Atheists not as openminded says new study

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

It's very sad that it escapes your thought process (even thought you are a woman) that an individual who is female. How would you want me to engage with a person (especially a man) who wants to decide for me? 

Yes, I am less than intolerant. 

I'm sorry, i'm really not sure what you are trying to say.  Can you clarify?

 

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry, i'm really not sure what you are trying to say.  Can you clarify?

 

No need to be sorry...first I need to read your quote again.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm sorry, i'm really not sure what you are trying to say.  Can you clarify?

 

You wrote " It does somewhat match my own experience with atheists and agnostics, who are very openminded about things they don't have any moral beliefs about but extremely intolerant to beliefs they see as morally wrong." 

where's the "moral belief" which will curtail someone's individual freedom? Especially a women's choice?

[stemelbow]

Quote

 

The researchers found that Christian participants scored higher on a measure of dogmatism than nonreligious participants. The Christian participants, for instance, were more likely to disagree with statements such as “There are so many things we have not discovered yet, nobody should be absolutely certain his beliefs are right.”

But two other measures of closed-mindedness told a different story.

 

So all I can find in terms of the study is one aspect being tested.  The other two measures swayed the results so much so the conclusion was opposite of this one measure.  It really makes me curious what other two measures used were. 

I Have to admit I find the summaries of this study to either be not very helpful in terms of the study itself or summaries of a very incomplete and therefore useless study.  It's very regional.  I would wonder how many of those surveyed consider themselves conversative/religious, as opposed to liberal/secular.  yet at one part it is said,

Quote

The idea started through noticing that, in public discourse, despite both the conservative/religious groups and liberal/secular groups showing strong animosity towards the opposite ideological side, somehow it was mostly the former who were often labeled as ‘closed-minded

This from the study’s corresponding author.  It makes it far too binary sounding for my tastes.  That's what you get sometimes with labelling though--a failure in representing the people in the study.  Wouldn't a more liberal leaning religionist most likely say "There are so many things we have not discovered yet, nobody should be absolutely certain his beliefs are right"?  I can't tell if this is getting very particular about who is conservative/religious vs who is liberal/secular. 

I'd agree though, that many a atheist gets quite dogmatic, as much as or moreso than many a conservative religionist--the Dawkins effect comment was well-placed.  So the results aren't that surprising to me anyway. 

I have to say, in light of this though, I find myself at Church hearing nearly every statement made as dogmatic.  So it's tough for me to square the results with real life in that sense. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:08 PM, bluebell said:

Interesting.

It does somewhat match my own experience with atheists and agnostics, who are very openminded about things they don't have any moral beliefs about but extremely intolerant to beliefs they see as morally wrong.

For example, they usually have a live and let live attitude toward polyamory, even if they have no desire to engage in it themselves, but are very intolerant of anti-abortionists.

I wonder if it's a manifestation of being intolerant of anything that sets societal boundaries?  

I'm confused, Bluebell.  Wouldn't religionists also be openminded about things they don't have any moral beliefs about, but intolerant to beliefs they see as morally wrong? 

I wonder because in my circles I find many an atheist, or agnostic for that matter, as accepting or moreso, overall, of religionists opposition to things like SSM, than I see religionists accepting things like a secular view of viewing abortion as a woman's right to decide. 

I would say to clarify, though, in both cases I see some crossing the lines.  Some religionists accept that it's a woman's right to decide regarding abortion.  And some atheists, at least potentially, could be opposed to SSM. 

I really don't think there's description enough fo this study to come away with a very solid conclusion though.  Any person from either a religionist or not background can be quite dogmatic, and thus be graded as intolerant. 

When you say "extremely intolerant" though I have no idea what that might mean.  I would say things like blowing up abortion clinics as extreme, I guess.  I wouldn't say not accepting one's view who opposes SSM as extreme though. 

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have to say, in light of this though, I find myself at Church hearing nearly every statement made as dogmatic.  So it's tough for me to square the results with real life in that sense. 

The study did say that "Christian participants scored higher on a measure of dogmatism than nonreligious participants", but that two other measures of closed-mindedness told a "different story". 

In other words, non-religious people are less likely to claim "absolute certainty", but even in the face of such claims, other measures show that their walk doesn't match their talk. 

I suspect that the only reason they don't claim absolute certainty is because that is what science tells them to say.  It is simply another dogmatic belief that makes them appear open minded, but really they only take their cues from one voice - science.  Anyone who considers an alternative voice is a heretic. 

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused, Bluebell.  Wouldn't religionists also be openminded about things they don't have any moral beliefs about, but intolerant to beliefs they see as morally wrong?

I think that really describes everyone. I'm quite intolerant of rape and murder, for example.

I guess the problem comes when someone becomes quite intolerant of ordinary and harmless things, like believing in God, or gay marriage, or being from India.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

The study did say that "Christian participants scored higher on a measure of dogmatism than nonreligious participants", but that two other measures of closed-mindedness told a "different story". 

In other words, non-religious people are less likely to claim "absolute certainty", but even in the face of such claims, other measures show that their walk doesn't match their talk. 

I suspect that the only reason they don't claim absolute certainty is because that is what science tells them to say.  It is simply another dogmatic belief that makes them appear open minded, but really they only take their cues from one voice - science.  Anyone who considers an alternative voice is a heretic. 

This statement being put to survey respondents seems clear enough, seems useful.  But I don't know about what else might be included to throw the scales on the opposite direction.  They might really be biased against an atheistic or liberal/secular view for all we know.  maybe one other statement was "Do you leave open the possibility that religions are correct regarding creationism" or something nearly nonsensical. 

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think that really describes everyone. I'm quite intolerant of rape and murder, for example.

I guess the problem comes when someone becomes quite intolerant of ordinary and harmless things, like believing in God, or gay marriage, or being from India.

I guess that's what I was getting at. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused, Bluebell.  Wouldn't religionists also be openminded about things they don't have any moral beliefs about, but intolerant to beliefs they see as morally wrong? 

I wonder because in my circles I find many an atheist, or agnostic for that matter, as accepting or moreso, overall, of religionists opposition to things like SSM, than I see religionists accepting things like a secular view of viewing abortion as a woman's right to decide. 

I would say to clarify, though, in both cases I see some crossing the lines.  Some religionists accept that it's a woman's right to decide regarding abortion.  And some atheists, at least potentially, could be opposed to SSM. 

I really don't think there's description enough fo this study to come away with a very solid conclusion though.  Any person from either a religionist or not background can be quite dogmatic, and thus be graded as intolerant. 

When you say "extremely intolerant" though I have no idea what that might mean.  I would say things like blowing up abortion clinics as extreme, I guess.  I wouldn't say not accepting one's view who opposes SSM as extreme though. 

You're right to be confused, because i didn't explain myself very well at all.  I think my final thought in the post is closest to what I was trying to say.  A lot of atheists and agnostics, from my perspective, are very intolerant of people who attempt to put limits on society or culture based on their morals.  

They allow anything, even things they don't agree with, but they are intolerant of those who don't allow anything.

Any clearer?

 

 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You wrote " It does somewhat match my own experience with atheists and agnostics, who are very openminded about things they don't have any moral beliefs about but extremely intolerant to beliefs they see as morally wrong." 

where's the "moral belief" which will curtail someone's individual freedom? Especially a women's choice?

That question leaves the scope of the thread behind and gets into the morality of abortion, which would be a huge thread derail.  To briefly answer your question, being anti abortion (except in the cases of incest and rape) does not seek to curtail anyone's freedom of choice.  It seeks to curtail those who want to end a life in an effort not to face the consequences of a choice they freely made.

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You're right to be confused, because i didn't explain myself very well at all.  I think my final thought in the post is closest to what I was trying to say.  A lot of atheists and agnostics, from my perspective, are very intolerant of people who attempt to put limits on society or culture based on their morals.  

They allow anything, even things they don't agree with, but they are intolerant of those who don't allow anything.

Any clearer?

 

 

Sure.  I think I get what you're saying.  When one preaches tolerance at people, and uses tolerance as a tool to condemn something someone thinks or says, they are often showing intolerance for the view they are trying to claim is intolerant.   Is that close?

I think there's something to that.  Some will not tolerate those who oppose SSM, for instance, or oppose abortion. 

I liked how Gray, above, tossed in gay marriage:

Quote

I guess the problem comes when someone becomes quite intolerant of ordinary and harmless things, like believing in God, or gay marriage, or being from India.

Some don't view gay marriage as harmless.  I know cause some here were saying that it's not harmless, recently.  I thumbed up Gray because in my mind when I challenged those who were saying gay marriage is not harmless I don't think I got anything responsive or any examples that confirmed how it was harmful.  I guess in the sense I am intolerant of those who say gay marriage is harmful.  Just like Gray I'm also intolerant of rape and murder too.  But that level of intolerance differs, admittedly.  I get angry when it comes to rape and murder and less angry when I can't get a reasonable answer to my question of how SSM is harmful.   

[Atheist Mormon]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That question leaves the scope of the thread behind and gets into the morality of abortion, which would be a huge thread derail.  To briefly answer your question, being anti abortion (except in the cases of incest and rape) does not seek to curtail anyone's freedom of choice.  It seeks to curtail those who want to end a life in an effort not to face the consequences of a choice they freely made.

Disagree but well articulated.