Atheists are emotionally stronger than theists

[theproofisaroundyou]

He's a troll. Nothin to see here folks.  Move along.

WRONG! ill have you know i take my religion very serious, feel my wrath. just trying to spread positivity! *playfully whacks head* LOL

[Joods]

Try a spellchecker and learn to use proper punctuation.

Trollololol

[robvalue]

How often do atheists seek out theists to try to tell them how wrong they are? How does this compare to theists doing the same to atheists? I'd be pretty confident in saying atheists do it less, which suggests to me that atheists are more comfortable with their beliefs and those of others. Is this emotional strength, of a sort?

(I'm not saying no atheists do this. Of course they do. There will always be argumentative and confrontational types.)

[The Industrial Atheist]

If the OP was correct then you'd think atheists would live longer but they don't. Atheism is bad for your health.

ATHEISTS DIE 4 YEARS YOUNGER

Minority stress

Minority stress describes chronically high levels of stress faced by members of stigmatized minority groups. It may be caused by a number of factors, including poor social support and low socioeconomic status, but the most well understood causes of minority stress are interpersonal prejudice and discrimination. Indeed, numerous scientific studies have shown that minority individuals experience a high degree of prejudice, which causes stress responses (e.g., high blood pressure, anxiety) that accrue over time, eventually leading to poor mental and physical health. Minority stress theory summarizes these scientific studies to explain how difficult social situations lead to chronic stress and poor health among minority individuals. It is an important concept for psychologists and public health officials who seek to understand and reduce minority health disparities.

Wikipedia || Minority stress

By the way, for what it's worth, your logic doesn't follow.  It's possible for atheists to both be emotionally stronger and still live shorter lives.

It would be interesting to see how long atheists live in countries where people aren't as religious, like the UK. I couldn't find anything. Probably because no one there really cares who lives longer.

[RoadRunner79]

How often do atheists seek out theists to try to tell them how wrong they are? How does this compare to theists doing the same to atheists? I'd be pretty confident in saying atheists do it less, which suggests to me that atheists are more comfortable with their beliefs and those of others. Is this emotional strength, of a sort?

I don't think that it follows, that because atheists may or may not be as assertive in their beliefs, that it is because they are more comfortable in those beliefs.   In fact, I think that a pretty good case could be made for the opposite.  When you are more confident that what you are saying is true, then you will be more vocal in declaring that truth and opposing those you believe are wrong.  Should I conclude that the more vocal evolution supporters or global warming advocates are; the weaker their case is and the more uncomfortable they are with it?  

What matters, however is why someone believes what they do, or what is their foundation for that belief.  In any of the mentioned examples, it may simply be a cultural or taught thing that it is true, and they do not have any real foundation support that belief.   I don't think that how loudly a group shouts is a good indicator of truth either way really.  So both can hypothesis can be true (though not at the same time).

But I have often been told here; that atheism is just a lack of belief, and that they are not making any claims.  In which case either theory is null and void.  Because athiests aren't really saying anything; except about their own mental state.

[Crossless2.0]

But I have often been told here;  that atheism is just a lack of belief, and that they are not making any claims.  In which case either theory is null and void.  Because athiests aren't really saying anything; except about their own mental state.

Well, atheism is a lack of belief, so it is a word describing a mental state. But it's something more than just that. It's also a response to the claims theists make.

If you must derive from a mere mental state a specific claim or set of claims, you could start with, "I do not believe that theists have met what I consider to be the minimal criteria necessary to compel belief in their claims."

On a side note, I disapprove of the use of 'theory' to characterize theist or atheist positions, but it's a niggling concern. I get what you're saying.

[The Grand Nudger]

@RR
Thus the use of prefix qualification like "agnostic atheists"...or "soft atheists".  Most atheists -are- just telling you about their mental state in regards to their status of belief.  That;s why it;s pointless to object to their statement of self description with arguments that would be more salient to someone like me.  

Consider the notion you have about people who are more confident being more vocal and more actively in opposition.  That describes a gnostic atheist, further..an antitheist. Most of these folks are telling you that they don;t believe you..but so long as you keep it in your pants they aren;t bothered much by it.  I;m telling you that I know you;re wrong..and that I know you;re incapable of keeping it in your pants.  

Can you spot the difference?

[RoadRunner79]

But I have often been told here;  that atheism is just a lack of belief, and that they are not making any claims.  In which case either theory is null and void.  Because athiests aren't really saying anything; except about their own mental state.

Well, atheism is a lack of belief, so it is a word describing a mental state. But it's something more than just that. It's also a response to the claims theists make.

If you must derive from a mere mental state a specific claim or set of claims, you could start with, "I do not believe that theists have met what I consider to be the minimal criteria necessary to compel belief in their claims."

On a side note, I disapprove of the use of 'theory' to characterize theist or atheist positions, but it's a niggling concern. I get what you're saying.

Just to clarify, I was using the words "theory" and "hypothesis" in reference to the idea, that the amount of assertiveness on a topic is somehow indicative to the subjects certainty of  that topic or their confidence in it. 

And I think that you understand; but again to clarify,  when atheists are saying that it is "just a lack of belief" they are not saying anything about an objective truth, but only that they are merely not convinced.  They are just providing information about their mental state on the matter and not claiming that anything is false.   Otherwise this would be a claim that would have a share in a burden of proof.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm an agnostic atheist overall, but I'm a gnostic atheist about certain proposed deities. I'm agnostic about the God of deism or Tezcatlipoca, my guess is that they're highly unlikely based on lack of evidence, but they're not married bachelors or square circles.

The properties attributed to the God of theodicy are contradictory, that God doesn't exist. Many of the deeds attributed to the God of Abraham did not actually happen (and Abraham probably was not a real person), so that God isn't real because there is no God that did those things that didn't happen.

But I'm not going to knock on people's doors about it, it's not like they'll be tortured forever if I can't get them to agree with me.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, they;ll just torture others forever so long as we defer. 

The good thing is...theres no need to knock on doors.  They;ll come to you, at almost every level..be it literal door to door bullshittery, or through the arm of the state, or more pervasively in their vast hate culture. The only way they wont approach you..because to do so would be to commit theological suicide...is as an equal, lol.