Some people seem to not trust atheists, but where does this distrust of atheists and atheism come from?

@Blackberry It’s because atheists are somewhat hypocritical. We still moan Oh God when we get our rocks off. How can they trust someone like that?

Everyone knows that atheists have no moral compass. You can’t predict them. I mean, they might eat babies. Or worse! Dun dun duuuuh!

This is the story of an intrepid atheist hunter who faces challenges to his faith and marriage, even as he hunts the most notorious atheist of the Federated Christian Republics. Coming soon to CSFN (Christian Science Fiction Network).

Serious answer, if you’re a person with a strong faith I think it’s hard to understand how someone else can have no faith whatsoever. It’s a hard concept to accept. It could force them to question their views and a lot of people have difficulty with that.

I shall not sleep until this question is answered.

I get the impression that many religious people think that Godliness is the requisite basis of morality. The whole “original sin” thing would have it that humanity is inherently morally corrupt, and devotion to God is the only thing that can keep us from sinking into iniquity.

I always think there is a natural distrust of anyone who doesn’t think the same as yourself. As a Christian who has known many so called christians (who behave badly) who go to church and can recite all 10 commandments and can break most of them willy nilly, you begin to assume, if believers can be that bad, how bad can non believers be?
Then you grow up and figure out that assholes come in all shapes, sizes and religions, and non religions. Then everyone is on an even playing ground. You start to distrust them all till they can prove themselves worthy of your trust.

What an interesting question. I’ve spent my whole life immersed in a Christian environment and have never heard one person utter one word about atheists. Many years ago, when I first heard the term, yes, I looked it up. It made sense to me that people would not have any belief in some type of god.

Do religious people really not trust atheists? Can you give some examples? I must live under a rock, as this is a new concept for me.

I’m kinda with @Pied_Pfeffer on this. I have heard many atheists declare that they don’t trust any one with a religious faith, but the only time I’ve heard anyone speak against atheists is back in the days of decrying “those Godless commies”. I guess I’m dating myself, huh.

It comes from people like Rob Sherman who give atheism a bad name by trying to shove their views down the throats of people who do not share his view of the world.

@Pied_Pfeffer I’ve only known a few, but yes, I’m pretty sure these people are a small minority. It was explained to me from one perspective that, if someone looks at all the complexity of the universe, and sees “nothing”, there has to be something wrong there. Like what is to stop them from doing “whatever they want”. You know..that whole argument. This was a co worker of mine I knew in the navy a couple of years ago.

@Blackberry Hopefully the law, or someones spouse with a shot gun or your neighbor with a shot gun.
But like I said. I’m sure jail is filled with christians and atheist alike.

“oh crap, these people are starting to stop some of our members from believing our lies, we best start killing them” simple as.

@Pandora I’m confused….lol.

@Pied_Pfeffer: “Do religious people really not trust atheists? Can you give some examples?”

There are studies showing that atheists are the least trusted group in the US.

I blame religion propagators for this! Most open-minded non-atheist will accept atheists and atheism the way they are, it’s just that some narrow-minded people prefer being cynical toward atheism. Popular belief and majority influences are also another root of this disrespectful manner.

@Blackberry What I mean is our laws pretty much spell out some of the same things and what the law doesn’t cover, and angry person may set straight.

You wrote Like what is to stop them from doing “whatever they want”.
If you steal or kill the law will step in.
If you sleep with your neighbors wife, the spouse may blast your ass.
If you lie and get caught, you can lose your job, or lose a friend or even get beat up.
If you want your neighbors things or eyeball his daughter a little to hard, your neighbor can become your enemy.
If you disrepect your parent your parents will probably make you regret that.
If cheat on your spouse, divorce court can make you regret that as well.
Pretty much the first couple of commandments aren’t about behavior towards each other but rather about God and Church. So the rest after 4 can apply to anyone.
That is what you should’ve told them when they asked you what is to keep them (atheist) from doing whatever they want. Hopefully common sense on how to behave. The worst of it like murder and stealing, the law has it covered.

@Pandora Oh ok, gotcha lol. I agree.

@Pandora, but this still assumes that an atheist has no morality. It isn’t fear of the law that keeps an atheist from killing or stealing. It’s that he thinks it would be wrong. Not because God told him so, but because he has a sense of morality that comes from outside of religious belief. That is a thing that many religious people have trouble accepting.

@dappled_leaves Not this religious person. Morality isn’t always present in a religious person either. But my point is that the laws or the land or at least consequences from bad things happening is what keeps most people in check. At least those who understand consequences.

@Blackberry Ah, thank you for the example. And @Pandora you provide a good point. I read and watch a fair amount of true crime stories, and it is always interesting how many convicted people either claim that the voice of God told them to commit the crime or how many people in jail ‘find God’ while locked up. It would make sense that some people might jump to a conclusion based upon the latter example.

@tom_g Thank you for the article. The statistics listed aren’t helpful, IMO, other than the drop in scores between the two questions listed. Even then, it is questionable. Surely there were more questions asked than those two. And as we all (should) know, it also depends upon how questions are worded what multiple choice answers are made available. Unless we have access to all the details of the survey, they don’t mean much.

@dappled_leaves That’s what I meant to say lol.

In my opinion, it isn’t a matter of trust as much as it is a sort of xenophobia.

I believe it is because many people view atheists as contrarians, and thus sort of eccentric.
As if they are saying “There is a God, I simply stubbornly refuse to believe it”.

There really does not seem to be much appreciation that atheism is based on epistemology.
There is no evidence of God, other than that some people say there is. Without evidence, it is reasonable to assume that there is none. Not that complicated. And certainly not worthy of mistrust.

But if someone will conclude that there is a God without evidence, they can certainly conclude that you are not trustworthy without evidence. No surprise.

I think it partially stems from their portrayal in the media. A lot of atheists portrayed in the media are kind of dicks. Likewise, a lot of humor that leans towards atheism, like in Family Guy, tends to act a little more hateful towards religion for no reason. The sad thing is, I know a handful of atheists, and they are far more apathetic towards religion than people would have you believe.

I think it’s a pretty simplistic train of thought.

Those who believe this think:

Morality comes from God
Atheists have no God
Therefore, atheists have no moral compass.

Plus, there are some religious people who cannot even comprehend that some people believe that their god may not exist. They are convinced that atheists “hate God,” and that anyone motivated by such hate must be untrustworthy.

