Atheists can't be trusted?

I'm not sure about freedom of religion meaning that you can choose any Christian path. The separation of church and state, has come to mean that atheism is the state religion. Evolution can be taught in schools but not creation. There is no separation of Mosque and state or Mormon temple and state and there never has been separation of lodge and state!

Graptopetalum, Freedom of religion means the people get to choose Not the government. That is what separation of Church and State means! No one here in the U/s. can tell you which church you Must be a member of. There is a separation of Mosque and Mormon temples too. Schools teach evolution because of science not religion. But if you really don't want yur child to learn evolution, you can take your children out of school! That is an example of Separation of religion and government! If there weren't a separation, All non Christians would be murdered or forced to convert.So if you think Christian faith is being muted just look at it this way, how would you feel if you Had to follow Judaism or Islam?

not a clue. I am neither American nor Atheist. so who knows. I just know that people are more multi-dimensional than can be judged purely by whether or not they believe in a deity of some description.

I completely agree, either religious or atheist, we're all still people, and we all have our differences, and some are more trustworthy then others... So... how come the people in the US distrust atheists so much?

Galena, I think it's more complicated than everybody being equally trustworthy. Organized religions tend to have different racial make ups and therefore there's bound to be statistical differences in the genetics of those who are born into them. They also have different cultural baggage which may affect trustworthiness. Religions, including atheism, tend to attract people with different personalities, so there will be differences in converts. Also most people have their own agendas and will do things to advance them, possibly going against normal values. People may well lie if they discover evidence that goes against their beliefs. If you ask them to do something against their principals, they may deliberately do it badly or sabotage it. This means that different groups may be selectively untrustworthy in certain situations. A Christian may screw up an abortion. A Muslim may not do a good job as a synagog security guard. An atheist may hide the fossil of the dinosaur killed by an arrow. I'm sure there are numerous other examples but you get the picture. Then some religions actually encourage their followers to deceive people.

Could you explain whats so bigoted about these statements? I personally really agree with you, Pose123

Christoph, this is how Pose is bigotted. Firstly his claim that atheists are no different from anybody else. I'm sure there's at least statistical differences. Then there's the claim that everybody has been brainwashed. Actually brainwashing is a complicated process involving a low protein diet along with deprivation of privacy and sleep. However a lot of people claim that promoting any belief they don't agree with is brainwashing. I have very serious problems with the claim that religion would disappear without indoctrinating children. Where does education end and indoctrination begin? This seems to be basically bigotry against organized religions.

I think this goes some way to demonstrate why people don't trust atheists. You've made some very bigoted statements here.

For the parents to children, I can't see why a christian parent would be more approving of having their child marry a muslim, who would pray on their knees 5 times a day, have Ramadan, etc, then they would approve their child marrying an atheist, who just, doesn't go to a church. That seems kind of odd to me...

And, I do not like that direction of the children on chairs showing the influence people have in the direction of gods... it shows that the religious are higher and better then the non-religious, and it shows that the non-religious pulling them down is putting them in peril, as in, falling off the chair. That's a very brainwashing concept... and if they're taught things like that from childhood, then it's no wonder they condemn atheists. I hope my kids never have to go through classes like that.

why would the atheist be any more likely than the religious person to do bad things? that's where that argument falls down flat. I am religious. my husband is not. he doesn't in any way lead me astray from my path, and I don't try to drag him into mine. he respects my religion as a core part of who I am, and he loves me. I know he has no religion, but he is the person I love, and I feel no need to change him, or him to change me. we love each other. so we respect each others spiritual path or lack of it.

bestboy19 I live in a country where there has never been Bible readings in school and there is little or no regard for the Bible but somehow we still have a ordrered and moral society.

Look at how society has changed since the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit of 1963. As individuals, atheists may be upright citizens just as anyone else; but when you consider the lack of morals and ethics since that landmark Supreme Court ruling, who would be seen as responsible? Remove Bible reading in schools and were do those who don't attend church learn about morals and ethics, Hollywood, corporate America, politicians, sports figures, Wall Street, journalist, the news media, television, I could go on and on. Not a one of these entities can be called good examples of morality or ethics. There has always been rotten apples in all areas, but that used to be the exception. Now it's the rule.

But, how do the atheists have a negative effect on morals or ethics? Is it just that 50% of the people assume they have a negative effect, and if so, why?

With the ways you're putting it, how does it make atheism any different from a religion? Atheists actively preach it, not unlike how any religion actively preach theirs... Richard Dawkins is a preacher for Atheism, not unlike people like the Pope, or Harun Yahya, or Ray Comfort... there are people of every religion, and all of these people see their direction as right, and everyone else as wrong... So how does that make it different? People would use Atheism as a way to avoid a lack of conscious in the same way they would use religion... religion actually being worse, because in religions like Christianity, if you tell God what you've done and pray, he will forgive you... in where an atheist would never be able to get past that conscious... So, how come Atheists are looked down upon more then any other group?

Let me see if I'm getting this right... are you saying that the reason that the religious people don't like the atheists, is because the atheists have too many similarities to the religious, with the only real difference the fact that they believe there isn't a god?

They are not different in execution, that is the problem, the fact that atheism is supposed to avoid these religious qualities in their pursuit and it is these masses of zealots that are causing damage to the image. The very fact they are not supposed to be faith based is the problem, really, that is making the whole SEEM dishonest. This would be like a religious person being skeptical and denying there's anything beyond us or supernatural, though this is much rarer a case than with atheists. I think you can see how the atheist image has been more tarnished by the radicals.

A lot of atheists seem to have very closed minds and are at least as bigoted as most followers of organized religions. It's just the bigotry takes different forms.

Well, it's been shown in many different ways, the less religious, are more intelligent. Studies have shown that Atheists have higher IQs on average then the Agnostic, which have higher IQs then open religious, which have higher IQs then dogmatic religion. Also, in the direction of schooling, there are less religious people the further you go into education. Students for doctorates have the highest percentage of atheists, then masters, then bachelors, and the highest religious have the least schooling. And, on the next step up, only 7% of people on the American National Academy of Sciences believe in God, as opposed to 84% of Americans in general. I'm sure that there are atheists who are stupid and uneducated, but in general, atheists have far more intelligence then the religious.

Ok let`s say we can trust those studies and there are more stupid people between Christians than there are between atheists.What this has to do with the individual ? What if you are one of the .0001 % of atheists who are not so bright ? (no offence i`m not talking about you but any atheist ). What does being intelligent has to do with atheism or theism ? We consider Leonardo da Vinci to be one of the brightest men ever and he believed in God.We consider Mozart or Michelangelo to be geniuses and probably none of them had any idea about science.We consider Newton to be one of the greatest physicists and still he was a theologian not an atheist.

The article I found where I got the info is right here; http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.TxzSVW_--HE But here's another one, talking about 3 different studies showing how atheists are the least trusted, taken over the past 9 years... http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/distrust-powers-anti-atheist-prejudice-37784/

The abc news article is only a news report and gives somewhat limited information. It was also from 2006, I suspect that a post 9/11 study would have show less respect for Muslims. The second article was short on details about the later study. I did think it strange that people seemed to think that atheists were less trustworthy than rapists.

I think you can ask people how trustworthy they think others are. I suppose you could do research to show who's more likely to get convicted or divorced etc. but this gets problematic. Poor people are more likely to get imprisoned or divorced but I expect to an extent it's because of the stress of being poor and not being able to afford good lawyers. I'd like to know more about this study. It's relevant how the questionnaire was worded. Was it multiple choice with only certain groups mentioned (e.g. not including Mormons, Satanists?). I suspect that people are more likely to choose options higher of the list or in the middle so the order is relevant (in Canada they rotate the order of candidates on electoral ballots). It's also significant how the sample was selected. I suspect that most people said that they distrusted some group other than their own. If the sample was only English speakers, then it would have tended to exclude groups who tend not to speak English. It's also relevant when it was done. I think the popularity of Islam took a nose dive on 9/11/2001. Since then people have become better educated about Islam, further reducing it's popularity.