Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Shaker

The so-called "angry atheist" is a myth, study fin

As though this was a surprise to anyone. But still: the facts is what what counts, as always with anybody sensible:

Quote:
... merely not believing in God doesn't entail believing that religion is the greatest evil the world has ever known


Shaker says: It isn't. It is both evil and an evil; it is not the greatest evil ever known though it is close to being such. Religion poisons everything (Hitchens, the cool, intelligent one of the two); but it is not the root of all evil because nothing is (Dawkins).

Quote:
nor even necessarily that religion is any problem at all.


Shaker says: It is, though: a great, grave and serious problem for humanity. Catch it, kill it, bin it, as they say in another context but one which applies to religion perfectly.

Quote:
It means what it means: not believing in God. And, as this research confirms, that's something most atheists manage to do without any abnormal levels of anger.


Well yes up to a point ... though opinions will differ as to what constitutes a normal/abnormal level of anger at the stupidity/irrationality/divisiveness/ugliness/cruelty/barbarity that religion brings to the world, always has and always will so long as it exists.
Derek

Re: The so-called "angry atheist" is a myth, study

[quote="Shaker:124413"]As though this was a surprise to anyone. But still: the facts is what what counts, as always with anybody sensible:

Quote:
... merely not believing in God doesn't entail believing that religion is the greatest evil the world has ever known


Shaker says: It isn't. It is both evil and an evil; it is not the greatest evil ever known though it is close to being such. Religion poisons everything (Hitchens, the cool, intelligent one of the two); but it is not the root of all evil because nothing is (Dawkins).

Quote:
nor even necessarily that religion is any problem at all.


Shaker says: It is, though: a great, grave and serious problem for humanity. Catch it, kill it, bin it, as they say in another context but one which applies to religion perfectly.

Quote:
It means what it means: not believing in God. And, as this research confirms, that's something most atheists manage to do without any abnormal levels of anger.


You aire in the target you have chosen to defend. It is not so much angry atheists as much as it is the angry narcissistic anti theists, a title that may sound familiar to yourself. Your source is also suspect. When opening it we are confronted by the world most vocal narcissist, †Professor Richard Dawkins. That should give any self respecting, unsuspecting Christian an eerie shiver down the spine. Then you realise that the article is taken from the Guardian News Paper, whose existences is predicated on the sales of news papers. Should we take that as a viable source for consideration. Not really is it. But then you do your own research and find that the OP is all hogwash, †as you would expect.

Anti-Theist

The fourth typology, and one of the more assertive in their view, we termed the Anti-Theist. While the Anti-Theists may be considered atheist or in some cases labeled as ďnew atheists,Ē the Anti-Theist is diametrically opposed to religious ideology. As such, the assertive Anti-Theist both proactively and aggressively asserts their views towards others when appropriate, seeking to educate the theists in the passť nature of belief and theology. In other words, antitheists view religion as ignorance and see any individual or institution associated with it as backward and socially detrimental. The Anti-Theist has a clear and Ė in their view, superior Ė understanding of the limitations and danger of religions. They view the logical fallacies of religion as an outdated worldview that is not only detrimental to social cohesion and peace, but also to technological advancement and civilized evolution as a whole. They are compelled to share their view and want to educate others into their ideological position and attempt to do so when and where the opportunity arises. Some Anti-Theist individuals feel compelled to work against the institution of religion in its various forms including social, political, and ideological, while others may assert their view with religious persons on an individual basis. The Anti-Theist believes that the obvious fallacies in religion and belief should be aggressively addressed in some form or another. Based on personalities, some Anti-Theists may be more assertive than others; but outsiders and friends know very clearly where they stand in relation to an Anti-theist. Their worldview is typically not a mystery.

Do atheism and narcissism go hand in hand?

It seems that atheist are so narcissistic that they would have a very difficult time believing in anything greater than themselves. They rely a lot on intellect, which is definitely a less risky approach to life. To see the beauty of a sunset, or the miracle of a child being born, or the amazing transformation when one experiences unconditional love, and to still believe that life begin and ends with only human beings and no divinity seems utterly ridiculous. Most atheist seem to live on intellectual high ground that makes them appear to be superior to those of us who dare to have some belief system other than science. It seems that they get their kicks out of belittling those who have faith in God. To tout that faith and logic cannot coexist is short sighted. Basing your life only on hard facts and evidence leaves out a whole other dimension to life which includes intuition, spirituality, and the energy that exist between all living things. The unbelief of an atheist doesn't prove anything about the existence of God, it just proves the small mindedness of humans.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/at...agreeable-anti-social-dogmatists/

http://soulpancake.com/conversati...issism-go-hand-in-hand.html[/url]

You can find almost anything you want to find by using a browser. That is how I found articles that contradict yours. Personal experience with anti theists has convinced me that many atheists are in fact narcissistic and usually very aggressive. You will disagree, however, that is to be expected.

"Itís not atheists in general who are angry; itís just the angry ones". - The ones that usually frequent forums like this one
Shaker

Re: The so-called "angry atheist" is a myth, study

Ralph2 wrote:
You aire in the target you have chosen to defend. It is not so much angry atheists as much as it is the angry narcissistic anti theists, a title that may sound familiar to yourself.

Familiar only insofar as as I know what each of those words actually means.

Quote:
Your source is also suspect.


Why is it suspect? I assume that it is because it says something you dislike.

Needless to say the Guardian is only reporting on a study which was initially published in the Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, which also needless to say you feel unequal to take on for all the reasons that one would expect, outlined here by Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied is a bimonthly double-blind, peer-review psychology journal published by Taylor & Francis. The Journal of Psychology was founded in 1935 by Carl Murchison, an American psychologist, organizer, publisher, and editor. He co-founded the Journal of Genetic Psychology, the Journal of Social Psychology, and the Journal of General Psychology, among others. In 2009, Heldref sold the ownership of the titles to Taylor & Francis.

The Journal of Psychology is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes empirical research and theoretical articles in applied areas of psychology including clinical, counseling, measurement/assessment, school, educational, industrial, and personnel psychology. In addition, the journal publishes interdisciplinary research that integrates psychology and other fields (e.g., psychology and law, psychology and consumer behavior, psychology and religion).


Take that on if you dare.

But of course you dare not. Shooting the messenger as it's known, is a well-worn diversionary tactic. It saves you the hard yards of having to take on the meat of this study on its own terms, which of course you are incapable of doing.

Quote:
When opening it we are confronted by the world most vocal narcissist, Professor Richard Dawkins.


That is only your opinion, and anybody who has been here for a while already knows exactly how much credence to give that.

Quote:
Then you realise that the article is taken from the Guardian News Paper, whose existences is predicated on the sales of news papers.


A newspaper is predicated on the sales of newspapers? Why were we not told this before?

Quote:
Should we take that as a viable source for consideration. Not really is it. But then you do your own research and find that the OP is all hogwash, as you would expect.

Any story stands or falls on the strength of its inherent coherence, cogency and evidence (as does this), not merely where it happens to be reported.

Which is especially interesting in the light of the fact that you quote from a website, to wit:
Quote:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/at...agreeable-anti-social-dogmatists/


which is well known amongst the reality-based community for pushing a religion-based, creationist dogma which actively and explicitly perverts and debauches the scientific endeavour.

Quote:
You can find almost anything you want to find by using a browser.


Yes indeed; I've been known to do that many a time in the past myself. If you're especially dim a browser can lead one to a blog called Soul Pancakes and to consider the maunderings of some random blogger to be evidence, for instance.

Quote:
That is how I found articles that contradict yours.

No you haven't. If you had found any article - just the one, not several - to that effect it would provide evidence which refutes the assertions contained within the Guardian piece, not one which merely says "Lalalalalalalala no it isn't no it isn't no it isn't." Refute and rebut are not synonymous.
trentvoyager

Quote:
As to angry atheists - I'm too tired to be angry.

I'm too old to be angry.


Slacker!   [/quote]
Ketty

Derek

Re: The so-called "angry atheist" is a myth, study

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You aire in the target you have chosen to defend. It is not so much angry atheists as much as it is the angry narcissistic anti theists, a title that may sound familiar to yourself.

Familiar only insofar as as I know what each of those words actually means.


Quote:
Quote:
Your source is also suspect.


Why is it suspect? I assume that it is because it says something you dislike.


No, it is because it is a News Paper whose agenda is to sell as many news papers as they can. The result of that is the potential stretching of the truth, as in these words found in your article, "The idea of the angry atheist is a myth.Ē The assertion is not only a blatant falsehood but it is preposterous to state that there is no such thing as an angry atheist when we need only visit a religious forum to find them in their droves.

Quote:
Needless to say the Guardian is only reporting on a study which was initially published in the Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, which also needless to say you feel unequal to take on for all the reasons that one would expect, outlined here by Wikipedia:


The Guardian has put it's spin on a simple study, that, I do feel equal to take on. the study was conducted by universities in Pennsylvania and North Dakota, Anyone who has an active social life could have done the same study. None of the atheists that I know are angry. It is just the anti theists found on debating forums like this one that are angry.

Quote:
Take that on if you dare.

But of course you dare not. Shooting the messenger as it's known, is a well-worn diversionary tactic. It saves you the hard yards of having to take on the meat of this study on its own terms, which of course you are incapable of doing.


Why would I take on something that I entirely agree with. We all know that not all atheists are angry. Did you not know this.

Quote:
Quote:
When opening it we are confronted by the world most vocal narcissist, Professor Richard Dawkins.