Some fundamentalists think they are secret satanists

I had a very strict Christian upbringing. The prescribed code of behavior was a huge list of “don’ts” along with a shorter list of “do’s”. That burden of “don’ts” could get pretty onerous, especially because many of them were difficult to rationalize. Every now and then, some member of that faith community would cave under the pressure, say “Hell with this!” and just go wild. It was an almost explosive reaction to all those years of repression. That would reinforce the idea among the rest that really it was only faith that stood as a bulwark against the inner forces of evil.

What gets lost in that way of thinking is that we come by many of those “don’ts” and “do’s” quite naturally. On top of those, religion often piles many more that don’t have that same kind of inner resonance, and it then proceeds to treat both these “natural” and “constructed” mandates as equally valid; all written in God’s book of rules. That explains, to a large extent, the behavior of those who “went wild”: if you’re going to flaunt the rules, then you might as well go all the way (kind of the “Thelma and Louise” effect).

Atheists will look at these constructed mandates and not feel bound by them in the least, but will still feel motivated to respect the “natural” ones. To the faithful, it may look like atheists are just making up their own rules of conduct, but of course they’re not really. They just may have a more finely-tuned sense of what’s natural morality and what’s constructed morality, because they haven’t confounded the two.

@thorninmud ; I am a Christian, but I sometimes wonder at how atheists seem to have a HIGHER morality than a natural morality. While many fundamentalists embrace a “survival of the fittest” attitude when it comes to the poor, most of my atheist friends seem to rise above that natural animalistic, survival instinct, and feel a communal responsibility to “the least of these.” Reference to Matthew 25

@poisonedantidote‘s comment pretty much sums up why I distrust some atheists. If someone is going to decide that I’m an idiot and/or dangerous and treat me as such because of my personal beliefs, then I do not trust them. I am not fundamentalist anything. I have my beliefs and I will happily explain them to anyone who ask, but I will not go around spouting my beliefs nor will I try to “convert” anyone. I will never say an atheist is wrong, but few atheists accord me the same respect. I hurt no one and I consider myself something of a woman of science. I believe in evolution, the big bang and everything science has proven. This rarely matters when I am talking to an atheist. Many atheists to whom I have tried to explain my beliefs are more worried about proving me wrong and “tripping me up” than actually listening to what I have to say, and many hang their heads in shame because I am being so stupid according to them.

I also distrust a scientist who dismisses the possibility of a divinity out of hand because there is no proof. There was no proof of atoms a few hundred years ago, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. There was no proof that the sun didn’t revolve around the earth until Galileo found the proof. For a scientist to say that there is no proof of God makes me question them as a scientist. For a scientist to say that there is no proof of God yet makes me respect them infinitely, for it is the job of the scientist to continuously learn and to question.

I would not say that I distrust these kinds of atheists morally-speaking, but I have a very hard time trusting people who have no qualms with treating someone badly because of their personal beliefs.

I would like the record to reflect that I feel the same way about religious folks who treat atheists and others of different religions badly purely for this reason.

@Judi, I too am a Christian, but again like you have many atheist friends whom seem to have a higher sense of morality than many Christians. Sad to say that, while many Christians are moral and behave morally because it is the correct way to behave there are some who seem to think that because they say they are Christians they are.
A true follower of Christ would act in much the same way Christ did. That includes putting other people before themselves, and loving ALL people, especially their enemies.

Wait. What’s wrong with eating babies?

Anytime we percieve someone as strange, keep in mind they’re thinking the same about us.

Being raised in an “atheist” (I prefer “unassuming”) house, I didn’t have a loyalty to any ideology – this, paired with my father’s bare-boned (open to interpretation) advice, allowed me to explore all mental avenues without fear of being wrong. I have since grown very spiritual, but I won’t labor on that point. I see merit in all ideology, and I never fool myself into thinking what works for someone else is right or wrong. The universe is my church and classroom: full of lessons for the mindful. I will continue to play my role of student and teacher (as we all do – higher power or not).

All of that said: I find the religious debate distracting and egocentric. There are more pressing matters at hand – like standing up against injustice toward our fellow man. When we focus on our differences, we serve to widen the gaps between us. Instead, we could be finding common ground – combining/comparing our different ideas with the goal of a better understanding for a peaceful world.

The need to be “right” is so passé – by it’s very definition, “being right” requires the opposing viewpoint to be “wrong”. Many of the issues we face today are far too complicated to be so crudely defined. I’d like to think we’re finally getting to a point in history where people are starting to look at the whole picture, instead of just “this” or “that”. If we put the needs of many in front of our petty desires for power, fame, money, and beauty, who knows what kind of world we could create!

I’ve never met a person who subscribes to a major religion that couldn’t stand to open up a bit, and I’ve never met an atheist that couldn’t use a little spirituality. Studies have shown that infants have the innate ability to empathize with others. Instead of quelling this instinct in children by systematically desensitizing them to cruelty, we could be properly preparing them for the social climate (inspiring respect for differences, not fear). We can all agree that no one is born a bigot, therefore it is also reasonable to assume that prejudiced/distrustful viewpoints are born out of ignorance and misinformation. Our political atmosphere spreads much of this discord – everyone is pointing fingers, and no one is accepting blame. What the world really needs now is humility, not more dogma.

@Rarebear: Athiest BBQ tonight—BYOB(aby).

Lol!

@Rarebear Well, I guess, nothing…..We eat baby animals.

I think the main reason for the distrust is that some people of faith assume that without religious law people automatically sin and commit crimes. I think that says more about the person of faith than the atheist. An atheist is a person that has proved that he doesn’t need a god figure to watch over his every move. An atheist is more likely to be ethical and upright than any “christian preacher” you see on television.

I find that most people are trustworthy and honorable. People that fear others of different or no faith are ones likely to go off the deep end if they stop fearing god’s wrath, hence they expect the same from others.

Babies. The other other white meat.

Some people seem to think that without the fear of Hell motivating us to be a “good person” we must therefore have no moral code and be completely destructive and selfish as we do not care about anything at all. What is more problematic to me, however, are the people who only do what’s “good” because they’re afraid of Hell.

@rOs I love what you have to say, and I gave you a GA foi bringing it forward. But it strikes me as a bit pollyannaish and unrealistic. How, for instance, would you have saved the Jewish people from the Holocaust by finding the good in Hitler that all Mews could agree with. So you really believe that you can compromnise with everyone, and that there really is no such thing as evil, just personal misunderstandings? Reality has long since disabused me of such a belief. I probably need to learn to work harder at finding common ground with those willing to meet in the middle. But you need to learn, I think, that there are some who consider the only possible common ground their own. For them, there is no middle. It is their way or the highway. And when confronted with a personality like that, you must first assess where their highway takes you before deciding to follow or fight.

