Are Atheists the most intolerent group of all?

[daniel49]

Heres one man that seems to think so.
Text
...The story was appropriately on the Camera's "Faith" page, because their disbelief is nothing other than "faith" that no God exists, and therefore a religion of sorts.

A quick google will produce reams of Atheistic dogma against anyone who believes different then them...


Are they bloodless and more rightous then the rest of us?


Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

 

[dullard]

I'd say they tend to be the most tolerent.

Look at most discussions between an athiest and a thiest. The thiest is almost always the intolerent one.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Heres one man that seems to think so.
Text
...The story was appropriately on the Camera's "Faith" page, because their disbelief is nothing other than "faith" that no God exists, and therefore a religion of sorts.

A quick google will produce reams of Atheistic dogma against anyone who believes different then them...


Are they bloodless and more rightous then the rest of us?


Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

Quick, someone start up the christian persecution complex, stat!

 

[dullard]

Oh and by the way, you are incorrect. Hitler was not an athiest.

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

I do not know enough of the others to comment on them.

 

[OrByte]

I thought this was locked?

it should be.

we barely tolerate ourselves, of course we will all have intolerence of others.

/thread.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I thought this was locked?

It was locked.

 

[Strk]

I don't see one as more tolerant or intolerant than the other. It's the extremes that inhabit each side that are the problem.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Strk
I don't see one as more tolerant or intolerant than the other. It's the extremes that inhabit each side that are the problem.

i agree, and unfortunately those are the ones we hear most about.

 

[kage69]

Nope, I think Southern Baptists already hold that distinction.

Quite conversely actually, I'd say about 99% of the atheists/agnostics I know are the coolest, most educated, pleasant-to-be-around people I know. There are perhaps one or two extremist types that annoy me, but their kind pollute any group I think.

Never had a non-christian get in my face about anything come to think of it, and I say that having lived in the Middle East for just shy of 6 years. My Muslim and Hindhu friends were polite, nice people, and behaved far more civilized and respectful than the morons that I ran into on a regular basis down in the Bible Belt.

 

[Cerb]

Fundamentalism is bad. It does not matter whether it wears the clothes of a preacher talking of salvation, or a reason-bound disbeliever.

The linked article, also, says all of nothing. It's like reading a politicians press release. Lots of talk, appeal to emotions, and no substance.

 

[kage69]

The linked article, also, says all of nothing. It's like reading a politicians press release. Lots of talk, appeal to emotions, and no substance.

Quite so, but while the OP states that it is indeed only one man's perception on this, in my experience this is pretty much the only kind of sentiment we get from the victimized christian activist crowd. *yawn*

 

[RightIsWrong]

I'm wondering if anyone can show a count of those killed by someone proclaiming that their motive is to convert the world to atheism vs. the number that have been killed by someone proclaiming to do so to show that their god is greater or the one true god?

 

[piasabird]

I dont think an athiest is any more intolerant than a christian. There are probably plenty of extremes on both sides. I see no reason to pander to either side.

 

[ebaycj]

Religion is basically a set of rules and restrictions (and faith/beliefs to give those rules and restrictions meaning). Atheism basically lacks the faith/beliefs part, and therefore sees no logical reasoning behind the rules and restrictions. Most atheists only become intolerant when theists try and push their rules/restrictions onto everyone (and thereby onto the atheists).




It's kind of like a child who is given a set of chores to do every week. His best friend who lives next door has the option to do chores if he wants to, but isn't forced to do any. When the kid with the chores asks his father why he has to do his chores, his father responds "because i'm your father, and I said so, thats why." (not really a reason, more of an edict). So life goes on for a while.....

Sooner or later, The kid who has to do the chores eventually notices the other kid's freedom and wonders why there is a discrepancy between himself and this other kid. The kid who has to do chores thinks everything should be fair, and tells the other kid "well you should do chores too". The kid who doesn't have to do chores responds "nah, i don't really feel like it". So the kid who has to do chores gets angry and goes to the other kid's parents, and convinces them that they should make him do chores. They agree and go their seperate ways. Then a week later the kid who had to do chores gets beat up by the kid who didn't have to do chores. The kid who got beat up wondered why the other kid was so angry, the whole time not realizing that it was because the other kid wasn't stupid enough to accept a bullshit reason like "because i'm your father, and I said so, thats why."

The End.

hints for the mentally retarded:
chores = religion,
no chores = atheism,
"because I said so" = "because the <insert holy book / organization name here> says so",
other kid's parents = government,
convincing other kid's parents = passing laws,
beating up = intolerance

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others killed more people during the past century alone (well over 100 million) than were killed during all of the so-called "religious wars" of all previous centuries combined.

