I think “hardcore atheist” generally means, “atheist who actively and loudly antagonizes religion.” That is not consistent with the poster’s usage, but I don’t think any adjective would be—the point is that people who are not atheists may be worth listening to, not that some “not-hardcore” atheists are also worth listening to in addition to the hardcore atheists.
I assume we agree that atheism is not a signal for rational thought anymore—if that’s true, are you getting any additional useful information by looking at how loudly someone antagonizes religion?
I would think that higher levels of overt religious antagonism indicate low agreeableness. It may be an indicator not so much of irrationality as of a sort of intellectual laziness or poor judgement, as it’s an unconstructive behaviour that generates a great deal of self-satisfaction for not doing anything particularly difficult.
That said, I was rather closer to that kind of atheism when I was younger, so I’m decidedly biased.
I think “hardcore atheist” generally means, “atheist who actively and loudly antagonizes religion.” That is not consistent with the poster’s usage, but I don’t think any adjective would be—the point is that people who are not atheists may be worth listening to, not that some “not-hardcore” atheists are also worth listening to in addition to the hardcore atheists.
I assume we agree that atheism is not a signal for rational thought anymore—if that’s true, are you getting any additional useful information by looking at how loudly someone antagonizes religion?
I would think that higher levels of overt religious antagonism indicate low agreeableness. It may be an indicator not so much of irrationality as of a sort of intellectual laziness or poor judgement, as it’s an unconstructive behaviour that generates a great deal of self-satisfaction for not doing anything particularly difficult.
That said, I was rather closer to that kind of atheism when I was younger, so I’m decidedly biased.
I think I have a similar point of view to yours, on this.