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

@DominicX Do you know people that believe these things? I’ve heard both theories when it comes to religious beliefs on a broad spectrum or general statements, but never from the personal perspective of someone who felt either or both ways. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen, but I’m also not going to use either to defend atheistic beliefs unless I’ve heard it from a religious group.

@Pied_Pfeffer

I have come across people who have said these things, yes. Not “atheists don’t fear Hell so they can’t be good people”, that’s my own idea of what they are really thinking subconsciously, but I have heard people say things to the extent of “atheists don’t get their morals from God, so how moral can they really be?”.

In other words, people who follow a deontological ethical system, where ethics and morals come from sets of rules, are in disbelief at how another ethical/moral system could work as well (or better) than their own.

I’m also a little distrustful of people who think that all people who believe in God are fundamentalist Christians.

@KatawaGrey

I was using Christians in my example because those are the majority of people I have come across in my discussions of this topic and the ones I’ve met who distrusted atheists were more on the fundamentalist side and did seem to think that it was impossible or at least very difficult for someone to be a moral person without getting their morals from religion.

Religion is more than just morality,it’s also a common thread that ties communities together, a shared ritual. When someone voluntarily removes herself from a community, becoming outcast, the community naturally distrusts.

@DominicX Thank you for the clarification. As I stated earlier in the thread, this is all new to me. In my little world, despite living multiple places in the US, people just don’t talk about their beliefs, at least not in detail.

@Pied_Pfeffer

To be honest, most of my “talking” has been done online, though I did have a few rare opportunities in “real life” to discuss these things.

@DominicX: Oh, I wasn’t just referring to you. Many of the talks I’ve had with atheists have involved them making some reference to Christianity or heaven and hell and use those references and arguments against me. Even after I’ve explained that I am not Christian and that most of the Christians I know are not fundamentalist, I am still dismissed and made to look a fool, because the atheist I am speaking to has decided that I am stupid because I believe a few of the same very basic things as fundamentalist Christians.

Gadzooks, when it comes to me it is not that I distrust atheist, but that I trust people of faith, mostly those who follow the Bible, more. I did not have a concept of atheist or agnostics growing up. I am sure I heard the term but it never registered in any great way. There were those who believe, and those who did not, or should I say those who were not following any faith. Just because they were not a follower of Christ did not make them de facto atheist in my mind. Atheist never was even on my radar until I spent much time here on Fluther. If I were going to loan out my drill, battery charger, iron, toaster, whatever, I would more trust a follower of Christ because if they are truly in the Word, they would seek to treat me as they would want me to treat them. If they don’t want to be ripped off, they would not rip me off. The tenets and degrees of the Bible would mean something to them, so I know they would have less of a desire to take my stuff. Atheist are not placed in a special category more than agnostics, non-followers, etc, they are all on the same plane, just not trusted as much as fellow Followers of Christ.

@Hypocrisy_Central – re:” I would more trust a follower of Christ because if they are truly in the Word, they would seek to treat me as they would want me to treat them”

That’s all we atheists want, too.

@ETpro To be clear, I don’t believe in good or evil (at least not in the way you implied). I believe in brain chemistry (nature), environment (nurture), and choices (dicernment) – in that order.

Do you think that Hitler would have exterminated millions of innocents had he not suffered tremendous abuse as a child (his father beat him often)? I mentioned misinformation before; what if Hitler had not been so convinced of eugenics? His actions were surely ‘evil’, but his choices were based off of extreme ideology most likely enforced by his troubled/ insufficient upbringing.

What if the German people, including Hitler, had been raised as I mentioned before? “Studies have shown that infants have the innate ability to empathize with others. Instead of quelling this instinct in children by systematically desensitizing them to cruelty, we could be properly preparing them for the social climate (inspiring respect for differences, not fear).”

It happened then, and we still see it today: On the small scale, many of us commonly practice self-deception in order to justify our lust for “the American dream” – often living well beyond our means (I’m looking at you, richie-rich). On the larger scale, with the rising tide of constant media input and incessant advertising of American “lifestyles”, our ethics have been tangled up in social dichotomy, religious fervor, national pride, racial fears, etc. People subjected to this tend to act with a mob mentality. If we took a more measured approach to media/politics, it would cool down the proverbial engine – which has been in the red for years now (or maybe it’s just been getting worse – therefore more noticeable).

I propose, that if we were to invest in our children’s future, instead of our own, we could create a socially collaborative world where guileless knowledge and feedback are readily available. There is nothing we can do for the extremists we see today; they are apparently stuck in their ways. We can, however, create a world where we teach our children discernment, instead of indoctrinating them with something they don’t understand. Making decisions like virtue over vice, compassion over indifference, and people over power can and should be commonplace. All of us (especially those in the public spotlight) will need to learn how to lead by example. The need for control is tearing this world apart.

Just to add, as a queer and an atheist, I have zero need for anyone to ‘finally see me as respectable’ according to normative standards.

@laureth That’s all we atheists want, too. From a secular point of view I am sure atheist do. However, I can’t be sure where or how that will manifest itself. There is no standard or benchmark I can hang my hat on. An atheist can be pissy at me all day long, or take and keep something, covet or steal that has little or no value and not make a big issue of it. There is no accounting for it less it is determined by law and big enough to prosecute. Even if I borrowed your 8 year old drill and did not return it because I knew you purchase at least two new drills in the past three years, so the oldest one I borrowed you hardly ever use. Even if you stated that fact from your lips, that you hardly use it, by my faith and belief I can’t just take it and keep it, because it is yours. Now you might not call the cops or if the cops came out, they would try to avoid making an arrest, unless they were really having a crap day, because to most an eight year old drill is practically useless. I would be held accountable to a high authority for coveting your drill, no matter how old, or if you had eleven other drills. An atheist or person not following could easier rationalize ”He has two newer drills, he said he hardly uses this one, he most likely won’t miss it. Besides, I have no drill, he has two left it is fair. He should not be greedy” and keep my drill because there is no higher authority they feel they would need to answer to, if the law will not do anything, and most likely won’t over such a small value amount. I am not saying no atheist could be trusted but they would have to do more proving to get my drill, lawn mower, camera, etc on loan.

@Hypocrisy_Central, an atheist is equally likely to have exactly the same thoughts about your drill, “it’s not mine, so I can’t just keep it because I feel like it”. Atheists have the same sense of honour, shame, guilt, or pride that a religious person does – they just don’t have a biblical foundation.

