Atheists: Public Enemy Number One
I find this study rather saddening, but unsurprising. The University of Minnesota found that atheists are America’s most mistrusted minority, below Muslims, immigrants, and gays. Shocker.
I can’t imagine why. No atheist ever flew a jet into a building. Atheists don’t sneak across the border and take our Wal-Mart jobs. And they aren’t responsible for “queer eye for the straight guy”. Which is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, all Mexicans steal jobs, or all gay people make bad television shows. I’m just saying that if you use the “what have they done to me” mentality atheists should be pretty low on the list.
I guess it’s not surprising though, the idea of judging a group of people by their actions (if you must judge at all) is rooted in logic, and logic is kryptonite to religious people. They’ve based their entire lives around a belief in something which they have no evidence of and makes no sense just because they want to. Deductive reasoning is obviously not their strong suit.
This is a group who thought “Hmm, I could either vote for someone who started a war on false pretenses, did nothing to help the economy while it stagnated, decreased taxes while increasing government spending, has a life long history of failing at everything he has ever done, and can’t pronounce the word “nuclear”. Or I could vote for a man who has led a lifetime of distinguished public service but who isn’t opposed to gay marriage. Can’t have gays marryin’.”
These are people who can read “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and yet get angry when someone wants to remove the word “God” from the pledge, which was put there by Congress in 1954. You can’t really expect much from them.
I think the problem atheists have, and why they so rarely stand up for themselves, is that it’s hard to be mad at religious people. You really can’t get angry with them, they are obviously not playing with a full deck. It would be like being mad at Corky from “Life Goes On” in that episode where he rebels and starts hanging out with the bad crowd. In fact that’s a great analogy. When you think of religious people, just think of someone with Down’s syndrome rapping “Fight The Power”. It doesn’t make any sense at all, but it’ll allow you to laugh as they attempt to ruin our world with their deadly combination of fervor and stupidity.
March 25, 2006 at 2:03 am
This is more of a general comment on all of your entries rather than a comment on this specific entry.
I am so glad that I play poker. If not I would never have discovered this well of common sense. Random web surfing led me here and now I can rest my head at night knowing that out there is a man that recognises the ridiculousness of, well, everything.
Thank You
March 27, 2006 at 4:33 pm
First of all, this from Dictionary.com:
atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
agnostic: a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I agree that there are a lot of misled religious people out there, and find it surprising and unfortunate that atheists are so mistrusted. However, I think that disbelieving in a higher power is just as idiotic in believing in god simply because you are told to. Clearly human beings have discovered only a tiny fraction of what there is to know about the universe. Mysteries abound on every level of thought and they always will. The origin of the universe, the physical basis of consciousness, and the source of free will (or the appearance thereof) are three examples that come to mind. To close yourself off to the possibility of a higher power is every bit as narrow minded as the zealots you mock in your post. I am an agnostic simply because I have seen nothing in nature to make me believe. But that does not mean god does not exist. Absence of proof is not proof of absense. I have always complained that religious people should not try so hard to explain the unknowable through god. By the same token, atheists need to acknowledge that they don’t know either. We need to learn to admit that we just don’t know. There is least a possibility that god does exist, and we should be sufficiently open to that possibility to recognize the signs if they ever materialize.
March 27, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Most who consider themselves atheists would, by the dictionary.com definition, actually be agnostic. I would guess that the people taking the study didn’t differentiate either.
And while I agree that absence of proof is not proof of absence comparing atheism to deism is not fair since the idea of God makes no logical sense. While neither can be proved empirically you can logically disprove the idea of an omnipotent omniscient being. Logical disproof is not iron clad by any means, but it is something.
March 28, 2006 at 2:16 pm
How can you logically disprove the existence of an omnipotent omniscient being? If the argument is long and drawn out then perhaps you could just point me towards a web site or book that discusses it.
April 7, 2006 at 10:22 pm
I take issue with the line “it’ll allow you to laugh as they attempt to ruin our world with their deadly combination of fervor and stupidity.”
As I think you would agree, in two consecutive US presidential elections, the wrong man won by pandering to the “fervor and stupidity” of the electorate. Too many smart people failed to take the Christo-fascists seriously as W and his evil minions whipped legions of Jesus Nazis into an anti-gay/anti-abortion/anti-Arab/anti-tax frenzy.
While I can see the absurdist humor in their ignorance, they scare me far too much to enjoy it. They have, imho, already ruined too much.
April 17, 2006 at 12:12 am
Just happened to run into this website while looking for general information on religion versus intelligence. I like your site. My argument would be that anyone who believes in “god” should have to prove it. Not that the atheist should prove the opposite. If I said the moon was made out of cheese then I would expect you to ask me to prove this. Theology tries to answer a question with another question.
June 17, 2006 at 2:34 pm
“My argument would be that anyone who believes in “god†should have to prove it. Not that the atheist should prove the opposite. ”
Given as long as the atheist can prove the validity of “should” to begin with.