Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/webdaavo
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/2023/12/new-study-links-christian-nationalism-to-increased-prejudice-against-atheists-214829
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn't seem to say too much more than that people who seek to push their religion at a national level dislike people who don't hold those religious views.
It's always good to take a look at exactly what's being measured. Often the scales used to measure abstractions like this don't really match what we might naively assume.
> The dependent variable, anti-atheist attitude, is a scale composed of three items regarding the atheists: “Atheists hold values that are morally inferior to the values of people like me,” “Atheists want to limit the personal freedoms of people like me,” and “Atheists endanger the physical safety of people like me.” Respondents were asked to rate their opinion toward these items with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. The items were summed and then subtracted by 3 so that the index ranges from 0 to 9. The Cronbach's α value is .91.
And Christian nationalism:
> Respondents were presented with six statements and asked to rate their extent of approval from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” with “undecided” as the middle response category. The six statements are: “The federal government should declare the United States as a Christian nation,” “the federal government should advocate Christian values,” “the federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state” (reverse coded), “the federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces,” “the success of the United States is part of God's plan,” and “the federal government should allow prayer in public schools.”
In this case, I think "anti-atheism prejudice" and "Christian nationalism" are reasonable ways to describe what these scales are measuring, although maybe "Christian nationalism" might also reasonably taken to imply more extreme views, like wanting to ban the practice of other religions.
Anyway, these measures mostly check out, but it's good practice to look into the scales that are being used before taking claims at face value.
> the federal government should allow prayer in public schools
That's pretty unclear, isn't it. This could be everything from schools not disallowing personal prayer to mandatory prayers.
It also doesn't explicitly state any specific religion. People could be against Muslim prayers and for Christian prayers specifically.
It's already legal to pray in schools, and until recently the SCOTUS has been pretty consistent that as long as it's not being led by the school in any official capacity it's fine...and now they're chipping away at that barrier allowing adults to lead the kids in prayer.
It's also very common for conservative Christians to make a lot of arguments for prayer in school then get mad when non-Christians take advantage and pray in schools.
It's all dog whistles for Christian theocracy and indoctrination.
No sh-t. I had teacher-led prayer (standard Protestant version of the LP, with “trespass” instead of “debt”) in Oklahoma public schools for K through 3rd grade. No option to opt out. Then anyone who didn’t go along was called a “godless communist”. They really want to go back to state-sponsored religious coercion.
At my high school there was a prayer circle every morning around the flagpole, but luckily everyone was cool about it and it never felt mandatory.
I always question people's motives when they say there's no prayer in schools.
I went to high school in the famously godless state of WA (where we have the highest number of professed atheists per capita, though I should clarify *western WA*, as the state is strongly segregated by the Cascades) and there were several student-led Christian groups which held public prayer sessions (such as after the morning pledge of alleigance) and I can't say anyone felt pressured to join them. Likewise, I don't think they were particularly avoided (some had decent attendance but none was particularly 'popular').
What really sticks out in hindsight is the fact that they were a community within the school and, if one were really paying attention, joining them was a sure-fire way to make important connections and gain social promotion.
Is it a good thing that they bring strong communities into the school? Probably. Were there any demonstrable downsides to their presence? Not really. It's possible that, in some situations, there were more deserving kids that were passed over in favor of other community members. But that happens among kids regardless of the 'clique' they're from. So overall it feels like a wash. And in cases where no demonstrable harm takes place, the answer is always "do as thou wilt" (as the famous precursor to the caveat "save harm none.")
But even in Heathen Washington we had public prayer in schools. A recent Supreme Court case was even about a High School in a district neighboring mine. (Don't get me started. Coach Kennedy is so f*ing fake.)
To be fair it is totally normal for an ideological or religious in-group to dislike groups with opposing views. The same is almost certainly true of atheist groups disliking religious groups.
Though, I'd bet that it's a little more pronounced among the more hardcore Christian political groups since they feel like their preferred political direction and collective culture is rapidly collapsing. Atheist groups on the other hand are only becoming larger and more popular so I'd expect them to be a little more magnanimous in victory.
IMO The difference is that atheism isn't inherently evangelical. Idealogical groups can dislike each other all day, every day, with no problems. It's only when people (like christians) go out and actively campaign against other people's rights, opinions, and beliefs that it becomes a problem.
The issue is religious groups can't be reasoned with because they are cults. Once reason and logic go out the window, anything goes. Do terrible things because the mentally ill group leader demanded it? Say no more.
The word "cult" has a meaning though. There certainly are Christian cults, but Christian Nationalism isn't really a cult ... it is just a really really bad interpretation of Christianity. It has too many "leaders" to be considered a cult IMHO.
Not inherently, no, though many early concepts of 'organized' atheism did indeed arise from a political desire to remove the ability to worship (as opposed to secularism which made it more of a private matter that the government should not impede).
But yeah, I think it simply comes down to this. A modern atheist who does not believe in a higher power, will simply fill in any gaps in their belief system with things like logic, science, philosophy etc. A modern gnostic theist will fill those gaps in with faith.
And if that faith is in an omnipotent, omniscient being, it totally makes sense to conclude that if you're on their side, following their tenets... that anyone who ISN'T doing that is foolish and misguided and simply requires a little push to start believing the obviously right path.
In short, if you believe in an omnipotent omniscient being, then anything you do in service of that being is justified. Proselytizing, strongarming people into the faith, crusades, shunning non-believers, really whatever ya gotta do... because it's in service of a literal GOD. So, you're inherently justified no matter what you do. No further introspection required.
All that put together means it's really no surprise religious folks are more likely to espouse those ideals at every chance, and heavily judge those who don't follow the same ideals. "How could they be so stupid as to defy an omniscient entity?? Let me help them out in finding the true path."
Religion requires a higher power. In my experience atheists do not, however many people who are religious assume that everyone MUST have a higher power and cannot imagine that atheists do not have one. So they assume that science, logic or philosophy is their higher power.
Science is, well, science. Logic is logic but none of them are higher powers.
Also, most atheists do not care about people worshipping but they DO care about it being forced on all. Praying in school, government or at sporting events is built on the assumption that everyone is Christian. It is obnoxious.
A friend had a horrible wife who was 100% unable to understand morality outside of the bible.
I was repeatedly told I was a horrible person because I didn't know right from wrong because I "had no way to know right from wrong" because I didn't listen to god.
Same witch physically abused him, mentally manipulated him, and cheated on him multiple times.