I think what you are trying to communicate above is that a religious person must be trustworthy, whereas an atheist only might be trustworthy. Does this mean that you have no personal experience of a religious person lying, stealing, or committing any other immoral act?

@Hypocrisy_Central – While you may not be able to keep the drill, I have seen The Faithful be just as wicked as you’re saying atheists are by default. A main difference is, when I call the faithful on it, they often tell me, “All sin and fall short of the Glory of God.” And when I call atheists on it, most often they say, “D’oh! Dude, I’m sorry!”

There are good people, and there are bad people. There are faithful and non-faithful in both groups. And one’s faith level is no guarantee of righteousness.

Thanks for the answers, I’m busy so I’ll GA later.

See you. Good question

@Hypocrisy_Central ; We had an employee who was a pillar of our church. Known for his vast integrity. He even put a fish on the company truck (which I will no longer allow even though I’m a Christian.) The man had no problem stealing time from us and never for a minuet thought of it as stealing. When it came to money, his credit sucked, I guess he though God would provide, so over extended himself, and ended up getting angry with us when we stopped paying his $800 per month medical premium after six months on disability. (we only had 5 employees so this was a huge hit for us, and in our opinion a generous gift.) Anyone who uses their faith to try and gain my trust waves an instant flag for me anymore. It is not honoring to them OR to God.

In my 54 years on this planet, I can count on one finger…and that’s probably too much…the number of times I’ve given atheists (or atheism) a thought.

That is, until I happened upon social forums such as this that beat the subject of atheism to death.

So I imagine if there is a distrust in atheists and atheism, it’s probably largely contributed by people on the internet telling or reminding us that atheists and atheism is worthy of distrust.

@dappled_leaves an atheist is equally likely to have exactly the same thoughts about your drill, “it’s not mine, so I can’t just keep it because I feel like it”. Atheists have the same sense of honour, shame, guilt, or pride that a religious person does – they just don’t have a biblical foundation. I will say again for those who missed it, I did not say that no atheist could be trusted because they do not follow the Bible. I am sure there are many out there who have the basic standards of not taking what is not theirs. Unless I know them well I have to side on the side they will not be honorable with it, as most people do with everyone regardless. People do not invite strangers into their home unless they have some official purpose, and they have some body backing them, like the cable company, the insurance company, someone that will hold them to acting professional while they are there. Since there is nothing backing an atheist but their own mind or will, which I can’t see if I do not know them for a long time, it would be harder for me to lend it to them. Just as you’d turn over the keys to your car quicker to a mechanic you don’t know than a work colleague you do know but not well, because the mechanic has more backing and credibility because he can’t muck it up because there will be someone higher than him, the BBB, Diamond Certification, etc that will call him to task.

@laureth While you may not be able to keep the drill, I have seen The Faithful be just as wicked as you’re saying atheists are by default. By default we are all wicked the only difference is some accept being under grace. That has no baring on how comfortable I am lending something to a person not of the faith.

A main difference is, when I call the faithful on it, they often tell me, “All sin and fall short of the Glory of God.” That is a true statement but that is no excuse to covet or take another’s possessions. And because some would try to use it to absolve their wrong doing the true facts remain. I can’t borrow your shovel and wheel barrel, and never return it because I seen you have tow more better ones in back of your tool shed and tons of other shovels. If you finally call me on it I can’t say, “oh, I was done with them 4 months ago, I know I should have returned them but we all fall short of the Glory of God, you know”. I would still be guilty of coveting your goods but got caught. Because some try to play the ”all sinners card” don’t make coveting any less, if they admit it or not.

@Judi Anyone who uses their faith to try and gain my trust waves an instant flag for me anymore. It is not honoring to them OR to God. Anyone who tried to use their walk as leverage would make me question just how straight their walk was. Had I met the guy you said, and he was straight in his dealing because he did not want to offend God more than he wanted to profit. I would be the one to extend him trust off his actions and behavior, not because he was coming with the ”C’mon brother, we are all children of the Lord” or trying to manipulate scripture to bolster his agenda. There is a difference in being genuine and allowing people to want to trust you because they see and like your integrity and trying to build one just by association.

@rOs Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your analysis of what made Hitler who he was, and how a different form of parenting could change things for the better. But rest assured that there are perhaps millions here in America who consider themselves Evangelical Christians and who interpret the old testament message about the “rod” and children so literally that some have beaten their children to death. Beatings are often carried out at church and may go on for hours. The movement believes that so long as a child is still squirming during a brutal whipping with a rod, there is still a spirit of rebellion in them that needs to be crushed. Their objective is absolute surrender of self to authority.

So my problem is that when you confront someone who didn’t benefit from a loving, nurturing environment like you grew up in, but who instead was turned into a seething cauldron of hatred and fear by life, there is no common ground on which you can meet them. Sometimes, if you want to live you have to fight.

@Hypocrisy_Central There are certainly examples of atheistic movements that did enormous harm. Atheists like Stalin, and Mao have more blood on their hands than the ostensibly Christian Nazi movement. But Christians have their bloody past and present as well. There were the Crusades, the horrors of the Inquisition, Vald the Impaler (Count Dracula) was a Roman Catholic. the witch trials, burnings at the stake, trials by dunking chair. We have the Dominionists of today, the Branch Davidians. Clearly there are crazies on both sides. And the rightness of the Golden Rule, first mentioned in the Hammurabi Code of Ancient Babylon, is a guide to all rational humans, whether theists or atheists. And irrational people, both theists and atheists, somehow think that they will uniquely escape the Law of Reciprocity. They don’t.

@Hypocrisy_Central re “Because some try to play the ”all sinners card” don’t make coveting any less, if they admit it or not.”

Exactly my point. Believers can be just as immoral; they just hide it under a Bible cloak. Worse, they have the opportunity to say, “I can’t help it – we’re all sinners!” whereas (in my experience) a moral atheist has to own up to her behaviour instead of blaming it on God.

An old Cherokee told his grandson, “My son, there’s a battle between two wolves inside us all. One is Evil. It’s anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies, and ego. The other is Good. It’s joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness, empathy, and truth.” The grandson thought about it and asked his grandfather, “Which wolf wins?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

In North America’s foundational Judeo-Christian value structure, an atheist was, sometimes still is, seen as a person with floating ethics. An atheist has, am I correct or not, no higher authority than his/her own head space. Yes, there are laws and morals of the culture in whatever decade the atheist is living, but there are not absolutes of honesty and integrity that are traditionally attributed to those who model their lives after what they understand from the Holy Bible or also other handbooks of faith throughout the world. It is true that those who claim Christianity as their guide of life often fail and some imposters really are sullied in character. That is what makes the whole thing so hard. You need a lot of discernment and I can see where atheists who are ethical really get offended.

This is such a crock. I’m an atheist which means to me my moral code and code of honor has to stronger than most. If I screw up and do something wrong the only one I can blame is the person that looks back at me in the mirror. I can’t go to confessional and get redemption. I’m the one responsible for my conduct.

@Adirondackwannabe, but it wouldn’t matter about the dark feelings would it—- say if there was no one who cared about your life from the heavens? You could just shrug off any tendency to regret.

@smilingheart1 Not sure if I get your meaning.

@rOs , that is becoming my facebook status today :-)

@Adirondackwannabe, @smilingheart1 – This is starting to look like a pissing contest. No one cares who’s moral code is “better”. Everyone has a conscience that guides their decisions. I’m sure @Adirondackwannabe at least feels some regret as he feasts upon your children.

@rOs Nothing wrong with a little small child chow mein.
@smilingheart1 Lets back it up a little and try again. Hi, I’m adirondackwannabe and I’d like to get your thoughts on this.

I am curious to know whether the people who have said in this thread that they’ve never heard that some of the faithful (to use @laureth‘s term) believe that atheists are untrustworthy will acknowledge that it is a real thing. It may be something that is not articulated until asked… and I doubt that the faithful discuss it among themselves, but as an atheist I have heard this many times. It is indeed a strange judgment to be handed, when I know very well that it is utterly untrue.

@rOs, it seems to me that the conversation became uncomfortable when @Blackberry‘s question was answered by some (not all) with a “yes”. The nature of the question is perhaps not “whose moral code is better” but “does one of you accuse the other of having a lower moral standard”. Why wouldn’t we want to hear an explanation if the answer is “yes”? Isn’t the point of the question for us to discuss that answer?

@dappled_leaves Yes, I thought that’s what I was doing…. wait… where am I?

Can you be more specific?

Haha! I’m sorry, I just was reacting to your comment that this thread was turning into a pissing contest. I don’t think it’s that bad.

Oh, that makes more sense, sorry for misinterpreting your response. I was simply expressing my frustration with all this rhetoric :P

@dappled_leaves I am curious to know whether the people who have said in this thread that they’ve never heard that some of the faithful (to use @laureth‘s term) believe that atheists are untrustworthy will acknowledge that it is a real thing. Yes that is plausible, I would say more plausible than any atheist ever thinking it might be plausible that there is something after death. Before an atheist could even fathom that .00001% it would be a very frosty day in hell, like 360 deg below. Just because some people of faith say it, or maybe imply it if they believe it but never uttered it aloud is no indictment for all atheist to be given badges of “trustworthiness”.

@Hypocrisy_Central, I’m really not sure what you are trying to say here… nor am I certain that you understood my question.

Also, I have not spoken in absolutes at all in this thread. Obviously, not everyone who believes in a god feels the same way about atheists.

@dappled_leaves I was agreeing with you in the fact that is is plausible that come people of faith believe or speak of atheist being untrustworthy, even though I have never heard it myself. It is also plausible that someone professing a walk of faith is not totally honest. I can concur the plausibility of those fact are real.

However, I have not found an atheist that could fathom or see any plausibility, that their actions here have any greater implications other than their here and now. So they cannot understand why people of faith will do more and go further not to covet something that is not theirs or straight out steal it. They seem to miss it is that believe that there is someone other than just us humans to answer too and that make people of faith more adherent to being honest because our actions will mater after we are gone from this Earth.

@Hypocrisy_Central “is is plausible that come people of faith believe or speak of atheist being untrustworthy, even though I have never heard it myself.”
But you just said that you believe this yourself… so why do you say that you have never heard it? <confused>

@dappled_leaves But you just said that you believe this yourself… so why do you say that you have never heard it? <confused> I did not say I believed it I said I can entertain there is the possibility there are people of faith who do. I have never heard it. I would be remiss if I thought NO PERSON OF FAITH EVER would or could think it. I guess people of faith are not as perfect in holding the party line as atheist. Out of all the people of faith I ever fellowshipped with I never heard the phrase ”atheist are not trustworthy”, or anything like it. Confusion over, I hope.

I was actually referring to your hypothetical drill story, but I’m not going to belabour the point.

@dappled_leaves That part was covered. The atheist with my drill would be in no worse or better position than Manuel who fixes transmissions in the back of his home garage. If I had transmission trouble, I would go to Mr. Chan who has a shop that is Diamond Certified, and as an A+ BBB rating. Would Manuel get passed over simply because he is Hispanic? He could be an EXCELENT transmission mechanic, but if I don’t know him, as I don’t know Mr. Chan, it comes down to backing. Chang has the BBB and Diamond Certification, Manuel has none. When it comes to getting my drill in their hands, the atheist guy will not have the backing I need to be comfortable of his integrity.

What I’m wondering here is why religion is like Diamond Certification when having religion doesn’t necessarily make someone a better (more moral, more trustworthy) person. Is it simply because it makes them more like you, and people trust others more when they’re from the same community or background?

@laureth What I’m wondering here is why religion is like Diamond Certification when having religion doesn’t necessarily make someone a better (more moral, more trustworthy) person. Glad you asked. Lets extrapolate the logic. Are they more trust worthy than regular folk? There is no way to tell actually. What do you have? The logic and the preponderance of evidence. Who is to say cops are not being cops to use their badge to steal? Who is to say soldiers are not being soldiers to they can be trained by the government so they can use that same training to be insurgents. Those things are plausible but not very probable. The history of those who go into law enforcement is they want to do good, other wise they would be out stealing and robbing and maybe locked up already. Back to the people of faith, it is probable that their can be some who will use the Bible to mask their devilment, but as a whole, like cops being criminals by the barrel full, not very probable. Should that person go that route to try and covet my drill I can go to his congregation or pastor and have them intercede. If the person really care about his walk with God, he will listen to his church members or pastor’s rebuke, and maybe isolation from the church they want to be apart of. Other than that, I have only the cops to call or to file small claims against him. The value of the drill is too small for the cops to take seriously and to file small claims might cost more in fees and court cost than the drill is worth.

So you wouldn’t say that religion draws people who feel a need to be saved, perhaps from their wickedness? That is, it selects for dishonest and untrustworthy people, who, but for believing in a judgmental God keeping tabs on them, might be more likely to steal your drill?

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me…

People who want to be cops, may get into it for wanting to protect people. Ditto soldiers. Ditto doctors. People who are already moral, however, don’t necessarily get drawn into religion any more than healthy people are drawn to a doctors’ office – a checkup now and then, but not much more.

@laureth That is, it selects for dishonest and untrustworthy people, who, but for believing in a judgmental God keeping tabs on them, might be more likely to steal your drill? The fact that that most I have seen who choose to fill the pews of churches have done so because they were more disposed to doing so. Furthermore, along with their belief in high standards of treating other people as themselves the added bonus is they are thinking about their afterlife. It is the same as you assume most who are cops, firefighters, doctors, etc are honest people looking to do you good and not dirt.

You mentioned doctors, you or your family has abdominal pains, do you go to the doctor with a license or the one that doesn’t? Even though both might have been tops in their class, if one never got around to taking the test , that doesn’t mean he/she knows less, but how would you know without a higher authority like the AMA saying they are? The unlicensed doctor could be just as caring and honest as the licensed one, but if they aren’t, who is to bring the doctor to task less the law? The only thing that keeps them from purposely doing harm would be the treat of prison, they can’t be fines by the AMA, they are not under them. They are not worried about losing their license or privileges at Mercy Medical Hospital, they don’t have them. Off face value there is less incentive to hold them on the straight and narrow, even if they would have stayed there, the proof is a lot weaker.

@laureth I was wondering which god issues the certifications that @Hypocrisy_Central relies on in choosing who whom he has do his religion repair.

@Hypocrisy_Central—

You say, “The fact that that most I have seen who choose to fill the pews of churches have done so because they were more disposed to doing so.” I agree, if people are in church, it’s because they want to be in church, or their parents dragged them. ;) But why do they want to be in church? That’s what I was wondering by asking, “So you wouldn’t say that religion draws people who feel a need to be saved, perhaps from their wickedness?”

You say, “Furthermore, along with their belief in high standards of treating other people as themselves the added bonus is they are thinking about their afterlife.” Assuming that religious folks were universally good at treating people as they wish to be treated (which is, itself, an arguable point), the fact that they’re thinking about the afterlife is why I say, “That is, it selects for dishonest and untrustworthy people, who, but for believing in a judgmental God keeping tabs on them, might be more likely to steal your drill?” The businessmen who have ripped my husband off the most were businessmen he selected because they went to the same church he did, back when he was a Christian.

You ask, ”...you or your family has abdominal pains, do you go to the doctor with a license or the one that doesn’t?... how would you know without a higher authority like the AMA saying they are?” I ask, who is the authority that says religious people are better than non-religious people at returning your drill? If I could readily observe that religious people had higher moral standards (and live up to them) than non-religious people, I would not have to keep questioning this assumption each time you bring it up.

You say, “The only thing that keeps [unlicensed doctors] from purposely doing harm would be the treat of prison, they can’t be fines by the AMA, they are not under them.” This is the point I keep trying to refute. Is it possible that an unlicensed doctor (or atheist) could be moral, not from threat of hell or prison, but because they are a genuinely good person? Morality does not just come from a belief in God, and as I keep saying, belief in God is not proof of good morals. You might select the licensed doctor or Christian drill-borrower because you perceive them to be less likely to do you harm, but this whole Fluther question is about why you perceive that to be the way things go down.

One more thing, @Hypocrisy_Central, just for shits ‘n giggles: what if you lived in a small remote town and only had two doctors around that you could go to, and one was a licensed atheist, and the other was a Christian unlicensed faith-healer – which would you visit to ensure that your family got healthy?

@laureth But why do they want to be in church? That’s what I was wondering by asking, “So you wouldn’t say that religion draws people who feel a need to be saved, perhaps from their wickedness?” I could state is that why atheist avoid church as to not address their wickedness, unless they believe they are in no way wicked. People want to be in church is because they realize they are not perfect, that they inherited wickedness through Adam. To show thanks and to fellowship with their creator who gave them a way to grace to cover that wickedness through Christ.

“Furthermore, along with their belief in high standards of treating other people as themselves the added bonus is they are thinking about their afterlife.” Assuming that religious folks were universally good at treating people as they wish to be treated (which is, itself, an arguable point), the fact that they’re thinking about the afterlife is why I say, “That is, it selects for dishonest and untrustworthy people, who, but for believing in a judgmental God keeping tabs on them, might be more likely to steal your drill?” The businessmen who have ripped my husband off the most were businessmen he selected because they went to the same church he did, back when he was a Christian. Let see if I can unravel all of that. You can attest to that if you believe people are universally incline to steal the drill if no force larger than themselves prevent them or could cause them a penalty for doing so, but that would gaff atheist in there too, unless they are universally dispose to not be thieves, etc. Anyone had the propensity to be dishonest. I never said they didn’t. Those who realize their wickedness go to church the same as an alcoholic who realizes he/she has a drinking problem goes to AA or something. Again, not all who sit in church pews are there because they want a genuine walk with God. Many go because they feel if they go, the appearance that they are good people is enough. Just showing up don’t make you a real Christian anymore than putting on a pro tam jersey and sitting in the dugout or on the sidelines will make you an athlete. It could also be debatable that an atheist morals shouldn’t be suspect because if it cam from men, because it did not come from a higher source, who is to say those men, people, group was correct?

I ask, who is the authority that says religious people are better than non-religious people at returning your drill? There is none. I never said that either. I said that if it were a person I didn’t know I would only have their credentials, associations, etc to judge off of. That is no different criteria than I would use picking a wedding photographer, mechanic, dentist, carpet cleaner etc. Are atheist more disposed to being so gregarious and trusting they would hand over their expensive phone to a person that looked homeless and had no money the same way they would with a person in an expensive business suite and expensive watch, even if that person said they wanted privacy and wanted to step 15yds away? Atheist universally would be just as trusting of both people equally?

just for shits ‘n giggles: what if you lived in a small remote town and only had two doctors around that you could go to, and one was a licensed atheist, and the other was a Christian unlicensed faith-healer – which would you visit to ensure that your family got healthy? That was laughable, there was not a bit of logic in there. The example I gave points to going with the person who has the backing. IF there were only two choices and one was an atheist with a license, you go with the one who has the license. If the atheist doctor messes up, there are government agencies to appeal to, isn’t there? Who would you go to if there were only two choices and the one with the license was a person of faith and the other mind over matter unlicensed self-help herbalist? Or maybe it is the faith of the licensed doctor that would make the choice to go?

