Two studies of Atheism and Theism.

[Angrboda]

Just tell a theist that he or she is wrong in their beliefs, and you'll see who considers being right to be important. (Not to mention, the history of religion is rife with examples of intolerance for disagreement. [The Albigensian crusades come to mind.])

Atheists, probably more than any group, seem uniquely capable of embracing agnosticism, or not knowing, than theists; theists invariably reach beyond the end of the data, whereas atheists are quite accepting of not knowing on any number of relevant issues from abiogenesis to the origin of the universe. Theism is filled with attempts to fill these gaps and failing, and trying again — and often with no new data to supply the new attempt on the summit. (Fundamentalists of all stripes are well known for repeating arguments known to be wrong in what, at best, can be viewed as an attempt to replace a true uncertainty with a false certainty.)

On a personal level, I notice that certain kinds of atheists, especially strong atheists and anti-theists, seem less tolerant of ambiguity than myself, from a subjective assessment, but how that relates to the general population and whether that simply reflects that I personally have a high tolerance for ambiguity is unknown. It's also an open question as to whether there may be a gap between public representations of vocal atheists prompted by antagonistic examination, their inner thoughts, and those of the less vocal atheists.


And lest I repeat what need not be repeated, we seem to be critically short of actual data on the subject.