quote:Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study
MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/20/2006) -- 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.
I actually found this quite surprising, but I can't exactly put my finger on why. I know the results are only premliminary, but I curious to see what other results they'll find.
Thoughts? Does your experience reflect the results?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think lots of people don't trust aethists because they lack a fear of God which religious people consider something invaluable to your being. As a Catholic, I ask myself, "How can anyone believe that there is not such thing as God?" I can almost understand those who believe that whether there be a god or not, there just has to be something out there, but I cannot understand aethists at all.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its always been my opinion that people dont need a religion to tell them whats moral or not -- everyone has a sense of right and wrong. I think its fairly clear that killing people/theft/adultery/etc are all immoral things. In fact I even remember a study that said that very religious countries do NOT have less crime. (ah here's the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html )
quote: “The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
So if this is indeed what drives the distrust to disbelievers (you like the alliteration) then it's wrong (the article has some studies to go along with its claims).
quote: but I cannot understand aethists at all.
I myself don't see enough evidence to believe that there is a supernatural creator. See? Simple Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I am in the minority but I have not seen this to be the case at all. While it is true that atheists are in the minority, I'll use an example out of my own life to explain my disagreement. I game with a group of 40+ men and women on an MMORPG. Somebody brought up the topic of religion, and we had a very light hearted spirited conversation about it. Most people said they did not really have any religious beliefs, VERY few people, (I was in this group) said they had strong beliefs, and finally a sizeable chunk of the group were atheists. The only comments the atheists made the whole time were "I dont see how anyone believes in any religion." "People who believe in religion are crazy and should be locked up." etc. Every BUT the atheists was willing to joke around, and not take our differences seriously. I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.
Not to say there are no religious people who persecute those they see as godless, but I really believe it is those who are religious that are rediculed in the media today and not vice versa. It hit me pretty hard when I watched "King Arthur" (not the best movie). Arthur is deeply religious (the movie does not explain why other than for traditional reasons) and Lancelot, Arthur's best friend, is an atheist who does nothing but ridicule Arthur's trust in God the entire movie.
In my opinion the reason people distrust true atheists is that it is difficult for an atheist to explain what moral foundation he/she has for doing what believers agree is acceptable and correct. This is not to say it is impossible, I know atheists who are VERY pleasent people, (even the pleasant ones often ridicule those who believe) it is just very difficult to articulate the moral grounding they posess. Perhaps it is because no grounding can be established, or then again it may just take time for people to understand it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kaioshin00: Its always been my opinion that people dont need a religion to tell them whats moral or not -- everyone has a sense of right and wrong. I think its fairly clear that killing people/theft/adultery/etc are all immoral things. In fact I even remember a study that said that very religious countries do NOT have less crime. (ah here's the link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html )
quote: “The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”
So if this is indeed what drives the distrust to disbelievers (you like the alliteration) then it's wrong.
quote: but I cannot understand aethists at all.
I myself don't see enough evidence to believe that there is a supernatural creator. See? Simple
Who are these non religious democracies they speak of? I guess I should read the article other than ask. I guess the most famous example of mass atheism that I can think of is France in the wake of the French Revolution. Ill be kind and say it was a step in the wrong direction.
Edit: I read the article, I was not impressed with it at all. Maybe the article does not do the report justice, but I would be happy to hear less about the conclusions and hear more about the data.
You know icecream has been directly linked to boat deaths. A study has shown that those involved in summer boat accidents are more likely to have ingested icecream that same day. While conversely in the winter when icecream is ingested less boat accidents drop dramatically!
Not only that just because people say they are religious does not mean they in fact are. I know many people who for fear of what others around them will think claim to be religious. Again, maybe its the article doing a terrible job of presenting the report, but the report looks like absolute garbage. The thing that I was most unimpressed with though is the statement that religious belief may actually contribute to higher murder rates, younger mortality rates, abortion, etc. What exactly about religion causes people to have those problems? How is religion CAUSING the problem? Its almost like saying "Because you require people to not kill each other, this CAUSES them to kill each other." Anyway its late and I am never very good at posting my opinions this late at night, my apologies.
quote: I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.
I, personally, have known many more religious people who enjoy picking fights with other religious people over religion.
