Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? Curiousity 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)

There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. JLefkowitz 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Britain's hatred of the underdog

Since when? --JohnSpheniscidae 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)

I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --JohnSpheniscidae 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)

If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? DaveE 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--PhilipN 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Here is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget Susan Boyle. IvanC 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Here is an entire article on the subject. Here is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. Here is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" RachelW 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --RedGoliath 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

Weak argumentation

I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --PhilipN 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Survival of the fittest

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--JohnSpheniscidae 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

IQ and Atheism

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --JustinD 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--Andy Schlafly 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) Conservative 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average IQ was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. Wikipedia agrees, but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --JustinD 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Faith and hope

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --JohnSpheniscidae 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? DaveE 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. JLefkowitz 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. DaveE 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)

I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. JLefkowitz 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)

What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope per se. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --JohnSpheniscidae 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Do Atheists dislike underdogs?

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved without exception the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog. I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --DamianJohn 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [1] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--Andy Schlafly 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)

On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.

Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)

Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --DamianJohn 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? Bobson 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)

They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. DaveE 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Is this serious?

If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. Davidspencer 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the little man - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed Karate Kid or Rocky to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than Apollo Creed - the movie could ever have been.

The whole mystery seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

• Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
• Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of North Korea).
• Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me, another gem is thrown in:

• Stalin was an atheist.
• Stalin probably didn't like underdogs-
• Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side. AugustO 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". Baobab 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? DaveE 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Who do atheists root for?

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and according to this, the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly are underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, having more fans overall than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, according to this site (other give different results). This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. DaveE 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Citation Needed

Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --PhilipN 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--Andy Schlafly 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --PhilipN 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)

I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? DaveE 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See Homosexuality and Barack Obama for reference. RachelW 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The Homosexuality article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. Conservative 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [2] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. Social Darwinism started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: Bestiality and Britain Conservative 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[3] Conservative 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)

Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --PhilipN 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)

By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--PhilipN 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)

PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? Conservative 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)

First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --PhilipN 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)

PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: Protestant cultural legacy). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). Conservative 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”Conservative 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --GeorgeLi 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. Davidspencer 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. RachelW 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Davidspencer, are you related to Herbert Spencer? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" Conservative 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Not that I know of. Are you?

I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --GeorgeLi 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)

GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. Conservative 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Yes they did. --GeorgeLi 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? Davidspencer 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --GeorgeLi 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)

True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. Davidspencer 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Atheists and surprises

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". Baobab 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)