Study: Religious regard atheists as trustworthy as...rapists. Really.

Good Lt · 1st December 2011, 05:40 PM

Small sample sizes for sure, but still.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11...theists-study/

Quote:

The resulting paper, published in the current online issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, includes six studies all designed to measure people’s perception of an atheist’s trustworthiness. The first study asked 351 Americans from across the country to compare the trustworthiness of an atheist and a gay man, since both represent groups often described as threatening to majority religious values. They rated atheists significantly higher than gay men on distrust, though lower on levels of disgust.

The second study recruited 105 UBC undergrads —they purposely targeted a more liberal sample from a less-religious nation — to test whether distrust of atheists is more pronounced than distrust of other groups, including Muslims. The students read a description of an untrustworthy man who pretended to leave insurance information after backing his car into a parked vehicle and were asked to say whether it was more likely the man was either a Christian, Muslim, rapist or an atheist. People were far more likely to say he was either an atheist or a rapist and not part of a religious group. They did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists, something Mr. Gervais found disconcerting.

Well, DUH.

Religion is morality, and without religious belief, you're basically just a rapist.

MG1962 · 1st December 2011, 05:52 PM

Meanwhile in other news the sun set today - pictures at 11

bigred · 1st December 2011, 05:56 PM

The stupidity of this link/thread is glaring and tedious on so many levels (and yet perfect for this forum). Yes "religious people" tend to think atheists = immoral rapist SOBs. Brilliant. White people also hate black people; the KKK is proof!

"

" is right.

Beerina · 1st December 2011, 06:09 PM

Well hold on now -- how do we know we atheists are more trustworthy? Maybe we're worthless sacks of crap.

Maybe the students are underestimating our untrustworthiness.

Gord_in_Toronto · 1st December 2011, 06:52 PM

Sniff -- Why They don't Like Us

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

Quote:

Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice

Will M. Gervais, Azim F. Shariff, and Ara Norenzayan

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Online First Publication, November 7, 2011. doi: 10.1037/a0025882

Present Research and Hypotheses

If religiosity is used as a signal of trustworthiness, atheists should be seen as less trustworthy than their “God-fearing” counterparts, particularly by individuals who strongly believe in God.

Therefore,
Hypothesis 1: Stereotypes of atheists should center on themes of distrust. This should be more true for atheists than for other comparable out groups disliked by religious groups but not
seen to pose a specific trust-based threat (e.g., homosexuals).

Hypothesis 2: Anti-atheist prejudice should be most evident in measures of distrust, rather than in more general measures of dislike or other specific (non-trust-based) appraisals.

Hypothesis 3: Belief in God should, in turn, more strongly predict distrust of atheists than generalized dislike of atheists. This relationship should be specifically mediated by a belief that people behave better when they believe they are under supernatural surveillance.

Hypothesis 4: Prejudice against atheists should be context specific, especially evident when the need for trust—rather than other dimensions such as likeability or pleasantness—is particularly potent.

<SNIP>

Quote:

Conclusion

These studies are an initial investigation into anti-atheist prejudice, a common and understudied type of prejudice. Atheists are among the least liked groups of people in many parts of the world, and the present studies help to explain why. The present six studies converged on the conclusion that distrust is at the core of this particularly powerful, peculiar, and prevalent form of prejudice. Although religions continue to exert great influence on most human lives, the numbers of nonreligious people have continually grown, leading to a great degree of cultural polarization. In recent years, the topic of atheism has broken into public consciousness, leading to boisterous debate in popular culture and overshadowing the tremendous potential that the scientific study of atheism—and reactions to atheism—may hold for scientific understanding of the diversity of prejudice and the psychological, cultural, and evolutionary underpinnings of religion.

Sigh. I'll have to respond with a quote from Marcus Aurelius.

Quote:

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.

MG1962 · 1st December 2011, 07:21 PM

Second non thread about the same non topic in an hour

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=224995

angrysoba · 1st December 2011, 07:46 PM

Well, let's face it, some atheists are rapists. Not all, obviously, but some of them are.

Limbo · 1st December 2011, 08:00 PM

It must suck to have millions of religious people projecting their shadow-selves onto you.

devnull · 1st December 2011, 08:07 PM

What's a shadow-self, Limbo?

TheGoldcountry · 1st December 2011, 08:16 PM

I stopped trusting polls long ago. People still have the ability to "judge" another human being on their own. I don't like to judge people, but it is an automatic response, and it is colored by our own prejudice and experience. That doesn't mean that we can't move beyond our own initial reactions, but it does mean that trying to quantify another human being through tests is dubious at best, and destructive when spun by disingenuous people, especially when they have a preconceived agenda.

Gord_in_Toronto · 1st December 2011, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

Second non thread about the same non topic in an hour

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=224995

I suppose the threads will be combined by the Powers That Be but I should like to point out that my link is to the actual paper rather than the National Ghost.

The paper itself is worth a quick read for its intrinsic properties rather than any report by the fourth estate.

Sledge · 1st December 2011, 10:39 PM

Damnit, they're on to us. Time to start the raping and pillaging. Excuse me while I book a ticket to Salma Hayak's house.

tkmikkelsen · 2nd December 2011, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Sledge

Damnit, they're on to us. Time to start the raping and pillaging. Excuse me while I book a ticket to Salma Hayak's house.

Damn, you beat me to it. Ahh, what the heck I will do the sloppy second.

Bram Kaandorp · 2nd December 2011, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

I stopped trusting polls long ago. People still have the ability to "judge" another human being on their own. I don't like to judge people, but it is an automatic response, and it is colored by our own prejudice and experience. That doesn't mean that we can't move beyond our own initial reactions, but it does mean that trying to quantify another human being through tests is dubious at best, and destructive when spun by disingenuous people, especially when they have a preconceived agenda.

I thought the poll was about the perception that religious people have of atheists, in stead of the actual trustworthiness. It doesn't seem to have been started to test how trustworthy atheists really are.

JFrankA · 2nd December 2011, 04:07 AM

What? I stopped....."treating".......my...err...."victim" for this? Really?

Sheesh I'm so upset I have to...uhm..."treat victim four"....even harsher than before.....

Aepervius · 2nd December 2011, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Sledge

Damnit, they're on to us. Time to start the raping and pillaging. Excuse me while I book a ticket to Salma Hayak's house.

Raping, pillaging *and* rum.

Pup · 2nd December 2011, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

I stopped trusting polls long ago. People still have the ability to "judge" another human being on their own. I don't like to judge people, but it is an automatic response, and it is colored by our own prejudice and experience. That doesn't mean that we can't move beyond our own initial reactions, but it does mean that trying to quantify another human being through tests is dubious at best, and destructive when spun by disingenuous people, especially when they have a preconceived agenda.

I thought the poll was about the perception that religious people have of atheists, in stead of the actual trustworthiness. It doesn't seem to have been started to test how trustworthy atheists really are.

Agreed.

TheGoldcountry, are you saying that the testers were deliberately trying to make religious people look bad, and that most people do in fact trust atheists as much as they trust Christians?

That doesn't hold true, in my personal (limited) experience, and doesn't fit with other polls I've seen. The results of this test, as a generalization, seem accurate to me.

Limbo · 2nd December 2011, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by devnull

What's a shadow-self, Limbo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29

They project their shadows onto you guys, and you guys project your shadows onto them. Round and round it goes.

brodski · 2nd December 2011, 04:41 AM

Is it me, or is one of the massive flaws with the study the seeming failure to control for the perceived prevalence of atheists vs. the perceived prevalence of rapists?
If you attend a sports event in an area were atheists are pretty common- even the majority- and you picked an individual at random, which would you say they would be more likely to be, a rapist or an atheist?
Would it be fair from your answer to that question to state that you think that atheists are more likely to be sports fans than rapists are likely to be sports fans?
In British Columbia, where this question was asked, 36% of eth population report no religious affiliation on the census, making them eth largest single group (although all Christians combined amounts to 53%- 31% protestant, 17% Catholic 5% other Christian denomination). I would suspect that, as with most (secular) universities in the west the proportion of atheists there will be higher than in the surroundings population. Given these demographics, is it really unusual that when asked a question about whether someone is more likely to be an atheist or a rapist people chose atheist?

Mister Agenda · 2nd December 2011, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by bigred

The stupidity of this link/thread is glaring and tedious on so many levels (and yet perfect for this forum). Yes "religious people" tend to think atheists = immoral rapist SOBs. Brilliant. White people also hate black people; the KKK is proof!

"

" is right.

The study purposely sampled a population more likely to be liberal to avoid the 'sample from the KKK' effect.

Mister Agenda · 2nd December 2011, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

Is it me, or is one of the massive flaws with the study the seeming failure to control for the perceived prevalence of atheists vs. the perceived prevalence of rapists?
If you attend a sports event in an area were atheists are pretty common- even the majority- and you picked an individual at random, which would you say they would be more likely to be, a rapist or an atheist?
Would it be fair from your answer to that question to state that you think that atheists are more likely to be sports fans than rapists are likely to be sports fans?
In British Columbia, where this question was asked, 36% of eth population report no religious affiliation on the census, making them eth largest single group (although all Christians combined amounts to 53%- 31% protestant, 17% Catholic 5% other Christian denomination). I would suspect that, as with most (secular) universities in the west the proportion of atheists there will be higher than in the surroundings population. Given these demographics, is it really unusual that when asked a question about whether someone is more likely to be an atheist or a rapist people chose atheist?

I'm not following. What does the relative prevalence of atheists vs. rapists have to do with the degree of trustworthiness? Comparing atheists to rapists wasn't part of the data collection, it rated perception of trustworthiness and THEN noted the level of perceived trustworthiness for atheists is similar to the level of perceived trustworthiness for rapists.

mutile · 2nd December 2011, 10:32 AM

I think rapists are more trustworthy than atheists, because a lot of priests are rapists and they are the servants of God.

cwalner · 2nd December 2011, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

I'm not following. What does the relative prevalence of atheists vs. rapists have to do with the degree of trustworthiness? Comparing atheists to rapists wasn't part of the data collection, it rated perception of trustworthiness and THEN noted the level of perceived trustworthiness for atheists is similar to the level of perceived trustworthiness for rapists.

The issue is that as presented, the survey seemed to be describing somebody acting untrustworthy, then asking the person to which group he more likely belongs. Since atheists are much more prevalent than rapists, it is obvious that the person is much more likely to be atheist than a rapist.

ETA: it does not really matter, what is described, as long as it has nothing directly to do with either raping or atheism, then the person described is statistically more likely to be an atheist.

IIIClovisIII · 2nd December 2011, 11:08 AM

Something is seriously misconstrued with the OP.

First of all, atheism isn't defined by anything other than an unbelief in god, so clearly, in some sense, religious people with "westernized" ethics would likely trust members of their own group more.

I don't think it's unnatural to assume that, more often than not, a religious person will think of themselves as more obligated to be honest, as opposed to a person without a "standard set of morals", if you will.

When the choices are:

Christian
Muslim
rapist
atheist

You can clearly already see where the most votes would go to. It's not a comparison of rapists and atheists in a strict sense. It's almost like the surveyors are members of the Rational Response Squad and intentionally made the survey that way, knowing where most of the votes would likely fall.

I don't see anything extraordinary about this. I remember being told during PSAT testing to choose the BEST answer, although the BEST wasn't clearly defined among the four choices available. It would be extremely easy for preconceived notions to slip in there to 50/50 the choices a little and allow the testers to yell: "You chose THAT one???, MORON!"

Gord_in_Toronto · 2nd December 2011, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by IIIClovisIII

Something is seriously misconstrued with the OP.

First of all, atheism isn't defined by anything other than an unbelief in god, so clearly, in some sense, religious people with "westernized" ethics would likely trust members of their own group more.

I don't think it's unnatural to assume that, more often than not, a religious person will think of themselves as more obligated to be honest, as opposed to a person without a "standard set of morals", if you will.

When the choices are:

Christian
Muslim
rapist
atheist

You can clearly already see where the most votes would go to. It's not a comparison of rapists and atheists in a strict sense. It's almost like the surveyors are members of the Rational Response Squad and intentionally made the survey that way, knowing where most of the votes would likely fall.

I don't see anything extraordinary about this. I remember being told during PSAT testing to choose the BEST answer, although the BEST wasn't clearly defined among the four choices available. It would be extremely easy for preconceived notions to slip in there to 50/50 the choices a little and allow the testers to yell: "You chose THAT one???, MORON!"

Don't draw any conclusions from the quotes in the opening post. Read the actual paper I referred to in Post #5 of this now combined thread. The researchers do explain how the tried to construct their questions to mitigate against errors introduced by confounding variables.

brodski · 2nd December 2011, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda

I'm not following. What does the relative prevalence of atheists vs. rapists have to do with the degree of trustworthiness? Comparing atheists to rapists wasn't part of the data collection, it rated perception of trustworthiness and THEN noted the level of perceived trustworthiness for atheists is similar to the level of perceived trustworthiness for rapists.

In the study done in UBC "The students read a description of an untrustworthy man who pretended to leave insurance information after backing his car into a parked vehicle and were asked to say whether it was more likely the man was either a Christian, Muslim, rapist or an atheist."
It's an exclusive question, he must be one and only one of the four choices.

