Wow.. Lot of people misinterpreting the study. Here is a hint, its probably a bad idea to whine about how unreasonable, angry, poor company, or offensive atheists are, as a statement about how true the article is, when the article itself states, very clearly, that this is not the problem.
Here is some help, what the article ***actually*** says is:
"Even an atheist that was nice, kind, helped you across the street, gave you free money, and/or was the bestess person on the entire planet, would be trusted only slightly more than a known rapist."
This is the exact opposite of what some here are stating about their personal experiences with such people. What it says instead is that we are trusted almost as little as people that **are** trusted all the time, due to, just to be clear, how often date rape, and the like, are excused, ignored, or unreported. In fact, I would argue that the guy sitting next to you on the bus might be a rapist, and you would, ironically, trust him more, for not knowing that, than an atheist, based purely on the question, "Which church do you attend?" Why? Because no one asks, "Have you ever raped someone?", so all the myriad rapists out there have pretty much no fear of ever being distrusted. But, let someone admit they don't believe in god, and there are lots of people just waiting to prove themselves "more" untrustworthy, by a) slandering atheists in general, b) calling them all unpleasant (maybe you should consider why they might be that way towards you, probably for telling them they are damned, or something?), and c) because, as a group, they will, usually, tell you the truth about what they are, unlike rapists.
To me, this is a bit like saying, "I would much prefer to operated on by David Berkowitz (son of sam), than Gregory House." Why? Because the later one is an admitted asshole, while the former claimed to be a born again Christian? Is it any wonder the terms, "nuts", "insane", "crazy", or, "stupid" come up in certain conversations with the faithful, especially if they are trying to argue that the atheist must be an immoral, confused, god hater, who just hasn't been saved yet? I have seen less offensive statements start brawls. Why then, if atheists are so bad, unpleasant, and untrusted (only the last one even proven by the study), do you not hear them beating the stuffing out of everyone that ever pulls this argument?
