Atheists are more intolerant than Christians

Angela

Elite member
Messages
21,823
Reaction score
12,325
Points
113
Ethnic group
Italian
See:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917303070

"Previous theory and evidence favor the idea that religious people tend to be dogmatic to some extent whereas non-religious people are undogmatic: the former firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence. We conducted a further critical investigation of this idea, distinguishing three aspects of rigidity: (1) self-reported dogmatism, defined as unjustified certainty vs. not standing for any beliefs, (2) intolerance of contradiction, measured through (low) endorsement of contradictory statements, and (3) low readiness to take a different from one's own perspective, measured through the myside bias technique. Non-believers, at least in Western countries where irreligion has become normative, should be lower on the first, but higher on the other two constructs. Data collected from three countries (UK, France, and Spain, total N = 788) and comparisons between Christians, atheists, and agnostics confirmed the expectations, with agnostics being overall similar to atheists."

"
Highlights

•In 3 secular countries, we compared nonbelievers to Christians on aspects of rigidity.
•Non-believers were lower in self-reported dogmatism, i.e. certainty in beliefs.
•But were higher in subtly measured intolerance of contradiction and myside bias
•Results were similar for atheists and agnostics and across the three countries.
•Religious believers seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives."
 
Last edited:
They didn't conduct the study in the middle east, otherwise you would have seen a veeeeery different "perspective" :grin:

Religious believers seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives.

Diverging perspectives .. well if an issue is by its nature subjective, and can hold multiple opinions, then that's a divergence I can accept. However, if it is something that is within the domain of reason, and then I find someone believing in something that contradicts reason and evidence, then that is bullshit, and I can't accept bullshit, I can't integrate it.

I am indeed intolerant to bullshit. We should all grow up, and leave iron age fantasies behind us.
 
See:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01918
86917303070?np=y&npKey=d4fe96aedc05229a4aa2f479455bb98b2bc8d1f73202a1f1ebf9740a7beec316

"Previous theory and evidence favor the idea that religious people tend to be dogmatic to some extent whereas non-religious people are undogmatic: the former firmly hold beliefs, some of which are implausible or even contrary to the real world evidence. We conducted a further critical investigation of this idea, distinguishing three aspects of rigidity: (1) self-reported dogmatism, defined as unjustified certainty vs. not standing for any beliefs, (2) intolerance of contradiction, measured through (low) endorsement of contradictory statements, and (3) low readiness to take a different from one's own perspective, measured through the myside bias technique. Non-believers, at least in Western countries where irreligion has become normative, should be lower on the first, but higher on the other two constructs. Data collected from three countries (UK, France, and Spain, total N = 788) and comparisons between Christians, atheists, and agnostics confirmed the expectations, with agnostics being overall similar to atheists."

"
Highlights

•In 3 secular countries, we compared nonbelievers to Christians on aspects of rigidity.
•Non-believers were lower in self-reported dogmatism, i.e. certainty in beliefs.
•But were higher in subtly measured intolerance of contradiction and myside bias
•Results were similar for atheists and agnostics and across the three countries.
•Religious believers seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives."

it is because they support more gender equality and not want to follow the patriarchal religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

if you want a secular society then you need to get rid of the old ideas of Church and King
 
The thread title is a bit misleading. Based on the summary, the article doesn't address intolerance as a whole, but rather seems to narrowly address "intolerance of contradiction"--which I would like a specific definition of--and "myside bias," or confirmation bias. It would be interesting to see which questions they used exactly, because much of religious apologetics seems like confirmation bias to me. Does anyone have the full paper?
 
Based on the summary, the article doesn't address intolerance as a whole, but rather seems to narrowly address "intolerance of contradiction".

