Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[shunyadragon]

(No. 4 being, "4. That they either lost their father at a young age, or had a strained relationship with their father, making it more difficult to form a good relationship with the Divine Father.")

Lewis Rambo (sic) wrote Understanding Religious Conversion (1993) as to why men (in particular) convert to religion. He summarizes the research of Chana Ullman (1982) "that the major issues motivating the forty converts (in comparison to the control group) were emotional [ie not the study’s alternative, intellectual], involving problematic relationships with their father, unhappy childhoods, and a past history of disrupted, distorted personal relationships."

That's about conversion to religion, not from. I don't know what if any further surveys or research have been done ─ 1982 was forty-two years ago, after all, and at least in the US psychoanalysis was still in its heyday ─ but on the face of it it shows the opposite to the suggested anti-atheist claim.

Having problematic relationships between the father and son are too universal among all religions for it to be a significant cause of men becoming atheist.

Bad relationships between father and son are more common when compared to the relatively small number of believers become atheists.

I believe when looking at the reasons that people become atheists their reasons are more a rational justification, The evidence for this is the proportion of scientists become atheists when their work is in total contradiction with the beliefs of ancient tribal religions. Their education and careers are based on the scientific objective evidence for the nature of our physical existence. The percentage of atheists is higher among the better educated. This is also true for support of the sciences of evolution.

 

[Kathryn]

And what about the girls?

 

[shunyadragon]

And what about the girls?

The women that become atheists follow the same trend as I described in post #341. There is a higher percentage of women who are atheists are scientists and better educated women where the rational, logical and evidence based justification has priority, and the peer culture is more related to rational justification. The percentage of atheists is lower among women than men.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then why are you arguing about my comments toward atheists? And how can I even believe you when so many atheists, themselves, are constantly lying about what atheism is and what atheists believe and don't believe?

You are in no position to call a great many others "liar".

 

[We Never Know]

I just viewed and greatly enjoyed a three part video series by Matt Baker, who did his doctoral thesis on the psychology of atheism. Although all three videos are excellent, it is the third one that I wanted to share and discuss.

Christians often make certain generalizations about atheists:
1. That they are arrogant and dogmatic
2. That they prefer to be non-religious because they are selfish and religion is an inconvenience
3. That they are angry with God
4. That they either lost their father at a young age, or had a strained relationship with their father, making it more difficult to form a good relationship with the Divine Father.

Matt Bakar deals with each of these scientifically. He comes to the following conclusions:
1. None of the 4 assertions above accurately generalize about atheists
2. What DOES seem to have a high correlation with atheism is a score of TP on the Myers Briggs (video 2 deals with this in depth). This matches up nicely with other studies that correlate atheism wish low agreeability and low conscientiousness using the Big 5 personality elements. What it basically means is that atheists are twice as likely to greatly care about truth even if it costs them and be open to change.

Many people in general regardless of religion or lack of religion are arrogant, immoral, and angry.

 

[shunyadragon]

Many people in general regardless of religion or lack of religion are arrogant, immoral, and angry.

True, but the dominant reasons for people to become atheist are rational and logical with higher numbers among the scientist and higher educated. There is a high level of indifference to religion and not anger or hostility to religion.

The lack of identity with the Biblical and Quranic worldview among scientists and the better educated to be atheists, agnostics, indifferent to traditional religions, and belief in Theistic Evolution.

It is more common among atheists that 'there is no reason to believe,' and not believing absolutely that there are no Gods.

 

[Firenze]

True, but the dominant reasons for people to become atheist are rational and logical with higher numbers among the scientist and higher educated. There is a high level of indifference to religion and not anger or hostility to religion.

The lack of identity with the Biblical and Quranic worldview among scientists and the better educated to be atheists, agnostics, indifferent to traditional religions, and belief in Theistic Evolution.

It is more common among atheists that 'there is no reason to believe,' and not believing absolutely that there are no Gods.

I guess there's a reason the National Academy of Sciences is 93% non-religious......

 

[shunyadragon]

I guess there's a reason the National Academy of Sciences is 93% non-religious......

True, but as I described above non-religious does not translate to atheist. Those that do believe tend to believe in Theistic Evolution.

 

[PureX]

That is incorrect. Again.

The problem for you is all you can ever do is keep repeating this. But you can't logically justify it. What you are describing is not atheism. It's just being undecided. And that's not any kind of "ism". It's just being undecided/undetermined.

Your other problem is that it's a lie, because you aren't undecided. You have decided to believe that no gods exist unless and until you can know them to exist. And that's not being undecided. That's a clear decision. A choice. And a position. .... and therefor part of an 'ism'. Atheism.

You're unteachable.

I will not accept gibberish and lies from people, no. Sorry.

I define atheism for myself, and I apply my definition to everybody else.

Well, I guess that makes you the king of your own confirmation bias, then. How nice for you.

 

[PureX]

I guess there's a reason the National Academy of Sciences is 93% non-religious......

They're also mostly men, so I wouldn't read too much into the numbers. And how many of them are still independent theists?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem for you is ...

I don't have a problem here. You do (see below).

You have decide to believe that no gods exist unless and until you can know them to exist. And that's not being undecided.

Like I said, you're unteachable. You simply cannot assimilate this simple idea.

What you are describing is not atheism. It's just being undecided. And that's not any kind of "ism". It's just being undecided/undetermined.

For the benefit of others reading along who CAN learn from words, that's called agnostic atheism. I don't expect you to ever understand that, and you shouldn't expect me ever to not correct your error whenever I see you make it.

These are words I've already posted to you, to no avail:

There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos. It refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, des he seem to be a sound thinker, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, is he emotionally secure, and the like.

 

[PureX]

You are in no position to call a great many others "liar".

We are all in that position. You know, free speech and all that. And I will back up my claim clearly and logically. I'll even admit I'm wrong if you can show just as clearly and logically that I am.

 

[PureX]

For the benefit of others reading along who CAN learn from words, that's called agnostic atheism.

The problem with "agnostic atheism" is that one needs to justify it with something other than knowledge, because an "agnostic" doesn't have the requisite knowledge. And that's what very few atheists I've encountered can ever come up with. Which is why they are constantly trying to hide their atheism behind lies about their being open-minded and undetermined, when they aren't, and behind their empty gibberish definitions of atheism.

 

[Nakosis]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem with "agnistic atheism" is that one needs to justify it with something other than knowledge, because an "agnostic" doesn't have the requisite knowledge. And that's what very few atheists I've encountered can ever come up with. Which is why they are constantly trying to hide their atheism behind lies about their being open-minded and undetermined, when they aren't, and their empty gibberish definitions of atheism.

More derogatory language? Lies? Gibberish? Can't you do any better than that? Can't you disagree without being offensive? These definitions are only gibberish to you because you are incapable of understanding them.

And here you are again pretending that you know what atheists actually believe and calling them liars for not agreeing with your misrepresentation.

Speaking of gibberish (I don't mind using the word with you; you aren't entitled to any more respect than you offer), you say I need something other than knowledge to justify my agnostic atheism. That's what gibberish ("unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing") looks like. I can't imagine what that meant, or to what you were referring that isn't knowledge that justifies agnostic atheism - a term along with unqualified atheism I'm, pretty sure that you don't understand despite calling atheists liars for describing themselves thusly.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are all in that position.

Your posts show a major lack of
discernment about atheism & atheists.

 

[PureX]

Your posts show a major lack of
discernment about atheism & atheists.

You show a major lack of discernment about my posts.

 

[Revoltingest]

You show a major lack of discernment about my posts.

Channeling Pee Wee or Francis?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually, what you are describing is literally nothing. Atheism is not nothing, or we would not have, nor would we ever need, a word for it.

Languages have words that label the absence of things. For example, "evil" denotes the absence of good, and "bald" denotes the absence of hair. "Atheism" denotes the lack of belief in any god/gods. I have consistently stated this over and over, as have a great many other people.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And how can I even believe you when so many atheists, themselves, are constantly lying about what atheism is and what atheists believe and don't believe?

Your post crosses the line into enormous disrespect and disinformation. I have never known an atheist to lie about what atheism is, which is the lack of any belief in a god or gods. You will note that all the dictionary definitions note two kinds of atheists: those who actually believe there is no god, and those who make no statement to that affect but lack any belief in god/gods. Also note that the definition does not mention naturalism or anything else -- atheism is not a world view.

Oxford
a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Merriam Webster:
atheist
noun
athe·ist ˈā-thē-ist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

Cambridge Dictionary
atheist
noun [ C ] RELIGION
someone who does not believe in any god or gods, or who believes that no god or gods exist:

Dictionary.com
atheist
[ ey-thee-ist ]SHOW IPA
noun

1. a person who does not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
2. a person who believes that there is no supreme being or beings.