One probable flaw in your observation is that you seem to take the set of "athiests you know" and extrapolate from that how "athiests are". The difficulty in this is that you probably don't know someone is an atheist until they speak up about it and speaking up about it is likely to get the person labled in your mind as "picking a fight". You have no way of knowing how many other dozens of quiet atheists you know who aren't interested in arguing religion.
I find it interesting that your post is very illustrative of the point of the originally posted article. If you replaced "atheist" with any other minority label, some of the bigotry in your statements would be more readily apparent.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious." ----------------------------------------------------- Skip over the irony here orin...ok
Well I read an interesting essay on this very topic from Douglas Adams's posthumous book "The Salmon of Doubt." Adams pointed out that if a radical athiest is truly radical (as he claimed to be), then he should have no fear of discussion when it comes to religion.
The problem here as I see it is that if you have no beleif in a God, or if you explicitly deny the existance of God, then you naturally feel a liberty to adress the topic intellectually, rather than emotionally as many religious people do. Problem is that many athiests adress the topic with a fervor equal to the most blindly dogmatic zealout.
Adams also pointed out, very fairly, that modern society has grown largely out of religious institutions, and as a result, any question or discussion of religious doubts by athiests will naturally be fielded as attacks on the foundation of society. The fact is that modern religions benefit very much from the attitude that many religious people take: don't question me, don't chanllenge me, my belief is my own, private.
The interesting fact is that modern religions foster an insulation against new ideas, AND they encourage their members to prosthelatize. Therefore the logic goes:
"we're right, don't you dare question us, ever. AND we must spread the word of God because we're right, don't question us."
All religions have elements of this dicotomy, and most people fail to acknowledge that. They fail to acknowledge it, IMO, because religions have evolved to train people to question their beliefs in only superficial, or artificial ways: ie, question the foundations of your religion if you must, but the existance of God is peramount and unshakable.
I went to Catholic Highschool, and I remember one day the teacher in my religious studies class actually putting a handy little diagram on the board. It was a big circle that said: "THE UNIVERSE." And outside the circle he wrote "GOD." And he said, "because the universe is contained within the presence of God, every thought, action, or life is contained in his presence."
From this experience I learned that Catholics deny the ability of humans to truly question their beleifs. This is not a tyranny as much as it is a necessity of all religions. It was displayed in sharp releif that day for me in school, but that was the intellectualization of 2,000 years of evolution in religious scholarship. This is what religious people live, this is what their lives are, they CAN'T be wrong. End of discussion (because only fake discussion can ensue).
Edit: As for the last two paragraphs, I went ahead and told the story without giving you the thought process which led me to the conclusion I draw. So think about it, if everything is contained within the presense of God, EVERYTHING, then how can rational discussion be had?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So think about it, if everything is contained within the presense of God, EVERYTHING, then how can rational discussion be had?
I'm not sure why God's presence, or the belief that everything is within God's presence, destroys the capacity for rational discussion about religion. Can you expand on this idea?
I think we've had some extremely rational discussions about religion between believers and non-believers here on Hatrack.
Of course, this might depend on your interpretation of the word 'rational.'
It is rational for me to believe in God; I have evidence of His existence in my life. It would be irrational for me to not believe, given the evidences that I believe to have found.
Orincoro, I find that folks with dismissive attitudes such as you've presented ("Religions create shallow thinking") are more culpable of disabling discussion than religions themselves.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott - I think Orincoro is talking, for instance, about a rational discussion of the existence of God when one side takes as a premise that God exists. This can also be extrapolated to any discussion where one side takes as a premise the issue under discussion itself.
I agree that what Orincoro means is unclear, but this is what I surmised.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, Karl. He used what seemed to me to be a theological statement as the foundation for his conclusion: "From this experience I learned that Catholics deny the ability of humans to truly question their beleifs."
So... I guess I'll wait for Orincoro to clarify.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I'm not an atheist myself, but I'm close enough that the results of this study (and many of the comments made on this thread) are very hurtful to me. Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tangent warning . . . "Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry."
Do some people really think that they have veto power over who their adult children can marry? I could see "would be disapointed if their children married" but allow???
posted
As one of my good friends just got kicked out of her house for dating a Hindu, I'd say, yes, people do.
In her case, her parents thought the cost of her Notre Dame tuition that they were holding over her head would make her obey. She's transfering to Purdue and getting a job.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population
Wow. I thought that that number would be way higher.
IIRC, "no religion" or "non-religious" is about 9% of the U.S. population (it's higher here in Canada). It seems that only a subset of those people self-identify as atheists.
Added: Also, this is part of why I find the apparent persecution complex of the "religious right" in the U.S. very strange.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I went to Catholic Highschool, and I remember one day the teacher in my religious studies class actually putting a handy little diagram on the board. It was a big circle that said: "THE UNIVERSE." And outside the circle he wrote "GOD." And he said, "because the universe is contained within the presence of God, every thought, action, or life is contained in his presence."
From this experience I learned that Catholics deny the ability of humans to truly question their beleifs. This is not a tyranny as much as it is a necessity of all religions.
My ninth grade, Asian, self-proclaimed atheist, married-an-Italian-Catholic-and-thinks-some-of-the-traditions are-crazy, World history teacher attended College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit institution, for his college career. He did not fail to impress upon us how the Jesuits at Holy Cross made him and the other students question all of their beliefs. If that man could tell his students that Catholics can truly question their beliefs, then it happens.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a tricky call at best. For the purposes of this discussion, you might as well list me as an "atheist". However, if I were polled and didn't know what the poll was about, I might not claim to be "atheist" but more likely "agnostic". Does the poll make the distinction? I bet there are many people who, for all practical purposes, are atheists, but who view the term itself (incorrectly in my opinion) to be some sort of positive declaration that "God does not exist"* and therefore do not self identify as "atheist".
*(as opposed to "I believe God does not exist" or "I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist" or even "I strongly doubt that God exists", which IMO are all atheistic claims.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally have found that atheists tend to enjoy picking fights with those who are religious.
I, personally, have known many more religious people who enjoy picking fights with other religious people over religion.
And I've noticed that people just enjoy picking fights, no matter what the reason - even if it is over why Coke is better than Pepsi. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I think lots of people don't trust aethists because they lack a fear of God which religious people consider something invaluable to your being. As a Catholic, I ask myself, "How can anyone believe that there is not such thing as God?" I can almost understand those who believe that whether there be a god or not, there just has to be something out there, but I cannot understand aethists at all.
I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I understand atheism better than agnosticism. Agnosticism is both different and the same as the most fideistic believers. One may assert God's undeniable existence while the other doesn't care at all, but they both refuse to ask rational questions of the subject. I may not consider myself bound to any one particular religion, but it doesn't stop me from asking questions and pursuing some possibility of truth.
This isn't to say that anosticism or fideists are bad as I was once borderline agnostic and fideism has its benefits...but the philosophy major in me doesn't understand how someone could not question the world around them even if only to strengthen their position.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
This isn't to say that anosticism or fideists are bad as I was once borderline agnostic and fideism has its benefits...but the philosophy major in me doesn't understand how someone could not question the world around them even if only to strengthen their position.
As an agnostic, I do question the world around me. I label myself agnostic because I haven't come to any conclusions yet.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh. If a person doesn't understand why Pepsi is better than Coke, then what use is it to even try to talk to that person? Some things are just TRUE.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't want to fight with those who believe. I wish I COULD believe. But I can't. I have to see some evidence before I believe. Heck, I'm even skeptical about the theory of relativity as I understand it. (I'm not sure I buy the whole time dialation thing...)
I have a firm moral base because I've thought it through. Just don't harm anyone else. It's pretty simple and pretty easy. There are some grey areas but they don't come up much and they're usually easy to figure out.
I think most people WANT to be good people. There's a warm glow that comes from being Good that you just don't get from being Evil.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.
Why not? I believe that no pink elephants exist in my room at this time. This belief is justified, and it's true - so we could even go so far as to call it knowledge - I know there are no pink elephants in existence in my room at this time. Atheists are just making the same claim about God, except that they typically substitute "the entire universe" for room and "ever" for at this time.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I label myself agnostic because I haven't come to any conclusions yet.
