What are the personality types of Atheists and theists?
"Are atheists really so different from everyone else? Well, yes – but not in a bad way. Catherine Caldwell-Harris of Boston University has studied atheists and found that they share certain personality types, including being individualistic and being systematic thinkers."
"Individualism is not just the tendency to dislike family picnics . This category also involves an internal locus of control and tendency towards non-conformity. On “Big Five” personality questionnaires, atheists rank more open to new experience than believers which often translates into individualism. All that is very glowing, but the downside of individualism is that non-believers report receiving less social support than believers." To add a point here, and in degrees; the Atheist is more comfortable within the confines of his own mind with the company of his best friend and confidant, himself.
For the Atheist and, for the most part, I speak to my own life experiences of over 55 years of being one, from husband, father, grandfather, combat, police officer, business failure and success; life is mine. To relinquish control to a deity is unthinkable and, at best, would be a violation of who I am, at worst, submission, to what I would consider, dictatorial rule.
"The Myers-Briggs breaks people into four dichotomies: extroversion versus introversion, sensing versus intuition, thinking versus feeling and judging versus perception.
Extroverts prefer the company of others, whereas introverts like to be on their own. Those who fit into the "sensing" category like to gather information in concrete, tangible ways, whereas the intuitive rely on abstract feelings and hunches. "Thinkers" make decisions via logical, detached judgments, whereas "feelers" focus on empathy and consensus-building." HuffPost Science 0ct 19, 2014
The religious personality, regardless of deity believed in, all have the same basic type of personality. Deity worshipers tend to be followers, in degrees, as all things are. They will accept the consensus, as opposed to an attempt by the Atheist to find an objective and reasoned course. For the deity worshiper, the god is of little or no consequence. The importance is the camaraderie of others, the acceptance by the congregation, the clan or tribe or in the case of Norm, a bar called Cheers, "where everybody knows your name." The Atheist personality is more likely to start his own bar.
There is no bad or good here, no spiritual knowingness, no evil or vile people. There are only people in search of themselves through others or through their own abilities, according to their own personalities, according to birth, nurturing and environment.Those who seek control in life do so by developing superstitions and religion is but a massive superstition. If one believes a God will give them a peaceful afterlife they feel in control of not only their lives but any of the lives they affect. it's no coincidence that women are more religious and superstition than men and it's also no coincidence that they claim to be in less control of their lives then men, until of course they kick those men out.
Rad
Yes, I would think that deity belief and the supposed control one gains from that would be a substitution for the control that one should have, but lacks over his life. As so many live vicariously through sports figures or even the, so called, super heroes, they live through the ritual and dogma of a religion.
To the comment on bliss and ignorance on another thread. The ignorant are more prone to be in poverty, more apt to follow a ruthless leader, more prone to have a lack of food. The list continues, but I think you get the point.
I guess this would explain the hostility and disdain believers show toward any independent views. But, I agree with you that it is just indicative of everyone searching in the most comfortable way for themselves.
I can agree on the distain and hostility, but let's not be bias here. There are those on the non-believing side of the ledger that are equally, continually and blatantly aggressive in their responses. It would seem we are dealing more with personalities here rather than belief systems.
We can also note that a controlled personality on either side of the legger, toes up to the line of impropriety, but it is controlled and stays within the bounds of social propriety. That is what makes the difference between a mature response and an immature response.
Earnestly contending for a position need not be offensive. However, when it is it is either purposefully designed to be so or done without respect to the variables involved.
We live in a thin-skinned society drawn to the ethics of political correctness. So what is offensive to receiver may be not be offensive to to the submitter.
And the venue is another variable which may also change the conditions.
Distain and hostility are not limited to just the believers.
That was very interesting, thank you for sharing.