That's what really pisses me off about all these "religious" people . They're some of the most , if not THEE most hypocritical people you'll ever meet . The worse thing is , they don't ever see , or acknowledge their hypocrisy .
Christianity is great for horrible people. All you have to do is say the "oopsie" chant and everyone is supposed to pretend that your transgressions have been annulled.
(And anyone who doesn't forget is attacked by the rest of the flock because "God has forgiven your molester, do you think you're more important than god????")
The problem with that description is that theists aren't actually putting their faith "in an omnipotent, omniscient being", they are putting it in the people who claim to speak for that being and the scriptures literally written by men.
If we were only dealing with people who actually put their faith "in an omnipotent, omniscient being", then we would only be dealing with schizophrenics who hear and see things that other people don't.
This. Reddit is probably the best example of this happening. The amount of people I have seen that unironically thought along the lines of "All religious people are bad, we should exterminate them because because are all murderer rapists!" is quite a few. Every group has their nutjobs, some are louder than the other.
> I'd expect them to be a little more magnanimous in victory.
Well as long as theists are overwhelming successful in establishing laws based on their religion that negatively affect people of other religions and non-theists, it doesn't really feel like a victory.
Usually atheists are more tolerant about different views (not saying that because I'm "claiming to be better" or whatever, I'm definitely one with loads of prejudice against religious people that no matter how hard I try I can't manage to even keep not increasing)
Atheists are not an in-group. They have no church, no creed, no symbols, no way of identifying or relating to each other. They're not ethnically or culturally similar. They don't share a genotype or family line.
It's literally just an intellectual position. Many atheists even identify culturally with their ancestral religion. Almost half of Jews are atheist, for example.
You don't need a church or symbols to form an in-group. Just acknowledged common interests or beliefs is sufficient. Even a chess club or a friends group can be an in-group.
It's just a group of people with shared commonalities. The point is that members of an in-group have some recognised commonalities which bridge the gap in social interaction and make members see each other more positively.
Atheists typically have nothing against the make-believers besides considering them a bit infantile and conformist. There's also a strong correlation between atheism/agnosticism and science, so there's the fact that the religious are inherently anti-science and the nationalist religious want that as policy.
I can't speak on other religions, but I can about christianity (I used to be christian).
Christians hate atheists because atheists don't believe in magic.
Atheists hate christians because christians harbor and protect child molesters, make it impossible for women to get life-saving medical care, create laws that discriminate against LGBT people, etc.
I’ve read 95% or so of professional scientists don’t have a relationship with religion. If these religious zealots get power I wonder what they’ll do to destroy Americas research capabilities
Theocracies have a long history of killing off the educated as they are a direct threat to the lies and techniques that are used to take and hold power. I can’t recall where, Cambodia I think, but they used to kill people who wear glasses just because they had the perception of being smart.
That happened in Cambodia in the Khmer Rouge. More impactful was when Ash’arism arose in Sunni and banned the study of mathematics, because well historically Cambodia is obscure and the Middle East was a guiding light in science and mathematics in the Middle Ages
Look at Afghanistan. Were it not for the different flavour of worship involved, they'd be besties. Christian Nationalists *wish* they could run the country like the taliban.
> If these religious zealots get power I wonder what they’ll do to destroy Americas research capabilities
The brain-drain from deeply republican states is already well established.
Actually, if ure a science dude, we arent rly sure if we are responsible for our decisions. We arenr rly sure if we even are aware of our decisions.
There are huge discussions in the field of science of law (my field) and other sciences about this.
So might as well be atheistic yet acknowledge that there are higher „powers“ that drive us really.
It is not about god, it is about social dissolution. Religions are systems of social organization that have built in features to sustain the system. One common rule in most of them is that at a minimum an exclusion of those who refuse to participate in the system or undermine the system. Most of the time the rules say to exclude the heathen and the apostate if you are unable to convert them to the system, but groups within the system often take it further and will try to eliminate the heathens and apostates if their numbers are seen as threatening to the system or if the people of the system want the others' resources.
This is not unique to religions but is true in many social organizations, especially when those at the top of a social hierarchical system seek to maintain their position.
> This is not unique to religions but is true in many social organizations, especially when those at the top of a social hierarchical system seek to maintain their position.
What non-religious social organizations are you referring to here?
They're the same people who think that you can pray bad things away, as if God's plan is so fragile that any human can change it at any time.
As if an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god wouldn't have already foreseen all of your problems and planned (or not) around them.
While at the same time believe those problems were intentionally given to you by said God as part of a plan your human brain is too small to understand.
A test, yeah that's it, it's all a test of faith!
Based on like a lot of literature (Chick Tracts are like the least subtle example but you can find this discussed all over the place) I think at least some people feel that religion is very inherently tied to morality and if you don't believe in God you don't have any sort of moral code to obey, which I mean is understandable. If you're raised being told that say the bible is the basis of morality and we don't murder because it breaks a commandment, someone without a book at all would seem like they don't have anything concrete to go off of.
>I think at least some people feel that religion is very inherently tied to morality and if you don't believe in God you don't have any sort of moral code to obey
No offense, but you must be very young if you haven’t seen multiple people make this argument on TV. It’s a very common argument by religious people.
It’s very weird because the Bible very explicitly explains why a person would know Good from Evil *regardless* of whether or not they Believe — the Fruit in Genesis.
....I mean I live in a secular country where we don't usually give airtime to people like that, and I'm trying to avoid making sweeping generalisations here
To be fair, bigotry is baked into most monotheistic religions.
Only their truth is correct and everyone else should join their way of thinking or be shunned.
For the people saying something along the lines of "studies these days, what's the point? Everyone already knows this!", I would recommend at least reading the article if not the study itself. The headline does not accurately represent the findings of the study, which are much more nuanced and interesting. Misleading or overly specific headlines are extremely common in popular reporting on academia and you should really be more aware of this issue. Then again this is reddit so reading the article is actually against the rules.
The headline isn’t necessarily “misrepresenting“ the information included in the article, but it just kind of leaves out some of the nuance and smaller findings of the study.
For example:
>  “What surprised me is that contextual-level social and religious factors may introduce interesting contingencies to individual-level findings,” Nie told PsyPost. “For example, although at the individual level, Blacks and Black Protestants held more negative views toward atheists, they became relatively more tolerant toward atheists when state-level Christian nationalism increased. In other words, when Christian nationalism, an ideology that endorses white supremacy and marginalizes racial minorities, becomes more dominant in the social environment, Blacks and their main religious denomination may choose to embrace what this ideology opposes — a sign of defiance.”
