These are very interesting study results. They seem to validate wider theories as well regarding societal norms v. general non-conformity. This also brings to mind animals who are the runt, or have anomalies, being shunned or killed by their parents or societal group.

In study 1, as you have described, anti-atheist prejudice among religious believers is reduced - but is that just overt prejudice towards atheists? Is it the type of prejudice that keeps a person from participating in equal rights in society or the kind of prejudice that is misinformation about atheism? If it is the former, then atheists are allowed equal rights, but the religious believer’s basic ideology is not changed toward non-believers (ie: belief that atheists will go to hell, etc.). If it is the latter, then religious believers would understand logically the argument of atheists, which would nullify their own personal beliefs, or at the very least put them in conflict.

I have found that religion is so deeply ingrained into the believers that it is almost impossible for an atheist to have a conversation with them using facts and reasoning. Immediately the defenses go up and they refuse to believe anything the atheist has to say. Not that this should mean that we should stop trying to reason, just saying that this is an extreme wall that we are up against. In this respect, I would have to disagree with the commenter’s assertion that atheists can present religious believers with non-confrontational information, as the beliefs of most of the religions see ANY question of their faith, especially denial of a creator as a confrontational statement.

I also would like to mention that climate change is a very real and extreme example of this. Assuming that scientific atheists, such as yourself, are the ones presenting the argument, science has amassed a plethora of information to show a vastly statistical probability for climate change. Yet, with this wealth of knowledge from the scientific community, religious deniers are very prevalent - at least in the US. These religious zealots are trying to turn the field of science into a belief system that can be questioned. One could possibly argue that religious believers do this because their allegiant beliefs make it very difficult for them to conceive of a lack of a belief system/religion. Reason and logic does not prevail with these people.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I don’t think changing beliefs can be the goal, through confrontation or otherwise. Most believers would rather be wrong than drop their beliefs. Besides, changing beliefs is an odious business that smacks of proselytizing and thought control. Better to leave it to the religions that invented it. Our goal should be to occupy the ground of reason in public opinion. We can leave believers to their beliefs as long as they understand they can’t bring them into decisions that require a common standard of truth.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Tilberian

I am all for leaving believers to their beliefs, assuming they extend the same courtesy to everyone else (a rarity, indeed). 

A common standard of truth is an amorphous concept, at best.  This is, I think, the crux of the religious debate.  Parties from every spectrum of belief have shown that their ideas are not to be slighted or ignored in the realm of public policy, simply because their version of truth doesn’t precisely coincide with the majority. 

I agree that conversations about policies that affect everyone in this country (the United States) should be secular and rational.  This, however, simply isn’t the reality - and won’t be as long as the populace maintains any sort of diversity.  Granted, a great homogenized mass of humanity would be a very efficient political machine (which is probably why the U.S. aims to have two great homogenized masses in the form of a dual-partisan system). 

A common standard of truth… what better way to illustrate the nature of conflict?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Indeed you atheist should come out, and sooner the better. the christian religion has all but taken over our secular system of goverment. the millitary is firmly under evangelical control (see; MRFF). The excecutive branch is turnning a blind eye and if you think that their is no religeous test for office you are assleep or a part of the conspiracy. our tax dollars are being given away to the likes of pat robertson and others. it is appauling. stand up and scream to be heard atheist. we are not to be rulled by the greedy that exploit the ignorants that belive in talking snakes and other simillar nonesense.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

No Kidding???

Why would anyone think that the more prevalent the displacement of an ideological constituency was not indicative of the tolerance for such an ideology???

It’s a good thing, I’m in the tax bracket that doesn’t pay for such useless studies.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Ron :
I understand your logic, but this is not always the case. For instance, up until the Iraq war, the S’hias were the majority and the Sunnis were the minority, yet, the Sunnis were in the positions of power in the government. Therefore, the majority faction (Sunni) was not prevalent in this case because of the S’hia suppression.

I am sure that there are other examples of this occuring as well. Therefore, one cannot assume that a religion (or lack thereof) with greater numbers ALWAYS is more tolerated/receives less prejudice. There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rules. A further study of religions with regard to prevalence being indicative of tolerance is warranted. However, this is still good news for atheists as the study shows. Perhaps further studies that could replicate this one would increase the validity.

However, I have to disagree with your statement that these studies are useless. I believe that they are extremely beneficial to all humans in furthering the discoveries that lead to truth and reason. They provide proof of their hypotheses. Those who don’t validate their hypotheses are just as important, as it is important to know what is and what isn’t.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.