Building the Atheist brand

[amused]

Abstract

Atheists have long been distrusted, in part because they do not believe that a watchful, judging god monitors their behavior. However, in many parts of the world, secular institutions such as police, judges, and courts are also potent sources of social monitoring that encourage prosocial behavior. Reminders of such secular authority could therefore reduce believers’ distrust of atheists. In our experiments, participants who watched a video about police effectiveness (Experiment 1) or were subtly primed with secular-authority concepts (Experiments 2–3) expressed less distrust of atheists than did participants who watched a control video or were not primed, respectively. We tested three distinct alternative explanations for these findings. Compared with control participants, participants primed with secular-authority concepts did not exhibit reduced general prejudice against out-groups (Experiment 1), prejudice reactions associated with functional threats that particular out-groups are perceived to pose (specifically, viewing gays with disgust; Experiment 2), or general distrust of out-groups (Experiment 3). These findings contribute to theory regarding both the psychological bases of prejudices and the psychological functions served by gods and governments.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 1.abstract

[Atheist-Lite]

Not much mistrust of atheists around here. More the other way round - nobody trusts priests. But we've got loads of CCTV cameras making God a redundant entity.

[macdoc]

I detest proselytizers. ...No Logo please

[Thumpalumpacus]

Abstract

Atheists have long been distrusted, in part because they do not believe that a watchful, judging god monitors their behavior. However, in many parts of the world, secular institutions such as police, judges, and courts are also potent sources of social monitoring that encourage prosocial behavior. Reminders of such secular authority could therefore reduce believers’ distrust of atheists. In our experiments, participants who watched a video about police effectiveness (Experiment 1) or were subtly primed with secular-authority concepts (Experiments 2–3) expressed less distrust of atheists than did participants who watched a control video or were not primed, respectively. We tested three distinct alternative explanations for these findings. Compared with control participants, participants primed with secular-authority concepts did not exhibit reduced general prejudice against out-groups (Experiment 1), prejudice reactions associated with functional threats that particular out-groups are perceived to pose (specifically, viewing gays with disgust; Experiment 2), or general distrust of out-groups (Experiment 3). These findings contribute to theory regarding both the psychological bases of prejudices and the psychological functions served by gods and governments.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 1.abstract

... just in time to be compared to the Gestapo.

[Hermit]

The concept seems preferable to the arrogance of atheists prancing about, labelling themselves as Brights or Rationalists or quoting stuff like "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion." while hypocritically claiming that they never insult theists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The concept seems preferable to the arrogance of atheists prancing about, labelling themselves as Brights or Rationalists or quoting stuff like "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion." while hypocritically claiming that they never insult theists.

Absolutely. I don't know about other atheists, but my family is religious. They are no dumber than anyone else, nor crazier.

[amused]

I think the complete and total destruction of religion is a worthy goal. It will take a countless number of small steps to get there, so anything like this that moves the ball is good, to me.

[Atheist-Lite]

I think the complete and total destruction of religion is a worthy goal. It will take a countless number of small steps to get there, so anything like this that moves the ball is good, to me.

Religion can be subdued quite quickly if you own the army and organs of state.

[Hermit]

I think the complete and total destruction of religion is a worthy goal. It will take a countless number of small steps to get there, so anything like this that moves the ball is good, to me.

Religion can be subdued quite quickly if you own the army and organs of state.

I don't think so. The east block had all that in spades for well over 50 years. Look at it today, especially what used to be the Soviet Union and Poland.

[Atheist-Lite]

I think the complete and total destruction of religion is a worthy goal. It will take a countless number of small steps to get there, so anything like this that moves the ball is good, to me.

Religion can be subdued quite quickly if you own the army and organs of state.

I don't think so. The east block had all that in spades for well over 50 years. Look at it today, especially what used to be the Soviet Union and Poland.

Similar to Western Europe these days with not more than 15% of the population religious believers which isn't bad considering it was a religious backward peasant society only a century ago.

[Hermit]

I think the complete and total destruction of religion is a worthy goal. It will take a countless number of small steps to get there, so anything like this that moves the ball is good, to me.

Religion can be subdued quite quickly if you own the army and organs of state.

I don't think so. The east block had all that in spades for well over 50 years. Look at it today, especially what used to be the Soviet Union and Poland.

Similar to Western Europe these days with not more than 15% of the population religious believers which isn't bad considering it was a religious backward peasant society only a century ago.

[Atheist-Lite]

I think the complete and total destruction of religion is a worthy goal. It will take a countless number of small steps to get there, so anything like this that moves the ball is good, to me.

Religion can be subdued quite quickly if you own the army and organs of state.

I don't think so. The east block had all that in spades for well over 50 years. Look at it today, especially what used to be the Soviet Union and Poland.

Similar to Western Europe these days with not more than 15% of the population religious believers which isn't bad considering it was a religious backward peasant society only a century ago.

People who live in glass houses...

[Rum]

Personally I don't want to be part of any atheistic movement, let alone one defined by what is does not believe rather than what it does.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Religion can be subdued quite quickly if you own the army and organs of state.

Yes - and no.

Certainly the State is needed in subduing religion - but as proved by Stalin etc etc can't actually eradicate it by force (and that route is counterproductive by driving it underground). In practice the no.1 is keeping the priests away from the Kids, then taxing organised religion, identofying the practical purposes they serve and offering an alternative and by making operating difficult but not impossible - don't want to drive it underground, but do want to raise the bar just enough so that it becomes a PITA for the followers. Humans are lazy. Won't cure everyone, but with religion it is a numbers game - and the answer is time. The more sidelined / irrelevant they get the faster a religion will fade away, especially if kept in the public eye (they are their own worse enemies). The fragmentation of religious beliefs - especially fundy sects is a good thing (in the long term) as they are pretty much specific people / leadership based, so the grim reaper takes care of those......at the moment the BBC has religous broadcasting, not a lot - but some. I don't favour banning it - but opening it up to the Fundies and nutjobs. Religion is a broad church - use that .

I also favour keeping religion in schools! - but taught as part of human social history, from Sun Worship through to current day religions (and including those around the world) and including how religions have served a practical purpose over the centuries. Plus how and why certain practices developed / moved from one religion to another (where did Xmas come from?). The idea being tht it shows that "your" religion is just one of many, and not really special. and often not very original. I would also explain that the replacement for the main purpose that religion served is the rule of law - laws made by men for men and to delight in the shortcomings that involves, by the fact that the laws do change once shown to be wrong or simply no longer relevant.

The best "cure" for religion is simply laughing at it / the people who participate - the only way to kill a God is to laugh at it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've been saying I'm atheistic rather than an atheist, because it works better for me. I sometimes say I'm an atheistic anti-theist when I want to make that point. However, I don't have a lapel pin that says I'm a historian (histrionic?), at least not one anybody but me would recognize as carrying that message. Maybe there's a difference between the two that requires more action for one. Do we need our own "rainbow flag"?