If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Apparently, the idea atheists are so angry is the result of mass projection.
[Meier et al 2015] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.10...013.866929

Thanks for the quality link. There is undoubtedly a projection effect as there's little reason to suppose the personalities of atheists are any more dominated by anger than is the case with other people. A bit of semantics is involved here: We speak of "the angry white male" in connection with conservative politics, not because we think white men are all habitually angry. The "angry atheist" term is used in a similar vein because in general, organized atheist groups and the organized religious are frequently opponents at law and in political process. Oddly, in Study 3 even atheists appeared to think atheists were angry.

You're welcome. I agree that some people use the term to describe atheists who are or seem angry, and I don't doubt that you would use the phrase in that nuanced way, but the study certainly supports the contention that it's a common perception that atheists are habitually angry. I've certainly encountered that presumption often enough in my life based on nothing more than someone knowing that I'm an atheist, or just as often, NOT knowing I'm an atheist.

---

...but atheism is not a philosophy (nor is it the sort of noun that ought to be capitalized, but I reckon that's your business), it's a position on one topic.

Oh, Horrors! Did I capitalize it? I could swear I didn't, but a slip of the shift key could have occurred. Which tells me that many atheists have conventions for orthography, i.e. "god" vs. "God."  

My apologies. I realize some people are sensitive about receiving any feedback on issues like capitalization, and from your tone, I mistakenly assumed you were not one of them. It was imperceptive of me and led to you fetching a meme, and I heartily regret it.

I see no conceivable way your conclusion could be derived from my comment, but I suppose you were seeking a way to segue to another stereotype you hold about atheists. I suppose if you were racist about African Americans, a comment about fruit would tell you that many blacks love fried chicken and watermelon. For the record, I'll give a hundred dollars to the charity of your choice if you can find a post of mine where I've not capitalized 'god' or 'God' correctly.

---

JerichoI love that argument that theists use that atheism is basically just a religion...I fail to see how atheists can even be thrown into the same category.  We have no religious text, leaders, gathering areas, or anything like that....

Many religions lack a text, leader, or designated meeting place as well, yet are called religions. Some atheists are happy to lump all the religious into a bloc based on the single common denominator of belief in a god; that's a common human habit known as "stereotypy." I'm well aware of the minimum definition for atheism as lack of theistic belief, yet I'm also aware that it's often brought up as a dodge by persons who don't wish their beliefs to come under the microscope. All the better for a secure position from which to snipe at the beliefs of others, I might say. A number of organizations associated with atheism are quite vocal and politically active in the United States and, while we no doubt aren't hearing from many folks who privately have atheist leanings, a coherent public front for atheism has developed in this country. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheist Association, for instance. And media spokes like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. 

Atheism and theism are differing opinions on one topic. Neither can amount to a religion and it's hard to believe correct usage of the terms involved is so difficult, minus bias.

You seem keenly aware of stereotyping on the part of others, but almost comically unaware of your own machine-gun delivery of stereotypes about atheists.

iIn my case It's not a dodge (nor have I observed anyone else using it so), it's a heartfelt plea for you to make the slightest effort to find out what my beliefs actually are instead of assuming them. To treat me as an individual instead of as a specimen to be stuffed into your previously-prepared pigeon holes. It is not our fault that so many people who claim they want to know what we believe get stuck on arguing with atheists that atheism isn't what they say it is. It's not that we're dodging, it's that you're nowhere near the mark; and you're far from alone on that.

American Atheists has less than 3,000 members in a country with at least six million atheists. Your standards for what constitutes a 'coherent public front' are remarkably low. The membership of the American Humanist Association is closer to 50,000; but I suppose they don't count if they're not involved in a big court case or don't have a TV show. The people you're talking about aren't spokespersons for atheism, atheists are far too diverse for 'spokespersonship' to be meaningful. Most of the world's atheists have never heard of those people. And I don't think you're too unintelligent to grasp this. I don't think you would try to say that Benny Hinn or Rev. Moon or Pope Francis are media spokespeople for theism. You know that whatever one you pick, there are hundreds of millions of theists who would disagree that he represents them. Because the thing all theists have in common besides their common humanity is an on-off opinion on a single topic. They can't be pigeon-holed to the degree that any one or any ten can be 'the face of theism'.

On the slight hope of a chance that it's of any interest to a person who thinks the definition for atheism accepted by most Western atheists as most accurate is a dodge to evade questions about their beliefs, I'm a religious atheist. In order to understand what I mean by that without me spelling it out, you can search my old posts diligently or disengage your stereotypes for a minute while you think about it.