Technically, I don't know if that makes you agnostic.
quote:Agnostic:
An agnostic is someone who holds that it is impossible to know whether there is a God or not.
n. one who denies that there can be any knowledge of God or of supernatural things
"Gnosis" means "knowledge" so add the "a" and you have "negation of knowledge"
Its not that "not having conclusions" makes you agnostic. Many theists don't have firm conclusions about the unknown. If you believe there is the possibility that anything can be known of the unknown, you aren't really agnostic.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard the term agnostic most often used to describe someone who is unsure. Possibly because there isn't any other word in our language that could be used instead?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sharpie: Uh. If a person doesn't understand why Pepsi is better than Coke, then what use is it to even try to talk to that person? Some things are just TRUE.
Right, but that doesn't mean we need to make them drink Coke. If they like Pepsi than that's fine- just not what you'd do. Me: I don't drink soda at all. I like milk.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heck, I'm even skeptical about the theory of relativity as I understand it. (I'm not sure I buy the whole time dialation thing...)
Time dilation has been tested experimentally, and actually continues to be tested today. At the very least, it works as a model of whatever's actually happening.
quote:If you believe there is the possibility that anything can be known of the unknown, you aren't really agnostic.
I think you're defining "agnostic" too precisely. In order to be an agnostic, you don't necessarily have to believe that it's impossible to know whether god exists.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I use the term agnostic to mean someone who does not know whether or not God exists, and neither actively believes nor actively disbelieves in God, but is waiting for more convincing experiences. If that is not technically the definition of agnosticism, fine. Then what word describes such people? You certainly can't call them Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Hindus.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am so sick of threads that mention atheist and agnostic.
Because there are about three to five meanings of each of those terms, and everyone has to get everyone else to use their definitions.
Atheist sometimes means that you actively believe in the non-existance of God, implying that you "know" that God does not exist. But other times it simply means that you don't believe in God.
Agnostic is often used in a similar way to the second definition of atheism, in that it means you aren't sure whether God exists. But as someone mentioned in this thread (and someone always does) it can also mean that you actively believe that no one can know whether God exists.
So we often have threads where the definitions are as such: Atheist: someone who "knows" God does not exist. Agnostic: someone who believes that we cannot know whether God exists.
Which leaves people like me, who simply LACK a belief in God with no category.
For me, the burden of proof lies with existance, not non-existance. So until I have evidence of God, I do not believe in him. The same is true for me and unicorns. I have seen no evidence of their existance, so I do not believe in them.
Now what the heck does that make me? By my definition of atheist, I am an atheist. My definition is anyone who lacks a belief in God.
But by starLisa's defintion, I am not an atheist. Nor am I an agnostic by other people's defintions.
So perhaps thats why 9% classify as no religion, but only 3% identify as atheists. Because the word has no universally accepted meaning.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I can understand agnostics. Atheists, though... a believe in something not existing? I don't even get that.
That's very interesting coming from someone who, for example, does not believe that the Norse gods exist.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I game with a group of 40+ men and women on an MMORPG. (Anecdote)
I'm sure the 14-year-old on your average MMORPG are a fine sample of atheists, yes.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Who are these non religious democracies they speak of?
Norway, for example? I doubt you'll find any more secular nation in the world; yet somehow we've avoided mass guillotinings. Curious, that. And incidentally, our abortion, divorce, and teen pregnancy rates are below those of the United States. So is obesity, creationism and televangelism.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of the results come from a likelihood that many of the survey respondents don't actually know any atheists and have acquired their opinion from media portrayals, like that dude from California who kept harping on about getting rid of 'one nation under God'.
I work with a professed atheist (also Norwegian..he's got the best accent). He has to be really drunk to start getting argumentative about God's existence. And then he's just funny, not offensive. Or maybe it's that I don't take him very seriously when he's drunk. *shrug* If you know people like Pix or DavidBowles, or my coworker, it's hard to distrust atheists just because they're atheists. None of them have shown a flagrant disregard for right and wrong anymore so than anyone else. Basically, it helps to know one or two.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: even if it is over why Coke is better than Pepsi. [Wink]
Only in fountain drinks. EVERYONE knows pepsi is better out of a can or bottle. And I will wallbash anyone who disagrees! Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found that it's mostly the atheists who are willing to joke around about religion, morals (not that we're inherently immoral, it's just that we understand the larger picture, because we've actually had to put some thought to it), the (alleged) afterlife, adultery, cereationism/evolution, etc., while the devoutly religious get pretty up-tight about it all.
Puffy Treat, it's been found that, when asked, most people distrust opinion survey results.
To believe or not is not a matter of understanding, but a matter of TRUST in the ones who share your belief, who taught it to you, who wrote the Scriptures, who interpret the Scriptures, who decided, which Gospels should be heard...
And there are more than enough people who believe in God, but prove to be real ***holes in everyday life, so for me, BELIEF is NOT a criterion to judge a person's rightuousness, moral etc.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I distrust opinion survey results.
Even moreso, I distrust articles about opinion survey results with so little information on the actual survey. Did they have an option for "A person's religion or lack of religion has no effect on how much I trust them?"
quote:, it's just that we [Athiests] understand the larger picture, because we've actually had to put some thought to it
This is a fairly insulting statement toward those of us with religious beliefs. Do you understand why? And do you mean to be insulting?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's a big difference between not believing that X exists and believing that X does not exist.
Grammatically, yes. I don't think there is a philosophical difference. At most, it expresses a difference in the degree of nonbelief.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
on the main point of reasons why religious would not trust atheists I can think of a number of reasons:
1) Since an atheist (or agnostic) effectively must develop and maintain their own system of morality without outside influence there may be distrust that the individual will be as moral as someone in a formal religion. Of course it all comes down to personal strength of character as to how moral any of us are, but for example, even bad Catholics will generally feel some sort of guilt/remorse for commiting a major sin even if it doesn't prevent them from commiting it.
2) Many may view this as a cop-out. Being a true atheist really requires a great deal of introspection and internal/external philosophizing. Personally most everyone I know that would claim atheism is well educated, and has carefully reasoned out their beliefs on the matter, and so I can respect their beliefs, but it can be easy to claim atheism just because you don't seem to like organized religion.
3) Atheists are the unknown. If someone tells me they are Buddhist or Hindu or Evangelical Lutheran or Mormon etc... I have some basis as to what they might think on a certain issue, but since Atheism is effectively a lack of any formal creed I don't know how to take them. Depending on what philosophical reasoning they stand by one atheist may be completely accepting of an action or concept that another or myself would find reprehensible... since you are effectively a self-made individual at that point we have to know you to understand where you are coming from.
Basically it comes down to not being able to trust a group (as I might say, trust Catholics in general) but you must judge on an individual basis much more than with other religions/philosophies. It's similar to why anarchists are distrusted: if everyone were intelligent, logical and moral with great amounts of self control then an anarchistic society might work out, but because I've come to accept that most people are missing some of those qualities that I can't trust an anarchistic society to be good.
O.T. many MMORPG players do not fit into those stereotypes: my guild doesnt have anyone younger than 16 and the average age is probably closer to 22+
blacwolve: your friend is making a good decision, if a painful one: Purdue >>>>> ND (at least in my humble opinion as a Purdue grad and Catholic who dislikes ND a great deal)
Orin: I've got to wholeheartedly disagree with you on your statement that Catholics deny the ability to question their beliefs. Every Priest/Brother/Sister that I've ever dealt with (and there've been a lot) have actively encouraged us to question our beliefs, because only be questioning can we find the answers that reinforce those beliefs. I think you just had a bad experience in the matter.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's trust? Trust them to do what? Would I trust an athiest to come do contstruction work at my house? Would I trust them to watch my kids? Would I trust them to save my life if they're a doctor and I'm in critical condition?
I mean, seriously, what in the world are we even talking about here? I have a low opinion of both the survey and the article.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in God because when I look at how incredibly complex life, the universe and everything is, I just can’t believe it was by chance. So I believe in some sort of creator. That being said I am not going to start a fight, distrust or dislike someone because they have come to different conclusions. It just means that we have very different thought processes on the matter.
I think a lot of people use the term agnostics for people who don't know about God, not limited to those who think we can not know if there is a God.
Milk doesn't go with anything, except cookies which why you’ll very rarely find any in my house.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
