Should atheists be tolerant of the religious.

[Liv]

Diversity generally requires a greater level of tolerance to keep the peace. We may not agree with each other on religious beliefs in this world, but we normally tolerate one another and don't physically harm one another. (Obvious notable exceptions, like terrorist groups.) Yet, to "tolerate" someone seems to imply a level of discomfort while in their presence. One must even ask, what tolerance is? Where is the line and when do we say we've crossed it? More to the point, should atheists be more tolerant of the religious, and just, perhaps offer some level of respect towards non-scientific beliefs?

Of course we don't tolerate ignorance in science class, yet in religion, should we disagree with one another, we generally do. Atheists often get a soar rub, because they're constantly trying to prove the religious wrong. Is it intolerant to do so?

Should we consider supernatural beliefs, as personal, and therefore generally be ignored in society with one another, so we can keep the peace?

I'm not sure if I have a clear answer. Personally, while I believe the overall arching religious concept often does harm, I personally believe that most people believe a much different version of religion, one that, often coincides with my morals and beliefs. I've found their beliefs often are merely justification for "the self", and seeing it through that lens, allows me, often to consider their religious beliefs benign, and respectable.

[A Person]

More to the point, should atheists be more tolerant of the religious, and just, perhaps offer some level of respect towards non-scientific beliefs?

No

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

I have no problem saying that I respect the religious people I encounter. Most of them. So long as they are respectable.

But once someone suggests tossing aside science, they have used up their toleration from me.

[Jamy]

As long as nobody either side is trying to convert anyone, why is this even an issue? I don't care if my friends are atheists or fundamentalists or agnostics, just like I don't care if they are gay, republican, democrat, black, white, Mexican, handicapped, hippies, yuppies whatever.... I just don't understand the mentality that if someone isn't just like you (the general "you", not you, Liv, personally) or you don't agree with their beliefs or lifestyle then it has to be some big huge issue.

What happened to Free to be You and Me?
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xs4af_free-to-be-you-and-me-1974_music

[Liv]

No one is like me... I'm finding that more and more obvious lately. I swear I'm the child of some alien race.

We're using this chart (Bennett's Model) in class...

If we're talking about the culture of religion, and our tolerances towards it, then I'd say most people are in the middle of the spectrum with "they do what they want and I do what I want", and it's definitely where I used to be. I'd say I'm currently between 5 & 6. I'd have no problem hanging out in church again, and understanding that religion is something that, even if not good all the time, brings happiness to the individual and does many good things.

Of course it doesn't change my mind in the fact that I think it's fictional, or my dislike of those who use religion against minorities, etc. I would never, in a religious sense or not, ever want to partake, or support individuals with that sort of view.

[Jamy]

Yeah, I draw the line at anyone who mongers hate. That's a belief/lifestyle I can't "tolerate." Like those Westboro Baptist church people or KKK or neo-Nazis... I wouldn't be able to be tolerant of anyone I knew who was like that. The people I have for friends are fundamentally decent people...that's my one criteria and you can't be a hate-mongerer and a "decent person" at the same time.

[A Person]

Let me expand a little on my answer.

Should we consider supernatural beliefs, as personal, and therefore generally be ignored in society with one another, so we can keep the peace?

I don't think religious beliefs demand or deserve respect. Any more than any other irrational or non-evidence beliefs should. I don't really care whether it's crop circles, ear candling, perpetual motion magnetic motors or salvation through proxy torture. They're all ridiculous ideas.

Now should we be tolerant of people who avoid treading on cracks in the pavement because bears will eat them? Sure - as long as they don't demand I also avoid the cracks, or that all pavements should be made of BearPruf Blessed Paving - supplied by the Crack Free Church of the Bearless.


Should we make reasonable accommodation for silly beliefs? Sure. Now sometimes there can be disagreement over what's reasonable. I'm happy to let Sikhs wear turbans instead of proper protective head gear,but I'm not happy that Sikhs get to take concealed weapons into schools and other restricted places. The former because it doesn't really affect other people (other than EMS staff) too much, the latter since it does potentially affect other people.

The problem is that most religious superstitions are not personal, churches insist on extending them to all. Catholics and fundamentalists want to run publicly funded hospitals but to run them according them to their superstitions. They all want laws changed enshrine their superstitions and dictate their observance by all.

If only society could ignore them but they insist on not being ignored

[Jamy]

No offense to you or any atheist, AP, but Atheists aren't really that much easier to ignore either. They may not go around knocking on doors or go on missionary trips to "spread the word" but they're still a pretty vocal group. I have listened to my husband and sister and other people I know who are atheists go on and on about the ridiculousness of religion and believing in a higher power for some pretty long stretches of time. My sister is as hostile and vicious about her Atheism as the Westboro Baptist church jerks.

[A Person]

My sister is as hostile and vicious about her Atheism as the Westboro Baptist church jerks.

Really?

Your sister goes around picketing soldier's funerals? Stands around on street corners shouting at people that 'Science Hates Fags' or 'The Universe Hates America'? Teaches little children that they'll be tortured for eternity if they don't believe what she does?

god-science-hates-fags-kids.jpg (21.32 KiB) Viewed 1785 times

Or do you mean she is vocal about her dislike of the religious holding their beliefs up as being above criticism and wanting to apply their scripture as law over everyone?

Just a reminder what the Westboro Baptists are really like

[Jamy]

No, but she has personally attacked "x-tians" as she calls them, who never did anything to her, simply based on their religious beliefs. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how much you think the people you're against "deserve" it.

[Jamy]

No, but she has personally attacked "x-tians" as she calls them, who never did anything to her, simply based on their religious beliefs. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how much you think the people you're against "deserve" it.

While I'm on the subject, she hates "breeders" (AKA parents) and their "sprogs" (AKA children), so I doubt she would deign to teach them...us... anything, hateful or otherwise. And on that topic, she's quite vocal on the internet, again, attacking people who never did a thing to her, simply based on the fact that they were parents.

[Liv]

I've come to the personal belief, that religion is going to be a part of the world. I love Wendell Bell's futurist vision for solving the conundrum, but even he seems guarded at the possibility of replacing religion with [love, kindness, fairness, and unity].

I like it, but I don't think it's going to happen. More to the point, never have I changed anyone's opinion, who wasn't interested in listening. On the other hand, if you spur the argument, I'll be respectful, but kindly point out how I believe you're wrong.

However, I've never met a "violent" or "pushy" atheist. Most are opinionated, detail oriented, and willing to argue... but outside of words, I've never seen the aggressive behavior and actions I have out of some Christians.

[Jamy]

I've never seen the aggressive behavior and actions I have out of some Christians.

I have to agree with you there. I think more violence has been committed in the name of someone or the other's God than even in the name of money IMO. Still, I hate to sell out any group as a whole, based on the actions of its kookiest or least noble members. And much as I hate hate hate what Westboro Baptist has to say, they do have a right to say it. We have laws protecting that right....repulsive as the message sometimes is and regardless how how obnoxious as they are while relaying that message.

[A Person]

No, but she has personally attacked "x-tians" as she calls them, who never did anything to her, simply based on their religious beliefs. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter how much you think the people you're against "deserve" it.

By 'attack', I take it you mean 'argue' with.

You see, I think you're exaggerating - I know I've not met your sister, but we've already established that she's not "as hostile and vicious about her Atheism as the Westboro Baptist church jerks." Far from it. She doesn't picket funderals, shout at veterans, lie about gay people or physically attack people. But she does criticise religions and the religious.

I see no reason why religious beliefs should be protected from criticism, any more than climate change deniers, homeopathy believers, 911 truthers or birthers should be.


Now I'm happy to accommodate the idiosyncracies of various religions (Sikh's turbans for example) but I see no reason why religious claims to the truth should not be criticised - and the moment they demand that other people should be required to observe their religion, or insist on it being taught as science, or that their scriptural morals are somehow superior then I will 'attack' with - sarcasm. I know all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. I'll be vicious, just like Doug Piranha.

[Jamy]

Yeah...that was an exaggeration. But yes, by attack I was referring to verbal assault and no, it was not "criticism" or even an argument, it was a personal verbal assault. I'm sorry, but I don't think hating a person for the actions of others in a group they belong to is right. Words said in hatred are words said in hatred. Right?

I'm just not comfortable with that level of vehemence against any group, even if its just vocal. It feels negative in a really unhealthy way. If a person isn't trying to convert you or tell you how to live or what to do or doing anything to hurt anyone, why wouldn't you tolerate them? Does this mean you wouldn't tolerate me if I were to meet you some day?

[Jamy]

I know all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. I'll be vicious, just like Doug Piranha.

I hate to admit it, but I have no doubt that you could. You make me nervous as hell. LOL

[A Person]

Does this mean you wouldn't tolerate me if I were to meet you some day?

You'll find me polite, friendly and reasonable. I have a lot of friends who are religious, (and a daughter) and some that are alternative medicine, horoscope, homeopathic woo believers too. We mostly avoid contentious topics.

But if you wish to engage me on the subject of origins, ethics, abortion, science, then you'd better be prepared to support claims with logic, reason and evidence since I won't give any credence to what a tribe of nomadic iron age shepherds wrote or what the Pope may think.

I will never say that Christians are stupid just because they are Christians. I will say that the core beliefs of Christianity are silly and even rather immoral. And that religions are a net detriment to society, not a benefit.

As I said, I don't know your sister, but most times when atheists are described as 'fundamentalist', 'strident', 'militant' etc., they are simply refusing to give religious claims immunity from reason. Dawkins for example is frequently described in those terms, yet when you listen to him, he's invariably calm, even tempered, polite and never violent. But he is assertive and in our culture being assertive for religion is just fine but being assertive against it is unacceptable.

[Jamy]

Well if I ever meet you, I'll have to buy you a beer then.

One of the reasons I like coming here is because I do like hearing other perspectives. I doubt you've raised any questions or concerns with religion that i haven't thought of myself. I have no logic or reason for what believe except that I just feel that there something powerful out there in the universe. Simple as that. I would like to be an atheist or a devoted Christian or whatever religion I can buy into wholeheartedly...one or the other, but instead, i find myself just stuck with this persistent neither this nor that feeling that I do believe in something...I'm just not sure what.

How annoying is THAT?

At least you have firm convictions. My only conviction is a feeling that there is something more. I have no logic to debate it with.

[Liv]

Let's not forget, it's, even among the UK and Canada which AP is en-cultured in, taboo to argue against religion. If we were talking about some random subject like, the paradoxes in Back to The Future, we could all speak very vehemently towards one another and we'd think it's funny, or in good argument... but because we've all been brought up with the idea that arguing religion is "uncomfortable" or "wrong", and that religion tends to define a person's value as a human, we've applied a stigma to it.

Some atheists don't see the point in endorsing the cultural norm of keeping religion in its fragile's protected self, because that stigma in itself appears to go against logic.

That said, I'm convinced sometimes the most important discussions in life, are the hardest ones to have.

I personally believe, text, such as a website, is one of the better methods for having discussions on religion, because it allows us to be definitive, cite sources, etc.

We've all listened to idiots, and been burned, but if you can make me see value in your argument then I'm much more likely to endorse the idea.

Indeed, many of my views have been transformed by this community. Some of my views, reversed by spending time with devout Christians, but ultimately my viewpoint is my own, and others' adoptions of it is completely voluntary- something my adversaries would be unlikely to equally extend to you.

[Jamy]

That said, I'm convinced sometimes the most important discussions in life, are the hardest ones to have.

I think so too.

[A Person]

Well if I ever meet you, I'll have to buy you a beer then.

My kind of lady

I would like to be an atheist or a devoted Christian or whatever religion I can buy into wholeheartedly...one or the other

I think you maybe misunderstand what being an atheist is. It's a cliche, but we're all atheists about the vast majority of religions/gods, atheists just go one god further. You don't have to buy into atheism, you just don't have to buy into any of the religions.

I have no logic or reason for what believe except that I just feel that there something powerful out there in the universe.

Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that.

I suspect that most people, including atheists, have that feeling of awe and wonder when they contemplate the universe. It is an awesome thing that can leave you feeling very small and insignificant, but can also give you a sense that you are so very fortunate to exist at all. I think it's sufficiently awesome by itself without having to imagine something awesomer that made it. But it's such a huge leap to go from the awesomeness of the universe to a god who seems concerned with how much skin to cut off the end of your penis and how, when and who you can stick it into.

I'd say I am agnostic when it comes to the deism thing - the universe as a god - but atheistic about Jehovah, Allah, Zeus etc which are so clearly man-made. It's incomprehensible to me that a god that can make the universe would be concerned about the activities of an unremarkable mammal that makes up a small percentage of life on an an utterly "insignificant little blue-green planet far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy". And not even 'the' galaxy, but one of billions and billions. The suggestion that it was necessary to make all this, just to create this species to worship Him is bizarre.

I have no complaint about the deist deity - except that it seems to be unnecessary. As far as an argument about it, it's difficult to get worked up about something so nebulous and irrelevant to daily life.

Slartibartfast: Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day.
Arthur Dent: And are you?
Slartibartfast: Ah, no. Well, that's where it all falls down, of course.

[Jamy]

You don't have to buy into atheism, you just don't have to buy into any of the religions.

Ah... Well, I don't buy into a lot of them, but there are some that I am rather partial to. Buddhism for example resonates strongly with me. I don't believe in reincarnation at all, but karma I totally believe.

Hmmm...I guess I DO have a conviction after all. I genuinely believe in karma. In fact, I'd say that the parts of Christianity that do resonate with me are very similar to some Buddhist teachings.'

Well, I can see what I'll be mulling over today now. LOL

[A Person]

Hmm, worth exploring. I'd like to know what you mean by karma, since it can mean everything from mysterious invisible particles that get attracted to nice thoughts (rather like the dust in 'The Golden Compass'); to the idea that thoughts and actions have consequences so you'd bett think enlightened thoughts

The former I find difficult to believe in, the latter is self evident

[Jamy]

Way ahead of you. I've been checking into that.