"Atheists are just as intolerant, if not more so, than most religious" - discuss

robindch

darkman2 wrote: »

Just wondering do you agree with the title statement that Atheists are, far from being of a new more informed age, in fact more intolerant of others beliefs then among the religious faithful?

I completely disagree.

Until relatively recently, religions had acquired sufficient civil power in most societies that they could enforce their totalitarianisms on all citizens. They still do in many parts of the world, helping to produce massively inequitable societies, huge social problems and personal, familial and polity-level unhappiness on a grand scale.

What's different now is that people in many countries are no longer afraid of the social or civil power of religions and because of that, they're no longer prepared to grant the religious the free hand they had, and no doubt, still wish they had.

The biggest change is that people are now speaking up against religious nuttiness and the religious are having a very hard time dealing with that. It does not help that many religious believe ideas, or at least their ideas, should be respected.

18AD

J C wrote: »

I can literally think anything that I want.

There are no limits to Human thought and ingenuity!!!!

There are huge limits! What is the freest thought you've ever had? What are the conditions that lead to that thought?

I don't think you can actually think anything you want. What would make you think you could?

robindch

/\/ollog wrote: »

Every single atheist I've spoken with, or been around has always been a complete tool, and completely intolerant of other's beliefs.

I rest my case.

Nollog

robindch wrote: »

I rest my case.

To be clear, I'm calling them tools BECAUSE of their lack of understanding, and tolerance for other people, not for any reason you seem to want to corrupt my statement to mean.

You have just illustrated a lot of what I meant.

J C

ShooterSF wrote: »

Explain please. How does me having the freedom to drink beer today impact on others ...

All countries impose restrictions on alcohol (including beer) consumption because of its various impacts on other people. Some countries go as far as banning it completely.
I share Jesus Christs endorsement of alcohol ... His first miracle created alcohol out of water ... and one of His last acts was to ask his people to share alcohol in solemn memory of Him.
... so I think that I'll now crack open a can and join you!!!
Like I have said, I'm a liberal ... and tolerant when it comes to other people's rights to drink ... or not to drink, as they see fit!!!!!

ShooterSF wrote: »

... or my freedom not to have seconds in turkey or not go to church or not believe in god or not work on the Sabbath or eat meat on "good" friday as long as I don't demand that you do any of these things?

I have no problem with any of these freedoms for you ... as long as you don't start discriminating against me if I choose to do the opposite ... for myself and my children!!!

yawha

/\/ollog wrote: »

The ones who don't call themselves atheists but just say "I don't believe in God/Religion" are the ones that are tolerant, and I can respect.
In my experience, calling yourself an athiest = announcing your intent for asshattery.

Whether you call yourself an atheist or not doesn't have anything to do with whether you are in fact an atheist or not. This thread isn't about "people who call themselves atheists", it's about atheists.

I don't go around announcing to everyone that I'm an atheist. I am, however, completely comfortable with the term and happy to identify with it. I do tend to opt for "I'm not religious" when asked, not for any reason really. What category do I fall into?

Can you give some examples of the types of discrimination against religious people these people you know who call themselves atheists are promoting? I've never really heard much about atheists who promote discrimination like this.

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

Every single atheist I've spoken with, or been around has always been a complete tool, and completely intolerant of other's beliefs.

....

/\/ollog wrote: »

The ones who don't call themselves atheists but just say "I don't believe in God/Religion" are the ones that are tolerant, and I can respect.

So to sum up, every single atheist you've spoken to is a complete tool and intolerant of other's beliefs, except for the atheists who aren't complete tools and intolerant of other's beliefs.

18AD

MagicMarker wrote: »

So to sum up, every single atheist you've spoken to is a complete tool and intolerant of other's beliefs, except for the atheists who aren't complete tools and intolerant of other's beliefs.

Well done. You figured it out.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I completely disagree.

Until relatively recently, religions had acquired sufficient civil power in most societies that they could enforce their totalitarianisms on all citizens. They still do in many parts of the world, helping to produce massively inequitable societies, huge social problems and personal, familial and polity-level unhappiness on a grand scale.

What's different now is that people in many countries are no longer afraid of the social or civil power of religions and because of that, they're no longer prepared to grant the religious the free hand they had, and no doubt, still wish they had.

