Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice.
by Gervais, Will M.; Shariff, Azim F.; Norenzayan, Ara
Recent polls indicate that atheists are among the least liked people in areas with religious majorities (i.e., in most of the world). The sociofunctional approach to prejudice, combined with a cultural evolutionary theory of religion's effects on cooperation, suggest that anti-atheist prejudice is particularly motivated by distrust. Consistent with this theoretical framework, a broad sample of American adults revealed that distrust characterized anti-atheist prejudice but not anti-gay prejudice (Study 1). In subsequent studies, distrust of atheists generalized even to participants from more liberal, secular populations. A description of a criminally untrustworthy individual was seen as comparably representative of atheists and rapists but not representative of Christians, Muslims, Jewish people, feminists, or homosexuals (Studies 2–4). In addition, results were consistent with the hypothesis that the relationship between belief in God and atheist distrust was fully mediated by the belief that people behave better if they feel that God is watching them (Study 4). In implicit measures, participants strongly associated atheists with distrust, and belief in God was more strongly associated with implicit distrust of atheists than with implicit dislike of atheists (Study 5). Finally, atheists were systematically socially excluded only in high-trust domains; belief in God, but not authoritarianism, predicted this discriminatory decision-making against atheists in high trust domains (Study 6). These 6 studies are the first to systematically explore the social psychological underpinnings of anti-atheist prejudice, and converge to indicate the centrality of distrust in this phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)

I don't see the plot as pointing directly at OWS... certainly using the current reasons that a large group of people have for distrusting the government and corporations. It's not unheard of for violent groups to seize upon peoples anger and use it to recruit or fund raise. The developers are just using current sentiment as a background device to make the story line appear more relevant.

Obviously not trying to convince anyone--just trying to inflame the wing-nut base.

The Occupy Movement already has the majority opinion behind them--this will only illuminate the differences. People peacefully trying to make the government change vs. people trying to inflame hatred and distrust.

This will backfire and the people who already are in favor of needed reforms will see this attack for what it is and more will support Occupy and Warren.

The class war was started by the rich and their dupes, it will be ended by peaceful, civil disobedience.

*promote

I love the wording of this passage:

A visual disorder, such as glaucoma, can also result in loss of peripheral vision leading to tunnel vision. Indeed, such tunnel vision is associated with extreme fear and hypoxia (i.e. oxygen loss), two processes common to dying.

Pity the people who need to read this are the kinds who distrust (and will generally dismiss) science if it contradicts their superstitious beliefs.

>> ^kymbos:

Yeah, 'nefarious agenda driven hackery'? I think you're coming down a little hard on him, NR. I'd appreciate an elaboration too.


Even with everything I just said in my last comment, you're probably right.

I'm just saying, Ron Paul isn't who you might think he is from his TV appearances.

I see him as being deeply manipulative and deceptive in the way he practices politics, and I see that blaring loud and clear in this video. The whole thing is like a creepy body-snatcher convention. The big applause line is "now I'm up to 50 interviews on Fox!" and the upshot of the speech is "keep looking for an 'honest' liberal to give you a platform to spread your ideology to new audiences you wouldn't normally have access to."

That's just...creepy. Take that with his characterization of liberals, and it makes me really, really deeply distrustful of him.

^You are (perhaps sarcastically) creating a false dichotomy. You are free to distrust both the government and outlandish conspiracy theories at the same time.

Why?

I do have a distaste for the free markets where higher profits = the only business ethics that exist. And I'm simply more distrusting of corporations than I am of my own government.

There is a bit of a conflict of interest there no matter who you favor though because of the lobbying that goes on in Washington. Laws created because of lobbyists, as a general rule I find, tend to not favor the people or the liberty you hold so dear. And therein lies the problem that I have with a lot of libertarian ideology in general.

The more markets and businesses are unregulated the more freedom and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Allow me to use privatized prisons as an example of what I mean: Prisons run as businesses have no incentives to decrease their prison population. They trade the cost of doing business for quality rehabilitation.

