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.

[Mister Agenda]

True that, but if axioms were provable, they wouldn't be axioms. The whole point of axioms is that it's impossible to prove everything.

Is this true? Can't there be axioms that stand on their own and can be proven as well?

Seems to be true. An axiom can be considered to be self-evident (and often is considered so), but in argumentation it is this:

3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

If you dig down deep enough, you get to something you can't prove is true. I think it's a virtue to have as few axioms as possible. I think I get by pretty well with 'reality is real' and 'what's good for human beings as human beings is good'. But I can't prove those things. I like to at least think I manage to have the rest of my opinions not contradict those two axioms.

[Mystic]

Most Theists don't argue on the internet. Most Theists are just trying to get by in life. And most theists have no idea and care less about the philosophical arguments out there. They are satisfied with their faith without feeling the need to prove it. They don't study other religions as much as Atheists do. Atheists tend to learn about other religions and make an more informed decision. They are also relatively aware of the Theist arguments out there. Theists in general don't go preaching...is their elite leaders that get into philosophical discussions, apologetics, etc...and then we have the very people on the internet forums (ie. relative to the world population, it's very few people coming on internet forums).

---

'what's good for human beings as human beings is good'.

You mean what is in the benefit of humans as humans beings is morally good, right? Sounds good to me.

Which is why perhaps moral psychology ought to replace religious morality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Even if god were a convenient fiction that belief could still be more useful in guiding rational thought than not relying upon it....

I think in the bolded sentence you may have hit upon a more crucial difference between intellectual Christians and skeptical atheists.

Could you elaborate on that. I find your comment interesting and would like to know more.