Religious vs. Nonreligious - Who is More Trustworthy?

[ecco]

Some of them would go on widespread rampages of vandalizing nativity scenes.

Who are these "them"? Do you have any evidence that any of "them" have actually gone on widespread rampages? Do you have any evidence that any of "them" have actually vandalized nativity scenes?

There are also atheist fundamentalists who would make strategies to force churches to close down.

Who are these "fundamentalists"? Do you have any evidence that any of "them" have made strategies to force churches to close down?

Is your "knowledge" of these things coming from the Westboro Baptist Church?

 

[Nakosis]

When it comes to trustworthiness, who wins the prize? The religious? The nonreligious?

According to a recent survey done by the PEW Research group, roughly two-thirds of Americans would respond with: neither!

Source: Americans trust both religious, nonreligious people​

This is great, considering how little the category of "religious" and "nonreligious" really means given the heterogeneity of both groups. Drilling down into the data, though, we see some expected in-group and out-group biases. What I find pretty funny about these biases is that given the heterogeneity of these groups, should I really take from this that Evangelicals would consider a Pagan like me more trustworthy simply for being religious? I doubt it. While surveys like these are interesting, they certainly have their limitations.

What do you think of these findings? What are your thoughts on the trustworthiness of "religious" and "nonreligious" people? What do those categories mean to you?

Personally I feel religious belief is irrelevant to ones trustworthiness. Rather silly to think that religious belief is any kind of indicator as to who might be trustworthy.

 

[bobhikes]

When it comes to trustworthiness, who wins the prize? The religious? The nonreligious?

According to a recent survey done by the PEW Research group, roughly two-thirds of Americans would respond with: neither!

​

What do you think of these findings? What are your thoughts on the trustworthiness of "religious" and "nonreligious" people? What do those categories mean to you?

The Hard core of both are not honest with themselves and therefore untrustworthy however the moderates of both are very trustworthy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have never seen evidence of any sort that either belief or non-belief in God makes anyone more honest, or less, nor more or less kind, nor pretty much any of the other virtues and vices that we're prone to.

 

[crossfire]

Who are these "them"? Do you have any evidence that any of "them" have actually gone on widespread rampages? Do you have any evidence that any of "them" have actually vandalized nativity scenes?

Several years ago there was a huge swath of nativity vandalisms that covered more than a 40 mile area (this was only the part that I travelled through) that took place on Christmas Eve quite a few years ago.

Who are these "fundamentalists"? Do you have any evidence that any of "them" have made strategies to force churches to close down?

I was part of a rationalist forum where these things were openly discussed. It had a deep cleansing and went underground not long after the schism triggered by "elevatorgate." (I wasn't let back in.)

Is your "knowledge" of these things coming from the Westboro Baptist Church?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are also atheist fundamentalists who would make strategies to force churches to close down. Some of them would go on widespread rampages of vandalizing nativity scenes.

If history is any indication, the most likely perpetrator of nativity scene vandalism or shutting down churches is other Christian denominations.

Only once in American history did anyone try to outlaw Christmas; it was the Puritans.

 

[LuisDantas]

By the parameters that I expect or can guess that were used by that poll to characterize "religious", it is an easy call.

So-called "non-religious" people are definitely on average more trustworthy than people who are, to various degrees of commitment, willing to proclaim the superiority of dogma over fact.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

False question.

Generally speaking, religious people are more optimistic than non-religious. They are far more likely to believe in a plan for their life, and more likely to believe that as bad as things get, there is a overall feel that even death isn't the end of things.

Atheists tend to be slightly depressive (at least in comparison) and more than a bit fatalistic, bordering on Calvinism. Usually though, this has to do with stuff like DNA far more than religious or moral fatalism, but there is a higher than average incidence, because nonreligious types also occasionally buy into psychics or the idea of luck. They are far more likely to believe things are out of control in terms of population or the climate.