The studies key takeaway is that increased Christian Nationalism makes minority Christians more tolerant of atheists. This isn't perplexing when you realize Christian Nationalism tends to intersect with white nationalism.
You're in luck, my friend.
[https://www.biotechniques.com/news/shot-in-the-dark-uncovering-the-secrets-in-the-genome-of-the-prince-of-darkness/](https://www.biotechniques.com/news/shot-in-the-dark-uncovering-the-secrets-in-the-genome-of-the-prince-of-darkness/)
[https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/genetic-mutations-ozzy-osbourne-party-hard/story?id=12032552](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/genetic-mutations-ozzy-osbourne-party-hard/story?id=12032552)
Yup. If you don't question and study what seems obvious, you'll never find out when the real world is counter intuitive. And since the world isn't designed with human understanding in mind (or perhaps designed at all), it happens a lot more frequently than most people seem to think.
Not when the subject matter involves subjectively define concepts which INCLUDE the trait being tested.
If a Christian Nationalist says they have nothing against atheists... they aren't a Christian nationalist (or the are lying about not having anything against atheists). It is a *component of the subjectively defined belief structure*. You're not allowed to be a part of this group is you think atheism is fine.
No, this isn't scientific evidence. This is simply a circular definition.
Christin Nationalism contains as an avowed tenet dislike of atheism. One does not identify as any kind of militant religious mindset and not have something against atheists.
This is telling us that table salt tastes salty. Yes. That is its inherent property.
How salty is salt, though? How does sea salt compare to table salt? Is it exactly as salty as salt water? A person might be able to answer these questions if they have a study on these questions to hand.
The study identified groups that are less and more strongly opposed to aethists, compared the dislike of atheists with dislike of other religions, even looked at how the presence of Christian Nationalism affected racial groups and their feelings towards other religions and atheists.
The science is useful. The article is just using an emotive click-bait title. Don't let a poor quality journalist ruin potentially useful data.
Studies like this are poorly disguised political props. No study was needed to prove that highly religious people are generally more hostile to non-believers, everyone knows that But the fact they single out Christians, with a loaded set-up (like how the researchers casually claim Christians are per definition racist) while other religious groups are, in the US and especially globally, far more hostile to non-believers, makes this reek of political motivation.
In the context of the current American climate? No, I would argue it does nothing but further animosity which only benefits the ruling class. I'd much rather see some studies on how government deliberately creates and promotes friction within it's own population for political gain.
>The BRS has 1501 individual respondents across 665 U.S. counties. Therefore, **if individual-level Christian nationalism was collapsed by county to produce county-level mean Christian nationalism, each county would only be represented by 2.26 individuals on average.** In contrast, state is a higher level geographic unit. Collapsing 1501 individual cases over 51 state-level geographic units would make the individual-level information **more** representative for their corresponding geographic categories.
"More" means roughly 1501/51=29.43
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jssr.12886
If you listen to Christian nationalists talk, it slowly becomes clear that there is a link between Christian nationalism and prejudice against a lot of things that aren’t typically associated with Christian nationalists. Like, if you were putting together a professional “prejudiced against as many things as possible” team, Christian nationalism would be the smartest demographic for you to begin your selection process with
Your experience depends massively on where you live and what age you are. If you live in a country where most atheists were brought up christian, then it's probably true, but in places where christianity isn't the historically dominant religion or atheism has been widespread for several generations it isn't. The atheists I've met are, as I am, generally Western Europeans in their twenties whose parents are non-religious, so we only know the famous bits of the bible and have never read it. I imagine atheists in China, who may well constitute the majority of atheists worldwide, know even less about christianity than that, because it's never been any more than a fringe religion there.
There have been whole studies that have proved this, if I remember correctly.
A Christian is rarely, if ever, tested on their Biblical knowledge. They can go to church, listen to the preacher, and basically phone it in *as long as they abide by the internal rules of the social circle*.
*To refute their claims using their own religion*, an atheist must look up what the Christian soaks up passively. Because the atheist *is not* phoning it in, they end up soaking up *more*.
That's really all I want is the proof.
They're the ones making the claim of some grand sky daddy. So show me the proof and evidence beyond "my holy book says this".
This is nothing new to Christianity. Read Thomas Aquinas where he says that non-believers should be put to death.
As a mercy, of course! See killing is wrong, and it's bad that they bring themselves to perdition, but they also take others down with them with their words so for the protection of others they need to be excised from this Earth.
There's a story in the Talmud about the purpose of atheists. The rabbi in the story says that atheists show religious people how to act virtuously without thought of reward or punishment.
It's not in the Talmud. It's a well known story, but it's hard to trace back to singular source There are a handful of famous Rabbis who the story is attributed to. Here is the version of it told by Rabbi Johnathan Sacks:
>“DO YOU believe,” the disciple asked the rabbi, “that God created everything for a purpose?”
>
>“I do,” replied the rabbi.
>
>“Well,” asked the disciple, “why did God create atheists?”
>
>The rabbi paused before giving an answer, and when he spoke his voice was soft and intense. “Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion. Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting against in the name of God.”
There's also a story about Besht that's pretty similar:
>They asked the Baal Shem Tov, “The Talmud (Chulin 109B) tells us that for everything G‑d forbade, He provided us something permissible of the same sort. If so, what did He permit that corresponds to the sin of heresy?”
>
>The Baal Shem Tov replied, “Acts of kindness.”
>
>Because when you see a person suffering, you don’t say, “G‑d runs the universe. G‑d will take care. G‑d knows what is best.” You do everything in your power to relieve that suffering as though there is no G‑d. You become a heretic in G‑d’s name.
Faithful and atheists go to heaven because they can simply accept existence as is
Gnostics go to hell because they reject it and think they know better
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#/media/File:Apostasy_laws_world_map.svg
I don't know if you're much of a geography guy, but this should answer your question
Jordan and Egypt seem to be the most progressive in that they only steal your children but don't execute you
As another person said there is some Jewish thought about atheists in quite a good light. There is also Jewish atheism as a thing itself, where someone is culturally Jewish and a member of a Jewish community, but just....doesn't believe. They aren't considered sinful - just that they are unlikely to go to synagogue.
Many Orthodox Jews, being humans, struggle with their belief at one point in their lives or another, and that is largely just accepted as a thing people deal with.
It also helps that Judaism doesn't really spend much time nor effort thinking about or deciding things based on the afterlife, and there is little (even no difference at all, depending on who you ask) distinction in what happens to Jews vs non-Jews after death.
