# General Discussion > Opinions >  Atheists are more intolerant than Christians

## Angela

See:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91886917303070

"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."

----------


## IronSide

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.

----------


## Sile

> See:
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01918
> 86917303070?np=y&npKey=d4fe96aedc05229a4aa2f479455 bb98b2bc8d1f73202a1f1ebf9740a7beec316
> 
> "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.
> ...


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

----------


## sparkey

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?

----------


## MarkoZ

> 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:

----------


## bicicleur

> 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

----------


## Sile

> there is a shitload of fake news in any religion


all these religions are the creators of fake news

----------


## LABERIA

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.

----------


## bicicleur

> 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.

----------


## LABERIA

> Political use was the origin and the purpose of religion.


OK, and it's the origin of the problem.

----------


## Yetos

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

----------


## Boreas

There is a thing such a radical atheism.

So be cool and be agnostic  :Grin:

----------


## IronSide

Every religion to me is like Scientology, the only difference is that, in the others the fraudulence and scamming was older.

----------


## davef

i believe in flyng spagetti monster lolz

----------


## Boreas

> i believe in flyng spagetti monster lolz


As an Agnostic, I have to admit that Beer Volcano sounds awesome

----------


## FBS

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

----------


## sparkey

> 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

> 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 



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:

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

> 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 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


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.

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

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!)

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

*Atheism is a term without coin.*


Why?.
Because If there is no God is fine.
 but
If there is, it is better...
We know that enemy of the better is the best, so we say that: Best is to be positive, Best is to be reasonable, Best; is it something to be as blessed*;*. -In other words: Illuminated;

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

We need the "great *If*" to make the "absolut eguation" (-Science;). We also need to know how to ask before we digest the answer (-Art;). 
I am talking about the Beauty (-Art) of Knowledge. (-Science). We are asking about ... -name it for the discussion god.


Is it Beauty -the god-,or is it uglyness? -How tolerant to ugly things we are ?
Is it True -our sciences-, or is it a compromised set of lies? -How tolerant to fake we are ?



Anyone can be, not so tolerant...even god/s sometimes
I am not the good guy also and I apply oftenly some "nasty"epithets and "actions" to all Sacred Family and all their company, like: Apostoles /saints/ archangels/ christmas angels/ archibishops/ priests, even to the humble sheppards etc. but we have to say the things sometimes as it is,* the good things as good things and the bad things as bad things.*

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

So we say that *IF* 
"It is what it is." (ok here)
"It is -also-, what is -possibly- not." (ok here)
"It is not -just-, what -maybe- it is." (ok here)


we get no meaning when we say:


"It is not what isn't;" (not ok here !)





Because if is not, it is rightfully said that "it isn't", but the issue is to have an answer of "what is", even if the ultimate solution is to describe it apophatic;*-gr. αποφατικά (sorry for the term I mean something like the negative option of viewing a picture) we dont say for example: -John is a bad boy. We could say instead: -John is not a good boy, etc.
But there is no mean if "John is not" otherwise we would not have to worry if he is good or is he bad, it is a girl, or it is a boy.


We use the words to think/speak/communicate. You cannot use words to dont speak; or, not to speak. - I end here.
I'll place it as it is, according to what I consider, and possibly define it in a simple statement as simple as must be the real and the absolut true is, that means: *Atheism is schema oxymoron.*


Deism;Entheism; Anyway far better than nothing.


*( I dont know how to name it in english -be tolerant!)  :Rolleyes:

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

We all know to seperate the good from the better, sometimes we also know what "good is" and "what bad is" but not always... -Sometimes.


_Always... Sometimes_

_Sometimes life is bless, sometimes is like a curse,_
_ but you will never be alone, see what the winds down are blown..._

_"-Is not one the king..._ _One and great is the throne,__ of eternal Aeons* being."_ 

_ God is you, god is me, god is everything, - on that damn world- you see._
_ Hold my hand and nothing have to worry..._

_ "__-Is not one the god-king, to gained all the glory."_

_ because is you, because is me..._
_sitting by the river, up on strong roots of an oak tree,_

_sometimes we swimm like the goldfish,_
_ sometimes we fly like the bee..._


_...gold is the colour of the desert_
_ deep blue, it_ _is the Sea._

_because is you, because is me..._

_here always I was father,_
_now, I'll set you free..._

*ΠΑΝΑΞ ΕΠΟΗΣΕΝ 2017*


*(Aeons-Αιώνες: ~eternal times, also as gen.>Time,> Centuries,> Milleniums, mean. period of full circled times, etc. so, Cronos/Saturn <gr. Κρόνος, maybe;;; gr. Χρόνος = eng. Time. The sickle harvest may be well symbolize that: Time has come; It is undeniably true that even today people addressed epithets for Τime like: gr.Χρόνος πανδαμάτωρ ~ eng.The tamer of all, the total tyrrant, etc., or they say from the other hand that Time is the absolut curator, Two dinstant as opposites like the faces of Ianos, the new and the old and the full composite drama processed constantly= Αιώνες.)

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

Maybe god is Time... So, if that so, atheism is: I dont have any time; >mean possiby:- I am on hurry; or -I am close to be dead; or even better -I am allready dead...?  :Useless:

----------


## Angela

I like the poem, ΠΑΝΑΞ

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

here foryou







Launched...

----------


## ΠΑΝΑΞ

For all, here

----------


## Beelzebub

Atheists tend to be overly represented in the far left and in academia circles. 
A tsunami of _close_-_mindedness_ and intolerance to dissent have griped those communities for decades.

----------


## LeBrok

> *Atheists tend to be overly represented in the far left and in academia circles.* 
> A tsunami of _close_-_mindedness_ and intolerance to dissent have griped those communities for decades.


And so are the people who run Eupedia. You are free to go and find new friends, or open your own website where you can spew your crap.

----------


## Beelzebub

> And so are the people who run Eupedia. You are free to go and find new friends, or open your own website where you can spew your crap.


I didn't "spew crap," I gave my opinion on a thread.
If you think that ideological disagreement is inappropriate on a forum, why bother positing at all? 
I'm new here and did not realize that this site is a hive mind where one poster can speak for all the staff who run Eupedia.
Are the staff at this site the only people who have valid opinions?
I'm an administrator on an anthro ZetaBoard already, and I get modest traffic.
This site gets sparse traffic, and haranguing new members is hardly going to grow your numbers. 
I don't go online to "find new friends," I'm perfectly capable of socializing in the real world, and I don't get my kicks by attempting to feel powerful, by attacking people while hiding behind my keyboard.
Your ad hominem attack against me is scarcely a nuanced argument and is devoid of any actual constructive input.
Basically you're just attempting to be an intellectual bully and silence ideas that you can't defend with facts or logic based arguments.
You are actually buttressing my original post about intolerance.

----------


## Bergin

> Atheists tend to be overly represented in the far left and in academia circles. 
> A tsunami of _close_-_mindedness_ and intolerance to dissent have griped those communities for decades.


In the Far - whatever, everything is an excess, so I cannot use it for any generalisation. 
I still am unaware of any influential political party under the atheist label, but you pretty much can identify few religious ones in almost any country, often in power. So in the entire political arena atheist are a minority.
I would agree with you that academic circles tend towards atheism, and would add also artists to the trend. What do you propose as more progressive and inspiring to these people? Rare cases of bigotry do exist though.

Close-mindedness: 
I have only three words and I hope you get my point: abortion, lgbt, and euthanasia! 

A tsunami of best wishes for you. b

----------


## Olivia_19

it's not true

----------


## Wanderer

Depends on the persons really.

----------

