Fun: Study explores whether atheism is rooted in reason or emotion

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 25, 2015

Atheism, Culture, Just For Fun, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Closing our religion coverage a bit late today: From The Poached Egg:

A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers.

So it is a sign of good mental health to be really mad at someone you think doesn’t exist?

The fun part is that these kinds of studies are now being done on atheists and agnostics, rather than just inflicted on the rest of us. It’s great, knowing that if you say you’re a Catholic, and mean it, you can’t get roped into one of them. – O’Leary for News

Comments

SA: Strange question. No, it’s not. Again, a tyrant can be worshipped like a god. Egyptian pharaohs were worshipped that way as were some Roman emperors. In North Korea, the supreme commander is considered to have god-like qualities and he receives something we’d call worship from the people. Some might quibble with " god-like " But definition: A theist believes in God and theists historically even up the present day claim to be able worship a tyrannical and cruel God.. Any objections?velikovskys_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

SA, The term atheist can refer to ‘a person among the set of all people who call themselves atheist’. Could refer, then what you are saying is there is no objective truth? If someone claims to be a doctor, he is a doctor?velikovskys_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic 30 "A second point is that one must differentiate between anger at God and anger at religion, religion is known to exist." True, but I’d think that would be clear in most cases – a person can be angry with religion and still believe in God. ------------------------------------------------------- Like, for instance, Jesus.anthropic_{January 29, 2015
January
01
Jan
29
29
2015
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

'Angry with God' atheist are 'ex-theist' who thought God existed but are convinced now that there is no God.IMO there are more atheist than 'ex-theist'.Me_Think_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

velikovskys
It is fine,it just is not the definition of an atheist. Can a person be a believer in God and not believe in God?
The term atheist can refer to 'a person among the set of all people who call themselves atheist'. The reason that is important is because when a person says "I am an atheist" they're saying something about atheists in general. Is it possible for a person to believe in God and not believe in God at the same time? Strictly speaking, no. But how do we know that any atheist really does not believe that God exists? The only evidence we have is what they say. A person says: "I don't believe God exists". That's the same as saying, "I am an atheist". Right? But then later, we discover, the person who said "I don't believe God exists" also said "I am angry with God". How is that possible? One of those statements must be false. That's the problem. You've decided that the angry-with-God people are theists. But you don't know they actually believe God exists, any more than you know they don't believe in God. We have to take their word for something -- some part is true the other false. Since we don't know - then the term atheist has to include all of that ambiguity - at least in the sociological sense. In the strict sense, we could say that "only people who don't believe God exists should use the word atheist to describe themselves". But nobody owns that sociological group or terminology. There's no official atheist leader who says you can't use the term to describe yourself if you are angry with God. There's no way to get kicked out of the group called "atheists". How do we know that there is any single person on earth who doesn't believe God exists? We can't know that for certain. If anger with God means 'theism', then what if 'intellecual conceptualization of God' also equals belief that the person thinks God exists?Silver Asiatic_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

@hrun0815 #50 "Or are you now arguing that somebody can be morally wrong for just getting their morals from the wrong source?" No, not at all, I just like hearing the moral subjectivist try and explain their moral standard as if its supposed to mean something to me or anyone else :-) ... hrun0815, you're talking in a foreign language that only you can understand, remember? In other words, why even bother explaining yourself, nobody understands. :-)KRock_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

@rvb8 #42 "Actually KRock, I would avoid religious people leaving a religious studies class in most places in the world; Buddhist Thailand, Orthodox Russia, the Muslim World, Israel, the Bible belt USA. It is clearly true that an atheist gathering and dispersal would be the safest place to aim for, as they have no wish to indoctrinate, they merely consider your ideas mildly, to totally, insane." Lol... What a misguided answer. You clearly missed the point of it. I also like how you lumped other religious faiths into your reply, as if to show they all fall on equal footing. That just shows me HOW little you know and understand about religions in general. You seem to think that ALL atheists share in your personal sentiment, but Modern atheists come in all sizes, shapes and forms. I would argue, many more could care less about your own personal moral "merry go round," you're espousing and more about self gain. Atheists don't gather around the camp fire and sing about their long held awaited dream of a utopian society. No, they sit around and talk about the very thing they don't believe in, God, and spend countless hours of their precious time, bullying those that do. Insane? Well, I only need to ask you; how's the view from your glasshouse? No wish to indoctrinate? Lol... Okay... Ummm, sorry, exactly why are you posting on these threads again? Wait, you are consciously aware of your own worldview right? "Modern atheists really are the most moral people, everyone else is busy explaining why your beliefs are wrong. I don’t believe your faith is wrong, just wildly misguided, but, have at it, just leave me alone. Why is it that it is only the morally religious who simply (worldwide) can’t do t" Lets remove our civil laws and see how many modern atheists maintain your self proclaimed "moral high ground." Explaining and proving something to be wrong, are two different things. I'll just add, theists spend a lot of their own time explaining how wrong and incoherent your own worldview is, the difference being, time is a lot more precious to atheist such as yourself. Leave you alone? Well than don't waist your time posting on sites such as these. I don't know, maybe you're just a sucker for punishment.KRock_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Andre: You don’t seem to get it do you? I’m a strong atheist and because I deny particular gods, How is that different than a theist who believes in one God, and denies the existence of particular Gods?velikovskys_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

