[AgnosticGirl]

Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists

What do you think about this article?

Do you believe it is irrational to assume someone doesn't know right from wrong because they are unsure about the origin of the universe?

Do you think it is irrational to distrust an agnostic as much as a rapist?

 

[Perhaps]

Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists

What do you think about this article?

Do you believe it is irrational to assume someone doesn't know right from wrong because they are unsure about the origin of the universe?

Do you think it is irrational to distrust an agnostic as much as a rapist?

1. It's hilarious.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

 

[kikidmonkey]

So wait...as an atheist i should STOP raping children?

 

[The Proof]

So wait...as an atheist i should STOP raping children?

immediately! unless you are affiliated with the catholic church

 

[jd_]

I view agnostics as atheists who just haven't done that much thinking about it or might not want to hurt others feelings or be ostracized by their atheism.

 

[2eng]

Sound ridiculous to me. Just because someone is unclear of religion you don't trust them just as if they were a rapist??? Daz Crazy, IMO.

 

[Perhaps]

I view agnostics as atheists who just haven't done that much thinking about it or might not want to hurt others feelings or be ostracized by their atheism.

It's pretty effective for when one needs a term to describe their complete apathy towards the subject in general without inviting too much discussion.

 

[teddy564339]

While I'm not INTJ, I think the key thing about the article is the end. IMO, it's pretty fruitless to say "People are illogical, their prejudices make no sense, there's no hope." I think it's much more helpful to understand why they have the prejudices that they do, and how these can be undermined. To me, that's the most important (and best) part of the article...understanding why something is the way it is and how it can be changed, and it sounds like the study is taking that aspect of it seriously.

Of course, that may just be my Fe coming out, wanting everyone to get along. :tongue:

 

[Sali]

I think that is a silly and irrational conclusion, yes. Then again I'm not sure we can lump all "rapists" together either.

 

[kikidmonkey]

Yes, let us not confuse the good rapists with the bad ones.

 

[Sali]

Yes, let us not confuse the good rapists with the bad ones.

Even a statutory rapist is still considered a rapist by law. I wouldn't necessarily consider that person someone to "distrust" that would depend far more on the individual them self.

 

[kikidmonkey]

Even a statutory rapist is still considered a rapist by law. I wouldn't necessarily consider that person someone to "distrust" that would depend far more on the individual them self.

That sounds like rapin' words to me!

 

[Flora]

I like saying things like "ugh I'm sweating like a rapist!" and carefully observe people's reactions. It's hilarious.

Back to the thread, I find the idea that moral principles come exclusively from deities and churches, therefore if you reject religious doctrines you have nowhere to draw your mora principles from, therefore you are "immoral" absolutely ridiculous and preposterous. So stupid that I cant even relate to that point of view or have any interest in understanding where it's coming from, because it's so stupid it makes my blood boil.

 

[Alysaria]

I think it's the difference between being raised in a religion/never really questioning it and choosing to believe in a faith for your own reasons. To someone raised in the church, the rest of the world is depicted as this big scary beast that is going to burn forever in a fiery pit of doom.

It's like The Village (terrible movie, but good example ) - if you lived in that village, you'd have no reason to doubt that there are horrible monsters that will rip you up if you enter the forest. Everyone you've ever trusted or cared about has told you there are monsters and you may have seen evidence of their existence and had no reason to doubt that it was authentic and legitimate. >.> Now if there were people entering the woods at will, you might start to question if there was really any danger, you might think the monsters were exaggerated...or you might just think they're lucky.

It's just a small step from the latter toward imagining that every person who never found anything threatening in the woods is really in league with the monsters and is trying to get you killed.

Is it rational? No. But it is part of human nature and the way the "uninitiated outsiders" fit into a cult-like mentality.

 

[Portal]

So wait...as an atheist i should STOP raping children?

No it's not really rape if you say "surprise!" or "happy birthday! I thought I should join you in our birthday suits".

 

[Portal]

I view agnostics as atheists who just haven't done that much thinking about it or might not want to hurt others feelings or be ostracized by their atheism.

Not necessarily. Usually great thinkers will admit they don't know enough.

Agnostic= not knowing
Atheist=without God or greater being

With that said, I do agree with the latter. Agnostic really are like bi's or those electronic cig smokers. They want the best of both worlds which they should really just make up their goddamn mind.

@AgnosticGirl:

1.) Heh heh
2.) Yes. Just because they believe the universe started with the big bang or they are unsure where the universe came from doesn't mean they are not philosophical. It's philosophy (religions are philosophy) that keeps us in check.
3.) Yes. Because of number 2's reason.

 

[jd_]

Not necessarily. Usually great thinkers will admit they don't know enough.

Agnostic= not knowing
Atheist=without God or greater being

With that said, I do agree with the latter. Agnostic really are like bi's or those electronic cig smokers. They want the best of both worlds which they should really just make up their goddamn mind.

@AgnosticGirl:

1.) Heh heh
2.) Yes. Just because they believe the universe started with the big bang or they are unsure where the universe came from doesn't mean they are not philosophical. It's philosophy (religions are philosophy) that keeps us in check.
3.) Yes. Because of number 2's reason.

Dawkins spectrum of theistic probablity.

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2 De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3 Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4 Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5 Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6 De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7 Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I haven't read much on in awhile as far as technicalities...which can be argued to death but I think one can be both an Atheist AND Agnostic... but some Agnostic's choose to not pick atheism. ...something like that.

Basically, I think you can be an Atheist AND Agnostic, Atheist BUT NOT Agnostic, or Agnostic BUT NOT Atheist.

I would consider myself Atheist AND Agnostic, meaning I would always be open to NEW knowledge, but I will live my live as an Atheist and not sit around wondering.

If I get bored enough I might dig out my old philosophy of religion book and freshen up if the discussion takes off.

 

[kikidmonkey]

No it's not really rape if you say "surprise!" or "happy birthday! I thought I should join you in our birthday suits".

Tickle them during sex, it's not rape if they're laughing.

 

[Promethea]

Tickle them during sex, it's not rape if they're laughing.

Lol.. you guys are awful.

Anyway as for the article, its hard to believe there are so many cretins who think that way. Unsettling.

 

[Mr Canis]

Dawkins spectrum of theistic probablity.

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2 De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3 Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4 Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5 Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6 De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7 Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.

I'm a 6.5 on this scale and find the article fascinating. I pride myself on having a moral code that is as strong or stronger than society at large and I try very hard to live my life in a way that demonstrates that. I wonder how many people around me would be shocked to hear of my lack of religious beliefs. After all, it's not like it shows. Does it?