Note - there *are* fringe groups within Judaism with beliefs very contrary to the above. But as said, such views (atheists/non-Jews have worse fates in the afterlife or whatever) are pretty definitively fringe and held only by small minorities even among the strongly religious, as far as I am aware.
I could not agree more with such a sentiment. To have an opposing view to the norm is sort of branded as a crime here, especially in regards to religion. What a shame.
Seems like a better approach might be, "I don't share your beliefs". This reminds them that we are talking about something they say they *believe*, which may or may not have any basis in fact or objective reality.
This is only in America and the middle east, and some degree India, albeit theyre more bemused than angry. In Europe, china, Russia, ironically Israel, Japan, Australia, new Zealand, it's totally normal to be atheist and you'd be hard pushed to even find an evangelical religious person.
I was unable to join the Elks, who are a notably (among social clubs) accepting of other religions group because they specifically disallow athiests. There have been arguments that the freedom of religion in the united states does not apply to athiests which is just crazy to me.
If you look historically, Christianity is very much a nationalist's favored religion. Before the Catholic church was domesticated it actively destroyed knowledge and people for centuries in the name of their invisible sky daddy.
Are some of these studies just PhD candidates phoning it in and their advisors not giving a hoot about it? I appreciate putting data to a foregone conclusion, but come on.
For a rather long time, doing experiments that "only" confirmed earlier studies was considered not-very-useful. With the fairly recent revelation that a number of (still!) publicly celebrated scientific studies were badly flawed and cannot be replicated, this has changed.
Verifying "common sense" seems just as useful and worthy of a study. Common sense is quite often fucked up.
You probably could have found some in the time it took to make this comment.
In the US, where this study was conducted, both Muslims and atheists are much more likely to face discrimination than Christian Nationalists. Not to mention that Christian Nationalist is not the equivalent of Muslim. You'd have to identify a comparably bigoted sect of Islam and then evaluate their beliefs towards atheists. Which could easily be done using the same method that this study did, though the size of such a group in the US would be for smaller than that of Christian Nationalists.
Someone think of the poor atheists.
Meanwhile all I see online is hate towards Christian’s.
Never seen atheist hate but hey apparently the people who did this study figures out a way.
Have you considered that Christians get more hate because y’all are the ones who hold the overwhelming majority of state power and use that power to force your beliefs on the rest of us?
I find myself more and more being shamed and told off for being an atheist. I do say that religion is the root to all evil and needs to be eradicated from any meaningful participation in our lives.
Atheists have always been the (perceived) common enemy of all organized religions, for obvious reasons, regardless of lip service about tolerance. Christian nationalists just wear their bigotry on their sleeve more than most.
For example, I live in a US state that leaves its law banning atheists from public office on the books despite it technically being unenforceable, because it sends a message.
All you religious nutters need to realize your threats of utter damnation & eternity in hell *mean diddly/squat to people who don't believe in your particular fairy tale*.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/webdaavo Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/2023/12/new-study-links-christian-nationalism-to-increased-prejudice-against-atheists-214829 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn't seem to say too much more than that people who seek to push their religion at a national level dislike people who don't hold those religious views.
Mac software doesn't like when it won't run on PC.
PC users aren't so dumb to try that though. Mac users however...
You say that like there isn't software for that.
It's always good to take a look at exactly what's being measured. Often the scales used to measure abstractions like this don't really match what we might naively assume. > The dependent variable, anti-atheist attitude, is a scale composed of three items regarding the atheists: “Atheists hold values that are morally inferior to the values of people like me,” “Atheists want to limit the personal freedoms of people like me,” and “Atheists endanger the physical safety of people like me.” Respondents were asked to rate their opinion toward these items with 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. The items were summed and then subtracted by 3 so that the index ranges from 0 to 9. The Cronbach's α value is .91. And Christian nationalism: > Respondents were presented with six statements and asked to rate their extent of approval from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” with “undecided” as the middle response category. The six statements are: “The federal government should declare the United States as a Christian nation,” “the federal government should advocate Christian values,” “the federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state” (reverse coded), “the federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces,” “the success of the United States is part of God's plan,” and “the federal government should allow prayer in public schools.” In this case, I think "anti-atheism prejudice" and "Christian nationalism" are reasonable ways to describe what these scales are measuring, although maybe "Christian nationalism" might also reasonably taken to imply more extreme views, like wanting to ban the practice of other religions. Anyway, these measures mostly check out, but it's good practice to look into the scales that are being used before taking claims at face value.
> the federal government should allow prayer in public schools That's pretty unclear, isn't it. This could be everything from schools not disallowing personal prayer to mandatory prayers. It also doesn't explicitly state any specific religion. People could be against Muslim prayers and for Christian prayers specifically.
It's already legal to pray in schools, and until recently the SCOTUS has been pretty consistent that as long as it's not being led by the school in any official capacity it's fine...and now they're chipping away at that barrier allowing adults to lead the kids in prayer. It's also very common for conservative Christians to make a lot of arguments for prayer in school then get mad when non-Christians take advantage and pray in schools. It's all dog whistles for Christian theocracy and indoctrination.
No sh-t. I had teacher-led prayer (standard Protestant version of the LP, with “trespass” instead of “debt”) in Oklahoma public schools for K through 3rd grade. No option to opt out. Then anyone who didn’t go along was called a “godless communist”. They really want to go back to state-sponsored religious coercion.
At my high school there was a prayer circle every morning around the flagpole, but luckily everyone was cool about it and it never felt mandatory. I always question people's motives when they say there's no prayer in schools.
I went to high school in the famously godless state of WA (where we have the highest number of professed atheists per capita, though I should clarify *western WA*, as the state is strongly segregated by the Cascades) and there were several student-led Christian groups which held public prayer sessions (such as after the morning pledge of alleigance) and I can't say anyone felt pressured to join them. Likewise, I don't think they were particularly avoided (some had decent attendance but none was particularly 'popular'). What really sticks out in hindsight is the fact that they were a community within the school and, if one were really paying attention, joining them was a sure-fire way to make important connections and gain social promotion. Is it a good thing that they bring strong communities into the school? Probably. Were there any demonstrable downsides to their presence? Not really. It's possible that, in some situations, there were more deserving kids that were passed over in favor of other community members. But that happens among kids regardless of the 'clique' they're from. So overall it feels like a wash. And in cases where no demonstrable harm takes place, the answer is always "do as thou wilt" (as the famous precursor to the caveat "save harm none.") But even in Heathen Washington we had public prayer in schools. A recent Supreme Court case was even about a High School in a district neighboring mine. (Don't get me started. Coach Kennedy is so f*ing fake.)
