Written by The Star-Splitter
This is a response to Shadow to Light’s article “More Evidence that New Atheists are Closed-Minded“. Using two studies, he attempts to confirm what was said in a previous post that “they [atheists] have to acknowledge there is scientific evidence that shows they are mean, narcissistic, closed-minded, and have trouble getting along with others.” Let’s begin with saying this.
Notice how you can’t make an argument for your religion.
What a pathetic strategy that theists- sorry, let me separate you and dehumanize you by saying that you’re a New Theist since you like to do the same to atheists- have taken. You don’t want to provide evidence or make arguments anymore, relying only on personal attacks of “well, you’re a meany head”. Let’s say that there was a study which said atheists were, 100% of them, by every definition, mean, narcissistic, and closed-minded. That is still not an argument for any religion.
The ironic thing is that the first study he cites isn’t even in support of his assertion. First off, I doubt the survey’s authenticity because I can only find it off of a mediocre website. Second off, it’s from a website run by and titled around atheism- that’s something that Shadow to Light should be bringing up, but I guess he didn’t even do a second of background checking. Lastly, just how the paper is phrased, it seems very unofficial and amateur. But anyways, let’s just look at a few quotes from the poll.
Fortunately, one of the many questions our empirical research was able to address was, “are all atheists angry, argumentative and dogmatic”? Our results lead us to answer that question with a resounding “absolutely not”!
In other words, our research showed over 85% of the non-believers sampled to be more or less your “average Joe” when it came to being “angry, argumentative and dogmatic”, they fall right in line with current societal norms, nothing strange here – sorry non-believers, you’re pretty normal when it comes to being psychologically well-adjusted.
If you want to make a faulty argument, it only seems fitting that you’d use faulty resources I guess. The second study is… well, it’s not. It’s a guy who analyzed three “important New Atheist” books, then two theists’ books and his own book. Really? That’s the best you got? And essentially, it was just a bar graph of the full text with a control-f to find certain words like always. How about this: we actually read the book, we look at those words in context, and we make an argument? Let’s do a little better than this.