From this study by The University of Chicago and Harvard:

Prisons seem to Žt reasonably well into our framework. Although
in some respects prison contracts are very detailed, they
are still seriously incomplete. There are signiŽcant opportunities
for cost reduction that do not violate the contracts, but that, at
least in principle, can substantially reduce quality. Moreover,
from the available evidence we have the impression that the
world may not be far from the assumptions of Proposition 4.
First, the welfare consequences of quality deterioration might be
of the same magnitude as those of cost reduction
------------------------------------------------

I'm all for free markets, but the government needs to be there to protect the rights of the people whenever appropriate.

Now when it comes to the Republican party as a whole, generally they support de-regulation as long as it doesn't meet of the following criteria: something the religious right wants done OR something that guarantees rights/money to private institutions.

However, those don't seem like the kind's of things that Ron Paul would support, so I would support him to counterbalance their, in my opinion, insane ideas about how we should run this country.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Wow. I'm a bit shocked, I have to admit. Thanks for the quality!

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
*quality

Would be the first Republican I would vote for.

Ahh, and there is some interpretation to this, but it's not that atheists deny the existence of a god or other supreme intelligence, we just don't have any proof. We are essentially ignorant and we are quite comfortable with that fact.

Certainly there is a distrust of any concept of "god" that smacks of self projection.

Yet it is more and more appealing to see the process of evolution as the god-stuff itself, once recognizing that the process of evolution is potentially infinite.

@SDGundamX

I don't think this can compare. First: no one got off with murder. If anything, Western Europe is extremely harsh on its law enforcement officers, which doesn't help them want to protect the community, especially when the latter seems to loathe them so much. The Duggan case was nothing but an alibi for the majority of these looters.

Second, any person who thinks that they are entitled to loot from the livelihood of their neighbours, or burn their homes, has a serious problem, especially if they find the "well-other-people-are-doing-it" excuse acceptable. I fully understand the concept of mob mentality, and it seems it is because our society is such a lenient and dismissive "parent" that these youths fall prey to it. Why do these spoiled brats think it's okay to let of steam in such a destructive manner? Because they know they can get away with it, and that people will bend logic and common sense over backwards in order to find excuses for them. The government and society does have some responsibility, only not necessarily what people are accusing it of. A loving parent will care for its children, and that includes punishing them when they do wrong, not going all "you poor baby" on them. Kids need to learn that civil rights cannot be separated from civil responsibilities.

You make an excellent point in this comment by comparing with Japan: what is it that they have that makes them pull together instead of riot and pillage? A sense of community, and respect for authority. I'm not for blind respect, mind you, and the Japanese have good reason to be distrustful of the government's treatment of the Tepco scandal (amongst other things), but that certainly didn't keep them from helping each other.

*nochannel

*eia

"A place for videos exhibiting examples of fear, the use of fear to control and oppress, the use of fear to convince and motivate, fear of differences, terrorized people and animals, paranoia, distrust, fear of death, and phobias."

Thats fear.

you fucked up on that one.

now onto Fail.. well I do not actually have to post that as I think it is evident this doesnt have anything to do with fail, the guy did exactly what he was meaning to do, which was fucking retarded on all levels. too bad not on Ph34r level.

EIA ..exactly, fucking idiot wanting to impress his/her friends

So what your saying is no matter how much scientific evidence is given to you, you won't change your mind. Why?

Bring forth some genuine scientific evidence to match the claims.

Tweaked data, theories and worst-case scenario computer models that suggest a direct correlation between man-made warming activity and a rise in global temperature are not scientific evidence.

A consensus is also not scientific evidence. A consensus is a bunch of people sharing a certain idea. At one time the consensus was the earth is flat.

I've never disputed global warming (which was the original alarmist battle cry, now downgraded to "climate change") OR global cooling, as both occur in cycles over millions of years.

Because it doesn't fit your ideology. I don't automatically distrust science because some science is corporate sponsored, and some is gov't sponsored.