That is only your opinion, and anybody who has been here for a while already knows exactly how much credence to give that.


Yes, of course it is my opinion. Debating entails the exchange of opinions.

Quote:
Quote:
Should we take that as a viable source for consideration. Not really is it. But then you do your own research and find that the OP is all hogwash, as you would expect.

Any story stands or falls on the strength of its inherent coherence, cogency and evidence (as does this), not merely where it happens to be reported.


I agree, so why do you critique sources that I have published.

Quote:
Which is especially interesting in the light of the fact that you quote from a website, to wit:
Quote:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/at...agreeable-anti-social-dogmatists/


which is well known amongst the reality-based community for pushing a religion-based, creationist dogma which actively and explicitly perverts and debauches the scientific endeavour.


Any story stands or falls on the strength of its inherent coherence, cogency and evidence (as does this), not merely where it happens to be reported.

Quote:
Quote:
You can find almost anything you want to find by using a browser.


Yes indeed; I've been known to do that many a time in the past myself. If you're especially dim a browser can lead one to a blog called Soul Pancakes and to consider the maunderings of some random blogger to be evidence, for instance.


Or a individual columnist like Oliver Burkeman working for the Guardian

Quote:
Quote:
That is how I found articles that contradict yours.

No you haven't. If you had found any article - just the one, not several - to that effect it would provide evidence which refutes the assertions contained within the Guardian piece, not one which merely says "Lalalalalalalala no it isn't no it isn't no it isn't." Refute and rebut are not synonymous.


The contradiction I made is simple and can be found in your own argument. "Itís not atheists in general who are angry; itís just the angry ones". - The ones that usually frequent forums like this one. They are so narcissistic that they would have a very difficult time believing in anything greater than themselves. If you want to dispelled the myth look no further then the forum you administer. [/quote]
Derek

Re: The so-called "angry atheist" is a myth, study

Quote:
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
You aire in the target you have chosen to defend. It is not so much angry atheists as much as it is the angry narcissistic anti theists, a title that may sound familiar to yourself.

Familiar only insofar as as I know what each of those words actually means.


Quote:
Quote:
Your source is also suspect.


Why is it suspect? I assume that it is because it says something you dislike.


No, it is because it is a News Paper whose agenda is to sell as many news papers as they can. The result of that is the potential stretching of the truth, as in these words found in your article, "The idea of the angry atheist is a myth.Ē The assertion is not only a blatant falsehood but it is preposterous to state that there is no such thing as an angry atheist when we need only visit a religious forum to find them in their droves.

Quote:
Needless to say the Guardian is only reporting on a study which was initially published in the Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, which also needless to say you feel unequal to take on for all the reasons that one would expect, outlined here by Wikipedia:


The Guardian has put it's spin on a simple study, that, I do feel equal to take on. the study was conducted by universities in Pennsylvania and North Dakota, Anyone who has an active social life could have done the same study. None of the atheists that I know are angry. It is just the anti theists found on debating forums like this one that are angry.

Quote:
Take that on if you dare.

But of course you dare not. Shooting the messenger as it's known, is a well-worn diversionary tactic. It saves you the hard yards of having to take on the meat of this study on its own terms, which of course you are incapable of doing.


Why would I take on something that I entirely agree with. We all know that not all atheists are angry. Did you not know this.

Quote:
Quote:
When opening it we are confronted by the world most vocal narcissist, Professor Richard Dawkins.


That is only your opinion, and anybody who has been here for a while already knows exactly how much credence to give that.


Yes, of course it is my opinion. Debating entails the exchange of opinions.

Quote:
Quote:
Should we take that as a viable source for consideration. Not really is it. But then you do your own research and find that the OP is all hogwash, as you would expect.

Any story stands or falls on the strength of its inherent coherence, cogency and evidence (as does this), not merely where it happens to be reported.


I agree, so why do you critique sources that I have published.

Quote:
Which is especially interesting in the light of the fact that you quote from a website, to wit:
Quote:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/at...agreeable-anti-social-dogmatists/


which is well known amongst the reality-based community for pushing a religion-based, creationist dogma which actively and explicitly perverts and debauches the scientific endeavour.


Any story stands or falls on the strength of its inherent coherence, cogency and evidence (as does this), not merely where it happens to be reported.

Quote:
Quote:
You can find almost anything you want to find by using a browser.


Yes indeed; I've been known to do that many a time in the past myself. If you're especially dim a browser can lead one to a blog called Soul Pancakes and to consider the maunderings of some random blogger to be evidence, for instance.


Or a individual columnist like Oliver Burkeman working for the Guardian

Quote:
That is how I found articles that contradict yours.

No you haven't. If you had found any article - just the one, not several - to that effect it would provide evidence which refutes the assertions contained within the Guardian piece, not one which merely says "Lalalalalalalala no it isn't no it isn't no it isn't." Refute and rebut are not synonymous.


The contradiction I made is simple and can be found in your own argument. "Itís not atheists in general who are angry; itís just the angry ones". - The ones that usually frequent forums like this one. They are so narcissistic that they would have a very difficult time believing in anything greater than themselves. If you want to dispelled the myth look no further then the forum you administer.
Shaker

Re: The so-called "angry atheist" is a myth, study

Ralph2 wrote:
The contradiction I made is simple and can be found in your own argument. "Itís not atheists in general who are angry; itís just the angry ones". - The ones that usually frequent forums like this one. They are so narcissistic that they would have a very difficult time believing in anything greater than themselves. If you want to dispelled the myth look no further then the forum you administer.


I'll wait for this post to come out in comprehensible English  
Derek

Re: The so-called "angry atheist" is a myth, study

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The contradiction I made is simple and can be found in your own argument. "Itís not atheists in general who are angry; itís just the angry ones". - The ones that usually frequent forums like this one. They are so narcissistic that they would have a very difficult time believing in anything greater than themselves. If you want to dispelled the myth look no further then the forum you administer.


I'll wait for this post to come out in comprehensible English †


I have quoted from your link.
cyberman

Certainly it is true, of course, that most atheists don't fall into the Dawkins-Angry model.

Our friend Professor Pedanticus, however, wishes me to point out that this does not necessarily justify the thread title "Angry Atheist is a Myth", because this could be taken to mean that the Angry Atheist does not exist (analogous to "the unicorn is a myth"), whereas in fact such people do exist.
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
Certainly it is true, of course, that most atheists don't fall into the Dawkins-Angry model.

Our friend Professor Pedanticus, however, wishes me to point out that this does not necessarily justify the thread title "Angry Atheist is a Myth", because this could be taken to mean that the Angry Atheist does not exist (analogous to "the unicorn is a myth"), whereas in fact such people do exist.


This is certainly true - as is the statement "some Christians are bastards".
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Certainly it is true, of course, that most atheists don't fall into the Dawkins-Angry model.

Our friend Professor Pedanticus, however, wishes me to point out that this does not necessarily justify the thread title "Angry Atheist is a Myth", because this could be taken to mean that the Angry Atheist does not exist (analogous to "the unicorn is a myth"), whereas in fact such people do exist.


This is certainly true - as is the statement "some Christians are bastards".


Exactly - so the title "It is a myth that there are Christians who are bastards" would be similarly wrong
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Certainly it is true, of course, that most atheists don't fall into the Dawkins-Angry model.

Our friend Professor Pedanticus, however, wishes me to point out that this does not necessarily justify the thread title "Angry Atheist is a Myth", because this could be taken to mean that the Angry Atheist does not exist (analogous to "the unicorn is a myth"), whereas in fact such people do exist.


This is certainly true - as is the statement "some Christians are bastards".


Exactly - so the title "It is a myth that there are Christians who are bastards" would be similarly wrong


Well that's all sorted then. Off out for a drink.  
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Certainly it is true, of course, that most atheists don't fall into the Dawkins-Angry model.


What's that?

Quote:
Our friend Professor Pedanticus, however, wishes me to point out that this does not necessarily justify the thread title "Angry Atheist is a Myth", because this could be taken to mean that the Angry Atheist does not exist (analogous to "the unicorn is a myth"), whereas in fact such people do exist.

But Prof. Pedanticus, if he lives up to his name, would be aware that this story/study relates not to angry atheists per se - the fact that some people are atheists and some of them are angry - but the stereotype or archetype of the habitually angry atheist, typically online.

I should say that it seems to be more common in public discourse in the USA much more than it is over here - hence the title of the book by the American writer and activist Greta Christina, Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, a title which would have no meaning or relevance unless the concept of the 'angry atheist' was already in the air.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Certainly it is true, of course, that most atheists don't fall into the Dawkins-Angry model.


What's that?

Quote:
Our friend Professor Pedanticus, however, wishes me to point out that this does not necessarily justify the thread title "Angry Atheist is a Myth", because this could be taken to mean that the Angry Atheist does not exist (analogous to "the unicorn is a myth"), whereas in fact such people do exist.

But Prof. Pedanticus, if he lives up to his name, would be aware that this story/study relates not to angry atheists per se - the fact that some people are atheists and some of them are angry - but the stereotype or archetype of the habitually angry atheist, typically online.

I should say that it seems to be more common in public discourse in the USA much more than it is over here - hence the title of the book by the American writer and activist Greta Christina, Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, a title which would have no meaning or relevance unless the concept of the 'angry atheist' was already in the air.


Certainly the idea of the angry atheist is current. I think the Prof simply meant that there is an ambiguity in the thread title. To say that angry atheists exist is not a myth; they do exist. To believe (as many wrongly do, clearly) that atheism is predominantly characterised by angry atheists is indeed a myth.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum