Posted on 03/22/2006 4:04:11 PM PST by dukeman
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL-- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.
Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.
Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”
The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.
The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.
No, the atheist will claim "There is no god based on the evidence presented." Certainty may be weighted heavily in favor of the lack of evidence, but I have never encountered any atheist, myself included, who would not be convinced if credible evidence existed.
Sorry, but you are not an atheist.
You are a mere agnostic just as I am. ;-)
How silly. Christians founded the Christian Identity movement, which is quite literally dangerous. But I don't distrust Christians for it.
One subtle correction. Atheists are not people who don't beieve in G-d, they are people who believe there is no G-d. The first group is closer to agnostics.
Plenty of that type of atheist on Freerepublic. They seem to have a free pass here when it comes to attacking Christianity.
A distinction without a difference. Substitute 'Santa Claus' for 'God' and you'll see my point.
Don't be silly.
Weak atheism is lack of a belief in a god or gods. Strong atheism is the belief there is no god or gods.
Weak agnosticism is the belief that we do not know if a god or god exists, but it is knowable. Strong agnosticism is the belief that we do not know if a god or gods exists because it is literally unknowable.
I find strong agnosticism is the least supported; if you do not know anything about a god or gods, how can you suppose that their existance is unknowable?
In addition, you may or may not consider these distinctions worthwhile or meaningful but I think either way it's appropriate to recognize and use the correct terms for things. THEN debate if they're stupid or not. ;)
Well, it seems that according to certain theists you can only be an atheist if you're as convinced that gods (actually their god, to be precise) do not exist as a mathematician is convinced that there are no even prime numbers greater than 2.
However, when we say that something does not exist we usually mean that it does not exist for any practical purpose. People use this expression quite often in their everyday language if the evidence isn't compelling and the probability that the object in question exists is very low.
Usually no one is accusing them of being intellectually bankrupt because they are not omniscient, etc.
This is only trotted when the existence of the god of certain theists is denied.
I don't think people would have as much of a problem with atheists if we didn't have off-the-wall atheists trying to change the basic foundations of our country.
Trying to take God out of the Pledge was the end of the rope for many.
Agreed. I find it tiresome that so many people quibble about the degree to which one doesn't believe in a hypothetical entity. That's why I find the Santa Claus test useful. "Are you saying you know there's no Santa Claus, or merely that you are doubtful about Santa Claus's existence, without absolute proof of his non-existence?"
There is no Santa Claus!
Why?
So before God was put into the pledge, did the country lack basic foundations?
It is a distinction with a great difference if you can grasp it. To believe there is no G-d requires faith, to not beileve there is a G-d requires no faith. It is faith that we are discussing so please don't say it isn't important to the definition.
No of course not. However, before the word God was put into the pledge we also didn't have people removing God from the public square.
The fact is that vast majority of people in the US do not want to remove the God phrase from the pledge, and more than a few are insulted that anyone wants that.
It's also been my observation that the number of off-the-wall atheists is somehow correlated with the number of off-the-wall theists (usually Christians). In countries with fewer in-your-face theists there are usually also fewer in-your-face atheists.
Of course, the situation is a bit different in places where the theists are more at-your-throat ;-)
I know there are non-religious people who make distinctions between being agnostic and atheist, but I'm of the opinion they make this distinction at least in part because of the opprobrium attached to atheism.
I'm insulted people confuse patriotism with religious belief. We can all go around feeling insulted, I guess. Seems to be the mood of the times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.