Oddly enough, I was just thinking about this the other day as Cat and CG posted that they shared the same personality test result. I didn't know what they were talking about so I googled it and sure enough, I got a result similar to theirs. It made me wonder about how our personalities might affect our attitudes on faith, and then I wondered which came first, the chicken or the egg. Interestingly enough, no matter what our personalities, it still doesn't affect the reality of God. Whether we all believe or don't believe, is not a reflection on His existence.
(Here's a link to the test if you want to take it.)
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/125980That's my question too. Does personality determine whether someone will be religious or not? Does it impact whether someone will be a conservative versus liberal believer? Does the simple fact of being very religious make someone a follower who accepts consensus? If someone had been very religious until the age of 40 then became an atheist I assume their personality would change to a more individualistic one.
Right... so do we choose faith b/c of our personality or does our faith affect our personality?
Bible believers believe that faith is a gift given to us, and that it's not of our own doing so that we can't boast.Yes personality and your method of thinking play a large role in wether you believe or not. Do you think with intuition or use reason? Do you need to have the answers or can somethings left unknown? Do you need to control all aspects of your life or can somethings just flow?
The question does remain however, why would a God only want certain personality types in heaven?
Sed
With reference to what came first, Atheism predates Christianity and Judaism. The monotheism of Judaism is, no less, the pagan god Aten, which was based on Ra. You can dismiss this if you lie. It will not hurt my feeling. It will only speak to the adage, "To deny a truth serves only to enhance a lie." Do what is comfortable for you and believe it is true.Were you also an INFP, Beth, or a slightly different but similar personality? Are you okay with sharing your personality type?
It does make sense that our personalities would have an impact on our openness to the Lord and so on. God who knit us together in the womb carefully crafted our personalities, and then He uses our life circumstances to guide those further.
What you have elucidated is so true. I would say that INTJs and INTPs tend to be atheists or adopt non-traditional beliefs because they are independent thinkers who see outside the societal box. They are highly individualistic, refusing to do things because others do so. They are highly analytical thinkers and see and think of methodology that others refuse to, don't, or unable to.
Thinking type individuals tend to be less religious because they do think based upon reason and logic and the premise of typical religions are contradictions to pure logic. Thinking type individuals are programmed to find proof in terms of presentations. Thinking type individuals wants logical answers as to why something occurs. They do not want to hear because everyone agrees or someone in authority says so.
Intuitive thinking type individuals really see different perspectives on things. They are beyond individualistic. They see many of the social and religious institutions and beliefs to be outdated, atavistic, backwards, even stupid. They are highly inventive and avant-garde in terms of belief and perspective. They are often ahead of the curb in terms of moral, spiritual, and/or ethical beliefs.
They see most religions as a primitive way to explain the workings of the universe. I find intuitive thinking type people to lean more towards metaphysical and New Age beliefs besides being atheists. Intuitive people oftentimes see things when others cannot see them. They are also light years ahead of the masses.
Introverted people also refuse to go along with the masses. They are used to going against the grain in terms of ideology. They also are deep, analytical thinkers who wants to know the reasoning beyond a particular ideology and perspective. Introverts are basically not followers; they do things because THEY know that it is logically feasible not because it is a popular consensus. They go on the road less travelled so to speak.Intuitive thinkers are generally wrong which can be backed up with studies.
Speaking for myself and those Christians I know who share my personality type, the assertions here are simply not accurate. INFPs are in fact individualistic and nonconforming and are not interested in "acceptance by the congregation", but are often offbeat and unconcerned about being different. Here's a part of our personality description:
INFPs value authenticity and want to be original and individual in what they do. They are often concerned with a search for meaning and truth within themselves. Following tradition holds little appeal for the INFP; they prefer to do their own exploration of values and ideas, and decide for themselves what seems right. INFPs are often offbeat and unconventional, but they feel no desire to conform. The INFP would rather be true to themselves than try to fit in with the crowd.
It is NOT our personality that drives us to "conform" to Jesus Christ, but the Lord himself.
Most people are very worldly, few "set apart" for the Lord, and in following after the Lord, we are in fact refusing to "conform to the patterns of this world". So the follower of Jesus Christ is the nonconformist in a "worldly" world.Right, I'm not a follower... I love to do my own thing. It took a special kind of release of control on my part, to agree to think as directed.
I'm not perfect and I do have many points of weakness, but it is truth that makes us free.
I cannot deny truth, no matter how far off I am. Truth is the way to correction.Yes!
It's a very false stereotype - You believe the Bible because you're a follower who wants to be told what to do, you take comfort in that, etc., etc.
The Lord had some pretty strong wills to deal with in some of his children!
Intuition: A rapid compilation of past experiences, conversations, learning and other facts (true or not) followed by a deduction as to likely conclusion, answer or solution to a current question or problem.
Is this why the theist/believer seem to disagree on the use of intuition? Because the believer relies on feelings to produce a deduction instead of harder data? Because not only the reasoning process but the database itself is totally different?They don't seem to be understand what intuition is and what it does. Intuition doesn't work on things we have no past experiences with therefore using it to intuit the existence of a God will most likely give the wrong answer as it's not something one has any experience with.
That was the point - do believers really think "intuition" means just a feeling? As opposed to a history of related experience? No wonder we have a hard time communicating!
wilderness
Looking back on my own days of being a devote Catholic, I think your point on intuition is valid. Everything is tempered, in degrees, by our own unique perspective. Everything is heightened by that same perspective. Human emotions and the human capacity to reason are contradictory elements or traits of human. The correct balance of chemicals in the body produce a 'normal' human and just a minor imbalance begins to cause problems, physically, emotionally and intellectually. Throw in the variations of birth, nurture and environments and we all see the same picture differently, according to our own needs and wants.
Everything and every human, every animal, every snowflake, tree and blade of grass are in degrees of being what it is. Perfection, like a Utopia, does not exist. I would think that everything, to include the gods, are variations of the thought of what it is, our thought of what it is.
We all strive for constants, for stability, for clarity in our lives and we all walk on different paths in our striving, which, I think, speaks to the great diversity in the definition of gods. For the Atheist there is no less striving, but less the emotional interference, but perhaps, a greater struggle with logic.
I do not think that there is a choice here, no free will when it comes to such things, just as you have no choice in your parents or skin color or all those things that make you, you. You cannot want to be an Einstein and be him, nor can you want to be and be, who you are not. Those who are theisticly prone, emotionally driven, will never be Atheistic and those prone to analytical thinking will never be theistic.
There is much here that you have instigated that needs more conversation, but, I think, I prattle, maffle or even faffel. I love words.Disagree both that emotion and reason are the antithesis of each other and that the analytical thinkers cannot be theistic.
Emotion and reason are two different parts of us, just as arms are different than legs. Yet we can walk on our hands (some of us!) and pick things up with our feet just as we can relax into "feeling" or put forth the effort for rigorous thought. The only thing we cannot do (properly) is use emotion to search for truth or facts; that does not work well for obvious reasons.
There are been many analytical thinkers, great scientists, that are also theists. When the time comes they..."tip"...their emotions into control and use them for decision making. It doesn't produce much truth but it DOES produce an emotional effect that keeps them happy with the process, so it is continued with no harm done. The rest of their lives are spent looking for truth using the analytical portion of their mind and THAT works well for what it is being used for.Wilderness
Everything I said was preempted with the qualification, "by degrees". I would also agree that some theists are very good at analytics and to go further to say, that some Atheists are not. I would maintain however, that reason and emotion are contradictory human traits interwoven within the being and within each, varying degrees of complexity and dominance to the personality. No two snow flakes are alike.
I would think that human emotion is a product of evolution that is caused by the advent of human reason. Perhaps, it is the result of the combining of the capacity to reason and our ancestral animal heritage of fight or flight. Obviously a speculative claim, but in the last 20 years there has been some study to this that seems to have value. "Evolutionary Psychology and the Emotions"
Some side thoughts on this; should we continue to exist and evolve, do we evolve out of the emotional state into one of reason only? I would think that do to our technological advancements we are more prone to become bionic creatures. perhaps, roboticly controlled, in terms, of programming.
As we exist today though, is the dilemma and how to reconcile that to the future or to a society that is not steeped and motivated in and by primordial fears is more to the point.Agree that the two are independent attributes woven into man with differing degrees of dominance. That was the point, that and a conscious decision to use one or the other to make decisions and conclusions.
But evolution? I fully believe that "lower" animals, without anything like our intelligence level, have emotions. I also think that both are necessary for man to operate, but that they have evolved "independently" of each other, albeit at approximately the same time. Consider a person that is depressed and despondent most of the time - that person is unlikely to reproduce while the happier one is much more likely to continue their DNA heritage. Happiness, therefore, is an evolutionary "force" if you will towards survival of the species while depression is the opposite. The feeling of happiness then is an evolutionary developed trait that encourages survival, but has nothing to do with intelligence. At the same time, intelligence has allowed man to spread to the far corners of the globe; something that nothing but bacteria has ever managed. Neither came "from" the other but both have evolutionary advantages at times.
To evolve out of emotion, we're going to have to get rid of endorphins and emotion both; the result will be a race of organic robots. A sad state, IMO, and one that is not likely to occur as emotions are very often necessary in defense and reproduction both.
Always appreciate your comments. Do you say believers disagree with each other or with non-believers on the subject of intuition?
mishpat
I do not propose to speak for wilderness, as he is most capable of responding. I would like to interject this thought however. To your question, yes, to both. This may account for the, to numerous to mention, definitions and descriptions regards a deity, the ritual and dogma associated with them.mishpat is right: believers disagree with each other because the "database" being used is composed of feelings and they vary widely from person to person.
But they disagree far more with non-believers because the database is totally different between the two. Worse may be that the two don't realize the difference for the basis of conclusions; as a crude example consider the black cat crossing our path. The believer gasps in fright and declares they will have bad luck. The non-believer says "this has happened many times before and nothing happened - nothing is likely to happen this time, either". Both are making quick judgements based on "intuition", but the database in one is unreasoned fear ("feeling") while the other is experience, giving vastly differing conclusions.I think we are on the same page, though the black cat doesn't seem to fit. More to the point would be a narrowed outlook. Whereas non-believers are more accepting, shall we say, as their constraints are wider, believers set personal constraints based on belief, not by feelings.
I would like to do a lot of things that I used to do, but they goes against what I now believe.
At the same time, I would like to do a lot of things I used to do, but lack of temperance becomes an issue. Am I able to "take a drink" for instance? Yes, it doesn't go against what I believe. But what affect does it have on the recovering alcoholic? If I drink then he can. Though I can control it, he may not be able to. My imbibing could be the reason for one to "fall off the wagon." (Please don't define that as altruism.) "Am I my brothers keeper." The answer is personal.
Then too the decision is mine, not incumbent upon any other. Yet, and here we have the infighting of the believer, doctrines. Some are against drinking altogether. Some (a very limited number) use it in the services. Some see no problem drinking, such as I do, with a temperate attitude.
Society is a fickle group (just said that somewhere else). Today's tenor could be "do as I say not as I do." Tomorrow it could be "What do you care what folks think" or some other equally blaise statement.
But I would agree, believers seem to disagree with each other more readily than non-believers. Pharisees and Sadducees did and Republicans and Democrats will agree more readily with each other than those people of faith.Same page maybe, but different paragraphs.
The believer doesn't care if a conclusion is true or real; that it feels good is far more important. The analytical thinker, on the other hand, is just the opposite; they don't care how it feels, but it MUST match reality. Of the two the believer is usually happier and more content with their conclusion/decision, but the analytical person can build on theirs to find more truth. The believer is forever stuck in a rut as changing their mind means they won't be happy and that is of paramount importance.
(Keep in mind that we're talking about the believer using their feelings to intuit while the non-believer uses history, facts or other things thought to be true)Myth has it that a black cat crossing your path brings bad luck. The believer accepts that and is afraid of black cats, the non-believer recognizes that the myth does not agree with past history and adjusts his worldview accordingly.
A side note here - we probably added greatly to the black death from just such a fear. Cats were routinely hunted and killed as being associated with witches - cats that killed rats that carried fleas that in turn carried plague. Kill the cats and the rats and fleas multiply, giving far more vectors to spread the disease. Irrational fear of cats (intuition based on emotion) resulted in making the plague much worse, while the analytical thinker would have said "No, I've never seen a witch with a cat so no reason to kill them".Let me address both of your last here. When it comes to what believers as a whole think, I believe you are either paint with a broad brush and missing the many "exceptions to every rule" or you have been schooled in what believers think and how they react, one who has a distain for anyone that is not a humanist.
You may not agree with my position as a Christian and I have no problem with that. But the misconception that reason or reasoning is out the window when one comes to know Jesus Christ as their personal savior is near insulting.
Because what we believe in the spiritual realm is not acceptable to the "reasoning person" does not give one privilege to assess their power to think and reason. How many times do we read here in the Hub comments, especially by the 3 stooges, about "your judging me." Yet, seldom do they miss their chance to react in the manner they are accusing of of doing. (No, I do not include you as one of the 3.) Childish reactions due to a lack of reasoning.
Logic. What is logical? Is what God has done logical? Some times not, to my way of thinking. Do I agree with what He has planned? Sometimes not? Do I talk to him about it? Yes. Do I stand up and say to Him, "You have no right?" No. Because He has the right to do as He pleases with His world. But then how can I agree with Him in the manner in which I do? Because I am not God. I only know a portion of what He has set out to do. But that small portion I know fits well with everything else that I see and hear in this world and with the past history of this world. Reasoning generates knowledge, or it should. I see things that call for reasoning. I hear things that call for reasoning. I read things that call for reasoning. I experience things that call for reasoning. And so on.
I present the Bible as my primary source of belief. When I ask for proofs to the contrary, I get foolish comments like "Science does not write out its proofs." Really. Or I get a diatribe against what I believe and why, which of course is just smoke to cover their arrogance and ignorance.
I reason that evolution is a farce due to the many holes in the various theories. I reason that God has done to date everything that He has said He will do to date. I reason that secular history does not conflict with the Word of God. I reason that the Bible has answer questions that fill in gaps in secular history. I choose God. It is the logical decision.Oh my. You've missed the point of this part of the thread: it started with the OP's comment that believers intuit with their feelings and non-believers do so with analytical thought. All of my comments have been based on a discussion of that premise; I do not mean to claim that believers cannot reason analytically and correctly. Only that IF the premise is true (something I question) then certain deductions can be drawn from it, including that while intuition is notorious for giving wrong conclusions it would be much worse in the believer and that, IF true, it would be another reason believers and non-believers have such a hard time communicating.
I believe it spilled over into reasoning, analytical thinking, etc, to which I responded. But let me say that though neither you nor CJ have swayed my thinking, reasoning, emoting. I appreciate the candor of you both as it is done in a respectful manner. And, too, you fellas cause me to revisit my studies and refresh certain things that I had allow to go stale.
Well, I'm not sure at all that I agree with the premise that believers use feelings for intuition. My intuition tells me that that is too far from what I consider the norm.
I don't doubt, however, that it is more heavily swayed by emotion than in the analytical thinker; that comes with the territory.
I really do believe that there are personality types more inclined to hear; more inclined to yield; more inclined to rebel.
Very interesting.A year ago a friend at work got lots of us started on one of these tests, and a temporary wave of interest washed over many of our social circles. I started a thread about it back then, without much response. Considering the folks I was aware of who took the test represented a broad demographic, I did not find the OP's assessment basically alleging weak personalities will be religious, to be true at all. Granted, we weren't doing it as a study or charting results, so I am just speaking of those whose religious beliefs or lack there of were known and their results.
I did read a psychological treatise 30 years ago which stated that people who are emotionally immature tend to be religious because they must believe in an authority figure to give their lives some type of anchor. Another book that I read indicated that people believed in religion because they need a paternal deity telling them what to do, they are loathe to exercise their power and independence in making decisions for themselves-in essence, they are afraid to be fully adult hence automonous.
I bet that tells us more about the bias and agenda of the author than anything. As with all the soft aspects of science, it's not the facts so much as how they choose to spin them.
I see a lot of ethically immature people who hold onto religion with both hands, it's possible that the religion has stunted their ethical maturity as they never are taught beyond the "don't get caught doing anything wrong" phase. As I said early we can find these people when they as the question "what's stoping atheists from doing anything they want".
Many religionists are quite myopic regardng this. They correlate religiosity with morality when such is not necessarily the case. There were/are many religionists who commit egregious acts in the name of their particular religion. There are religionists who have quite an undeveloped stance on morality; they contend that if there was no outside determining factor, they can act anyway they want. Their morality is outwardly based whereas the average atheist is more mature in his/her morality and ethical principles-their moraity is inward directed.
I aint never been one to tell what to do... and I feel that those similar to me share that sentiment, to some degree
It took a LOT of doing to get me to the point of surrender. My mom said I, "kicked against the prick."
So, I think that the part about needing a leader does not fit. And the needing a union of some sort, is far from my personality. But i do believe there to be some Christ/personality link.Yes, I'm with you on this (big surprise since we share the same personality type)! Contrary to the OP's assertions, INFPs, who are often religious, are described as individualistic and are not followers. One of the jobs well suited for INFPs is pastors (along with artists, writers, counselors and actors). I'd say given our personalities, it's a challenge to bring ourselves into submission and alignment with God, yet it is Him who conforms us to the image of Jesus Christ and fulfills His will for us.
Thought this might interest you, Cgenaea:
INFPs are imaginative idealists, guided by their own core values and beliefs. To a Healer, possibilities are paramount; the realism of the moment is only of passing concern. They see potential for a better future, and pursue truth and meaning with their own individual flair.
INFPs are sensitive, caring, and compassionate, and are deeply concerned with the personal growth of themselves and others. Individualistic and nonjudgmental, INFPs believe that each person must find their own path. They enjoy spending time exploring their own ideas and values, and are gently encouraging to others to do the same. INFPs are creative and often artistic; they enjoy finding new outlets for self-expression.
INFPs value authenticity and want to be original and individual in what they do. They are often concerned with a search for meaning and truth within themselves. Following tradition holds little appeal for the INFP; they prefer to do their own exploration of values and ideas, and decide for themselves what seems right. INFPs are often offbeat and unconventional, but they feel no desire to conform. The INFP would rather be true to themselves than try to fit in with the crowd.
INFPs are accepting and nonjudgmental in their treatment of others, believing that each person must follow their own path. They are flexible and accommodating, and can often see many points of view. It is important to the INFP to support other people; however, the INFP may react strongly if they feel their own values are being violated. They especially hate being steamrolled by people who insist there is one right way to do things. INFPs want an open, supportive exchange of ideas.
INFPs may initially seem cool, as they reserve their most authentic thoughts and feelings for people they know well. They are reflective and often spiritual, and often interested in having meaningful conversations about values, ethics, people, and personal growth. Typically curious and open-minded, the Healer continually seeks a deeper understanding of themselves and of the people around them. They are passionate about their ideals, but private as well; few people understand the depth of the INFP’s commitment to their beliefs.
INFPs are sensitive and empathetic, and engage themselves in a lifelong quest for meaning and authenticity. The mundane aspects of life are of less interest to this type, and they are more excited by interesting ideas than by practical facts. They typically accept others without question, and may take special interest in offbeat points of view or alternative lifestyles. They often have a special affection for the arts, especially the avant garde, as they love experiencing new concepts in self-expression.
Famous INFPs
Famous INFPs include Princess Diana, Audrey Hepburn, Fred Rogers, John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, Tori Amos, Morrissey, Chloe Sevigny, William Shakespeare, Bill Watterson, A.A. Milne, Helen Keller, Carl Rogers, and Isabel Briggs Myers (creator of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator).
INFPs in the Population
INFP is the ninth most common type in the population. They make up:
• 4% of the general population
• 5% of women
• 4% of men
Popular hobbies for INFPs include poetry, creative writing, music, photography, theater, and visual art.
What the Experts Say
Interesting facts about the INFP:
• On personality trait measures, score as Artistic, Reflective, Careless, Sensitive, Flexible, and Appreciative
• Among least likely of all types to suffer heart disease
• In men, among least likely to report chronic pain
• Second highest of all types to report marital dissatisfaction
• Among most likely to have suicidal thoughts in college
• Tend to be more successful than the average in learning a foreign language
• Among types most likely to be dissatisfied with their work
• Personal values include Autonomy and Creativity
• Overrepresented in occupations in counseling, writing, and the arts
Read more: Profile of the INFP Personality Type | Truity http://www.truity.com/personality-type/ … z3GpXiq0l9
Follow us: @truitylabs on Twitter-
Though opposite of how some people view me; totally correct!!! I have never considered suicide (thank God) but I feel it is a totally accurate description of me.
Thanks. I forgot a lot of that. I feel assured in a new way.I'm glad you have been assured! I think the compulsion to speak truth (a trait we both share, not surprisingly, since INFPs are often called the "truth seekers") can hide some of the other characteristics at times.
It's a wearisome battle sometimes, but I know you will hold to the truth always! And "God is our strength"!
I see a lot of ethically immature people who hold onto money with both hands. Knowledge of nothing, with both hands, women/men with both hands and the worst off to me, is the one who holds onto their children with both hands. So many things have assured them that this attempt at control is real. But they soon find themselves wanting...
It's a vicious circle...
I wouldn't change a thing...Related Discussions
- 145
Why do atheists spend so much time thinking and debating about God?
by John Harper 10 years ago
Why do atheists spend so much time thinking and debating about God?I mean why spend time over something they say they do not believe exists?I don't believe in global warming, maybe a wrote a hub sometime explaining why, but then I moved on.Before I came to faith, I never gave God a thought, why...
- 46
Why can't atheists and believers leave each other alone to not believe or believ
by Gabriel Wilson 5 years ago
Why can't atheists and believers leave each other alone to not believe or believe?Why is it that atheists (not all, some) continuously question believers about their belief and vice versa; why do believers (not all, some) feel they have to justify their belief? Surely if you don't believe in God...
- 85
Are atheists generally happier people than believers?
by Stephen Meadows 7 years ago
Are atheists generally happier people than believers?Many believers can't understand that a person can be happier without religion in their life. What are your thoughts?
- 84
Individualism vs Atheism and Fundamentalism
by JonTutor 15 years ago
Last night there was a debate.... this topic "would you marry atheist".... I said... I'm not atheist... I'm "individualist".... experienced for myself.... this Budhist technique.. http://sakya.org/meditationbeg.html ... relaxes me...also learned simple breathing...
- 145
What truly motivates non-believers?
by Claire Evans 7 years ago
This topic is old, I know, but I'd like to ask it anyway. Many Christians will ask an atheist, "Why are you here if you don't believe God (should it be a Christian thread)?" Some will answer, "Because I'm trying to help you see the errors of your ways. Is this...
- 374
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?
by Dwight Phoenix 8 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's rebuttal