The burden of proof is always on the instigator of tyranny. You do have the wherewithal to see where the man-made global warming "religion" is going, don't you? Finally the global tyrants have a way to unite the world. Now they can regulate and micromanage all industry the world over, from which crops will be planted to how many houses may be built to what vehicles will be allowed on the roads. If they had an actual thermostat to regulate earth's temperature precisely I'd hardly trust them with that either.

A good experiment is a good experiment regardless of who sponsored it. What are you gonna do? Trust no science at all because every experiment has designers and participants with potential secondary motives?!

I keep waiting for an 'experiment' from the alarmists that doesn't have its conclusions already in place and loud voices declaring all debate over before the opposing side is even allowed to speak.

Science rarely proves something 100% of the time because it's so hard to account for every variable. If you did an experiment about gravity, you may inadvertently introduce other variables that alter the results, such as wind, or magnetism. So some conflicting evidence is expected. But the majority of the evidence suggests a human element to global warming, and global warming is real.

One-World socialist government based on a "suggested" link between a human element which cannot be quantified (how much human activity changes the earth's temperature and by how many degrees?) does not appeal to me.

BTW, how do alarmists promote their claims of decade-spanning climate predictions when weather patterns can't be accurately predicted beyond one week? Furthermore, how does the left know that global warming--man-made or otherwise--is not beneficial?

Per netrunner's hokum, if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.


http://videosift.com/video/Saddam-s-WMD-were-moved-to-Syria

There is no way any good liberal would entertain the notion that Saddam moved WMDs into Syria under the cover of a humanitarian mission. Yet the possibility exists and might undermine the narrative of the 'anti-war' left. Invincible ignorance in your court.

So what your saying is no matter how much scientific evidence is given to you, you won't change your mind. Why? Because it doesn't fit your ideology. I don't automatically distrust science because some science is corporate sponsored, and some is gov't sponsored. A good experiment is a good experiment regardless of who sponsored it. What are you gonna do? Trust no science at all because every experiment has designers and participants with potential secondary motives?!

Science rarely proves something 100% of the time because it's so hard to account for every variable. If you did an experiment about gravity, you may inadvertently introduce other variables that alter the results, such as wind, or magnetism. So some conflicting evidence is expected. But the majority of the evidence suggests a human element to global warming, and global warming is real.

>> ^quantumushroom:

It's coincidental that the "evidence" for global warming coincides with worldwide tax hikes, draconian regulations and One-World 'benevolent' socialist tyranny. Completely.
Considering there is scientific consensus on global climate change, you'd have to discredit all of them. Alternately, you could try trusting people who do science for a living over the people who do politics for a living.
Why do you assume scientists are apolitical when their funding depends on taxpayer money and growing the size of government? There is nothing close to a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made, and even if there was, a consensus does not equal scientific proof.

Actually i have seen debates-where there has been a vote after-and Hitch has swayed a large amount of people. The more people who listen to him, and ignore their bias, the better off we will be.
Also, the people who dislike him do so because, in every debate, he has applied logic, intelligence and common sense. I do not recognise your comment that people want "revenge on Christianity." People simply want the theists to get on with their lives, keep their dogma to themselves, stay out of politics and schools, and leave the rest of us to get on with ours lives. You ask "how do you convince people that god has no place in government?" That's simple, get them to study the constitution, read jefferson and payne, and listen to Hitch. I stand by my initial comment because Hitch would have destroyed their false sense of theological superiority. Forget protocol, some people need to be embarrassed to wake up, and, if you deserve it, Hitch is just the man for the job.
In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
>> ^A10anis:

This is why we need Christopher Hitchens. He would have destroyed their childish premise with one or two cruise missile sentences.


I hate to say it, but I disagree. As much as I love Hitchens. You can't convince mouthbreathers to use reason instead of faith when it's coming from someone like Hitchens. From their point of view, he is everything they hate, the "condescending college boy who uses big words and thinks you're dumb" stereotype is misused a lot but it's still an effective method of generating hate and distrust.

Hitchens is the perfect example, IMO, of someone who only convinces people who are already convinced. Just like all the people on the other side who will reaffirm the beliefs of people who already believe in god, but will never convince a single atheist that there is a god.

This is the question that needs to be answered: How do you take someone who has believed in god all their lives and slowly convince them that god has no place in gov't. People have a right to believe whatever they want so I don't really care about what religious people do on their own time, the central argument is to remove their influence from gov't and public education. That's all.

I don't think we need...or want..people who can be easily pigeonholed into that stereotype of someone who just wants revenge on Christianity. I think Silverman did a great job of not being confrontational, respectfully disagreeing and keeping his cool throughout the whole ordeal.

Atheism has a serious PR problem that needs to be corrected and billboards won't fix it. Making lawsuits claiming kids are traumatized by the Pledge of Allegiance won't do it. They need to pick their battles better and represent themselves far better than they are currently doing

>> ^A10anis:

This is why we need Christopher Hitchens. He would have destroyed their childish premise with one or two cruise missile sentences.


I hate to say it, but I disagree. As much as I love Hitchens. You can't convince mouthbreathers to use reason instead of faith when it's coming from someone like Hitchens. From their point of view, he is everything they hate, the "condescending college boy who uses big words and thinks you're dumb" stereotype is misused a lot but it's still an effective method of generating hate and distrust.

Hitchens is the perfect example, IMO, of someone who only convinces people who are already convinced. Just like all the people on the other side who will reaffirm the beliefs of people who already believe in god, but will never convince a single atheist that there is a god.

This is the question that needs to be answered: How do you take someone who has believed in god all their lives and slowly convince them that god has no place in gov't. People have a right to believe whatever they want so I don't really care about what religious people do on their own time, the central argument is to remove their influence from gov't and public education. That's all.

I don't think we need...or want..people who can be easily pigeonholed into that stereotype of someone who just wants revenge on Christianity. I think Silverman did a great job of not being confrontational, respectfully disagreeing and keeping his cool throughout the whole ordeal.

Atheism has a serious PR problem that needs to be corrected and billboards won't fix it. Making lawsuits claiming kids are traumatized by the Pledge of Allegiance won't do it. They need to pick their battles better and represent themselves far better than they are currently doing

qm is right. This is pretty left leaning.

I think this country has gone too far to the right economically, but I still couldn't help but ask myself while watching this if this recession is so bad, why are they interviewing middle class after middle class person who isn't homeless, is not going hungry, etc. There's the one interview of a couple, where the wife is a home maker, why is she not working?

The talk shouldn't just be centered around the same left talking points of what ills the economy. What about the declining importance in middle class culture for education? In middle class culture, there's a growing distrust of public education, education institutions, of the academic elite, etc., why? What about seemingly the middle class's refusal to adjust to reshaping of demand for skills? What was deemed a large portion of middle class jobs generations ago required less education, and less ongoing enhancement of skills. The middle class now seems to insist on jobs that the US economy has diminishing demand for, and not be attracted to professions we desperately need more labor and skills in, such as IT professionals, where we issue work visas and IMPORT LABOR for to get the job done, even when the economy is so bad right now. And of course, these new jobs require more initial and ongoing investments in education.

I don't intend to suggest that this is all these people's faults, because it's not. But what is killing the US economy isn't just outsourcing, bank bailouts, union busting, and poor government policy decisions. In fact, part of the reason outsourcing occurs in some industries such as IT is there's so little supply for a skill in the US and such high demand for it, such as in IT, that it's cheaper to send that job overseas where there's more supply for it.

There's absolutely no reason for the US to be shipping IT jobs overseas. We should be figuring out ways to keep them here, and disregard political ideologies to make that happen. Maybe it involves more gov't grants to encourage people in the US to get the training they need to be able to do those jobs. Maybe it's more socially promoting the importance of math and science subjects early on in school. To me, one of the biggest problems the US economy faces right now is the jobs of the future require more skills and education than ever before, yet it's becoming increasingly difficult to get the required education.

These are the problems I wish were discussed objectively and intelligently debated instead of having to combat idiotic stuff like Santorum stating gov't bailouts have in the short run cost American jobs.