The biggest change is that people are now speaking up against religious nuttiness and the religious are having a very hard time dealing with that. It does not help that many religious believe ideas, or at least their ideas, should be respected.

Some religions may be having a hard time ...

... but there is no reason to believe that somebody who doesn't believe in God will behave any better than somebody who does ... and the lesson of history vindicates the truism that power corrupts ...

... so, as Atheists and Atheism gains power in society, the same checks and balances, that apply to Theists and Theology, also need to apply to Atheists and Atheism.

Nollog

yawha wrote: »

What category do I fall into?

Can you give some examples of the types of discrimination against religious people these people you know who call themselves atheists are promoting? I've never really heard much about atheists who promote discrimination like this.

The first group, tend to try to "convert" religious people to nothingness.
The latter, are fine to be themselves and won't try to "convert" others.

What I'm saying is, my experience has shown people who are outward in their support of atheism tend to try to convert others, and show absolutely zero respect for others beliefs, while those who aren't as vocal about their own beliefs tend to leave well enough alone when others say they believe in a God or whatever.

MagicMarker wrote: »

So to sum up, every single atheist you've spoken to is a complete tool and intolerant of other's beliefs, except for the atheists who aren't complete tools and intolerant of other's beliefs.

Oh look at you, arguing like an atheist.

I've explained in more detail above for you, if you need me to simplify it even more, let me know.

Of course, this is all just my own experience, it's far from anything like "proof".
In the end, everything comes down to the individual rather than what group they claim an affinity to/for.

Yahew

robindch wrote: »

I completely disagree.

Until relatively recently, religions had acquired sufficient civil power in most societies that they could enforce their totalitarianisms on all citizens. They still do in many parts of the world, helping to produce massively inequitable societies, huge social problems and personal, familial and polity-level unhappiness on a grand scale.

What's different now is that people in many countries are no longer afraid of the social or civil power of religions and because of that, they're no longer prepared to grant the religious the free hand they had, and no doubt, still wish they had.

The biggest change is that people are now speaking up against religious nuttiness and the religious are having a very hard time dealing with that. It does not help that many religious believe ideas, or at least their ideas, should be respected.

The other problem with New Atheists is that they know nothing of history. All totalitarian systems have been atheist, and most authoritarian systems have been secular to boot. When the State bans religion, thats when you know you are in a totalitarian or authoritarian space. The history of the last century tells us that. Nor was the middle ages "totalitarian", nor was the Catholic church as anti-scientific as it's detractors claim. Most democracies which faced the communists or fascist had religious established Churches. etc. etc. etc.

Dudess

/\/ollog wrote: »

Oh look at you, arguing like an atheist.

All non believers are atheists. "Atheist" isn't a term that's just applied to those non believers whom you don't like.

Paarthurnax

J C wrote: »

One man's 'Bovine excreta' and fairytales is often another man's worldview.

As an atheist I agree completely with that statement! Everyone is entitled to the own worldview but I would respect the individual more if they had come to there own conclusions no matter how bizzare. What I dont agree with is that some non individuals believe in other generalised Bovine Excreta and Fairytales by default before being objective or making their own descisions.

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

The first group, tend to try to "convert" religious people to nothingness.
The latter, are fine to be themselves and won't try to "convert" others.

What I'm saying is, my experience has shown people who are outward in their support of atheism tend to try to convert others, and show absolutely zero respect for others beliefs, while those who aren't as vocal about their own beliefs tend to leave well enough alone when others say they believe in a God or whatever.

How do the villainous atheists try and convert others to nothingness?

Nollog

MagicMarker wrote: »

How do the villainous atheists try and convert others to nothingness?

See below, and thanks for throwing words into my mouth/post.
Makes the turkey easier to swallow with that "villainous" taste.

Dudess wrote: »

All non believers are atheists. "Atheist" isn't a term that's just applied to those non believers whom you don't like.

Hi, re-read my words.
I said they labeled themselves atheist.
Also, like is a simile if that's what you meant.

I don't "don't like" people who don't believe in a religion or a God, or gods.
I don't care what anyone else believes, I have my own set and it's not my place to preach to others in my opinion.
I don't like people who do, however.
Religious conversion is one thing, they're coming from a point of "this is what we think", atheists start from "your religious views are flawed because of..."
A negative approach isn't as welcomed by myself (because if infers lack of respect for a person's current beliefs(intolerance)), but I don't particularly mind it.

Nobody likes Jehovah's, so why are you more welcoming of Atheists doing the exact same thing?

J C

Paarthurnax wrote: »

As an atheist I agree completely with that statement! Everyone is entitled to the own worldview but I would respect the individual more if they had come to there own conclusions no matter how bizzare. What I dont agree with is that some non individuals believe in other generalised Bovine Excreta and Fairytales by default before being objective or making their own descisions.

Most people (of all persuasions) put some effort into establishing (and evaluating) their worldview.
Many people put a lot of effort into it!!!

I respect your right to have your own worldview ... and to have it freely challenged by other people.:)

I don't think that it is helpful to start calling other people, or their worldviews, disparaging names ... it is far better to make cogent arguments that invalidate their worldview ... and/or validate your own one!!

yawha

/\/ollog wrote: »

The first group, tend to try to "convert" religious people to nothingness.
The latter, are fine to be themselves and won't try to "convert" others.

What I'm saying is, my experience has shown people who are outward in their support of atheism tend to try to convert others, and show absolutely zero respect for others beliefs, while those who aren't as vocal about their own beliefs tend to leave well enough alone when others say they believe in a God or whatever.

Hmmm, what do you mean by "respect for [others'] beliefs"?

Generally, the consensus among atheists I've spoken to tends to be we completely and fully, 100% respect the right for people to believe in whatever they like, but don't feel that we should actually respect the belief itself. I think this is quite reasonable. Otherwise, we'd have to respect anything anyone happened to believe, even if it were detestable to us, which is a little absurd.

As for what you have to say about atheists trying to convert people. I personally haven't found that. Like, I've never been approached in the street by someone spreading the word of atheism, for example. And I haven't personally encountered anyone who would bring up their atheism unless it was relevant to a subject that happened to come up (since I was like 16/17 anyway).

I feel that ultimately all you're saying is that you know some atheists who are assholes and some that are not. Which isn't really much of a revelation. Just because you're an atheist doesn't exclude you from being an asshole. It's a little intolerant of you to brand anyone who identifies as an atheist an asshole merely because you know a couple of people who do and are assholes.

Also, nothingness is inaccurate. That would be nihilism.

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

See below, and thanks for throwing words into my mouth/post.
Makes the turkey easier to swallow with that "villainous" taste.


I don't "don't like" people who don't believe in a religion or a God, or gods.
I don't care what anyone else believes, I have my own set and it's not my place to preach to others in my opinion.
I don't like people who do, however.
Religious conversion is one thing, they're coming from a point of "this is what we think", atheists start from "your religious views are flawed because of..."
A negative approach isn't as welcomed by myself (because if infers lack of respect for a person's current beliefs(intolerance)), but I don't particularly mind it.

Nobody likes Jehovah's, so why are you more welcoming of Atheists doing the exact same thing?

I don't see any attempted conversion here, can you expand? Or are you mixing up the word 'convert' with 'question'?

Nollog

yawha wrote: »

As for what you have to say about atheists trying to convert people. I personally haven't found that. Like, I've never been approached in the street by someone spreading the word of atheism, for example. And I haven't personally encountered anyone who would bring up their atheism unless it was relevant to a subject that happened to come up (since I was like 16/17 anyway).

I feel that ultimately all you're saying is that you know some atheists who are assholes and some that are not. Which isn't really much of a revelation. Just because you're an atheist doesn't exclude you from being an asshole. It's a little intolerant of you to brand anyone who identifies as an atheist an asshole merely because you know a couple of people who do and are assholes.

Also, nothingness is inaccurate. That would be nihilism.

Yupp, as I said it's nothing like "proof" or anything, just my personal experience.

"nothingness" is an overstatement.
I do it a lot.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I don't see any attempted conversion here, can you expand? Or are you mixing up the word 'convert' with 'question'?

I don't get what you want me to expand on.
The people what try to "convert" others would ask others their current beliefs, and then attack those beliefs, with the intent of "converting" then to atheism.
I've seen it happen a great many times, and usually it works since people are sheep and go from believing in a flying spaghetti monster to nothing when someone questions the type of spaghetti it is.

yawha

/\/ollog wrote: »

Nobody likes Jehovah's

I personally have no problem with them if they are decent people. I personally don't let someone's beliefs influence what I think of them without having met them, and don't like to generalize the dislike of large groups of people.

/\/ollog wrote: »

why are you more welcoming of Atheists doing the exact same thing?

What do you mean by this?

If you're referring to the practice of knocking on strangers' doors and trying to get them to convert to their beliefs, I must assure you that I personally would have huge issue with Atheists doing this. Do you find Atheists come to your door often?

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

I don't get what you want me to expand on.
The people what try to "convert" others would ask others their current beliefs, and then attack those beliefs, with the intent of "converting" then to atheism.
I've seen it happen a great many times, and usually it works since people are sheep and go from believing in a flying spaghetti monster to nothing when someone questions the type of spaghetti it is.

Well, this is incredible stuff, how many times have you witnessed such an incident? I've never seen it myself and by golly I'd bet good money that most people in this forum hasn't.

And apparently all people who label themselves as atheists (including the people on this forum) do this?

I think you should go public with this, the world needs to know the truth.

Nollog

MagicMarker wrote: »

Well, this is incredible stuff, how many times have you witnessed such an incident? I've never seen it myself and by golly I'd bet good money that most people in this forum hasn't.

And apparently all people who label themselves as atheists (including the people on this forum) do this?

I think you should go public with this, the world needs to know the truth.

hehehe, you're not reading.
I've clarified in later posts, some which you've quoted parts of, darling.

They're giving you all a bad name.
You should excommunicate them.

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

All countries impose restrictions on alcohol (including beer) consumption because of its various impacts on other people. Some countries go as far as banning it completely.
I share Jesus Christs endorsement of alcohol ... His first miracle created alcohol out of water ... and one of His last acts was to ask his people to share alcohol in solemn memory of Him.
... so I think that I'll now crack open a can and join you!!!
Like I have said, I'm a liberal ... and tolerant when it comes to other people's rights to drink ... or not to drink, as they see fit!!!!!


I have no problem with any of these freedoms for you ... as long as you don't start discriminating against me if I choose to do the opposite ... for myself and my children!!!

That's quite different to "all freedoms impose on others to a degree" though. I don't have a problem with you doing the opposite as I'm all for freedom. The problem is when say a subject like gay sex comes up and I have no reason to discriminate but some religious will, based on their god's laws.

On the issue of your children that's a gray area as I don't consider them "yours" other than your duty of care to them. If I could do it simply without interfering in any other of the parents rights I'd happily force parents to teach their kids how to think, not what to think and to provide all alternatives to the child but that's rather impossible. That goes as much for Amish or stuck in their ways tribes as fundamentalists as I consider the blinkering of information (at appropriate ages) from children similar to abuse (that's abuse, not "abuse"(read rape) ).

darkman2

Thanks for the replies.


My own opinion is that alot of atheists I have listened to do come across as if they think they are somehow intellectually superior to those who believe in the more established religions. They may not even recognise it themselves that they come across like that.

However there are some major problems outside the realm of whether a God or higher power exists or not. For the purposes of this particular post I would like to mention capitalism.

(Where is he going with this you are asking to yourself, just bare with me!). I regard myself as a capitalist with a sprinkling of socialism to even things out somewhat. Now we all live in that system. That system only works with the co-operation of a majority that have no real net worth. These people generally are in so called working class areas and the lower middle class bracket which make up a small majority of the population - the coping classes if you will.

What these classes have in common generally is religious faith which for them provides for some comfort and even moral guidance and maintains a certain social cohesion which allows the rest of society to function and make money essentially. For the upper middles classes is where dominance of religion over society breaks down and more liberal attitudes are prevalent generally. That's ok for them - they have wealth, they have money to varying degress. They are comfortable if not "rich". They have security. So it is all fine and good to be atheist if you don't require some sense of hope and community.

To cut a long story short the various religions which atheists rail against do provide a vital service for society though they may not like to admit it. Religions like Christianity do provide for a moral code backed up by hope (or even fear if that code is regularly broken) which is a good glue for society generally.

My point is what future does capitalism have if atheism became prevalent in society and what effect would that have on society as a whole? In upper middle class areas things might be ok at least for a while. But take away that comfort and moral blanket for those struggling to survive week to week as it is and I am not sure atheism can provide for that hope that they need.

I hope you understand what I mean. I will try and make a better point of it later. Essentially we need elements of every religion to maintain solid social cohesion especially through tough times.

darkman2

P.S what do atheists call St Stephen's Day?


You don't call it "Boxing Day" do you? Cause that would be a bit British and not liable to make you even more popular:D

Nollog

darkman2 wrote: »

P.S what do atheists call St Stephen's Day?


You don't call it "Boxing Day" do you? Cause that would be a bit British and not liable to make you even more popular:D

What about St. Patrick Day?

MagicMarker

darkman2 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.


My own opinion is that alot of atheists I have listened to do come across as if they think they are somehow intellectually superior to those who believe in the more established religions. They may not even recognise it themselves that they come across like that.

However there are some major problems outside the realm of whether a God or higher power exists or not. For the purposes of this particular post I would like to mention capitalism.

(Where is he going with this you are asking to yourself, just bare with me!). I regard myself as a capitalist with a sprinkling of socialism to even things out somewhat. Now we all live in that system. That system only works with the co-operation of a majority that have no real net worth. These people generally are in so called working class areas and the lower middle class bracket which make up a small majority of the population - the coping classes if you will.

What these classes have in common generally is religious faith which for them provides for some comfort and even moral guidance and maintains a certain social cohesion which allows the rest of society to function and make money essentially. For the upper middles classes is where dominance of religion over society breaks down and more liberal attitudes are prevalent generally. That's ok for them - they have wealth, they have money to varying degress. They are comfortable if not "rich". They have security. So it is all fine and good to be atheist if you don't require some sense of hope and community.

To cut a long story short the various religions which atheists rail against do provide a vital service for society though they may not like to admit it. Religions like Christianity do provide for a moral code backed up by hope (or even fear if that code is regularly broken) which is a good glue for society generally.

My point is what future does capitalism have if atheism became prevalent in society and what effect would that have on society as a whole? In upper middle class areas things might be ok at least for a while. But take away that comfort and moral blanket for those struggling to survive week to week as it is and I am not sure atheism can provide for that hope that they need.

I hope you understand what I mean. I will try and make a better point of it later. Essentially we need elements of every religion to maintain solid social cohesion especially through tough times.

I have no idea what capitalism has to do with anything, but basically your argument boils down to ''religion gives us morals'', which is quite simply incorrect, and it's painstaking how often this has to be pointed out to people.

Also, I think you may be overestimating how much social cohesion is provided by religion in working class and lower middle class areas.

Dudess

/\/ollog wrote: »

Hi, re-read my words.
I said they labeled themselves atheist.

I would refer to myself as an atheist - because I don't believe in god. It doesn't mean I ridicule religious people. If anything I keep my mouth shut. I would never sneer at someone for being religious. If the discussion arose, I would explain my reasons for not believing in god, and let them explain their reasons for believing in god.

I don't "don't like" people who don't believe in a religion or a God, or gods.
I don't care what anyone else believes, I have my own set and it's not my place to preach to others in my opinion.
I don't like people who do, however.

So you don't like arrogant, pushy people - you're not alone there.

Religious conversion is one thing, they're coming from a point of "this is what we think", atheists start from "your religious views are flawed because of..."
A negative approach isn't as welcomed by myself (because if infers lack of respect for a person's current beliefs(intolerance)), but I don't particularly mind it.

As said, there is nothing wrong with lacking respect for a person's belief, as long as you have respect for them if they're not harming anyone in the way they engage that belief.

Nobody likes Jehovah's, so why are you more welcoming of Atheists doing the exact same thing?

Where did I say I was welcoming of it? (When atheists do it - seems it needs to be emphasised over and over that not all atheists do so).
You're not being particularly tolerant yourself here of people who have the audacity to question your assertions.

When people (including atheists) say atheists are arrogant (without being specific) in order to show how fabulously tolerant they are... they do so by singling out one group to be intolerant of. Irony lost on them though, it would seem.

Nollog

MagicMarker wrote: »

I have no idea what capitalism has to do with anything, but basically your argument boils down ...

Also, I think you may be overestimating how much social cohesion is provided by religion in working class and lower middle class areas.

So you can use the argument in reverse, but others can't use the same arguments to support their own agenda?

MagicMarker

/\/ollog wrote: »

So you can use the argument in reverse, but others can't use the same arguments to support their own agenda?

I have no idea what that means.