Now lets say you believe that rapists are twice as likely as non rapists to give false insurance information, and that atheists are twice as likely to give false insurance information as the religious.

Lets say that you estimate that 60% of the (male) population are religious, 40% are atheist and 10% are rapists.

Given those figurers and a random man who gives false insurance information, which is more likely, that he is an atheist or that he is a rapist?

I'm not saying that this doesn't show some prejudice against atheists, but in no way (if the study discretion is accurate) does it show that they are as distrusted as atheists.

ETA
ah, I see Gord posted the actual study, I have had a look at it (study 2 is the one I am interested in) and I see that it is not as described. Participants were asked if an untrustworthy man (based on a scenario) was more likely to be A) a teacher or B) a teacher and X, where X was Christian, Muslim, atheist or a rapist. each participant was only given one category x, so they weren't choosing between them. I still think that expectations of the beliefs and or actions of teachers may play into this. How many of these undergrads would have come across a Muslim teacher? How many would have come across many outspoken Christian teachers, how many would have come across atheist teachers in this very liberal school in the least religious part of North America, and how many would have heard stories and or warnings about rapist teachers?

I'm less unsure of this study now, but I'm still not totally convinced.

cwalner · 2nd December 2011, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

I'm not saying that this doesn't show some prejudice against atheists, but in no way (if the study discretion is accurate) does it show that they are as distrusted as atheists.

I am fairly certain that the claim that atheists are as distrusted as atheists is not only true, but a tautology.

brodski · 2nd December 2011, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by cwalner

I am fairly certain that the claim that atheists are as distrusted as atheists is not only true, but a tautology.

Limbo · 5th December 2011, 01:31 PM

http://nonprophetstatus.com/2011/12/...-than-rapists/

Gawdzilla · 5th December 2011, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Good Lt

Small sample sizes for sure, but still.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11...theists-study/

Well, DUH.

Religion is morality, and without religious belief, you're basically just a rapist.

They have to think of atheists as evil, it's their last defense against sanity.

westprog · 5th December 2011, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

They have to think of atheists as evil, it's their last defense against sanity.

X thinks Y is evil, which is an example of how stupid X is.
Y thinks X is crazy, which is an example of how crazy X is.

Bram Kaandorp · 5th December 2011, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Limbo

http://nonprophetstatus.com/2011/12/...-than-rapists/

That's actually a great read. Clarifies a lot.

Mister Agenda · 6th December 2011, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

I'm less unsure of this study now, but I'm still not totally convinced.

I think it's not so much the study as how it is interpreted: good study, sensationalized interpretation.

slingblade · 6th December 2011, 11:39 AM

I found some irony in reading this thread, and then reading:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...orce-proceeds/

The disconnect is truly amazing, and very sad.

Gord_in_Toronto · 6th December 2011, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by slingblade

I found some irony in reading this thread, and then reading:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...orce-proceeds/

The disconnect is truly amazing, and very sad.

Sorry Sling but "Irony"?

There are many words I could use to describe this thread but "Irony"??

slingblade · 6th December 2011, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Sorry Sling but "Irony"?

There are many words I could use to describe this thread but "Irony"??

Did I use the wrong word to convey how I feel about the religious not trusting me because I'm atheist, even though there's plenty of headline-making evidence that being religious doesn't guarantee you're trustworthy?

Or maybe "irony" is the wrong word to describe how I felt reading about how untrustworthy the religious think I am, and then going on to read this article about this minister caught having affairs with young men, and now his wife's divorcing him?

Bram Kaandorp · 6th December 2011, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

Did I use the wrong word to convey how I feel about the religious not trusting me because I'm atheist, even though there's plenty of headline-making evidence that being religious doesn't guarantee you're trustworthy?

Or maybe "irony" is the wrong word to describe how I felt reading about how untrustworthy the religious think I am, and then going on to read this article about this minister caught having affairs with young men, and now his wife's divorcing him?

Perfectly ironic.

Gawdzilla · 6th December 2011, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

X thinks Y is evil, which is an example of how stupid X is.
Y thinks X is crazy, which is an example of how crazy X is.

X is crazy.

Shorter.

slingblade · 6th December 2011, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

Perfectly ironic.

Well, I thought so, but I ought to be certain...I suppose...though, really, I was certain...but you never know....

Ron_Tomkins · 6th December 2011, 12:22 PM

So this would make all those Priests who raped children, what exactly?

1st December 2011, 05:40 PM	#1
Good Lt Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Satellite of Love Posts: 1,487	Study: Religious regard atheists as trustworthy as...rapists. Really. Small sample sizes for sure, but still. http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11...theists-study/ Quote: The resulting paper, published in the current online issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, includes six studies all designed to measure people’s perception of an atheist’s trustworthiness. The first study asked 351 Americans from across the country to compare the trustworthiness of an atheist and a gay man, since both represent groups often described as threatening to majority religious values. They rated atheists significantly higher than gay men on distrust, though lower on levels of disgust. The second study recruited 105 UBC undergrads —they purposely targeted a more liberal sample from a less-religious nation — to test whether distrust of atheists is more pronounced than distrust of other groups, including Muslims. The students read a description of an untrustworthy man who pretended to leave insurance information after backing his car into a parked vehicle and were asked to say whether it was more likely the man was either a Christian, Muslim, rapist or an atheist. People were far more likely to say he was either an atheist or a rapist and not part of a religious group. They did not significantly differentiate atheists from rapists, something Mr. Gervais found disconcerting. Well, DUH. Religion is morality, and without religious belief, you're basically just a rapist.
	__________________ Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful. - Ian Faith

1st December 2011, 05:56 PM	#3
bigred Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,542	The stupidity of this link/thread is glaring and tedious on so many levels (and yet perfect for this forum). Yes "religious people" tend to think atheists = immoral rapist SOBs. Brilliant. White people also hate black people; the KKK is proof! "" is right.

1st December 2011, 06:09 PM	#4
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Well hold on now -- how do we know we atheists are more trustworthy? Maybe we're worthless sacks of crap. Maybe the students are underestimating our untrustworthiness.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

1st December 2011, 06:52 PM	#5
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Atheists Roughly as Distrusted as Rapists Sniff -- Why They don't Like Us http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf Quote: *Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice* Will M. Gervais, Azim F. Shariff, and Ara Norenzayan Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Online First Publication, November 7, 2011. doi: 10.1037/a0025882 Present Research and Hypotheses If religiosity is used as a signal of trustworthiness, atheists should be seen as less trustworthy than their “God-fearing” counterparts, particularly by individuals who strongly believe in God. Therefore, Hypothesis 1: Stereotypes of atheists should center on themes of distrust. This should be more true for atheists than for other comparable out groups disliked by religious groups but not seen to pose a specific trust-based threat (e.g., homosexuals). Hypothesis 2: Anti-atheist prejudice should be most evident in measures of distrust, rather than in more general measures of dislike or other specific (non-trust-based) appraisals. Hypothesis 3: Belief in God should, in turn, more strongly predict distrust of atheists than generalized dislike of atheists. This relationship should be specifically mediated by a belief that people behave better when they believe they are under supernatural surveillance. Hypothesis 4: Prejudice against atheists should be context specific, especially evident when the need for trust—rather than other dimensions such as likeability or pleasantness—is particularly potent. <SNIP> Quote: Conclusion These studies are an initial investigation into anti-atheist prejudice, a common and understudied type of prejudice. Atheists are among the least liked groups of people in many parts of the world, and the present studies help to explain why. The present six studies converged on the conclusion that distrust is at the core of this particularly powerful, peculiar, and prevalent form of prejudice. Although religions continue to exert great influence on most human lives, the numbers of nonreligious people have continually grown, leading to a great degree of cultural polarization. In recent years, the topic of atheism has broken into public consciousness, leading to boisterous debate in popular culture and overshadowing the tremendous potential that the scientific study of atheism—and reactions to atheism—may hold for scientific understanding of the diversity of prejudice and the psychological, cultural, and evolutionary underpinnings of religion. Sigh. I'll have to respond with a quote from Marcus Aurelius. Quote: Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick Last edited by Gord_in_Toronto; 1st December 2011 at 06:57 PM. Reason: Formating

1st December 2011, 08:00 PM	#8
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	It must suck to have millions of religious people projecting their shadow-selves onto you.
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

1st December 2011, 05:52 PM	#2
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Meanwhile in other news the sun set today - pictures at 11

1st December 2011, 07:21 PM	#6
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Second non thread about the same non topic in an hour http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=224995

1st December 2011, 07:46 PM	#7
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,604	Well, let's face it, some atheists are rapists. Not all, obviously, but some of them are.

1st December 2011, 08:07 PM	#9
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	What's a shadow-self, Limbo?
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

1st December 2011, 08:16 PM	#10
TheGoldcountry Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United States Posts: 1,536	I stopped trusting polls long ago. People still have the ability to "judge" another human being on their own. I don't like to judge people, but it is an automatic response, and it is colored by our own prejudice and experience. That doesn't mean that we can't move beyond our own initial reactions, but it does mean that trying to quantify another human being through tests is dubious at best, and destructive when spun by disingenuous people, especially when they have a preconceived agenda.
	__________________ Not exactly, I'm talking about something I don't know about, if its there then it is what I am talking about and thats not nothing. -punshhh I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten

1st December 2011, 09:00 PM	#11
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by MG1962 Second non thread about the same non topic in an hour http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=224995 I suppose the threads will be combined by the Powers That Be but I should like to point out that my link is to the actual paper rather than the National Ghost. The paper itself is worth a quick read for its intrinsic properties rather than any report by the fourth estate.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

1st December 2011, 10:39 PM	#12
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Damnit, they're on to us. Time to start the raping and pillaging. Excuse me while I book a ticket to Salma Hayak's house.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

2nd December 2011, 12:09 AM	#13
tkmikkelsen Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Makati, Philippines Posts: 190	Originally Posted by Sledge Damnit, they're on to us. Time to start the raping and pillaging. Excuse me while I book a ticket to Salma Hayak's house. Damn, you beat me to it. Ahh, what the heck I will do the sloppy second.

2nd December 2011, 01:06 AM	#14
Bram Kaandorp Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry I stopped trusting polls long ago. People still have the ability to "judge" another human being on their own. I don't like to judge people, but it is an automatic response, and it is colored by our own prejudice and experience. That doesn't mean that we can't move beyond our own initial reactions, but it does mean that trying to quantify another human being through tests is dubious at best, and destructive when spun by disingenuous people, especially when they have a preconceived agenda. I thought the poll was about the perception that religious people have of atheists, in stead of the actual trustworthiness. It doesn't seem to have been started to test how trustworthy atheists really are.
	__________________ If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.

2nd December 2011, 04:07 AM	#15
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	What? I stopped....."treating".......my...err...."victim" for this? Really? Sheesh I'm so upset I have to...uhm..."treat victim four"....even harsher than before.....
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

2nd December 2011, 04:08 AM	#16
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,773	Originally Posted by Sledge Damnit, they're on to us. Time to start the raping and pillaging. Excuse me while I book a ticket to Salma Hayak's house. Raping, pillaging and rum.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

2nd December 2011, 04:16 AM	#17
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590	Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp Quote: Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry I stopped trusting polls long ago. People still have the ability to "judge" another human being on their own. I don't like to judge people, but it is an automatic response, and it is colored by our own prejudice and experience. That doesn't mean that we can't move beyond our own initial reactions, but it does mean that trying to quantify another human being through tests is dubious at best, and destructive when spun by disingenuous people, especially when they have a preconceived agenda. I thought the poll was about the perception that religious people have of atheists, in stead of the actual trustworthiness. It doesn't seem to have been started to test how trustworthy atheists really are. Agreed. TheGoldcountry, are you saying that the testers were deliberately trying to make religious people look bad, and that most people do in fact trust atheists as much as they trust Christians? That doesn't hold true, in my personal (limited) experience, and doesn't fit with other polls I've seen. The results of this test, as a generalization, seem accurate to me.
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590

2nd December 2011, 04:27 AM	#18
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	Originally Posted by devnull What's a shadow-self, Limbo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29 They project their shadows onto you guys, and you guys project your shadows onto them. Round and round it goes.
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." Last edited by Limbo; 2nd December 2011 at 04:49 AM.

2nd December 2011, 04:41 AM	#19
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,092	Is it me, or is one of the massive flaws with the study the seeming failure to control for the perceived prevalence of atheists vs. the perceived prevalence of rapists? If you attend a sports event in an area were atheists are pretty common- even the majority- and you picked an individual at random, which would you say they would be more likely to be, a rapist or an atheist? Would it be fair from your answer to that question to state that you think that atheists are more likely to be sports fans than rapists are likely to be sports fans? In British Columbia, where this question was asked, 36% of eth population report no religious affiliation on the census, making them eth largest single group (although all Christians combined amounts to 53%- 31% protestant, 17% Catholic 5% other Christian denomination). I would suspect that, as with most (secular) universities in the west the proportion of atheists there will be higher than in the surroundings population. Given these demographics, is it really unusual that when asked a question about whether someone is more likely to be an atheist or a rapist people chose atheist?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,092

2nd December 2011, 09:11 AM	#20
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,622	Originally Posted by bigred The stupidity of this link/thread is glaring and tedious on so many levels (and yet perfect for this forum). Yes "religious people" tend to think atheists = immoral rapist SOBs. Brilliant. White people also hate black people; the KKK is proof! "" is right. The study purposely sampled a population more likely to be liberal to avoid the 'sample from the KKK' effect.

