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

darkman2

Galvasean wrote: »

You would be wrong in believing that. The number of people who do not consider themselves religious varies wildly, from under 10% to over 70%, in different western nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion#Irreligion_in_the_World
(bear in mind some of these statistics are somewhat out of date, for example Ireland is down at 4.5% based on the 2006 census. This number has gone up quite a bit since)

I don't want to sound dismissive,

I wont be going referencing wikipedia that's for sure. Funnily enough the top "irreligious" countries on that page all have something in common too that I was saying yesterday.


This is much more reliable...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_rel-religion-religions

I don't want to sound dismissive,

:rolleyes: Reminds me of the line - "i am not a racist.....but...."

Galvasean

darkman2 wrote: »

I wont be going referencing wikipedia that's for sure.

Why not click on the sources directly linked on teh page tahn dismiss out of hand?

darkman2 wrote: »

This is much more reliable...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_rel-religion-religions

You realise that page also backs up the point I was making?
Example, the Czech Republic is listed there as being 59% 'unaffiliated', not a far cry from those stated on wikipedia (64 odd %).
Austria is listed at 12% (same as the sources cited on wikipedia).
The source you cite still shows your claim that the percentage of religious people in western countries being more or less the same is wrong.

darkman2 wrote: »

Funnily enough the top "irreligious" countries on that page all have something in common too that I was saying yesterday.

What have Estonia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Japan (does Japan count as western? I'm not actually sure about that one), the UK, Azerbaijan and Holland all got in common?

darkman2 wrote: »

:rolleyes: Reminds me of the line - "i am not a racist.....but...."

Interprate it as hostility all you wish. The fact of the matter is your post was incorrect. In fact more to my point the source you cite shows your claim to be wrong. My point that you should do some research before making claims which are easily disproven stands.
Feel free to roll your eyes though if you don't like being proven wrong.

yawha

You seem to have changed the topic dramatically, darkman2.

It's gone from "Atheists are just as intolerant [as most religious]" to "Capitalism cannot function when the working class become atheists". Two completely, utterly different subjects.

What was your motivation behind creating this thread, what are you trying to find out from us?

darkman2

Galvasean wrote: »

Why not click on the sources directly linked on teh page tahn dismiss out of hand?



You realise that page also backs up the point I was making?
Example, the Czech Republic is listed there as being 59% 'unaffiliated', not a far cry from those stated on wikipedia (64 odd %).
Austria is listed at 12% (same as the sources cited on wikipedia).
The source you cite still shows your claim that the percentage of religious people in western countries being more or less the same is wrong.



What have Estonia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Japan (does Japan count as western? I'm not actually sure about that one), the UK, Azerbaijan and Holland all got in common?



Interprate it as hostility all you wish. The fact of the matter is your post was incorrect. In fact more to my point the source you cite shows your claim to be wrong. My point that you should do some research before making claims which are easily disproven stands.
Feel free to roll your eyes though if you don't like being proven wrong.

Well, there are a number of issues here. The commonality between most of the countries in the top 10 of the wikipedia page is that they were formerly communist under the former Soviet Union so religion was pretty much wiped out in any case.

Secondly what class (I hate that word but have to use it in this context) of society makes up the bulk of those responding saying that have no affiliation? That is crucial to the point you are trying to prove me wrong on. Any figures for that? I would have a hunch they are not the working class and more the middle classes. But that is a hunch.

I don't want to confuse the two topics either. I have kind of wandered into the capitalism thing by proxy just making the point that I don't believe it is in the interests of our economic system currently to have no religion. That is my opinion. Others may disagree but don't under estimate the effect faith has on the working class and always has had. It is important to that part of society whether you like it or not. I say that as someone who spent a good chunk of my life in a working class area. The church is important to these communities. And it does encourage social cohesion in these tough times. That is undeniable.

darkman2

yawha wrote: »

You seem to have changed the topic dramatically, darkman2.

It's gone from "Atheists are just as intolerant [as most religious]" to "Capitalism cannot function when the working class become atheists". Two completely, utterly different subjects.

What was your motivation behind creating this thread, what are you trying to find out from us?

Ok let's take it back to basics then. A couple of questions:

Do you believe you are intellectually superior to someone you believes in an established religion?

Why do you believe your atheism is right and all other religion is completely and utterly wrong and the followers of these religions are all deluded?

Do you look down on people of established religious faiths be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc?