SA: I think they pointed to a reason why they used the term, but in any case, it may not be used correctly and that was my point "There was also a second group of people whose pattern of re- sponses indicated a past belief in God, followed by a decrease in belief over time." "In contrast to the simple unbelievers, these participants usually did answer ques- tions that asked about emotions and atti- tudes toward God." Some " conflicted " acted the same as the simple, the difference is a past belief in God. Now among this group you might be correct that some were conflicted in whether they believed in God.velikovskys_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Andre: Velikovskys You don’t seem to get it do you? I’m a strong atheist and because I deny particular gods, you are a weak atheist because you deny all gods, its not the same thing….. Thanks for telling me what I believevelikovskys_{January 28, 2015
January
01
Jan
28
28
2015
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

So as long as I am fulfilling some kind of empathetic consideration, any act is justified as moral? If I feel empathy for the pain a drug addict is suffering, is whatever I do to help justified simply because it is born of empathy? If I give him drugs for money, that is moral? If a child is suffering and I wish to relieve it of its pain, is killing it moral, as long as it was empathy that directed my actions? If I feel empathy for the suffering world, would it be moral of me to start eliminating what I consdered to be the problem – humans? Tell me, how can empathy be a better guide than some presumed objective source, if empathy can justify virtually any behavior?
It is really puzzling that an obviously functional person can hold such misconceptions after taking part and reading so many posts about moral subjectivists. To make it very simple for you, the answer only referred to what I prefer people ise to justify their behavior. In general if it was empathy rather than 'whatever I believe my imaginary deity dictates as correct' the world would be a better place. And, no, of course not. An action can still beorally wrong even if it is borne out of a consideration of empathy.hrun0815_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

Indeed, morals do matter, but how much more do they matter from whence they come?
Aeh, the answer is clear and obvious: not at all, of course. I couldn't care less if you believe that God whispered your morals to you on your sleep or if you got them from a cereal box. If you disagree with me I'll think you are wrong and oh you agree with me you are right. Which, by the way, is true for you, too. Or are you now arguing that somebody can be morally wrong for just getting their morals from the wrong source?hrun0815_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Velikovskys You don't seem to get it do you? I'm a strong atheist and because I deny particular gods, you are a weak atheist because you deny all gods, its not the same thing.....Andre_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Andre Actully velikoskys you are wrong there is two types of atheism Do either believe in God? Not an atheist of either persuasion.velikovskys_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

Wjm: If I feel empathy for the pain a drug addict is suffering, is whatever I do to help justified simply because it is born of empathy? It benefits you to help him , morality comes in in how you choose to do it If I give him drugs for money, that is moral? That would make you a drug dealer,and that would only make his pain worse. If a child is suffering and I wish to relieve it of its pain, is killing it moral, Would you want your child killed in the same circumstance? That is the morality of empathy, the golden rule.velikovskys_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

Actually velikoskys you are wrong there is two types of atheism..... Weak atheism and strong atheism.... http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm I'm probably a strong atheist and you are a weak atheist, so there is no contradiction, I hold that there are specific gods that don't exist you hold that none do. Strong atheism usually denies a specific god.......Andre_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

SA: Again, I don’t see it (Unless we define atheist as those who don’t believe in God and those who are angry with God to the point that they claim not to believe he exists) being confusing. Your addendum to the definition implies that an atheist could believe in God which contradicts the first definition ,an atheist does not believe in God It’s not an assumption but a matter of definition. They are not mutually exclusive If atheists is the set of all people who call themselves atheists (as the research suggested) then we include all of the ‘conflicted’ (their term) people who are angry with God. The research did not suggest the classification system, the researchers did. You would have to ask them why they included non atheists in the atheist group. An atheist cannot believe that God exists. You might not like that definition, but that’s a different point. It is fine,it just is not the definition of an atheist. Can a person be a believer in God and not believe in God?velikovskys_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Aurelio Smith said:
Without reference to some non-existent authority that tells them they have the right to impose their standards or morals on others.
Re-stating what prompted my questions in the first place does nothing to answer my questions. What would you prefer they refer to when imposing standards or morals on others? And, why would you prefer it that way? hrun0815 said:
Empathy.
So as long as I am fulfilling some kind of empathetic consideration, any act is justified as moral? If I feel empathy for the pain a drug addict is suffering, is whatever I do to help justified simply because it is born of empathy? If I give him drugs for money, that is moral? If a child is suffering and I wish to relieve it of its pain, is killing it moral, as long as it was empathy that directed my actions? If I feel empathy for the suffering world, would it be moral of me to start eliminating what I consdered to be the problem - humans? Tell me, how can empathy be a better guide than some presumed objective source, if empathy can justify virtually any behavior?William J Murray_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT}

rvb8 @ 42 "Modern atheists really are the most moral people" “Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective [it just depends on how you think about them], and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.” Ted Bundy - Athiest and muderer of at least 30 people.Cross_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Actually KRock, I would avoid religious people leaving a religious studies class in most places in the world; Buddhist Thailand, Orthodox Russia, the Muslim World, Israel, the Bible belt USA. It is clearly true that an atheist gathering and dispersal would be the safest place to aim for, as they have no wish to indoctrinate, they merely consider your ideas mildly, to totally, insane. Modern atheists really are the most moral people, everyone else is busy explaining why your beliefs are wrong. I don't believe your faith is wrong, just wildly misguided, but, have at it, just leave me alone. Why is it that it is only the morally religious who simply (worldwide) can't do that?rvb8_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

@hrun0815 #40 Sorry, for a moment there, I thought you were suggesting a type of "universal empathy" amongst atheists. My mistake, I realize you were just offering your personal preference, that's all. :-) "If somebody does agree with your morals they never care if God whispered the morals into your ear while you were napping or if you got them from a cereal box." True, they may not care when someones agrees with them, but I'll be willing to bet my life they'll care when they come across someone who doesn't agree with them. :-) Reminds me of a scenario, where a young couple finds themselves lost at night in dark alleyway of a foreign city. All of a sudden, out walk 6 heavily tattooed biker looking gang members from a near by door. They start walking towards the young married couple with a quickened pace. In that instance, the wife whispers to her husband, "I sure hope they're just leaving a bible study." Indeed, morals do matter, but how much more do they matter from whence they come? :-)KRock_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Re #37: Of course says me, KRock. That was specifically the question, no? And, by the way, remember that 'sez who?' is everybody's answer if they don't agree with your morals (no matter how you justify them). If somebody does agree with your morals they never care if God whispered the morals into your ear while you were napping or if you got them from a cereal box.hrun0815_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

velikovskys Posting again with formatting - forgot to edit.
SA: then atheists could unknowingly accept that ‘a god in their life’ exists. V: What would the definition of God be?
SA: One definition that would work in this case is “that which is given the highest or ultimate quality of worship or adoration”. As an example, “it was worshiped as a god”. So, a god in this case is that which is the focus of the greatest and highest love and value for the person. If it is true that only a god can be worshipped, then then whatever a person worships is a god for that person. Thus, if an atheist gives maximum love (worship/adoration) to whatever thing, then that is a god for that atheist.
SA: Atheists could give something like worship to a political leader – as is given to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. He is ‘a god’ for atheists V: Theism is just a matter of appeasing a tyrant to you?
Strange question. No, it’s not. Again, a tyrant can be worshipped like a god. Egyptian pharaohs were worshipped that way as were some Roman emperors. In North Korea, the supreme commander is considered to have god-like qualities and he receives something we’d call worship from the people.Silver Asiatic_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

It might be useful to mention just some of those human qualities, and beliefs based in emotion or reason that humans possess that do not require the existence of god, or rather the god that is dominant at this site. Let's give his true literary emergence with the captive Jewish scribes of Babylon around 8th Century BC. So before this date and the arrival of Mosaic, and Christian morality what were some human qualities and was a god necessary to delineate them? First the qualities these pre-Judaeo/Christian peoples obviously had, and then those that required this new morality. Emotional or Reason based quality. Necessity of god. Love No Empathy No Sympathy No Charity No Curiosity No Reason Hell No Reconciliation No Forgiveness Hell No Justice Hell No Courage Hell NO Women's Rights Hell NO Free Speech Hell No Environmental Protection NO etc etc etc. Fear, self loathing, intolerance, contempt for reason, slavery etc etc, sure go for it. The conflicted idea that the human body is the pinnacle of god's creation and a source of great wonder and beauty, and at the same time damning one of its principle functions to fearful digust (with a particular emphasis on female impurity, which has relevant very negative implications today); sex. Sure! This appears entirely based on subjective emotion with a complete absence of reason. It has the added benefit of being historically accurate.rvb8_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

@hrun0815 @36 Empathy? Says who? You? :-)KRock_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Why’s that? How would you prefer they justify their behavior?
Empathy.hrun0815_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

velikovskys
That is a bit confusing,it could lead to the inadvertent assumption that atheists are just confused theists
Again, I don't see it as being confusing. It's not an assumption but a matter of definition. If atheists is the set of all people who call themselves atheists (as the research suggested) then we include all of the 'conflicted' (their term) people who are angry with God. You might not like that definition, but that's a different point.
It makes more sense to include that in the definition of theism rather than atheism to me.
Ok, but the challenge would be in convincing those self-described atheists that they're really theists. Failing that, one could just accept that atheism includes a certain level of belief in the existence in God. At least it would be impossible to distinguish 'true atheists' from the 'conflicted' without a lot of questioning. Also, do we know that all anger against God is necessarily a form of belief in the existence of God?
SA: The researches claim those beliving-atheists are conflicted V: Nope, they give no reason why they designated the group as ” conflicted” just as we can’t assume that people in the ” simple” group are simple
I think they pointed to a reason why they used the term, but in any case, it may not be used correctly and that was my point.
then atheists could unknowingly accept that ‘a god in their life’ exists. What would the definition of God be? One definition that would work in this case is "that which is given the highest or ultimate quality of worship or adoration". As an example, "it was worshipped as a god". So, a god in this case is that which is the focus of the greatest and highest love and value for the person. If it is true that only a god can be worshipped, then whatever a person worships is a god for that person. Thus, if an atheist gives maximum love (worship/adoration) to whatever thing, then that is a god for that atheist.
Atheists could give something like worship to a political leader – as is given to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. He is ‘a god’ for atheists Theism is just a matter of appeasing a tyrant to you?
Strange question. No, it's not. Again, a tyrant can be worshipped like a god. Egyptian pharaohs were worshipped that way as were some Roman emperors. In North Korea, the supreme commander is considered to have god-like qualities and he receives something we'd call worship from the people.
Silver Asiatic_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

hrun0815 said:
But I guess next WJM will tell us that logically atheists can in fact only be angry at their own conception of God (or they are sociopaths).
I'm afraid I have no inkling why anyone would be angry at someone else's conception of god. I might consider someone else to have a logically flawed or counter-productive concept of god, but I certainly wouldn't get angry about it.William J Murray_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Aurelio Smith said:
And I think it may be more accurate to refer to atheists being angry with people who justify their own behavior by claiming non-existent authority.
Why's that? How would you prefer they justify their behavior?William J Murray_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

Sa, Some might argue that there are theists who act as if there is no God. Some people aren't cut out to make their own decisions. Unless we define atheist as those who don’t believe in God and those who are angry with God to the point that they claim not to believe he exists. That is a bit confusing,it could lead to the inadvertent assumption that atheists are just confused theists In other words, the conflicted view could be included in the definition of atheist It makes more sense to include that in the definition of theism rather than atheism to me. The researches claim those beliving-atheists are conflicted Nope, they give no reason why they designated the group as " conflicted" just as we can't assume that people in the " simple" group are simple but the atheists (self-defined) may not see a conflict at all. They could mean that they ‘don’t believe in the God they’re angry at’. Or that they still have feeling of anger towards the God they believe existed at one time, we do not know from what they provided . Remember we are dealing with college undergrads, we have no evidence that they reflect the whole population As some atheistic critics point out, depending on how one defines ‘a god’, Critics of atheism or critics who are atheists? then atheists could unknowingly accept that ‘a god in their life’ exists. What would the definition of God be? Atheists could give something like worship to a political leader – as is given to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. He is ‘a god’ for atheists Theism is just a matter of appeasing a tyrant to you? True, but I’d think that would be clear in most cases – a person can be angry with religion and still believe in God. True, but then you are not an atheist.velikovskys_{January 27, 2015
January
01
Jan
27
27
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply