What gives with tolerant atheists?

[MobBoss]

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

Thats not intolerance. Thats discussion. But lets face it, I am not going to walk across the street to avoid anyone, nor would I object to hiring someone of a particular creed, or rent an apartment to them or what-ever.

Bottom line, you dont know me outside of this forum, and you make the mistake of me voicing my opinion as being intolerant. Thats not the same thing.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Thats not intolerance. Thats discussion. But lets face it, I am not going to walk across the street to avoid anyone, nor would I object to hiring someone of a particular creed, or rent an apartment to them or what-ever.

Bottom line, you dont know me outside of this forum, and you make the mistake of me voicing my opinion as being intolerant. Thats not the same thing.

Well, some opinions that you have and are vocal about seem very intolerant to me, but it is true that i do not know you in real world.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

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'm just saying that religion rarely enters into politics in the EU.

You two might want to peek at the Norwegian Constitution. Excerpts follow:


---

Article 2

All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.

The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State. The inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same.

Article 4

The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same.

Article 9

As soon as the King, being of age, accedes to the government, he shall take the following oath before the Storting: "I promise and swear that I will govern the Kingdom of Norway in accordance with its Constitution and Laws; so help me God, the Almighty and Omniscient."

Article 12

The King himself chooses a Council from among Norwegian citizens who are entitled to vote. This Council shall consist of a Prime Minister and at least seven other Members.

More than half the number of the Members of the Council of State shall profess the official religion of the State.

Article 27

All Members of the Council of State shall, unless lawfully absent, attend the Council of State and no decision may be adopted there unless more than half the number of members are present.

A Member of the Council of State who does not profess the official religion of the State shall not take part in proceedings on matters which concern the State Church.

Article 44

The Princess or Prince who, in the cases mentioned in Article 41, conducts the government shall make the following oath in writing before the Storting: "I promise and swear that I will conduct the government in accordance with the Constitution and the Laws, so help me God, the Almighty and Omniscient".

 

[Cu Chulainn]

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.

Read "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennet. He makes a lot of the same points as Dawkins but is as nice about it as a can reasonably be expected for a criticism of religion. He even begins by asking the religious reader to assume he is addressing all other religions to make his arguments more palatable.

I personally have no problem with Dawkins. He points out quite correctly that religion is no different than any other system of claims about the universe and thus should not be treated any differently.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So, how many people didn't realize that Elrohir's post was a blatant parody of the OP? I counted at least 3 who were taking it seriously . . .

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Of course, now that you've said it, Eran, they may just deny it and claim that Elrohir, being religious, deserves "special treatment".

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

Does not compute. I think there's a step missing from this logic.

 

[Elrohir]

I love you.

I would have made it a seperate thread, though, with the entire OP as one big hyperlink to this thread. I'm a lot bigger jackass than you, though, so this'll work.

By the way, Merry Christmas, Monkeyfinger and all!

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.

Thank you - at least some people got it.

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.

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.

Good grief man. Yes, it was irony. I basically copied the original post, but I replaced "religious people" with "non religious people" and "atheism" with "Christianity". My point wasn't that atheists shouldn't have rights - it was that everyone should, regardless of their religious beliefs. I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the OP, because he seems to think you only deserve respect if you agree with him. I was merely turning his own argument back around on him to show him that it sucks, and if everyone used it the world would be a much darker place.

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.

Does no one know what irony is anymore? Guys, irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning". If I effectively copy the OP word for word just with the group changed, and while doing so express a radical opinion wildly different from my normal one, I'm probably being ironic.

I'd weep for the future of humanity, but its Christmas, so I'm able to hold off the despaire.

So, how many people didn't realize that Elrohir's post was a blatant parody of the OP? I counted at least 3 who were taking it seriously . . .

Even one is too many. It's kind of hilarious though, just in a sad way.

 

[zxcvbnm]

Good grief man. Yes, it was irony. I basically copied the original post, but I replaced "religious people" with "non religious people" and "atheism" with "Christianity". My point wasn't that atheists shouldn't have rights - it was that everyone should, regardless of their religious beliefs. I was pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the OP, because he seems to think you only deserve respect if you agree with him. I was merely turning his own argument back around on him to show him that it sucks, and if everyone used it the world would be a much darker place.

Well, my arguments apply to the original too

 

[Gogf]

It's their right to believe whatever they want, and starting a flame war isn't going to convince anybody of anything.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

We're saying the same thing in different words.

Merry Christmas

 

[illram]

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"?

It's narrow minded because you're generalizing about all Christians being this single, crazy fundamentalist person, which they are not. It's also narrow minded because your statement implies a functional, technologically advanced and non-fundamentalist society cannot exist with religion, which is false.

Extremists are the problem, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or Atheist. There are a lot of very wise things in all of these religions that I'm sure we could all learn a thing or two from. It's not a question of "why tolerate?" It's a question of "why bother understanding?" which, when phrased that way, should be obvious.

 

[Neomega]

Meh
I've been through my hating christians stage, and christians are so stupid stage. Ive met too many good, smart Christians to be a bigot about it anymore.

 

[bathsheba666]

Does no one know what irony is anymore? Guys, irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning". If I effectively copy the OP word for word just with the group changed, and while doing so express a radical opinion wildly different from my normal one, I'm probably being ironic.

ok, got me.

Yo ho ho. Yes I understand the concept of irony.
I clearly need to be more discriminating in realising who is capable of it.

Mea culpa, happy new year.

 

[sirdanilot]

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."

What's wrong with being tolerant like that?

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.

Because Christians know what is true, they live accordingly. Is there anything wrong with that?

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.

The bible is not fiction. A lot of things that are described in the Bible have actually happened. People have believed in the Bible for more than two thousand years, while the other books you described have almost no history. And we can apply the things that are described in the Bible perfectly to the modern world, and it is certainly not outdated. Even in parts that apply to slaves, the moral of the bible verse can probably still be applied to today.

But you know what? I don't think it's worth discussing wether the Bible is true or not, especially not with intolerant people like you.

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"?

You just said it yourself. Refusing the right of free religion even goes against the constitution of your (beloved?) motherland of the United States!

 

[Swiss_Mercenari]

I don't want religious people telling me how to live, it's only fair I treat them the same way.

Exactly the way I feel. Live and let live, as long as there is no harm being caused.

 

[JollyRoger]

I've found the best way to tolerate the religious is to carry a guitar around. Before you know it, you have a following and access to the wives and daughters, so it isn't such a bad deal.

 

[Swedishguy]

I'm not tolerant towards religious people, but I appear to be. Generally, people mistake me to be a Christian, because I'm pretty boring and keep my hands to my head all the time. The trick is to not show it. And, when the time is right, I shall put my plans into action...

 

[Archbob]

I'm not tolerant towards religious people, but I appear to be. Generally, people mistake me to be a Christian, because I'm pretty boring and keep my hands to my head all the time. The trick is to not show it. And, when the time is right, I shall put my plans into action...

And then God shall smite you for your devilish actions.

 

[Lotus49]

Faith vs. atheism in the realm of politics is actually not a factor. What is however, is the ratio of those who think intelligently to those who do not. Unfortunately the world is full of the latter, and there is no escaping the result of it.

 

[Shibbyman]

People like the OP are the reason I prefer people not to know that I'm an atheist. A person that I once knew (thank God he moved), upon reading The God Delusion, decided to tell several religious friends of mine that I thought they were morons. After a great deal of explanation and apologising on my behalf they eventually understood what had happened, so no real harm done.

The point that I made to them was that I don't dislike religious people; I merely dislike dogmatism. I don't think that people not eating meat derived from a non-ruminant mammal or eating a wafer is going to destroy the world. Problems arise when people use religious texts, or any other source for the matter, to drown out their conscience or to justify not questioning things. My view on this matter doesn't change if it's economic or political dogmatism. A good example of this would be the various "modernisation" pogrammes used by communist regimes throughout the 20th century.