I'm 99,9% sure that it refers to an intolerance of being contradicted, not an intolerance of contradicting evidence :grin:
 
The thread title is a bit misleading. Based on the summary, the article doesn't address intolerance as a whole, but rather seems to narrowly address "intolerance of contradiction"--which I would like a specific definition of--and "myside bias," or confirmation bias. It would be interesting to see which questions they used exactly, because much of religious apologetics seems like confirmation bias to me. Does anyone have the full paper?

there is a shitload of fake news in any religion
 
The problem is not religion or atheism per sé. The problem is the political use of religion and atheism. Albania during communism was the first atheist country in the world. And I can assure you that forced atheism by state order has been a huge mistake and very harmful for the country and we continue to pay the consequences today.
 
The problem is not religion or atheism per sé. The problem is the political use of religion and atheism. Albania during communism was the first atheist country in the world. And I can assure you that forced atheism by state order has been a huge mistake and very harmful for the country and we continue to pay the consequences today.

Political use was the origin and the purpose of religion.
 
Atheists run their lifes by the law, or against the law,

do not compare Atheisμ with nihilism

the connection of Atheists with law is much stronger
than Christians due to forgiveness
and Muslims due to anihilate the non-faithfull
so that indeed makes atheists less tolerant than christians
but not intolerant to what the law is tolerant
yet among Atheists many grap the chance of
'since no God, then no punishment, no hell'
and can show straneg acts and much intolerance,
Atheists have 2 options to run in their lifes,
follow the law, or fight the law,
cause an atheist is a lover of Truth, and power
of Truth and Science, and the power they give.
the mechanisms to understand and run the universe,
he does not live for the moment, as a nihilist does
neither expects eternal life, as monotheistic religions believers do (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)


we must clarify the difference among an atheist and a nihilist.
a nihilist is living for the present, and just to live,
with no faith or hope or future.

an atheist is expecting the law to be executed
a christian expects for forgiveness so the law not to be executed.

VI VERI VENIVERSUM (UNIVERSUM) VIVUS VICI

Aleister Crowley
 
There is a thing such a radical atheism.

So be cool and be agnostic :grin:
 
Every religion to me is like Scientology, the only difference is that, in the others the fraudulence and scamming was older.
 
i believe in flyng spagetti monster lolz
 
i believe in flyng spagetti monster lolz

As an Agnostic, I have to admit that Beer Volcano sounds awesome
cropped-ws_flying_spaghetti_monster_1920x1200.jpg
 
All the "ism-s" belong to the same level of value system, therefore they are all dogmatic in their beliefs thus equally exclusive.
- For religious people the higher authority is God, then parents, elders (of the family and others), authorities (everyone with the uniform and authority position), moral codes, and similar.
- Atheists, on the other hand, have Science on top and then all the rest, same as the religious people. It is a blasphemy for an atheist to doubt a doctor (authority) or a scientific proof, that is why is so much "fight" going on between two groups.

It is the same mindset. And this level of value system (DQ as Graves calls it), fights between one another more viciously than any other system value (mindset).

These are some of the markers of this value system:
absolutistic: live obediently as higher authority and rules direct to find meaning and purpose; conform to norms; feel guilt
seeks out in life: certainty; Truth; the reason to live and die
sees the world as:
controlled by a Higher Power (God or Laws of Physics) that demands obedience, punishes evil and eventually rewards good; a dangerous world
 
All the "ism-s" belong to the same level of value system, therefore they are all dogmatic in their beliefs thus equally exclusive.

This is simply inaccurate. Although -ism can indicate a philosophy or value system, it does not imply how dogmatic or comprehensive it is. For example, in political philosophy, republicanism only implies opposition to monarchy, it does not imply how dogmatic a republican is, nor anything else about their philosophy. Atheism is similarly narrow, implying only opposition to theism and little more. At best you can draw correlations, like republicans tend to support democracy and atheists tend to be materialists, but there are always counterexamples.

- For religious people the higher authority is God, then parents, elders (of the family and others), authorities (everyone with the uniform and authority position), moral codes, and similar.
- Atheists, on the other hand, have Science on top and then all the rest, same as the religious people. It is a blasphemy for an atheist to doubt a doctor (authority) or a scientific proof, that is why is so much "fight" going on between two groups.

Many "religious people" don't have the same attitudes toward God as others (think Buddhists vs. Christians), and many don't have the same attitudes toward authority structure (think Catholics vs. Quakers). So there are few parallels that can be drawn between religious people on these subjects, much less extending the analogy to atheists, who themselves adhere to a broad group of philosophies. Also, although there is a correlation between atheism and respect for science, science itself doesn't allow doubting "a doctor (authority) or a scientific proof" to be "blasphemy." A huge part of science is attempting to replicate previous experiments and challenging previous models in the face of new evidence.

It is the same mindset. And this level of value system (DQ as Graves calls it), fights between one another more viciously than any other system value (mindset).

These are some of the markers of this value system:
absolutistic: live obediently as higher authority and rules direct to find meaning and purpose; conform to norms; feel guilt
seeks out in life: certainty; Truth; the reason to live and die
sees the world as:
controlled by a Higher Power (God or Laws of Physics) that demands obedience, punishes evil and eventually rewards good; a dangerous world

Again, atheism implies none of these things. I'm even having trouble fitting stereotypical scientific materialist/secular humanist type atheism into this mold. Feeling guilt? The reason to live and die? A higher power demanding obedience? Punishing evil? A dangerous world? It's not an obvious match on any of those points.
 
IronSide said:
Every religion to me is like Scientology, the only difference is that, in the others the fraudulence and scamming was older.

Ok, after contemplating on my previous statement, I take it back, even if religion offers no proof and is often delusional, to compare all previous faiths to Scientology is just not fair, and not true. I thought of gobekli tepe, probably one of the first temples of humanity, and I also thought of this

800px-SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210651b.jpg


this scene makes me emotional, look at all these hands, every one of them, had hopes, fears, dreams, loved ones, they were people like us, but trapped in an age of ignorance, they probably thought they were doing something, something that has an effect, they may have thought of the divine at that moment. And then to ridicule them after all that, is definitely not my intent.






And after shedding all these tears of empathy, I hadn't thought of the possibility that all these cave hands, may just have been the same person, and that he was just fooling around with ochre, that would be terribly anticlimactic :grin:
 
Ok, after contemplating on my previous statement, I take it back, even if religion offers no proof and is often delusional, to compare all previous faiths to Scientology is just not fair, and not true. I thought of gobekli tepe, probably one of the first temples of humanity, and I also thought of this
800px-SantaCruz-CuevaManos-P2210651b.jpg
this scene makes me emotional, look at all these hands, every one of them, had hopes, fears, dreams, loved ones, they were people like us, but trapped in an age of ignorance, they probably thought they were doing something, something that has an effect, they may have thought of the divine at that moment. And then to ridicule them after all that, is definitely not my intent.And after shedding all these tears of empathy, I hadn't thought of the possibility that all these cave hands, may just have been the same person, and that he was just fooling around with ochre, that would be terribly anticlimactic :grin:
It was very nice to recall it, I have my doubts for the "one person" approach... -you know something?I have the feeling that there are many people and childrens among them. They mostly use their left hands but is also some exceptions, maybe they hold something with the other hand, maybe offers; maybe the pot with the colour paint; or the pipe as a blower for the paint; Three colour paints different; for the males; and boys; other for the married women other for young daughters... or male defenders giving an oath... who knows? That is the field of post processual archaeology.I would like to be there to see the orientation of the place, -why there, I mean. I suspect the prefarable altitude zone would be around 50m to max 300m above today sea level, anyway that could be off topic but I will try now a "skydive" to the topic.
 
I would like to deal with the term atheism and only. I highlighted from the study mostly, that:
Religious believers seem to better perceive and integrate diverging perspectives


So, maybe:
God/s are good
Religion/s are good
Tolerant people are good
(boiled garbages, beans and onions are not good -My stomach on the cross!)
 

This thread has been viewed 19767 times.

Back
Top