What gives with tolerant atheists?

[BasketCase]

Don't ask, don't tell.

If nobody knows what faith you are (if any) they can't berate you for anything.

And, on the flip side, when people don't advertise their faith, I leave them alone.

 

[StarWorms]

In religion debates you'll inevitably see some people say something to the effect of "I'm atheist, but why should I care what religious people believe? They aren't hurting us, so stop insulting them and being narrow minded, and let them believe what they want."

How stupid. Do these people not realize that we live in democratic societies where people vote and influence the laws of their country based on what they believe? Religions aren't simply beliefs in something being true, they're beliefs that AFFECT HOW THEIR FOLLOWERS LIVE. To use the dominant religion in my home country of the United States, Christianity, as an example: Christians base a lot of their morals and make important life decisions based on the word of the bible. The bible is fiction, so this is a very bad thing, comparable to basing those things off of books written by Tolkien, or L. Ron Hubbard. They use the bible's outdated teachings to justify votes and actions that make no sense these days.

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer Christianity is and refusing to simply let its followers "believe what they want"?

Because whether atheists like it or not, religious people are going to stick around regardless of whether you tolerate them or not, and it would make the world better if we just tolerated them.

 

[Shaihulud]

Most religionist are quite reasonable in their beliefs, I wouldn't interfere with them in any way. Its only when they start become overbearing that i find it irresistable to make fun of them.

 

[Berzerker]

We have a constitutional limit on STATUTES concerning religion. We don't have a limit on politicians justifying their actions based upon their religion, or being somewhat swayed by religious leanings.

Politicians make STATUTES, the Constitution limits what statutes they can pass and they're not supposed to make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If some Muslim politicians said they supported a law telling school teachers to instruct students to kneel toward Mecca and a praise Allah 5 times a day, that would be unconstitutional. Or instructing students to stand and Pledge their Allegiance to the state's God every day like we do now.

 

[zxcvbnm]

In religion debates you'll inevitably see some people say something to the effect of "I'm a Christian, but why should I care what non-religious people believe? They aren't hurting us, so stop insulting them and being narrow minded, and let them believe what they want."

How stupid. Do these people not realize that we live in democratic societies where people vote and influence the laws of their country based on what they believe? Atheists don't believe in Jesus and don't believe in the Bible, which sets out the moral rules that society should live by. This is a bad thing. They use their nonbelief in the Bible to justify all sorts of immoral activity.

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer atheism is and refusing to simply let atheists "believe what they want"?

I hope this is irony.
I really hope it for your sake.


If it isn't, then

1. How can one be certain that their way is the absolute right one? It's better to be tolerant towards others, if not for other reasons then just in case they are right.

2. The constitution gives the right of religious freedom, and demanding that everyone live by the religious rules of the majority is essentially negating that freedom. Morality is a private issue as long as the people don't break any laws, and even if they break some laws that are actually just legalising the morals of one group it's still a private issue.

Atheists don't believe in Jesus and don't believe in the Bible, which sets out the moral rules that society should live by. This is a bad thing. They use their nonbelief in the Bible to justify all sorts of immoral activity.

I double quote this because this is the most wrong statement in the post. Atheism doesn't equal immorality any more than religion equals morality. The definition of immoral is personal and thus saying that one justifies immoral activity is only your own opinion.
And that seems generalising too. So I can prove you are wrong in that by just one example: I'm an atheist, but you can't call me immoral. I'm an extreme monogamist who is trying to have only one partner during his whole life, a teetotaler, non-smoking, tolerant, giving more money to charity than the average religious person, supporter of sharing of wealth, pacifist, and anti-troll activist.

3. It's called tolerance. Atheism doesn't hurt anyone (unlike scientology which I call a cancer) anymore than religions.

 

[Mirc]

In religion debates you'll inevitably see some people say something to the effect of "I'm atheist, but why should I care what religious people believe? They aren't hurting us, so stop insulting them and being narrow minded, and let them believe what they want."

How stupid. Do these people not realize that we live in democratic societies where people vote and influence the laws of their country based on what they believe? Religions aren't simply beliefs in something being true, they're beliefs that AFFECT HOW THEIR FOLLOWERS LIVE. To use the dominant religion in my home country of the United States, Christianity, as an example: Christians base a lot of their morals and make important life decisions based on the word of the bible. The bible is fiction, so this is a very bad thing, comparable to basing those things off of books written by Tolkien, or L. Ron Hubbard. They use the bible's outdated teachings to justify votes and actions that make no sense these days.

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer Christianity is and refusing to simply let its followers "believe what they want"?

What amazes me in this post is not the sheer incapability of understand what tolerance is and looking on more than one side of the idea, but with what an imperative tone you speak about "what a cancer Christianity is" and how you started this thread exactly on December 25th.

This post is the prototype of one-sideness.

 

[bathsheba666]

Are you saying that all European politicians are atheists, or that no politicians are guided at all by their religion?

I'm not saying in a "God talks to me" kind of way, I mean in any way, shape, or form, including morals?

I think very few politicians - anywhere - are guided by their religion.

They are mainly guided by their sponsors.

Religion appears to be merely a marketing brand, toxic in its absurdity in Europe, still swallowable in the US, apparently.

I find it much easier to believe that a god exists, than I do to believe in the underlying morality of politicians.

 

[Grisu]

In religion debates you'll inevitably see some people say something to the effect of "I'm a Christian, but why should I care what non-religious people believe? They aren't hurting us, so stop insulting them and being narrow minded, and let them believe what they want."

How stupid. Do these people not realize that we live in democratic societies where people vote and influence the laws of their country based on what they believe? Atheists don't believe in Jesus and don't believe in the Bible, which sets out the moral rules that society should live by. This is a bad thing. They use their nonbelief in the Bible to justify all sorts of immoral activity.

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer atheism is and refusing to simply let atheists "believe what they want"?

touché.

as one of these stupid atheists I dislike the OPs atheism as much as I dislike his religious counterpart (and whether they like it or not, they're very much alike).
Treat others like you want to be treated yourself seems a good way to go.

 

[bathsheba666]

How stupid. Do these people not realize that we live in democratic societies where people vote and influence the laws of their country based on what they believe? Atheists don't believe in Jesus and don't believe in the Bible, which sets out the moral rules that society should live by. This is a bad thing. They use their nonbelief in the Bible to justify all sorts of immoral activity.

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer atheism is and refusing to simply let atheists "believe what they want"?

How stupid. When you say they "don't believe in the bible", this is of course absurd, as the bible clearly exists and can be purchased and read.

You really mean they don't believe that it is the word of god.

But of course they have the bible available to them and can play the same game as the nominally religious: cherry picking from amongst the contradictions to support their own prejudices.

Having extracted yet another frothing concoction from the entrails, they are of course supposedly precluded from underlining its significance with a "as god says, so nyah". But, of course, this is also misleading, if it's the word of god, as any extracts are likely to fulfil this condition.

So...
The religious claim to believe in Jesus and the Bible, which they use to set out the moral rules that they would like society to live by. This is a bad thing. They use their belief in the Bible to justify all sorts of immoral activities.

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer religion is and refusing to simply let the religious "believe what they want"?

===

btw, Merry Christian - adapted from old pagan - Winter festival time, everyone.

 

[MobBoss]

So...
The religious claim to believe in Jesus and the Bible, which they use to set out the moral rules that they would like society to live by. This is a bad thing. They use their belief in the Bible to justify all sorts of immoral activities.

Errr. Like what for instance?

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer religion is and refusing to simply let the religious "believe what they want"?

Would you say I am being narrow minded if I say atheism is a cancer of the soul?

And yes, I will believe what I want, regardless of how much you whine away.

 

[zxcvbnm]

Errr. Like what for instance?

Intolerance

Would you say I am being narrow minded if I say atheism is a cancer of the soul?

Yes

And yes, I will believe what I want, regardless of how much you whine away.

You may believe what you want because I'm tolerant and don't call it a cancer.

 

[MobBoss]

Intolerance

Most christians are quite tolerant. Probably too much in many ways.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I simply have to say this.. it does not apply to you, as you seem to be opposite of tolerant.

 

[bathsheba666]

Well, obviously to most primates I was simply reflectively rephrasing for satirical effect. Anyway, let's play.

Errr. Like what for instance?

Let's stone/ lock up/ bar from marriage people who are different.

Would you say I am being narrow minded if I say atheism is a cancer of the soul?

If it wasn't a requote of a requote, I might even praise your attempt at trying to break free from leaden prose.

And yes, I will believe what I want

Yes, know your limitations, uncharacteristically wise for you.

regardless of how much you whine away.

An essential counterpoint to the eternal drone. Colon.

 

[sysyphus]

Don't ask, don't tell.

If nobody knows what faith you are (if any) they can't berate you for anything.

And, on the flip side, when people don't advertise their faith, I leave them alone.

I don't think people need to be quiet about it. Only a few weeks ago I was visiting with a client in the US, great guy we always have a good laugh when we meet up.

He's a definite US Christian Republican, someone I as a non-religious Canadian Liberal am supposed to despise, and vice versa.

But we get along famously, even if our core beliefs are vastly different, and it's not like we avoid religion and politics, we discuss quite a bit. No yelling, no screaming, no bad blood. Sometimes we even see one another's point.

It's largely due to one thing that we both wholeheartedly agree upon: people should be able to discuss their views with one another and be able to disagree without fear of damaging a relationship. That's what makes it easier for us to all get along, not sweeping our differences under the carpet.

 

[Newbunkle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

 

[MobBoss]

I simply have to say this.. it does not apply to you, as you seem to be opposite of tolerant.

I am quite tolerant. Look what I put up with around here.

 

[MobBoss]

Let's stone/ lock up/ bar from marriage people who are different.

No one gets stoned. No one gets locked up. And this isnt a solely christian issue either. None of the laws that have been passed in any state contain any religous language what-so-ever. Next.

Yes, know your limitations, uncharacteristically wise for you.

So, I am limited because I choose what I believe..../boggle.

Whatever gets you to sleep at night I guess. And I am still waiting for those examples of how intolerant christians are en toto.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I am quite tolerant. Look what I put up with around here.

Well, you really don't put up with most things here.. i think it would be safe to say that you are in vocal opposition in most threads .

e. typo fix

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

In light of that, how can anyone call people like me narrow minded for pointing out what a cancer Christianity is and refusing to simply let its followers "believe what they want"?

See, this was what I hated about what Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion. He has some good points against religion, but his language is far too venomous. I may not be religious, but I still believe that people should have the right to believe in what they want to believe and the right to be respected for it, as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.