Generally Speaking Atheists Are As Dogmatic And Intolerant As The...

» Home » Society

Generally Speaking Atheists Are As Dogmatic And Intolerant As The Religious People They Disagree With.

It seems as if strong-atheists (generally speaking) are equally dogmatic and intolerant as the religious and spiritual people they disagree with. BTW this is suppose to be in society but there is no way to change the category error.

ammo

23 Feb 2008 17:46

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Normally, I'd say no, but from my experience, they can be (the extreme ones anyway).

the_atom

03 Aug 2008 18:38

1 Comment

now that I think about it they aren't as bad as the Christians. sure they can be annoying sometimes, but they aren't on the same level as the Christians.

the_atom

03 Aug 2008 18:41

Comment

Atheists by definition will see little value in concepts like gratitude and humility. These are spiritual ideals. Humility would only diminish the individual and would be negative, and gratitude? Who is there to be grateful? They may be grateful to each other, but that's more of a quid pro quo, not true gratitude. These are two elements that are key in a person who wants a life of moderate serenity. Pride and arrogance are the biggest dangers in atheists, as it is their nature.

Check out David Berlinski and his work. See what kind of reception he gets from an atheist.

innomen

15 Apr 2008 16:16

2 Comments

I would like to know your understanding of an atheist's character. do you really understand atheism, or the heart of an atheist? i don't believe you do if you agree with the statement that pride is a danger in atheists. the pride that i have seen come from christian mouths is that of pure hate and misunderstanding, ending up in violence towards those of us who simply say, "we don't hate you, we just think your wrong".

atx_lauren

07 May 2008 17:00

Comment

Since they are both beliefs, I don't see why not. You can get people who are intolerant on both sides and likewise you can people who are open minded.

Shizenk

13 Apr 2008 15:26

Add a Comment

I totally agree with the statement of this Debate. The name calling, the lack of open minded discussion..it has lost its ever loving' mind these days. The negativity from the atheist population does nothing to help civility within the world population.

ghostseer

24 Feb 2008 02:41

2 Comments

The "negativity" emanating from the atheist world these days is a response [long overdue in my opinion], to the never-ending violence, stupidity, dogma and bloodshed that plagues our world, courtesy of the religious. The "civility" that you refer to has been achieved largely by keeping religious zeal in check.

MQuinn

13 Apr 2008 15:01

Comment

The evidence is there.

johnbdonov

23 Feb 2008 22:47

Add a Comment

Comment

I don't stand with the religious right or their "strawman version" of atheism. I actually do have some appreciation of what some atheists have to say but generally I've been witnessing a number of them make attacks and mocking people en masse who just may not know any better or have the time or access to eduction to contemplate such things. If Atheists have a point there is no need to come across in a condescending manner. Again, I don't feel all Atheists are this way but the jerks seem to just be coming out of the wood works from what I've seen and ruining their cause.

I can agree with a some of what Hidell is saying but on the flip side of things I would argue that people like George Bush parade their beliefs more so as way to manipulate power than for any other reason. Also, to say something like, "In general, we have looked on bemused as you addressed invisible beings, and practiced your goofy ceremonies" sounds a little insensitive--to call it "goofy" sounds rather rude.

ammo

23 Feb 2008 22:38

1 Comment

The main feature of atheist fundamentalism is to suppose that belief in God is something opposed to reason. It's a fair assumption that they haven't read Pascal and others whose religious belief are defended with more powerful logic than anything the skeptics can offer. Indeed it requires a belief in magic to dismiss the testimony of individual and collective human experience in favor of Divine Providence. It's a mark of dogmatism to be blind to the evidence on the other side of a question.

johnbdonov

23 Feb 2008 22:46

Comment

The people who say atheists are intolerant and have closed minds are really the ones with the "issues". Obviously you haven't met enough to know the true character of an atheist. The tolerance in an atheist comes from understanding the things in which they do not believe. Reading every word of the bible more than once, and knowing exactly why you do not agree with it. If that's not being open minded, then i don't know what is. Turning away from religion came from being surrounded by hypocritical christians. And that's exactly what atheists try not to be. Atheists come off as arrogant or intolerant because of the constant attacks of being "devil worshipers", "satan's right hand". Maybe if people would take the time to understand atheists the way we understand christians, they just might change their minds.

atx_lauren

07 May 2008 16:53

Add a Comment

Atheists don't advocate murder, slavery or rape. That's what religious books (e.g. The buybull) tell people to do.

Atheists also don't go around inflicting ideology upon others. A secular society is not an atheist society, despite lies told to the contrary.

25 Apr 2008 20:01

1 Comment

HAHAHAhAHAHA.Yes you do, in fact.

Mark

07 May 2008 16:57

Comment

This is just a negative stereotype of the "angry atheist." I've never met a real atheist like this - just a few angry 16 years old. The very basis of atheism is rationality - that means rational debate and rational ideas.

Moegreche

11 Mar 2008 02:33

Add a Comment

I would be more than happy to believe in god or gods if there was some convincing evidence to do so. So far I have only been offered quotes from the bible and blind faith. I'm afraid that isn't enough.
This is what's called having an open mind.

Jahwobble

01 Mar 2008 20:43

4 Comments

Not really. That is called not having faith. That is okay by the way. Faith is by definition believing in something that is not provable. If you had an open mind you would at least accept the possibility of intelligent design. If you had truly an open mind you would see beyond the confines of your three dimensonal prison. There are those that do not have that capacity, often out of fear (pride and arrogance are fear). There are those who prefer to think of the universe in simple terms because it is safer because it is more understandable and more seemingly controlable.

innomen

15 Apr 2008 16:24

Comment

The proof for God's existence is similar to the proof offered in any other proposition that is up for consideration.  We don't usually accept things because there is proof in the mathematical sense but rather because of the convergence of separate lines of evidence, each of which can be refuted in isolation but not easily in combination with the others. First there is the moral argument, which briefly is that there is an objective right and wrong, just as real as the multiplication table, and that God is the most reasonable explanation of the source of the moral order.  Second, there is the aesthetic argument, that there is an objective basis for the human apprehension of beauty and that this has a divine origin.  Third, there is the evidence of religious experience, including the private experience of great men whom we have reason to respect for other reasons, such as Pascal, and also the experience of groups, including the apostles, the Pilgrim Fathers and also many ordinary people who have experienced total transformation following their religious experiences; fourth, there is the evidence of science, especially because of the rationality of the universe that we can understand corresponds with the rationality of our own minds, giving us a glimpse into the Infinite Mind; and fifth, there is the evidence of history with so many of our greatest statesmen and philosophers, including Lincoln and Washington were firmly convinced of the existence and power of Divine Providence -- God as overseer of events.  Taken together, these evidences are such that it strains our credulity to think there is no God.

Not even close, I've yet to run across an atheist, regardless of how strong, who will not re-evaluate their beliefs if given sufficient evidence to do so. Only people who buy into the religious right's strawman version of atheism would come up with this kind of nonsense.

Cephus

23 Feb 2008 19:50

2 Comments

Response in the "For" column.

ammo

23 Feb 2008 22:39

Comment

Atheists have been very quiet for a long time. They have been unassertive in their atheism. They watched patiently while public figures openly invoked their magical belief systems in the speeches they gave and the remarks they made. The net effect of all this was to make atheists feel that they "weren't quite right", that they didn't fully belong, that they were, in a sense, outcasts within their own society.

In recent years, this has begun to change. Atheists have begun to speak out, to challenge the things that they let slide before. Why? Perhaps because of the presidency of George W. Bush. Bush has openly paraded his (supposed) religious beliefs in a way that is unusual even for American presidents. He has claimed that God instructed him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

For some atheists this was the final straw. In general, we have looked on bemused as you addressed invisible beings, and practiced your goofy ceremonies. Although we considered it absurd, we thought, generally, that you weren't doing any harm. When you begin to invoke your superstitions to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, though, it's time for us to speak up and for atheism to become active and militant.

It's also possible that religious feeling in general has actually increased around the world, and that this has provoked a counter-reaction. Some people have claimed this. For a long time, atheists generally thought that religion would just fade away as time went on and science and technology developed. Now that they are presented with evidence to the contrary, however, perhaps they feel that the forces of superstition are encroaching on the territory of reason and enlightenment, and that they must be prepared to fight and defend it.

Nonetheless, it is still very rare to encounter any active and assertive atheism. In American politics, for example, it is essentially impossible for anyone to be an atheist. I think there is one member of Congress, in an unbelievably safe seat in San Francisco or something, who has acknowledged being an atheist. If a presidential candidate acknowledged being an atheist, his candidacy would be finished. Atheism almost never features in public discourse. But just because a few pro-atheist books have been published in the last few years, suddenly the religious wackos are talking about "atheist fanatics" and the like. Please.

Hidell

23 Feb 2008 18:24

2 Comments

You seem to have an inability to separate the spiritual from the religious. Those who live a life of true spirituality like Ghandi or Mother Theresa, and those who take a doctrine and distort it for reasons of power and control. There is a difference between the two. There are many people who live a spiritual life everyday, those who live by spiritual principles and do great things for others.

Name an atheist group that helps people. Not a nonreligious group, but an actual group of atheists that do something beneficial for the world.

innomen

15 Apr 2008 16:29

Comment

Well that sounds like a nice little thought scheme you've developed there. If someone uses religion for purposes you disapprove of, you get to disown them and say they weren't "truly religious". At the same time, if anyone does something worthwhile, you claim all the credit.

Since atheists aren't as narrow-minded as religious people, they tend to be more relaxed about magical belief systems than believers. They don't make the lack of such belief a binding principle of their organisation. I'm sure there are many charities largely run by atheists but since they don't make an issue of it we don't know that.

In any case, much of the help supposedly offered to the world by religious believers actually represents a covert propaganda campaign on behalf of their beliefs. For example, distributing condoms to Africans at risk of catching HIV, or giving food aid but making the recipients attend church in order to get it.

Why is it that America, the most religious country in the developed world, is also the least generous in giving aid to other countries? Why is it that the profoundly atheist Scandinavian countries are the most generous?