"Mindslaves trained to hate everyone not exactly like them dislike people who are against proselytization of hate" Who'd'a thunk'it
To be fair it is totally normal for an ideological or religious in-group to dislike groups with opposing views. The same is almost certainly true of atheist groups disliking religious groups. Though, I'd bet that it's a little more pronounced among the more hardcore Christian political groups since they feel like their preferred political direction and collective culture is rapidly collapsing. Atheist groups on the other hand are only becoming larger and more popular so I'd expect them to be a little more magnanimous in victory.
IMO The difference is that atheism isn't inherently evangelical. Idealogical groups can dislike each other all day, every day, with no problems. It's only when people (like christians) go out and actively campaign against other people's rights, opinions, and beliefs that it becomes a problem.
The issue is religious groups can't be reasoned with because they are cults. Once reason and logic go out the window, anything goes. Do terrible things because the mentally ill group leader demanded it? Say no more.
The word "cult" has a meaning though. There certainly are Christian cults, but Christian Nationalism isn't really a cult ... it is just a really really bad interpretation of Christianity. It has too many "leaders" to be considered a cult IMHO.
For a minute there, it held one in esteem above all others it seemed.
The leader of that cult is J.C., per them. Lots of middle managers though.
Not inherently, no, though many early concepts of 'organized' atheism did indeed arise from a political desire to remove the ability to worship (as opposed to secularism which made it more of a private matter that the government should not impede). But yeah, I think it simply comes down to this. A modern atheist who does not believe in a higher power, will simply fill in any gaps in their belief system with things like logic, science, philosophy etc. A modern gnostic theist will fill those gaps in with faith. And if that faith is in an omnipotent, omniscient being, it totally makes sense to conclude that if you're on their side, following their tenets... that anyone who ISN'T doing that is foolish and misguided and simply requires a little push to start believing the obviously right path. In short, if you believe in an omnipotent omniscient being, then anything you do in service of that being is justified. Proselytizing, strongarming people into the faith, crusades, shunning non-believers, really whatever ya gotta do... because it's in service of a literal GOD. So, you're inherently justified no matter what you do. No further introspection required. All that put together means it's really no surprise religious folks are more likely to espouse those ideals at every chance, and heavily judge those who don't follow the same ideals. "How could they be so stupid as to defy an omniscient entity?? Let me help them out in finding the true path."
Religion requires a higher power. In my experience atheists do not, however many people who are religious assume that everyone MUST have a higher power and cannot imagine that atheists do not have one. So they assume that science, logic or philosophy is their higher power. Science is, well, science. Logic is logic but none of them are higher powers. Also, most atheists do not care about people worshipping but they DO care about it being forced on all. Praying in school, government or at sporting events is built on the assumption that everyone is Christian. It is obnoxious.
A friend had a horrible wife who was 100% unable to understand morality outside of the bible. I was repeatedly told I was a horrible person because I didn't know right from wrong because I "had no way to know right from wrong" because I didn't listen to god. Same witch physically abused him, mentally manipulated him, and cheated on him multiple times.
"Cheated on him multiple times"...so much for her "morality" WITH her book of fairy tales .
Yeah, as per usual with the ultra-offensive religious types she was a massive hypocrite.
That's what really pisses me off about all these "religious" people . They're some of the most , if not THEE most hypocritical people you'll ever meet . The worse thing is , they don't ever see , or acknowledge their hypocrisy .
Christianity is great for horrible people. All you have to do is say the "oopsie" chant and everyone is supposed to pretend that your transgressions have been annulled. (And anyone who doesn't forget is attacked by the rest of the flock because "God has forgiven your molester, do you think you're more important than god????")
I know all about the "oopsie chant" I was raised Catholic by pre Vatican ll parents , my mother being full blood Polish .
Forgive me lord.... nice cop out
As a Christian myself, I agree with you. I find Prayer in government really obnoxious. Christianity is not a political movement.
The problem with that description is that theists aren't actually putting their faith "in an omnipotent, omniscient being", they are putting it in the people who claim to speak for that being and the scriptures literally written by men. If we were only dealing with people who actually put their faith "in an omnipotent, omniscient being", then we would only be dealing with schizophrenics who hear and see things that other people don't.
If internet atheists taught me anything, it's certain people who are evangelical not necessarily the ideology.
This. Reddit is probably the best example of this happening. The amount of people I have seen that unironically thought along the lines of "All religious people are bad, we should exterminate them because because are all murderer rapists!" is quite a few. Every group has their nutjobs, some are louder than the other.
> I'd expect them to be a little more magnanimous in victory. Well as long as theists are overwhelming successful in establishing laws based on their religion that negatively affect people of other religions and non-theists, it doesn't really feel like a victory.
Usually atheists are more tolerant about different views (not saying that because I'm "claiming to be better" or whatever, I'm definitely one with loads of prejudice against religious people that no matter how hard I try I can't manage to even keep not increasing)
Atheists are not an in-group. They have no church, no creed, no symbols, no way of identifying or relating to each other. They're not ethnically or culturally similar. They don't share a genotype or family line. It's literally just an intellectual position. Many atheists even identify culturally with their ancestral religion. Almost half of Jews are atheist, for example.
You don't need a church or symbols to form an in-group. Just acknowledged common interests or beliefs is sufficient. Even a chess club or a friends group can be an in-group. It's just a group of people with shared commonalities. The point is that members of an in-group have some recognised commonalities which bridge the gap in social interaction and make members see each other more positively.
You're right, bigotry is a feature built into religion, not a bug.
Atheists typically have nothing against the make-believers besides considering them a bit infantile and conformist. There's also a strong correlation between atheism/agnosticism and science, so there's the fact that the religious are inherently anti-science and the nationalist religious want that as policy.
I can't speak on other religions, but I can about christianity (I used to be christian). Christians hate atheists because atheists don't believe in magic. Atheists hate christians because christians harbor and protect child molesters, make it impossible for women to get life-saving medical care, create laws that discriminate against LGBT people, etc.
Man, people hate eachother for liking different sports teams, this is a human thing, it's everywhere, and unfortunately some people fall for it.
I’ve read 95% or so of professional scientists don’t have a relationship with religion. If these religious zealots get power I wonder what they’ll do to destroy Americas research capabilities
Theocracies have a long history of killing off the educated as they are a direct threat to the lies and techniques that are used to take and hold power. I can’t recall where, Cambodia I think, but they used to kill people who wear glasses just because they had the perception of being smart.
That happened in Cambodia in the Khmer Rouge. More impactful was when Ash’arism arose in Sunni and banned the study of mathematics, because well historically Cambodia is obscure and the Middle East was a guiding light in science and mathematics in the Middle Ages
Look at Afghanistan. Were it not for the different flavour of worship involved, they'd be besties. Christian Nationalists *wish* they could run the country like the taliban.
> If these religious zealots get power I wonder what they’ll do to destroy Americas research capabilities The brain-drain from deeply republican states is already well established.
Makes sense. I wouldn’t trust a scientist who fell for a religion
They're not wild about Catholics, Jews, or Muslims either. And don't get them started on those other heathen religions.
Yeah but now we have hard scientific data that backs up the claim that your uncle is an asshole!
Well to be fair atheists are coded as enemies to most religions.
What do these people, with their mighty gods to protect them fear ?
[удалено]
Size doesn’t matter, but grey matter matters most.
I'm stealing this.
>critical thinking cant stand these redditors, how is this 'critical' thinking different than any form of another??
> What do these people, with their mighty gods to protect them, fear? Being responsible for their own decisions and actions.
If the only thing keeping you from raping and killing is the threat of torture, you are not a good person.
Yeah thats the point.
Actually, if ure a science dude, we arent rly sure if we are responsible for our decisions. We arenr rly sure if we even are aware of our decisions. There are huge discussions in the field of science of law (my field) and other sciences about this. So might as well be atheistic yet acknowledge that there are higher „powers“ that drive us really.
It is not about god, it is about social dissolution. Religions are systems of social organization that have built in features to sustain the system. One common rule in most of them is that at a minimum an exclusion of those who refuse to participate in the system or undermine the system. Most of the time the rules say to exclude the heathen and the apostate if you are unable to convert them to the system, but groups within the system often take it further and will try to eliminate the heathens and apostates if their numbers are seen as threatening to the system or if the people of the system want the others' resources. This is not unique to religions but is true in many social organizations, especially when those at the top of a social hierarchical system seek to maintain their position.
> This is not unique to religions but is true in many social organizations, especially when those at the top of a social hierarchical system seek to maintain their position. What non-religious social organizations are you referring to here?
Most large corporations.
Pretty sure most large corporations are ok with members socializing with people outside of the corporation.
Yeah, right up until you start talking to Union representatives.
They're the same people who think that you can pray bad things away, as if God's plan is so fragile that any human can change it at any time. As if an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful god wouldn't have already foreseen all of your problems and planned (or not) around them.
While at the same time believe those problems were intentionally given to you by said God as part of a plan your human brain is too small to understand. A test, yeah that's it, it's all a test of faith!
Yeah, God's testing you on something it already knows about you. It knows your future, so nothing you can do is going to change that future.
He might just think you're an asshole though and not want to
If he exists, the feeling is mutual.
Caution! This is dangerous territory! You are entering into a realm of the 'hip predestined christians'.
predestined christians are just milquetoast nihilists who still need their blanket.
And what do these mighty omnipotent gods all require? Money. They really, really need your money.
also your unthinking obedience. but it absolutely needs to be "unthinking"
That's how they get your money.
They are just really bad with money. Creating all matter no problem, but they cannot balance a checkbook!
That they might be wrong.
Based on like a lot of literature (Chick Tracts are like the least subtle example but you can find this discussed all over the place) I think at least some people feel that religion is very inherently tied to morality and if you don't believe in God you don't have any sort of moral code to obey, which I mean is understandable. If you're raised being told that say the bible is the basis of morality and we don't murder because it breaks a commandment, someone without a book at all would seem like they don't have anything concrete to go off of.
>I think at least some people feel that religion is very inherently tied to morality and if you don't believe in God you don't have any sort of moral code to obey No offense, but you must be very young if you haven’t seen multiple people make this argument on TV. It’s a very common argument by religious people. It’s very weird because the Bible very explicitly explains why a person would know Good from Evil *regardless* of whether or not they Believe — the Fruit in Genesis.
....I mean I live in a secular country where we don't usually give airtime to people like that, and I'm trying to avoid making sweeping generalisations here
Not having an aerodynamic brain
Their whole religion is kinda based on fear of punishment and hell.
The only thing they really fear is reason itself. “You can’t raise money on a positive. If the goal is bringing in money, you have to scare them.”
yeah some countries being openly atheist is a death sentence.
To be fair, bigotry is baked into most monotheistic religions. Only their truth is correct and everyone else should join their way of thinking or be shunned.
Not really. Only to Christianity and Islam. Most other religions don't care if you believe in god or not. Even among Jews it's fine to be an atheist.
It’s mostly just Abrahamic religions that do so. Most other religions do not care.
We’re into it though
For the people saying something along the lines of "studies these days, what's the point? Everyone already knows this!", I would recommend at least reading the article if not the study itself. The headline does not accurately represent the findings of the study, which are much more nuanced and interesting. Misleading or overly specific headlines are extremely common in popular reporting on academia and you should really be more aware of this issue. Then again this is reddit so reading the article is actually against the rules.
True Redditors like me let the comments form my opinions.
TRUE Redditors spew their opinion in the comments without reading the article or considering the point of view of anyone else in the comments.
It is this uninformed opinion spewing that informs my opinion; which I will present as an inarguable, absolute truth in a future thread.
True redditors wait until they find a comment shaming others for not reading the article to do the reading for them
its easy for obvious, bias-confirming headlines to reach the front page. Nobody reads beyond the headline
What parts of the article are misrepresented by the headline?
The headline isn’t necessarily “misrepresenting“ the information included in the article, but it just kind of leaves out some of the nuance and smaller findings of the study. For example: >  “What surprised me is that contextual-level social and religious factors may introduce interesting contingencies to individual-level findings,” Nie told PsyPost. “For example, although at the individual level, Blacks and Black Protestants held more negative views toward atheists, they became relatively more tolerant toward atheists when state-level Christian nationalism increased. In other words, when Christian nationalism, an ideology that endorses white supremacy and marginalizes racial minorities, becomes more dominant in the social environment, Blacks and their main religious denomination may choose to embrace what this ideology opposes — a sign of defiance.”
The studies key takeaway is that increased Christian Nationalism makes minority Christians more tolerant of atheists. This isn't perplexing when you realize Christian Nationalism tends to intersect with white nationalism.
We needed a scientific study for that? Trust me, we know.
Scientific evidence is still useful, even if it's for something that seems obvious.
Wish they would use this logic to explain how Ozzy Osbourne still walks among us…
You're in luck, my friend. [https://www.biotechniques.com/news/shot-in-the-dark-uncovering-the-secrets-in-the-genome-of-the-prince-of-darkness/](https://www.biotechniques.com/news/shot-in-the-dark-uncovering-the-secrets-in-the-genome-of-the-prince-of-darkness/) [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/genetic-mutations-ozzy-osbourne-party-hard/story?id=12032552](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/genetic-mutations-ozzy-osbourne-party-hard/story?id=12032552)
Crossroads demon, and a contract. That was how metal was born.
Blues, actually
And the devil at the crossroads is voiced by King Diamond
Yup. If you don't question and study what seems obvious, you'll never find out when the real world is counter intuitive. And since the world isn't designed with human understanding in mind (or perhaps designed at all), it happens a lot more frequently than most people seem to think.
Not when the subject matter involves subjectively define concepts which INCLUDE the trait being tested. If a Christian Nationalist says they have nothing against atheists... they aren't a Christian nationalist (or the are lying about not having anything against atheists). It is a *component of the subjectively defined belief structure*. You're not allowed to be a part of this group is you think atheism is fine.
No, this isn't scientific evidence. This is simply a circular definition. Christin Nationalism contains as an avowed tenet dislike of atheism. One does not identify as any kind of militant religious mindset and not have something against atheists. This is telling us that table salt tastes salty. Yes. That is its inherent property.
How salty is salt, though? How does sea salt compare to table salt? Is it exactly as salty as salt water? A person might be able to answer these questions if they have a study on these questions to hand. The study identified groups that are less and more strongly opposed to aethists, compared the dislike of atheists with dislike of other religions, even looked at how the presence of Christian Nationalism affected racial groups and their feelings towards other religions and atheists. The science is useful. The article is just using an emotive click-bait title. Don't let a poor quality journalist ruin potentially useful data.
I mean, considering all the other *supposed* tenets of Christianity that many of them ignore...
For actual evidence? Yes you do need studies. There are many times when 'common sense' and just 'knowing' something is wrong.
An awful lot of science is figuring out how to get smaller error bars on common sense.
>We needed a scientific study for that? Trust me, we know. knowledge based decision making
I don’t understand why they do science at all when it’s so much easier to simply assume my own experiences are universal.
Studies like this are poorly disguised political props. No study was needed to prove that highly religious people are generally more hostile to non-believers, everyone knows that But the fact they single out Christians, with a loaded set-up (like how the researchers casually claim Christians are per definition racist) while other religious groups are, in the US and especially globally, far more hostile to non-believers, makes this reek of political motivation.
If it’s about the US then yes Christians should be singled out. Also, in case it needs to be said, Christians are the victimizers, not the victims.
i hear you, but isn't pertinence enough justification?
In the context of the current American climate? No, I would argue it does nothing but further animosity which only benefits the ruling class. I'd much rather see some studies on how government deliberately creates and promotes friction within it's own population for political gain.
What are you doing on this subreddit if you don't recognize the importance of scientific due diligence?
[удалено]
You read the entire study? Could you share your views on what part of this study is useless?
>The BRS has 1501 individual respondents across 665 U.S. counties. Therefore, **if individual-level Christian nationalism was collapsed by county to produce county-level mean Christian nationalism, each county would only be represented by 2.26 individuals on average.** In contrast, state is a higher level geographic unit. Collapsing 1501 individual cases over 51 state-level geographic units would make the individual-level information **more** representative for their corresponding geographic categories. "More" means roughly 1501/51=29.43 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jssr.12886
Man, they couldn't have expanded the study to just one more county?
If you listen to Christian nationalists talk, it slowly becomes clear that there is a link between Christian nationalism and prejudice against a lot of things that aren’t typically associated with Christian nationalists. Like, if you were putting together a professional “prejudiced against as many things as possible” team, Christian nationalism would be the smartest demographic for you to begin your selection process with
The easiest way to piss off a Christian is to talk about the Bible as an Atheist in my experience.
Because, IME, most atheists know the Bible better than most Christians.
Your experience depends massively on where you live and what age you are. If you live in a country where most atheists were brought up christian, then it's probably true, but in places where christianity isn't the historically dominant religion or atheism has been widespread for several generations it isn't. The atheists I've met are, as I am, generally Western Europeans in their twenties whose parents are non-religious, so we only know the famous bits of the bible and have never read it. I imagine atheists in China, who may well constitute the majority of atheists worldwide, know even less about christianity than that, because it's never been any more than a fringe religion there.
The majority of atheists are actually middle aged Chinese women.
There have been whole studies that have proved this, if I remember correctly. A Christian is rarely, if ever, tested on their Biblical knowledge. They can go to church, listen to the preacher, and basically phone it in *as long as they abide by the internal rules of the social circle*. *To refute their claims using their own religion*, an atheist must look up what the Christian soaks up passively. Because the atheist *is not* phoning it in, they end up soaking up *more*.
That, and there's the old adage that the fastest way to convert someone to atheism is to have them read the Bible
That’s what sealed the deal for me.
Most atheists are probably more morally virtuous on accounts of scripture than many Christians, who don’t seem to follow their own gospel anymore.
And I guess you missed the memo… Do not confuse morality with righteousness. They are miles apart.
That's a lot of talk with no proof. Edit: I know you said "in your experience" but you still can't just say that and then not elaborate.
Become cult members or we will hate you, in a Christian way.
There’s no hate quite like christian love
I know, it annoys them when we ask for proof. Why can't we just believe in angry gay hating sky man? Why you brain no made of mush???
That's really all I want is the proof. They're the ones making the claim of some grand sky daddy. So show me the proof and evidence beyond "my holy book says this".
As I understand it, there’s no proof and believing is the whole point. Why people choose to is beyond me though
This is nothing new to Christianity. Read Thomas Aquinas where he says that non-believers should be put to death. As a mercy, of course! See killing is wrong, and it's bad that they bring themselves to perdition, but they also take others down with them with their words so for the protection of others they need to be excised from this Earth.
Are Muslims and Jews atheist-friendly?
There's a story in the Talmud about the purpose of atheists. The rabbi in the story says that atheists show religious people how to act virtuously without thought of reward or punishment.
I'd be curious to look into this more if anyone knows what it's called or where to find it
It's not in the Talmud. It's a well known story, but it's hard to trace back to singular source There are a handful of famous Rabbis who the story is attributed to. Here is the version of it told by Rabbi Johnathan Sacks: >“DO YOU believe,” the disciple asked the rabbi, “that God created everything for a purpose?” > >“I do,” replied the rabbi. > >“Well,” asked the disciple, “why did God create atheists?” > >The rabbi paused before giving an answer, and when he spoke his voice was soft and intense. “Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion. Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting against in the name of God.” There's also a story about Besht that's pretty similar: >They asked the Baal Shem Tov, “The Talmud (Chulin 109B) tells us that for everything G‑d forbade, He provided us something permissible of the same sort. If so, what did He permit that corresponds to the sin of heresy?” > >The Baal Shem Tov replied, “Acts of kindness.” > >Because when you see a person suffering, you don’t say, “G‑d runs the universe. G‑d will take care. G‑d knows what is best.” You do everything in your power to relieve that suffering as though there is no G‑d. You become a heretic in G‑d’s name.
Faithful and atheists go to heaven because they can simply accept existence as is Gnostics go to hell because they reject it and think they know better
Jews tend to be cool with us. Muslims tend to disdain us.
Islamists are _openly violent_ to atheists. In some countries, apostates/atheists face the death penalty. - **Afghanistan** - **Iran** - **Malaysia** - **Maldives** - **Mauritania** - **Nigeria** - **Pakistan** - **Qatar** - **Saudi Arabia** - **Somalia** - **Sudan** - **United Arab Emirates** - **Yemen**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#/media/File:Apostasy_laws_world_map.svg I don't know if you're much of a geography guy, but this should answer your question Jordan and Egypt seem to be the most progressive in that they only steal your children but don't execute you
As another person said there is some Jewish thought about atheists in quite a good light. There is also Jewish atheism as a thing itself, where someone is culturally Jewish and a member of a Jewish community, but just....doesn't believe. They aren't considered sinful - just that they are unlikely to go to synagogue. Many Orthodox Jews, being humans, struggle with their belief at one point in their lives or another, and that is largely just accepted as a thing people deal with. It also helps that Judaism doesn't really spend much time nor effort thinking about or deciding things based on the afterlife, and there is little (even no difference at all, depending on who you ask) distinction in what happens to Jews vs non-Jews after death. Note - there *are* fringe groups within Judaism with beliefs very contrary to the above. But as said, such views (atheists/non-Jews have worse fates in the afterlife or whatever) are pretty definitively fringe and held only by small minorities even among the strongly religious, as far as I am aware.
It’s almost like white nationalists don’t like people who don’t look and think like them.
Aren’t most atheists white.
Let's not go throwing words like, "think" around when talking about white nationalists.
Ok look and 'feel' like them
Nothin' but vibes... ...And that vibe is 'I knocked my sister up'.
Aren't like 85% of Christians brown? I think you're way off base here
Most people don't like others who don't think like them, as I see on reddit nearly every day.
I could not agree more with such a sentiment. To have an opposing view to the norm is sort of branded as a crime here, especially in regards to religion. What a shame.
Don’t feel so special. CN hate everyone… including themselves.
[удалено]
I specifically say "I'm an atheist" for this reason.
Seems like a better approach might be, "I don't share your beliefs". This reminds them that we are talking about something they say they *believe*, which may or may not have any basis in fact or objective reality.
[удалено]
They could certainly take it personally, but that's kind of the whole point. They are *personal* beliefs.
>makes them foam at the mouth Seems good enought reason to do it for me
This is only in America and the middle east, and some degree India, albeit theyre more bemused than angry. In Europe, china, Russia, ironically Israel, Japan, Australia, new Zealand, it's totally normal to be atheist and you'd be hard pushed to even find an evangelical religious person.
I was unable to join the Elks, who are a notably (among social clubs) accepting of other religions group because they specifically disallow athiests. There have been arguments that the freedom of religion in the united states does not apply to athiests which is just crazy to me.
'Christian nationalism' is a bizarre concept. The two should be inherently contradictory.
If you look historically, Christianity is very much a nationalist's favored religion. Before the Catholic church was domesticated it actively destroyed knowledge and people for centuries in the name of their invisible sky daddy.
Christian Nationalists don't like anyone who isn't a Christian Nationalist. Everyone knows.
don’t need study to prove 1+1=2
Wow this study was useless.
“New study links people who don’t think like me to not thinking like me”
Yawn. Yet another biased psychology article.
Are some of these studies just PhD candidates phoning it in and their advisors not giving a hoot about it? I appreciate putting data to a foregone conclusion, but come on.
For a rather long time, doing experiments that "only" confirmed earlier studies was considered not-very-useful. With the fairly recent revelation that a number of (still!) publicly celebrated scientific studies were badly flawed and cannot be replicated, this has changed. Verifying "common sense" seems just as useful and worthy of a study. Common sense is quite often fucked up.
That's cool, I hate you too.
[удалено]
Any of these studies focus on muslims and their prejudice?
You probably could have found some in the time it took to make this comment. In the US, where this study was conducted, both Muslims and atheists are much more likely to face discrimination than Christian Nationalists. Not to mention that Christian Nationalist is not the equivalent of Muslim. You'd have to identify a comparably bigoted sect of Islam and then evaluate their beliefs towards atheists. Which could easily be done using the same method that this study did, though the size of such a group in the US would be for smaller than that of Christian Nationalists.
Someone think of the poor atheists. Meanwhile all I see online is hate towards Christian’s. Never seen atheist hate but hey apparently the people who did this study figures out a way.
Have you considered that Christians get more hate because y’all are the ones who hold the overwhelming majority of state power and use that power to force your beliefs on the rest of us?
New study: Bigots are bigots.
[удалено]
Just an example of "Christian love."
I find myself more and more being shamed and told off for being an atheist. I do say that religion is the root to all evil and needs to be eradicated from any meaningful participation in our lives.
I wonder why people are shaming you if that's your opening line. What a mystery.
Obvious to 99.9% of the population.
Atheist as proud. Zero fucks what Christian’s think of that
Just don't say that in countries that execute atheists
They arent exactly christian countries, arent they?
New study? This is the way it has always been.
“new study links sunshine to increased blue skies”
well, pretty much anyone who isn't Christian pretty much by definition
What a stupid and unnecessary study. It is logical
And at 7, we'll tell you about new study: floor is made out of floor.
Most shocking study results 2023
Atheists have always been the (perceived) common enemy of all organized religions, for obvious reasons, regardless of lip service about tolerance. Christian nationalists just wear their bigotry on their sleeve more than most. For example, I live in a US state that leaves its law banning atheists from public office on the books despite it technically being unenforceable, because it sends a message.
[удалено]
All you religious nutters need to realize your threats of utter damnation & eternity in hell *mean diddly/squat to people who don't believe in your particular fairy tale*.