"Insights from studying prejudice in the context of American Atheism"

[Terry Sampson]

Charles, E., Rowland, N., Long, B., & Yarrison, F. (2012). Insights from studying prejudice in the context of American atheists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 429-430. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001161

Two pages attached.

 

[David T]

Charles, E., Rowland, N., Long, B., & Yarrison, F. (2012). Insights from studying prejudice in the context of American atheists. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 429-430. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001161

Two pages attached.

Ah yes, atheists, the least athoritative people on the planet in regards to the topic god due to bias. I blame their experts whom are the second least athoritative in the world, on the topic God due to their extreme bias. Believers.

let's see the pot calling the kettle black wowzer!!! Deep.

 

[Orbit]

I wish it were a full article that stated their methods, sample etc. It is tantalizing, but underdeveloped.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ah yes, atheists, the least athoritative authoritative people on the planet in regards to the topic god.....

Fixed it for you.
I don't know gods, but I do know me some spell'n.

 

[Jim]

If I understand what the research is about, then it could easily be misunderstood from the title. It looks to me like it’s about some ways that prejudices against people who doubt or deny the reality or existence of the Gods of Christianity are different from other kinds of prejudices, so that different approaches might be needed, to help free people from those prejudices. That looks plausible to me, and possibly very consequential in reducing prejudices against people who doubt or deny the reality or existence of the Gods of Christianity.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I posted the brief article identified in the OP without further comment. I comment briefly now.

I came across the article while researching "prejudice," i.e. the kind of prejudices that I am familiar with. The "American Atheist" in the title evoked my curiosity. I posted the article here without a deep reading of it and without hope or expectation of significant response from others in RF.

Since posting it, I came across a larger document which is the "physical context" for the brief article .above. It's one entry in the "Open Peer Commentary" that begins on Page 15, and it is the only article in the Commentary that discusses Atheists, specifically American Atheists. The larger document is Behavioral and Brain Sciences,Volume 35, Issue 6 (December 2012) found @ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/issue/642BF8AA4F4697C680A85A36C5FAD542, a copy of which is attached below.

Searching the the 6th Issue of Volume 35 of the BBS Journal, I found that "Atheist" is only mentioned in the article cited in the OP.

 

[Jim]

It looks to me like this actually has nothing to do with people who fly atheist banners in Internet discussions. It's about the multitudes of people who are conscious of doubting or denying the reality or existence of the Gods of Christianity, without it being an issue for them other than how it might hurt their loved ones if they found out about it.

I disagree with this:

Unlike the interactive contexts of sexism or racism, discriminating against nonbelievers first requires voluntary self-revelation of nonreligious identity.

It looks to me like decisions and policies that privilege believers can affect nonbelievers adversely, no matter if anyone knows who they are or not.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I disagree with this:

"Unlike the interactive contexts of sexism or racism, discriminating against nonbelievers first requires voluntary self-revelation of nonreligious identiy."

I saw that and here's how I interpreted it: Out in public, IN AMERICA, it's easier for people's sexist or racist prejudices to kick in in order to discriminate because the targets of their discrimination have physical attributes that press their buttons. Discrimination against a non-believer, on the other hand, requires that the non-believer say, wear, or do something (i.e. self-reveal that they are a non-believer) in order for an anti-non-believer prejudice to kick in. In essence, it's easier for me to discriminate against a women or a black because "I know what a woman and a black look like". A non-believer, however, doesn't (typically) wear a neon sign on their forehead that tells my anti-non-believer radar "Non-believer Ahead."

 

[David T]

Fixed it for you.
I don't know gods, but I do know me some spell'n.

Oh thank you I am not always at a computer and my eyes are old......

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh thank you I am not always at a computer and my eyes are old......

Old eyes are tired from having seen so much.

 

[David T]

Old eyes are tired from having seen so much.

I just do an eye roll at just about every conversation! That keeps them from totally closing into a nap!!

 

[Poppa]

sounds like another study with an obvious answer that netted someone 100 grand to study the obvious. if you discuss religion, someone's going to get mad. if you discuss politics, the same result. ??