For the most part, both sides are very much human (one of the most irritating behaviors atheists exhibit is holding Christians to an impossible standard when a decent portion of them are actually trying to shed perfectionism, while atheist types are all kinds but their most distinguishing characteristic is that they are actually kinda pathetic (by that I mean their own hangups are effectively hurting them)), so this "trustworthiness" part is the wrong answer. But more important is the idea that you should allow pessimists or optimists to rule agenda. Optimists have a Pollyanna mentality where nothing is wrong. Pessimists give up when a problem comes, coming to the complete worst decision based on their fears. A realist is one who sees problems, but also sees hope.

Think of the implications of seeing just problems without that sense of hope. You get worked into a paranoia that is not healthy. How example, if we accept overpopulation, how hard is it to push people into an idea that undesirables need to be cleansed? Now the implications of optimism without a sense of perspective can also be harmful. Think of someone sinking all their money into the stock market or some pyramid scheme. While they have children to support. Or buying a Nintendo Switch only to find they can't afford presents for their loved ones.

I grew up Christian, but ultimately, I believe Christianity should be tempered with Taoism. What is needed in this world is a sense of balance.

 

[Cooky]

I was the one who said religious people are more trustworthy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I picked the last one, ie, refuse.
Religion is irrelevant in my experience.

 

[loverofhumanity]

When it comes to trustworthiness, who wins the prize? The religious? The nonreligious?

According to a recent survey done by the PEW Research group, roughly two-thirds of Americans would respond with: neither!

Source: Americans trust both religious, nonreligious people​

This is great, considering how little the category of "religious" and "nonreligious" really means given the heterogeneity of both groups. Drilling down into the data, though, we see some expected in-group and out-group biases. What I find pretty funny about these biases is that given the heterogeneity of these groups, should I really take from this that Evangelicals would consider a Pagan like me more trustworthy simply for being religious? I doubt it. While surveys like these are interesting, they certainly have their limitations.

What do you think of these findings? What are your thoughts on the trustworthiness of "religious" and "nonreligious" people? What do those categories mean to you?

It depends on the person not what they call themselves.

Outward symbols, forms and lip service can never hope to compare with good deeds and upright character. A person may call himself pagan but if he is trustworthy and of good character then he is truly religious whilst a person may call themselves religious but be unkind, cruel and a liar. So a man will be distinguished by his deeds not his name.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are also atheist fundamentalists who would make strategies to force churches to close down. Some of them would go on widespread rampages of vandalizing nativity scenes.

Ummm...ok. wouldn't they fall into 'non-religious fundamentalists'?

I mean...we can start running through each group one by one, but I'm pretty sure I was supportive of your opinion...?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting that the atheists show the strongest bias. Highlighting my contention that most atheists are really just anti-religion. So much so that real atheists have pretty much been driven right out from under the atheist label umbrella.

I often hear this contention, but most commonly from countries with lower levels of atheism. In Australia...or Sweden, or New Zealand...atheists are common enough that we are mostly 'just' people. Not anti-theists, SJWs or whatever other prejorative you might want to consider.

TLDR : I'm a real atheist, but neither anti-religion nor of the belief that the majority of atheists are anti-religion.

 

[Heyo]

Generally speaking, religious people are more optimistic than non-religious.

How do you come to that conclusion? In my experience it is the other way around. Religious people (at least those of the Abrahamic faiths) have a negative view of people. They see them as sinful. Non-religious people are more likely to have a humanist approach with a high value on humans. Non-religious people more likely see the historic development as positive and embrace the future. Religious people see history as a series of steps back from a golden age. (And some can't wait to see the world go down in a "rapture".)
So, again, how do you see religious people more optimistic?

 

[crossfire]

Ummm...ok. wouldn't they fall into 'non-religious fundamentalists'?

Indeed. I was giving an example to supplement your "Political fundamentalist" example.

I mean...we can start running through each group one by one, but I'm pretty sure I was supportive of your opinion...?

Indeed.

 

[danieldemol]

I voted equally trustworthy since all are prone to human weakness, but I admit when I said that I meant equally trustworthy in terms of business transactions, or looking after your kids without sexually assaulting them.

When it comes to honesty regarding science though I think the non-religious are ahead in leaps and bounds for trustworthiness.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Indeed. I was giving an example to supplement your "Political fundamentalist" example.

*shrugs*
Fair nuff. As an atheist, I get to be conflated with communists from time to time. I leaned in by specifically mentioning political fundamentalism. Boring old anti-theism kinda pales in impact and feels a little more directed, but I suspect I'm simply a touch sensitive. As a non-communist and non anti-theist anything tying the words 'atheism' and 'fundamentalism' together is a little hard for me to nod along to.

Fundies are fundies. I could care less if the source of their fundamentalism is religious or not.

 

[Howard Is]

I was the one who said religious people are more trustworthy.

I don’t believe you.

 

[sealchan]

When it comes to trustworthiness, who wins the prize? The religious? The nonreligious?

According to a recent survey done by the PEW Research group, roughly two-thirds of Americans would respond with: neither!

Source: Americans trust both religious, nonreligious people​

This is great, considering how little the category of "religious" and "nonreligious" really means given the heterogeneity of both groups. Drilling down into the data, though, we see some expected in-group and out-group biases. What I find pretty funny about these biases is that given the heterogeneity of these groups, should I really take from this that Evangelicals would consider a Pagan like me more trustworthy simply for being religious? I doubt it. While surveys like these are interesting, they certainly have their limitations.

What do you think of these findings? What are your thoughts on the trustworthiness of "religious" and "nonreligious" people? What do those categories mean to you?

For some, it seems, relgion is a club of humanity which membership in determines the scope of your identity and sympathy. Too much authoritarian literalistic dogma that leaves one in a position of disadvantage with respect to others who do not have such restrictions or blunders on.

However when a person is not "triggered" into emotionality by their blinders then their humanity has as good a chance as the next persons of "coming out".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When it comes to trustworthiness, who wins the prize? The religious? The nonreligious?

According to a recent survey done by the PEW Research group, roughly two-thirds of Americans would respond with: neither!

Source: Americans trust both religious, nonreligious people​

This is great, considering how little the category of "religious" and "nonreligious" really means given the heterogeneity of both groups. Drilling down into the data, though, we see some expected in-group and out-group biases. What I find pretty funny about these biases is that given the heterogeneity of these groups, should I really take from this that Evangelicals would consider a Pagan like me more trustworthy simply for being religious? I doubt it. While surveys like these are interesting, they certainly have their limitations.

What do you think of these findings? What are your thoughts on the trustworthiness of "religious" and "nonreligious" people? What do those categories mean to you?

Well, to answer that, I ask myself the question: what are the factors that determine thrustworthiness? What incentives do people have to betray trust? What logical path exists from (a)theism to such an incentive?

Since atheism is a single position on a single issue, and doesn't come with its won set of rules on how one should live or anything like that, I can safely dismiss atheism as having an influence on wheter or not people will betray my trust. Just for the simple fact that there is nothing inherently part of atheism which would put the scale in any one direction.

Theism however.... theism DOES come with a set of rules by which the followers are supposed to live. So right there, there IS a potential incentive for people to betray my trust, for example when what I entrust them with is in conflict with their religious views. Obviously it would depend entirely on context as well as the content of the religious beliefs.

For example...... Let's invent a hypothetical one so that it isn't distracted by controversy...

Suppose someone's religion states that it is absolutely forbidden for a believer to hand over money to a non-believer. Goods are fine, cash isn't.
If my work collegue, who follows said religion very seriously, is going out to buy a sandwich for lunch, I might ask him to buy me one as well.
Suppose the sandwich is 5 bucks and I give him 10 euro bill. How can I trust in this scenario that I'll be getting the change back?

It's simplistic and somewhat stupid, but I'm sure you get the picture.

So to sum up:
- there's nothing inherently in atheism that might potentially influence trustworthiness
- there're many things in many different religions that might potentially influence trustworthiness. But you can't speak in general - you'ld have to see on a case by case basis.