@Hypocrisy_Central

You say, “Again, not all who sit in church pews are there because they want a genuine walk with God. Many go because they feel if they go, the appearance that they are good people is enough.” Finally, we agree. Anyone: Christians, Atheists, Hindus, anyone can be good or bad. Their religion is not necessarily a clue as to their virtue or lack thereof.

You say, “Are atheist more disposed to being so gregarious and trusting they would hand over their expensive phone to a person that looked homeless and had no money…” to which I ask, knowing that religion is no clue as to goodness, why do Atheists still get compared to homeless people that are more likely to steal?

You ask, “Atheist universally would be just as trusting of both people equally?” Very unlikely that they would. I usually look for clues as to a person’s trustworthiness, not their religion, and in some cases, religion would be a strike against trustworthiness (even though there’s no way to know for sure based only on someone’s religion), because sometimes the only thing keeping a Christian from stealing my drill is the fear of God – which isn’t always very strong.

You comment, “That was laughable, there was not a bit of logic in there.” Yes, there was. I wanted to figure out which authority mattered more when you looked for a recommendation as to how likely someone is to harm you. It’s good to know you prefer the doctor who comes recommended by the AMA over the one recommended by their belief in God’s judgment: so would I.

@laureth Finally, we agree. Anyone: Christians, Atheists, Hindus, anyone can be good or bad. Their religion is not necessarily a clue as to their virtue or lack thereof. Finally? I had indicated that from the start. It just wasn’t phrased the way you could easily swallow it. As I touched on with my response to @Judi. Just because a person picked up a Bible they do not instantly become saints, that is straight logic.

“Are atheist more disposed to being so gregarious and trusting they would hand over their expensive phone to a person that looked homeless and had no money…” to which I ask, knowing that religion is no clue as to goodness, why do Atheists still get compared to homeless people that are more likely to steal? Who is comparing atheist to the homeless? You made a comment alluding that Christians were somehow less likely to use logic in determining who is more or less likely to steal. I asked that to see if you believed atheist would trust a person who looked homeless as equally as a person dressed in expensive attire? I did mention another class of person, maybe you missed that. It is to show people use all manor of cues to decide if they are going to trust another with their goods. _ “Atheist universally would be just as trusting of both people equally?” Very unlikely that they would. Now, that _is something we do agree on.

I wanted to figure out which authority mattered more when you looked for a recommendation as to how likely someone is to harm you. Which it worth more, my vehicle or my health? If I would not take my vehicle to Manuel who repairs them in the back of his home garage but go to Mr. Chang who has an established shop that is Diamond Certified, and A+ graded by the BBB, why would I not use the same logic when dealing with my health?

@Hypocrisy_Central – What my line of questioning boils down to is this. If we agree that religious people are not always saints, and in fact can be just as bad as anyone else, why do you perceive that they have some kind of “diamond certification” when choosing them over a non-religious person to borrow your drill? (And why does an honest, non-religious person look more likely to steal your drill than a church-going person who may just be in the pew to look good?) When asked why, you keep saying that on the surface, it’s because the Faithful come more highly recommended. How can they come more highly recommended, or be less likely to steal, when they are just as good or bad as anyone else?

Also, might the licensed, AMA-approved atheist doctor be more likely to harm you, than the unlicensed faith-based healer, since the atheist only answers to his own moral code and the AMA, and is not in fear of God’s everlasting wrath in hell? Which certification is better? ;)

Highly recommended – Einstein’s thoughts on religion and science.

“How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.”

Isn’t harmony a goal we can all share? I sure hope so!

Nothin’ against harmony – I just enjoy a healthy debate. :)

I go to a faith school and there we are taught Atheists are stupid for thinking there is no God. We’re told that Atheists are narrow minded and arrogant.
Well helloooo? Doesn’t saying that make you narrow minded and arrogant?

@MilkyWay: “Doesn’t saying that make you narrow minded and arrogant?”

Not necessarily. Of course, I disagree with that statement (that atheists are stupid for thinking there is no god). However, there is nothing particularly narrow minded or arrogant about that statement. It’s just an incorrect statement.

@MilkyWay – This reminded me of the whole Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort tactic that claims that there is no such thing as an atheist. I actually met a xian on the street in Augusta, ME this summer who refuted my “I’m an atheist” statement by saying, “That’s not true. You just don’t want to follow Him….”

@laureth What my line of questioning boils down to is this. If we agree that religious people are not always saints, and in fact can be just as bad as anyone else, why do you perceive that they have some kind of “diamond certification” when choosing them over a non-religious person to borrow your drill? I thought I covered that, but I can do it again, and make it more clear. Before one person allows another to do anything, get in there car, enter their home, borrow a drill, get a lone of money there is a vetting process going on. Religious people are not always saints some are frauds. People who are not religious, at least by way of the Bible, are certainly not saints; regardless of how nice they are. Niceness, at least to me, doesn’t carry as much weight as their walk. I am sure Saddam was nice to people he liked. Even though some people of religion can be just as bad as anyone else, the same as cops have the propensity to steal as we all do, it is more probable that the person who is a cop will not steal. They won’t because of who they are, their nature, and because of the badge they represent. If a cop whom you never met, ask you for your cell phone, or something, and even if he goes to walk out of your line of sight, you will worry less than if he was some guy who looked as if he was asleep behind a dumpster for two days. Even though the person is religious and of a church they have the same capacity to steal as the cop. Like the cop, the probability of them stealing is less because of the reason why they are in Church, and that is to serve Him. Them not taking my drill would have more with them serving the Lord than me. I am in the second position, I am taking a subordinate position to Christ the Lord. The probability that they could take it might be better than a cop, they have no shield to lose, but if they steal it, if they indeed to value a relationship with the Lord or their church I have the brethren and the pastor to take the case to here on Earth, before involving the law. If it is a non-religious person who do I go to? I can speak to his family, if I know them well enough, or his friends. What would that achieve? If they do not feel there is any great penalty to swiping my drill, they will keep the drill and ignore anything I say. They don’t believe that that drill will be a mark against them in the here after because they don’t believe there is one. The logic comes down to the religious person will return the drill or not take it because it is not worth as much as their soul. Since I believe from all I have been able to extrapolate, that atheist don’t believe they have a soul that will survive their death so there is no soul to be judged, so there is nothing to put at risk taking an old drill that wasn’t theirs.

@Hypocrisy_Central – then if your belief is that a religious person is less likely to steal because of in your words “who they are, their nature, and because of what [their religion] represent”, why have you insisted that you don’t think atheists are less trustworthy? Clearly, you do thing that atheists are less trustworthy. Why not simply say so, without all the mixed hardware parables?

It seems to me that you don’t want to be honest about how you perceive atheists. Your stories make it clear, regardless. You may as well simply say what you think in straight language.

@Hypocrisy_Central – I understand, through reading your many responses, that you feel that religious people are likely to be more honest than atheists. I get that. But what I think the question is about, is why people perceive that to be true. So far, the conversation has sounded much like this:

Laureth – why do you perceive religious people to be more honest?
HC – Because religious people are more likely to be honest.
Laureth – But why do you perceive them to be more honest, simply because they’re religious?
HC – Because religious people are more likely to be honest, even if some are bad apples, just the way that most cops are less likely to steal, even if some are bad apples.
Laureth – But why does the perception exist that religious people are more honest, even though they have just as much bad-appleness as anyone else?
HC – Because they believe in God, which makes them more honest…
[Lather, rinse repeat]

I guess what I’m saying, to be more clear, is that I perceive atheists and religious people to have roughly the same amount of bad-appleness in their respective groups.

@dappled_leaves Clearly, you do thing that atheists are less trustworthy. Why not simply say so, without all the mixed hardware parables? I don’t have to be under any different criteria on who I choose to trust or believe anymore than the next guy. You trust who you plan to trust for anything, having your dog groomed, daycare, etc. I did not narrow it just to atheist. I said the same would go for anyone who was outside the Bible. I guess that would place some other religions under that. If I knew an atheist very well, they would be on par with a Christian I didn’t know well because I would know what to expect by their life. The life they were living would fairly much be them. In counter, I could with why I need trust an atheist I don’t know as if they are totally honest?

@laureth But what I think the question is about, is why people perceive that to be true. Because no matter if you are secular or a person of faith you make judgments on what to buy, where to eat, what services to employ everyday off facts and clues you have at the moment. You walk into a restaurant for the fist time whether or not you ever go back to eat there is incumbent on many factors, the service, how clean the place is, if the kitchen smells, how polite the staff, etc. If you have the choice of going to a restaurant that is highly rated by the Chamber of Commerce, or some restaurant review board the recommendation plays greatly to yours or anyone else’s decision to go there. Tell me that is not true? When you look at something on face value the facts known always comes into play, even though there is no 100% way to prove before the fact that it would be correct. What is it that would make an atheist appear super trustworthy just off appearances alone?

HC, here it is again. Faithful people are more trustworthy (if you don’t know them) because they are faithful. And why does “being in the Bible” recommend folks as being more trustworthy? Because they are faithful. It’s a big circle of reasoning, see?

Why is the recommendation of Bible-based belief perceived as a high recommendation of trustworthiness? (“Because they are faithful!” completes the reason-circle and is not what I’m looking for.)

How about this. Have you ever compared your assertion (that religion correlates with trustworthiness) to observed results? Did they match up?

@laureth HC, here it is again. Faithful people are more trustworthy (if you don’t know them) because they are faithful. And why does “being in the Bible” recommend folks as being more trustworthy? Because they are faithful. It’s a big circle of reasoning, see? It is not a circle at all if you apply the logic. Going at it as you are trying is to say a couch potato is as fit or as active as a gym rat. The likely hood of that is not very probable. Unless you have some sort of test or measuring ability to show that sitting in front of the TV, or computer playing video games can produce the same physical effects of exercising in a gym. Do you let just anyone in your home? I think not. Do you let strangers in your home? I bet at times, you do. Why do you allow some strangers in and not others? If that stranger is there to give you an estimate on redoing your cabinets, or to clean your ducts, you trust them to enter your home because they are associated with a legitimate business. If some young man in a t-short and jeans show up and want to come into your home, I can bet my donuts to anyone’s dollars he would have a much harder time getting in if he gets in at all.

I would view people for faith the same most would view cops. Cops won’t victimize you because they are there to stop people from victimizing you. Most people will allow a cop in there home quicker, than some dude in jeans, and a t-shirt. The perception of the function of police lends one to believe they are far less likely to be robbed, or worse by a cop. The way you are trying to head is cops are no more trusting than the crooks they seek to bust, and should not be believed just because they wear the badge, it is nothing and represents nothing but a hunk of tin.

Let us follow the linear logic on this.
• I don’t know the person personally enough to know what his character is like. I have to use external clues.
• He attends church, and maybe a church I know has a good reputation.
• It would appear he was honest enough, or faking it, to follow the rules and not be asked not to come back.
• The church follows the Bible.
• The Bible tells us that if we do not adhere to the teachings of stealing and coveting, etc there are consequences that will compromise your salvation after you die.
• This man by way of him being involved in that church knows there are consequences much greater than the law here on Earth if he steals or covets my drill, BBQ, ladder, whatever.
• His eternal soul is worth more than my widget, so he will return it because it is not worth him losing something eternal over something ephemeral.

Some form of that linear rationality is used everyday by everyone, not on what to lend whom, but were to take your car for service, what daycare to use, if your child gets to sleepover there on the weekend. Everything is based off clues and facts unless you have a vast knowledge of the place or person. Show me something where people are so trusting with their important matters they don’t consider the history, character, associations of the other person, etc. Finance, real estate, education, law, commerce, what?

How about this. Have you ever compared your assertion (that religion correlates with trustworthiness) to observed results? Did they match up? Yes, more times than not, they have added up. Most of whatever I have had purloined, taken, or whatever, in the past happened not at the hands of strong church-going people, but those who never gone to church or only C&E Christians, OK we can say they would step in a church for a wedding or a funeral but I don’t really count those.

I am a Christian. One of my best friends is an Athiest. I don’t think you can say which of us is more trustworthy. I think that we are not any different than any other Christian/Athiest pairs. It all depends on the people involved, not on the labels we wear.

I’m a Catholic. I was never told to think anything different about atheists growing up. I’ve had several close friends (including childhood best friends) that were/are atheists. I never found any reason to question their trustworhiness.

I’ve had quite a few Christian relatives and friends that were complete backstabbers to myself or my family.

There are several atheists I’ve met here who have shown themselves to be true jerks. They appear to bear a deep seated grudge against, and go out of their way to be offensive to anyone of faith. These people are untrustworthy.

It’s also important to recognize that there’s a difference between being suited for something, and being trustworthy. If for example, I want my kids to be taught from a certain world view, I’d not have an atheist teaching them. It would have nothing to do with their trustworthiness.