"Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable? a) Linda is a bank teller, or b) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

The correct answer is of course a), because the number of feminist bank tellers can never be higher than the number of bank tellers. But most people give the wrong answer to this problem, because the person’s description sounds more representative of option b). Our study simply looked at how often people committed this fallacy when the person in the story was described as atheist versus religious. This allowed us to examine people’s intuitions, rather than more reflective, politically correct answers"

(...although the last sentence is odd to me. Reflective and politically correct don't seem to go together. Maybe reflective and logically correct?)

One the one hand, you mention "Global moral prejudice against atheists", which I agree is a problem.

Then the main post is about some logical fallacy in an article.

Then you finish with talking about prejudice to atheists.

In any case, if "Data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons suggest that atheists are far less likely to commit crimes than religious people, and globally the least religious countries have the lowest crime rates.", it's at least supportive of the idea that atheists commit fewer crimes.

I don't get what the op is trying to say, either.

1) This is not the first time this has been discussed in recent years. The finding of less crime among atheists is one I have heard before.

2) There is context that I know so I'll share it: prison populations are significantly more self-identified as "christian" than the general population.

3) In the context of society, there is tremendous prejudice against atheists and it is often expressed as a feeling that if they don't have a religious text to refer to and adhere to, such as the bible, then they don't have a moral compass or feel restraints on their behaviour.

So there is no conflation and it is clear: Continuing prejudice against atheists because of their supposed lack of morals is unjustified and inappropriate.

... but I think we are clear among us on the essentials.

Are more immoral than the general public.

MY POINT IS: We atheists must deal with prejudice not based on facts.

"Weirdly" is conflating? I added my opinion.

The article (or at least the excerpt) points out that correlation is not causation. It is a warning not to misinterpret the findings. It is not a logical fallacy. It is not pointing to a logical fallacy in the findings. It is a caution that the writers wish to apply to the readers for when they are thinking about the findings, outside of the findings and the article.

I suppose I must spell it out in the subject line!!!

I only quoted.

I don’t believe in supernatural. I focus and am guided by reason, science, logic and have a desire to find a common ground and love between everyone.

But hey, that’s just me.

I will say I have learned something from zen philosophy.

I just prefer the term Humanist over Atheist when speaking about religion.

That atheist can not hold office. The states are Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

But since the US Constitution says: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

It is questionable that those states will ever, or have ever, upheld their prejudice against atheists.

But since our current Supreme Court is filled with corrupt, religious extremists who are ignorant of the law, there's no telling how they will interpret Article VI of the Constitution.

So yeah there's a lot of prejudice against atheists, even though we are not a threat.

People who have that magical, get out of hell fre card thinking probably also think Jebus won't let them go to prison. Oops. Around here, the favorite talisman is the Lady of Guadalupe tat. Uh, no kid, she doesn't work that way.

I've found that atheists have exactly as much in common with each other as people who wear size 9 shoes do. I've met some far right loony atheists, gun nut atheists, and I'm sure there are even Qbot atheists out there.

We just don't see them on DU, which is why I'm here.

It would certainly be interesting if we could. I'm betting very few would identify as atheists.

I've had a few close friends that I told I was an atheist. They sit in wide-eyed, stunned silence for awhile, and then change the subject. Except my dear friend, Duppers. We are twins!

Indeed, Sis.