2nd December 2011, 09:14 AM	#21
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,622	Originally Posted by brodski Is it me, or is one of the massive flaws with the study the seeming failure to control for the perceived prevalence of atheists vs. the perceived prevalence of rapists? If you attend a sports event in an area were atheists are pretty common- even the majority- and you picked an individual at random, which would you say they would be more likely to be, a rapist or an atheist? Would it be fair from your answer to that question to state that you think that atheists are more likely to be sports fans than rapists are likely to be sports fans? In British Columbia, where this question was asked, 36% of eth population report no religious affiliation on the census, making them eth largest single group (although all Christians combined amounts to 53%- 31% protestant, 17% Catholic 5% other Christian denomination). I would suspect that, as with most (secular) universities in the west the proportion of atheists there will be higher than in the surroundings population. Given these demographics, is it really unusual that when asked a question about whether someone is more likely to be an atheist or a rapist people chose atheist? I'm not following. What does the relative prevalence of atheists vs. rapists have to do with the degree of trustworthiness? Comparing atheists to rapists wasn't part of the data collection, it rated perception of trustworthiness and THEN noted the level of perceived trustworthiness for atheists is similar to the level of perceived trustworthiness for rapists.

2nd December 2011, 10:32 AM	#22
mutile Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 511	I think rapists are more trustworthy than atheists, because a lot of priests are rapists and they are the servants of God.
mutile Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 511

2nd December 2011, 10:34 AM	#23
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	Originally Posted by Mister Agenda I'm not following. What does the relative prevalence of atheists vs. rapists have to do with the degree of trustworthiness? Comparing atheists to rapists wasn't part of the data collection, it rated perception of trustworthiness and THEN noted the level of perceived trustworthiness for atheists is similar to the level of perceived trustworthiness for rapists. The issue is that as presented, the survey seemed to be describing somebody acting untrustworthy, then asking the person to which group he more likely belongs. Since atheists are much more prevalent than rapists, it is obvious that the person is much more likely to be atheist than a rapist. ETA: it does not really matter, what is described, as long as it has nothing directly to do with either raping or atheism, then the person described is statistically more likely to be an atheist.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Last edited by cwalner; 2nd December 2011 at 10:38 AM.

2nd December 2011, 11:08 AM	#24
IIIClovisIII Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 332	Something is seriously misconstrued with the OP. First of all, atheism isn't defined by anything other than an unbelief in god, so clearly, in some sense, religious people with "westernized" ethics would likely trust members of their own group more. I don't think it's unnatural to assume that, more often than not, a religious person will think of themselves as more obligated to be honest, as opposed to a person without a "standard set of morals", if you will. When the choices are: Christian Muslim rapist atheist You can clearly already see where the most votes would go to. It's not a comparison of rapists and atheists in a strict sense. It's almost like the surveyors are members of the Rational Response Squad and intentionally made the survey that way, knowing where most of the votes would likely fall. I don't see anything extraordinary about this. I remember being told during PSAT testing to choose the BEST answer, although the BEST wasn't clearly defined among the four choices available. It would be extremely easy for preconceived notions to slip in there to 50/50 the choices a little and allow the testers to yell: "You chose THAT one???, MORON!"

2nd December 2011, 11:21 AM	#25
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by IIIClovisIII Something is seriously misconstrued with the OP. First of all, atheism isn't defined by anything other than an unbelief in god, so clearly, in some sense, religious people with "westernized" ethics would likely trust members of their own group more. I don't think it's unnatural to assume that, more often than not, a religious person will think of themselves as more obligated to be honest, as opposed to a person without a "standard set of morals", if you will. When the choices are: Christian Muslim rapist atheist You can clearly already see where the most votes would go to. It's not a comparison of rapists and atheists in a strict sense. It's almost like the surveyors are members of the Rational Response Squad and intentionally made the survey that way, knowing where most of the votes would likely fall. I don't see anything extraordinary about this. I remember being told during PSAT testing to choose the BEST answer, although the BEST wasn't clearly defined among the four choices available. It would be extremely easy for preconceived notions to slip in there to 50/50 the choices a little and allow the testers to yell: "You chose THAT one???, MORON!" Don't draw any conclusions from the quotes in the opening post. Read the actual paper I referred to in Post #5 of this now combined thread. The researchers do explain how the tried to construct their questions to mitigate against errors introduced by confounding variables.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

2nd December 2011, 12:52 PM	#26
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,092	Originally Posted by Mister Agenda I'm not following. What does the relative prevalence of atheists vs. rapists have to do with the degree of trustworthiness? Comparing atheists to rapists wasn't part of the data collection, it rated perception of trustworthiness and THEN noted the level of perceived trustworthiness for atheists is similar to the level of perceived trustworthiness for rapists. In the study done in UBC "The students read a description of an untrustworthy man who pretended to leave insurance information after backing his car into a parked vehicle and were asked to say whether it was more likely the man was either a Christian, Muslim, rapist or an atheist." It's an exclusive question, he must be one and only one of the four choices. Now lets say you believe that rapists are twice as likely as non rapists to give false insurance information, and that atheists are twice as likely to give false insurance information as the religious. Lets say that you estimate that 60% of the (male) population are religious, 40% are atheist and 10% are rapists. Given those figurers and a random man who gives false insurance information, which is more likely, that he is an atheist or that he is a rapist? I'm not saying that this doesn't show some prejudice against atheists, but in no way (if the study discretion is accurate) does it show that they are as distrusted as atheists. ETA ah, I see Gord posted the actual study, I have had a look at it (study 2 is the one I am interested in) and I see that it is not as described. Participants were asked if an untrustworthy man (based on a scenario) was more likely to be A) a teacher or B) a teacher and X, where X was Christian, Muslim, atheist or a rapist. each participant was only given one category x, so they weren't choosing between them. I still think that expectations of the beliefs and or actions of teachers may play into this. How many of these undergrads would have come across a Muslim teacher? How many would have come across many outspoken Christian teachers, how many would have come across atheist teachers in this very liberal school in the least religious part of North America, and how many would have heard stories and or warnings about rapist teachers? I'm less unsure of this study now, but I'm still not totally convinced.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,092	Last edited by brodski; 2nd December 2011 at 01:11 PM.

2nd December 2011, 12:58 PM	#27
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,708	Originally Posted by brodski I'm not saying that this doesn't show some prejudice against atheists, but in no way (if the study discretion is accurate) does it show that they are as distrusted as atheists. I am fairly certain that the claim that atheists are as distrusted as atheists is not only true, but a tautology.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

2nd December 2011, 01:19 PM	#28
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,092	Originally Posted by cwalner I am fairly certain that the claim that atheists are as distrusted as atheists is not only true, but a tautology.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,092

5th December 2011, 01:31 PM	#29
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	http://nonprophetstatus.com/2011/12/...-than-rapists/
Limbo Jedi Consular Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 3,000	__________________ "Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo. "Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

5th December 2011, 01:39 PM	#30
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,539	Originally Posted by Good Lt Small sample sizes for sure, but still. http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11...theists-study/ Well, DUH. Religion is morality, and without religious belief, you're basically just a rapist. They have to think of atheists as evil, it's their last defense against sanity.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

5th December 2011, 02:12 PM	#31
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by Gawdzilla They have to think of atheists as evil, it's their last defense against sanity. X thinks Y is evil, which is an example of how stupid X is. Y thinks X is crazy, which is an example of how crazy X is.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely. Last edited by westprog; 5th December 2011 at 02:12 PM. Reason: Atheists regard religious as...insane. Really.

5th December 2011, 02:15 PM	#32
Bram Kaandorp Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by Limbo http://nonprophetstatus.com/2011/12/...-than-rapists/ That's actually a great read. Clarifies a lot.
	__________________ If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.

6th December 2011, 11:15 AM	#33
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,622	Originally Posted by brodski I'm less unsure of this study now, but I'm still not totally convinced. I think it's not so much the study as how it is interpreted: good study, sensationalized interpretation.

6th December 2011, 11:39 AM	#34
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	I found some irony in reading this thread, and then reading: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...orce-proceeds/ The disconnect is truly amazing, and very sad.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

6th December 2011, 11:56 AM	#35
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,418	Originally Posted by slingblade I found some irony in reading this thread, and then reading: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...orce-proceeds/ The disconnect is truly amazing, and very sad. Sorry Sling but "Irony"? There are many words I could use to describe this thread but "Irony"??
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick