If we look at it logically, why must it necessarily be atheists? Would they not run this "shocking" expose if it turned out to be homosexuals that were mistrusted? Muslims? Immigrants? Blacks? With the exception of a sinless world, some group must be least trusted. The article just seems to be sensationalism if you ask me.
Also: "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate," strikes me as a load of crap. Especially in the rise of Dawkins-style atheism.
Oh, I definitely think the article is sensationalization. However, I also think the reasons people distrust atheists are stupid. The atheists I know are actually pretty nice people.
Comments 5
As opposed to letting their children marry homosexuals? Kind of odd preference.
What are your thoughts on this anyway?
Reply
Thoughts on what, exactly?
Reply
If we look at it logically, why must it necessarily be atheists? Would they not run this "shocking" expose if it turned out to be homosexuals that were mistrusted? Muslims? Immigrants? Blacks? With the exception of a sinless world, some group must be least trusted. The article just seems to be sensationalism if you ask me.
Also: "I know atheists aren't studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it's still socially acceptable to hate," strikes me as a load of crap. Especially in the rise of Dawkins-style atheism.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment