Survey says: Atheists most distrusted minority

I found more on methodology; this is the specific question that was asked:



http://www.soc.umn.edu/amp/pubs/Findings_Atheism.pdf

(Emphasis mine.)

It seems safe to conclude that the list was made up of the italicized groups, which would mean that the question was specifically about atheists as opposed to agnostics or those who do not follow any organized religion. I really think the use of the word "athiest" skewed the results, there, because of the actively anti-religious connotations.

One of the reasons i mistrust Miss Edgell is precisely because of the number of publications she has on the membership of religious congregations. She is not going to get that sort of information from the unchurched, the agnostic or the atheist. The Religious-Tolerance-dot-org site i linked has far more reliable information, in that they present the sources of their sruvey data, and discuss the problems to be associated with accumulating that data.

I consider Miss Edgell to be unreliable because in the several dozen sites i read in which she is interviewed or her publications quoted, she consistently refers to data from members of religious congregations. The claim that i questioned her reliability because of the use of a different name is specious--username is making sh!t up in that case. That her academic career is concerned with members of religious congregations, and that the original article and several others which can be found by a web search for her name all refer to the 3% number is significant, as well. The Religious Tolerance-dot-org affiliation report points out that 3% of those in North Dakota report no affiliation, being the lowest reported figure, and that 25% of the respondants in the state of Washington reported no affiliation. I cannot help but wonder if Miss Edgell's sources of information are consciously or unconsciously limited to those in whom she has a professional interest. In other words, it seems to me that she polls the choir in order to facilitate preaching to the choir.

Username does good work in tracking down the data which D.I. cited. It provides evidence both of the unreliability of survey data on religious issues, as well as the ineptitude of D.I. in citing information in these fora. When i first encountered D.I. in these fora, he was claiming the United States had been oppressing other nations for more than three centuries--despite the fact that the United States has only existed for a little more than two centuries, and despite the obvious objection that the United States has only had the military ability to oppress other nations for considerably less than two centuries. Shortly thereafter, D.I. claimed that the United States supported Hitler and the Nazis. Following his links to Third World Traveler, one of the most egregiously tendentious purveyors of unreliable information i have ever seen, i discovered the page to which he referred, which claimed that American companies were "trading with the enemy." It ignored that the National Socialist Workers Party was not in power in the 1920's, and it ignored that prior to December, 1941, the United States was not at war with Germany, and therefore no American company could thereby have been trading with the enemy. It ignored that there was then no executive branch Office of the United States Trade Representative, and that therefore Roosevelt had no power to interfer in the European investments of American companies. It ignored that Congress had not to that date passed any legislation which limited or attempted to control foreign investments of American companies, beyond the terms of national embargoes--the only one of which was operative at that time was against the Empire of Japan.

In short, when Detano Inipo is the messenger, i have developed a tendancy to ignore the message. I have begun on research to develop the same attitude to Miss Edgell, notwithstanding Username's snotty comments on the subject.

Good points all, Soz.

You should not post links to PDF documents without a warning for people using dial-up services. Adobe has now linked all PDF documents to a search function for Adobe Acrobat upgrades, so that you cannot attempt to open a PDF document online without a search being immediately instituted for Acrobat updates. When i tried to open you other PDF link (i'm using a dial-up here) it completely locked up the computer, and then crashed the entire system. Adobe rather idiotically attempts to open the PDF page at the same time as it conducts an online search for Acrobat updates. That may be no problem with DSL, but its a nightmare for a dial-up.

Good lookin' out for the demographic information and the questions, though, Soz. The Religious Tolerance-dot-org page gives not only excellent demographic control protocol information, but dicusses the difficulties pertinent to religious affiliation surveys.

Another observation -- are the italicized groups, above, really the only minorities in America today?

I think it might be kind of like a survey that asks, "I'm going to read you a list of foods, and you tell me which ones you like the most. Ice cream, pie, cookies, cake, chicken," and then announces its results as "Chicken is the most hated American food."

To me, this is the real clincher in the question: ". . . For each one, please tell me how much you think people in this group agree with YOUR vision of American society . . ."

A more vague and amorphous, and totally subjective and esoteric concept i cannot imagine than "your vision of American society."

This is one of the many reasons why i despise sociologists, christian scientists and scientologists--the lack of any credible reference to actual scientific method.

Precisely . . .

Doesn't the "pdf" in the link provide warning?

I'll keep that in mind when I do the hotlinked version, though. (Like, when the word "source" is a link.)

I am not trying to beat up on you, Soz, and i should have exercised more care myself. Unfortunately, years of DSL use have made me unwary.

I'm just suggesting a warning about PDF links when you post them, because not everyone knows the possible results of trying to link to a PDF page using dial-up service.

********************************

I agree with your critique of the survey, but would note that the current climate of the United States, at least until recently, is such that i would not be surprised to find that atheists were mistrusted.

However, it also seems that a reaction to religious fervor may be setting in in the United States. The affiliation page at Religious Tolerance-dot-org notes a significant decline in expressed religious affiliation among Americans. I think the Religious Right, Inc. has fouled their own nest considerably.

Sure hope so -- there do seem to be some promising indications thereof.

voided

Setanta wrote-



If you are going to despise sociologists on the basis of a report of a pseudo sociologist you win in two ways-

1-You can continue with the comforting notion that you despise sociologists.

2-And it saves you the bother of studying sociology proper for who would study a subject they despise.

One might just as easily despise science on the basis of some carefully chosen faulty science of which there are plenty of examples to go at.

So you now contend that Miss Edgell is a "pseudo sociologist?" What is the basis for your accusation--apart from your obsession with disagreeing with me?

Why should it be a surprise ?

Atheists do not identify with any religious group conformity therefore their behaviour may be deemed difficult to predict. "Trust" is wrapped up with "prediction".

Good point, Fresco . . .

I often have an urge to assemble my own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction so i can take care of anyone who refuses to accept the moral superiority of atheism . . .

Setanta wrote-



What possible moral position,as opposed to tactics, can an atheist have.Tactics vary with circumstances and therefore,as fresco said,they are unpredictable.Tactics can be dressed up in moral positions to take in the unwary.

Atheists also are quite alone and only meet others on mutually agreed territory again for tactical reasons.
God's territory limits their room for manoevre if there is an agreed and accepted authority.American religion,with its seeming variations, is a shifting position between the two.Atheists easily come to have violent responses when frustrated only mitigated by fear of the law there not being any reason why they shouldn't.
Even the ironic use of phrases like "weapons of mass destruction" and "taking care of" serve to demonstrate that such ideas readily spring to mind.



I have no such obsession despite the assertion that I do.

A proper sociologist would not go public with stuff as easily questioned as that from Ms Edgell.

A proper sociologist studies social facts such as,say,suicide rates in differing areas or volumes of vehicles passing a check point.He then seeks to find explanations of these variations.
If you took information from birth certificates in New Orleans in 1930 and traced the fate of the individuals in 2006 and carried out the same exercise in other places you could derive certain conclusions from them which are based on fact.What people say when they are asked questions is the basis for pseudo-sociology.A death cerificate is value free.

One could maybe discover the different effects of having been breast fed or bottle fed.I was breast fed you will all be glad to learn I'm sure.

If,say,10% of the breast fed were atheists and 30% of the bottle fed then one might tentatively draw a conclusion,possibly meriting further enquiry,that bottle feeding contributed to the development of atheism on maturity.If one rushed to publication on a study of 2000 without allowing for other factors,such as breast size,one might feel one was taking a bit of a chance with one's reputation as a serious sociologist but impatience often leads to such things unfortunately.

This could be satire, but when I read some of the crap christians actually believe about atheists ... I wasn't sure anymore.

That's hilarious Krekel, thanks . . .

On page 4, Spendi wrote:



But then, on page 8, Spendi wrote:



Small wonder that no thinking member at this site pays the least heed to Spendi's drivel.

I've updated my avatar to show I'm grumpy, bitter and will lash out at children ...

Cool . . . yer my kinda dude, Dude . . .