Do you believe people who are part of these faiths (the vast majority of people on the planet) are all deluded?

Would you ideally like to see no religions at all in the world?

What benefits will be brought to society generally if there was no religion?

Galvasean

darkman2 wrote: »

Well, there are a number of issues here. The commonality between most of the countries in the top 10 of the wikipedia page is that they were formerly communist under the former Soviet Union so religion was pretty much wiped out in any case.

So what about the likes of Sweden, the UK and Japan? They certainly weren't Communist countries so I don't really see the point in making that distinction. The aforementioned countries have attained high levels of non-religious people without any Communistic influence.

darkman2 wrote: »

Secondly what class (I hate that word but have to use it in this context) of society makes up the bulk of those responding saying that have no affiliation? etc.

As Yawha said, that is a very different topic to that outlined in the OP and frankly, I'm not in this thread to discuss it. However, I do feel such a discussion may merit a thread of its own.

Galvasean

About to pop out so won't be answering your post in full, but one bit jumped out at me:

darkman2 wrote: »

Do you believe people who are part of these faiths (the vast majority of people on the planet) are all deluded?

Why is this sort of questioning aimed exclusively at atheists? You are basically asking atheists if they think they are right. Do you expect any to say no? Replace atheists with any religion you care to think of and ask them the same sort of question. How many religious people will say no?

joseph brand

darkman2 wrote: »

It is a harsh fact of life that that is precisely what is required to keep the working class in check so to speak. That is the aim of the middle class and always has been no matter how much anyone refutes it. There are certain people that must be kept in their place. For example the middle class are all for immigration and traveller's rights etc because they are not affected - until it reaches their doorstep one day and then the political correctness comes to a stunning halt. Our economic system requires tolerance of it from those who benefit little while the rest live comfortable or privilaged lives. It's only tolerance. The silent large section of society are not organised enough to change it radically. They get by through hard work (mostly, I am not talking about the lifetime dole sponger element) and a sense of community and a mostly false hope they can better themselves for the majority through education.

To sustain this unequal system and the privilage placed on the few and keep this otherwise powerful social group from becoming too active the religious foundations that held these communities together over generations have been vital. If your wish is to see that changed you would want to have a solid base with which to replace it.


I would not under estimate the positive role the Catholic church has had in working class areas in Ireland. It would be completely daft to deny that.

Remarkable stuff here. I can't tell if you are speaking for/ against the Almighty Power of religion to keep people down in the gutter, where they smile through dirty broken teeth because, "The meek shall inherit the Earth".

They blindly put money they don't have, in their parish church collection basket, and actually feel good about it. This is what can be achieved with organised religion. Count me out!

Yahew

joseph brand wrote: »

Remarkable stuff here. I can't tell if you are speaking for/ against the Almighty Power of religion to keep people down in the gutter, where they smile through dirty broken teeth because, "The meek shall inherit the Earth".

They blindly put money they don't have, in their parish church collection basket, and actually feel good about it. This is what can be achieved with organised religion. Count me out!

Thats a bit trite. A lot of socialism was Christian, to begin with.

( And nobody expects the meek to inherit the Earth, not even the meek. Frankly during the Beatitudes they were all a bit embarrassed about the situation, staring at their shoes red faced. It was nice to get a mention, but why so publicly? Couldn't jesus had mentioned it afterwards? People might get hostile).

joseph brand

Standman wrote: »

I went to extremely boring mass last night simply to please my mother, the intolerant atheist that I am..

Happened to me too. Both parents delighted that I went to mass. The priest was very old. He told some stories. I tried to listen, but just couldn't.
The whole 'religion' idea really has run it's course.

Isn't it ironic that there are Christians here, complaining about Atheists pushing their beliefs down their throats. I don't believe that this ever happens. It's more a case of an Atheist being berated by a 'follower' and defending his right to NOT believe.

Why should everyone believe?

Yahew

joseph brand wrote: »

Happened to me too. Both parents delighted that I went to mass. The priest was very old. He told some stories. I tried to listen, but just couldn't.
The whole 'religion' idea really has run it's course.

Isn't it ironic that there are Christians here, complaining about Atheists pushing their beliefs down their throats. I don't believe that this ever happens. It's more a case of an Atheist being berated by a 'follower' and defending his right to NOT believe.

Why should everyone believe?

Your story is an anecdote, not a statistic, and I say that as a non-believer.
( As to whether religion has run it's course, thats debatable, Christianity in Western Europe may have, but religion may not have).

Big deal that you accompany your parents to an event which was boring to you. I once attended a few socialists events with my ( agnostic) socialist father, back in the day. And a number of vegetarian restaurants with an ex, when I would have preferred meat, and a buddhist wedding when I know nothing about weddings. ( Were it up to me I would skip all ceremonies).

This kind of doing things you may not always enjoy is adult life.

joseph brand

Yahew wrote: »

Your story is an anecdote, not a statistic, and I say that as a non-believer.
( As to whether religion has run it's course, thats debatable, Christianity in Western Europe may have, but religion may not have).

Big deal that you accompany your parents to an event which was boring to you. I once attended a few socialists events with my ( agnostic) socialist father, back in the day. And a number of vegetarian restaurants with an ex, when I would have preferred meat, and a buddhist wedding when I know nothing about weddings. ( Were it up to me I would skip all ceremonies).

This kind of doing things you may not always enjoy is adult life.

I was simply concurring with another poster who was in a similar situation.

Also, I didn't go to mass with the folks, it was my wife and kids. My Mam told me that my wife was upset that I refused to go last xmas eve.

I just believe that I should have the right to 'give it a miss' seeing as I'm an adult. At least it's not as serious (Apostasy) here as it is in other parts of the world.

J C

amacachi wrote: »

I don't have to love anyone and I chose to respect people, if not their beliefs. I tolerate everything, I don't like a celebrate every ridiculous delusion that people have.

... could I gently point out that one man's 'ridiculous delusion' is very often another person's faith ... and this applies equally to the Atheistic Faith.
... nobody is asking you to celebrate any (self-defined) 'ridiculous delusion' ... we're asking that you tolerantly provide the 'space' for other people to express and celebrate their religious faith, in your presence.
In turn, I will tolerantly listen to and 'provide the space' for you to express your Atheistic ideas, as well.

amacachi wrote: »

You just proved my point about how "tolerance" has come to mean something completely different to its actual meaning.

Tolerance hasn't changed its meaning ... I'm just pointing out that it logically applies to all religions and none!!!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

... nobody is asking you to celebrate the 'ridiculous delusion' that Atheism is ... we're asking that you tolerantly provide the 'space' for other people to express and celebrate their religious faith, in your presence.
In turn, I will tolerantly listen and 'provide the space' for you to express your Atheistic ideas, as well.

Sometimes you can be very ironic J C. Asking that atheists tolerate you expressing your faith... while doing so in the A&A forum. Surely that's proof positive that you and your beliefs are being tolerated?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Sometimes you can be very ironic J C. Asking that atheists tolerate you expressing your faith... while doing so in the A&A forum. Surely that's proof positive that you and your beliefs are being tolerated?

We'll see ... watch this space!!!:)
I should think that the comparison of my Faith to Child Abuse isn't a particularly good example of Atheist tolerance in action.:eek:

... tolerance implies respectfully listening.
... and tolerance is needed (on all sides) in many other places besides the A & A forum!!!

Sarky

We respectfully listen to you, and point out where you're wrong. Still tolerance. You never seem to afford us the same right you're clamouring for. You dismiss everything we post, usually without even reading it through.

Get your own house in order before you preach to us about tolerance, maybe?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

We respectfully listen to you, and point out where you're wrong. Still tolerance. You never seem to afford us the same right you're clamouring for. You dismiss everything we post, usually without even reading it through.

Get your own house in order before you preach to us about tolerance, maybe?

Tolerance doesn't imply agreement ... it merely implies the right of everyone to have their viewpoint heard, with respect ... and it is a foundational principle for civil personal relationships in any multi-cultural society.

I read everything you have posted ... and I have pointed out where I believe you are right ... and where further work may be required in developing your ideas.:)

I love you all as the amazing, beautiful, children of God that ye all are ... even though some of you may not recognise or accept this ... yet!!!:)

ShooterSF

J C wrote: »

We'll see ... watch this space!!!:)
I should think that the comparison of my Faith to Child Abuse isn't a particularly good example of Atheist tolerance in action.:eek:

... tolerance implies respectfully listening ... and the A & A is gradually moving in this direction!!!!:eek:
... and tolerance is needed (on all sides) in many other places besides the A & A forum!!!

Your faith is not child abuse and you know no one has said such. Quit twisting people's words. How you act around your child re: faith is the issue.

Would you allow your child to hear from others with different beliefs to you what they believe and why? Would you use the words "I believe" rather than "We believe" when speaking to your child. Would you accept if your child picked a different or no religion?
If you answer yes to all of these I doubt anyone would claim child abuse.

Also tolerance does not imply respectful listening it implies accepting people have different beliefs to you, beliefs they are free to believe if they only impact themselves.

J C

ShooterSF wrote: »

Your faith is not child abuse and you know no one has said such. Quit twisting people's words.

I'm not twisting words ... Robin said that he looked forward to the day when laws similar to our current child abuse prevention laws apply equally to 'protecting' childrens minds ... when I asked what the state should do to prevent a child being Baptised where the child and her mother wants her to be Baptised ...
... and this is prima face evidence of equating Baptism to Child Abuse !!!

ShooterSF wrote: »

How you act around your child re: faith is the issue.

... how I act in relation to my child, on faith issues, is quite frankly, none of your business.
I am quite entitled to point out the deficiencies of other Faiths to them ... and the reality of my own Faith to them ... without interference from any 'busybody' ... with my God-given parental rights and responsibilities to ensure my childrens' physical and spiritual welfare!!!!

ShooterSF wrote: »

Would you allow your child to hear from others with different beliefs to you what they believe and why?

... no problem ... they already do ... in School ... on TV, videos, Movies and from their fellow young people (and older people) at school and on visits to the religious establishments of other religions.
The question I have, is why some Atheists break out in a cold sweat, when they even think about their children overhearing a prayer or seeing a religious symbol in their local school????:eek::D

ShooterSF wrote: »

Would you use the words "I believe" rather than "We believe" when speaking to your child.

I would use 'I believe' or 'we believe' depending on the circumstances ...
... as all of my children are Saved ... I now generally use 'we believe' when talking to my children (and they to me), as they are now my fellow brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Would you accept if your child picked a different or no religion?

I'd have to accept it ... it would sadden me greatly ... but I would recognise and accept their sovereign free-will on this matter.
Thanks be to God, it doesn't arise for me.
The question is whether you and your fellow 'new Atheists' are prepared to accept that your children may be Saved ... even if you aren't?
... and are you going to give them the freedom to hear other points of view ... other than your own ... and your fellow Atheists?
... and if you are, why do you seem to have such a problem with the exercise of Faith in school and in public, by other people, in the presence of your children??

ShooterSF wrote: »

If you answer yes to all of these I doubt anyone would claim child abuse.

... and if somebody, like an Atheist who doesn't want his children present when others are praying, answers 'NO' to your questions ... I still wouldn't call it child abuse ... but I also wouldn't turn my local school into a propaganda centre for atheism ... by banning all other forms of Faith expression within it ... just to placate such overt sectarianism!!!:)

ShooterSF wrote: »

Also tolerance does not imply respectful listening it implies accepting people have different beliefs to you, beliefs they are free to believe if they only impact themselves.

All beliefs impact on others ... so tolerance also implies accepting peoples right to express their beliefs in your presence (even where you disagree with them).

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

I'm not twisting words ... Robin said that he looked forward to the day when laws similar to our current child abuse prevention laws apply equally to 'protecting' childrens minds ... when I asked what the state should do to prevent a child being Baptised where the child and her mother wants her to be Baptised ...
... and this is prima face evidence of equating Baptism to Child Abuse !!!

No, he really didn't.

What he said, and everyone but you can see, is that children should not be indoctrinated to a religion until they are old enough to make a personal decision on the matter.

I'd equate it to piercing a toddlers ears, sure the parent may like it, and think it's a good idea. The child on the other hand has no say in the matter and may have no future wish to have them.

Galvasean

"This is hopeless Sam, we're going in circles!!!!"

robindch

J C wrote: »

Robin said that he looked forward to the day when laws similar to our current child abuse prevention laws apply equally to 'protecting' childrens minds ... when I asked what the state should do to prevent a child being Baptised where the child and her mother wants her to be Baptised ... ... and this is prima face evidence of equating Baptism to Child Abuse !!!

I've already explained twice that this is a complete mischaracterization of my position.

You are free to continue to think that it's my position if you wish

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

No, he really didn't.

What he said, and everyone but you can see, is that children should not be indoctrinated to a religion until they are old enough to make a personal decision on the matter.

I'd equate it to piercing a toddlers ears, sure the parent may like it, and think it's a good idea. The child on the other hand has no say in the matter and may have no future wish to have them.

Your point is mute ... children are exposed to Faith Issues from the day they are born ... on TV, in school, and in what they read and hear ...
... they don't live in a moral and attitudinal vacuum ... so what you are actually proposing is for Christian people to passively hand over their precious children to have Atheist ideas taught to them exclusively... without any right of reply being granted to the parents, until the child is 18 ... under pain of the full force of the Criminal law being applied to any parent who dissents!!!

... and as for piercing a child's ears ... it wouldn't be something that I would do myself ... but what harm would it cause? ...
... and why would anybody, other than a control-freak, wish to criminally circumscribe a parent's right to have their child's ears pierced, if the parent (and the child) so wished???

... and if the child didn't like it ... believe you me, they have ways of showing their displeasure ... that would ensure that the piercing would never happen!!!!

You guys need to 'loosen up' ... and stop behaving like some kind of latter-day fundamentalist 'Atheist Puritans' ... who apparently want to turn our society into the grey conformist model favoured by Atheistic Communism during the 20th Century !!!:)

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

Your point is mute ... children are exposed to Faith Issues from the day they are born ... on TV, in school, and in what they read and hear ...
... they don't live in a moral and attitudinal vacuum ... so what you are actually proposing is for Christian people to passively hand over their precious children to have Atheist ideas taught to them exclusively... without any right of reply being granted to the parents, until the child is 18 ... under pain of the full force of Child Abuse Criminal law being applied to any parent who dissents!!!

... and as for piercing a child's ears ... it wouldn't be something that I would do myself ... but what harm would it cause? ...
... and why would anybody, other than a control-freak fascist, wish to criminally circumscribe a parent's right to have their child's ears pierced, if the parent (and the child) so wished???

... and if the child didn't like it ... believe you me they have ways of showing their displeasure ... that would ensure that the piercing would never happen!!!!

You guys need to 'loosen up' ... and stop behaving like some kind of latter-day fundamentalist 'Atheist Puritans' ... who apparently want to turn our society into the grey conformist model favoured by Atheistic Communism during the 20th Century !!!:)

You mean I don't want to live in society where people are raised to believe in the rising dead, virgin mothers, world wide floods that no-body seemed to notice. I'd like the people of the world to know and understand that being homosexual is no different to being heterosexual.
Where people aren't starting wars and spreading hatred based on the words of men who died thousands of years ago. Where women aren't treated as inferior to men.

Why yes, that actually sounds quite nice

p.s. I'm not an Atheist, please get this through your head. I grow tired of saying this.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I've already explained twice that this is a complete mischaracterization of my position.

You are free to continue to think that it's my position if you wish

I have no wish to mischaracterise your position.

... so Robin, ... what exactly is your position on the right of Christian parents to transmit their Faith to their children, unhindered by any Atheist 'oversight'???

... and why did you say that you wanted the full force of the Criminal Law to be applied to a Christian Parent who Baptises their child ... or who teaches them the Christian Faith, while they are under 18 years old?

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

You mean I don't want to live in society where people are raised to believe in the rising dead, virgin mothers, world wide floods that no-body seemed to notice.
I'd like the people of the world to know and understand that being homosexual is no different to being heterosexual.
Where people aren't starting wars and spreading hatred based on the words of men who died thousands of years ago. Where women aren't treated as inferior to men.

Why yes, that actually sounds quite nice

... and if people disagree with you on the detail of any of your opinions, for very good reasons ... then what are you going to do? ... charge them with 'thought crime' ... and send them for 're-education' to some latter-day version of Siberia? ...
... or simply accept that different people have every right to have a different viewpoint from you on many issues ... and 'get over it' !!!:)

... you never know, you might even learn something new ... if you listen to alternative viewpoints!!!:)

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

p.s. I'm not an Atheist, please get this through your head. I grow tired of saying this.

... yes, your expressed opinions seem to place you firmly as an anti-theist instead!!!:)

IamtheWalrus

Atheists get frustrated when debating with creationists because creationists will throw their logical rule book out the window as soon as the debate starts.

J C

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Atheists get frustrated when debating with creationists because creationists will throw their logical rule book out the window as soon as the debate starts.

Where have I done this?

I have responded with logic and precision and with courtesy to every posting.:)

Love and kisses to you all.

passarellaie

Uncle Joe,Chairman Mao Kim Il Sung not to mention his dear son werent very tolerant were they?