
Do you feel that gay people should be killed because of the lifestyle they choose?
No I think that people who choose that life are living in a self made hell that I could not possibly make worse. My heart breaks for their pain.
Do you feel that you were being a warm and loving person in your response to me?
He was committing blaspheme and a horrible horrible sin.
I'm happy that you disagree with his statements. Do you see the parallel though? He is one of your "thought leaders." A prominent voice who speaks on behalf of Christians. He's not trying to connect with people in this comment. However, the poll only shows 6.9% disagreement with "Conservative Christians" which is the bucket I'll put Hagee in, so where is the discrepancy between 47% and 6%? It comes not from presentation, it comes from content. Many people say that atheists "do not agree with my vision of American society" because they don't understand how to relate to someone who does not believe in God. It doesn't have anything to do with the presentation of their beliefs, it has to do the with the content.
> Yes there is a problem with the way Atheist are percieved in the world. But it takes two to tango.
Sometimes it just takes one to be correct, and one to resent how the truth challenges cherished beliefs. I refer you to Galileo and the Catholic Church.
> If you want to be percieved in a more positive way. Then you can effect only one part of the problem. Your part. Act in a more positive way.
Fair enough. Both groups have their share of assholes and sweethearts. But, in my opinion, atheists as a group behave in a more positive way than Christians.
> If you think that atheist thought leaders or your two blogs for that matter or warm and wonderful places to come for christians, then I can't help you.
I don't think our blogs fueled the survey results. And I doubt many Christians read any atheist blog.s Most probably don't even know an atheist. I grew up in a Christian home in the south and I don't think I knew an atheist personally until college.
> > Do you feel that gay people should be killed because of the lifestyle they choose?
>
> No I think that people who choose that life are living in a self made hell that I could not possibly make worse.
Taking your words at face value, you're saying that killing homosexuals would not make their lives worse. I'm sure you don't mean that, but those are awfully harsh words.
Post a Comment