In the modern era, the only "religion" that engages in any appreciable amount of slaughter of infidels is Islam, and even the muslims have a LONG way to go before they can match up with the atheists in terms of sheer number of corpses.

If it weren't for the serious nature of the topic, I wouldn't know whether your statement was more laughable or pathetic. AFIC, religion is a political power structure based on fear and sustained by ignorance. Religious leaders may have the most nobel of motivations, but their power derives from indoctrinating believers with a fear of the consequenses of disbelief and disobedience and it is maintained by keeping their followers ignorant of any new knowledge that contradicts their teachings and punishing those who brought such "revolutionary" ideas forward. The "infallible" pope imprisoned Gallileo because he dared to postulate that the earth orbits the sun, and not the other way around. The laughable "debate" about evolution is another fine example of the suppression of scientific principles solely because they challenge religious doctrine.

Whether or not thinking, practicing caring believers in Christianity think Hitler was much of a Christian, he most certainly used the name of the faith as justification for his crimes. Christian doctrine was also the direct motivation behind such "noble" and deadly efforts as the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and the Ku Klux Klan. Today, the same doctrine is used to justify bombing women's health centers that provide birth control and abortion services and targeting those who provide such services for death.

Christianity is not alone in their blood letting. Ultra orthodox Jewish Israelis kill other Israelis and others who presume to challenge their views, and as we can witness, daily, fundamentalist Islamic leaders have used concept of jihad, or holy war, as justification for the attrocities they promote.

Beliefs do not kill. Violent actions against others in pursuit of beliefs can. Religious leaders acting to promote such action in the name of their faith can be, and has been, used for centuries to motivate their followers to violence against others for no other reason than that their victims do not conform to the faith they preach.

By definition, religion is faith in a lore and a set of principles not necessarily supported by, or consistant with, fact or scientific scrutiny. At its best, it can be a source of inspriation and a guide to ethical understanding. At its worst, it can be used to lead ignorant masses to hystercial evil and violence against others whose only crime is not accepting the same beliefs.

The same kinds of group violence and evil can be, and have been, done for other non-religiously based reasons, but calling atheists "the most intolerant group of all" suggests you need to get back to the planet for a quick reality check.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: daniel49



Atheists such as Hitler

"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice? comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." -A. Hitler


"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude? For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." -A. Hitler


"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics?" A. Hitler

"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him."

As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)

God is With Us
Nazi Germany was a Christian nation.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I dont think an athiest is any more intolerant than a christian.

There are probably plenty of extremes on both sides.

I see no reason to pander to either side.

Winner :thumbsup:

Unfortunately the U.S. is now pandering to the Christian Right turning it into a Theocracy.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: dullard
Oh and by the way, you are incorrect. Hitler was not an athiest.

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews ... The work that Christ started but could not finish, I -- Adolf Hitler -- will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

I do not know enough of the others to comment on them.

And I suppose one could lamely attempt to make the argument also that Idi Amin was muslim.

The flaw in this argument is that neither practiced the tennants of the supposed faith.

If I say I am a liberal and go out and start killing all libertarians does that therefore give creedence to the fact that I am indeed a liberal?
And therefore attach misdeeds to the name of liberalism? I would hardly think so.
Insane people claim insane things all the time, it does not validate thier claims.

 

[Mathlete]

Originally posted by: kage69
Nope, I think Southern Baptists already hold that distinction.

Quite conversely actually, I'd say about 99% of the atheists/agnostics I know are the coolest, most educated, pleasant-to-be-around people I know. There are perhaps one or two extremist types that annoy me, but their kind pollute any group I think.

Never had a non-christian get in my face about anything come to think of it, and I say that having lived in the Middle East for just shy of 6 years. My Muslim and Hindhu friends were polite, nice people, and behaved far more civilized and respectful than the morons that I ran into on a regular basis down in the Bible Belt.

Wow. It is this sort of dribble that makes atheists seem intolerant. That statement is a nice back-handed way of saying that Christians are generally hot-headed, uneducated and unpleasant to be around. Now I am a Christian but I have never, EVER confronted an agnostic or atheist about their beliefs. I have been there to answer any questions that they may have about my beliefs but have never brought up the issue.

OTOH. I have often been talked down to by atheists like the above statement. I have heard things like:

"If you think about it, religion is stupid"

"Any person with common sense would ber atheist"

"Logically, the existence of God makes no sense"

These are the types of beating-around-the-bush statements that NORMAL Christians get sick of. And for me, most of the coments that I get come from my "Love everyone, hug a tree, don't discriminate against any group" uber-liberal hippie friends.

But I guess that is the problem when you are a political fence sitter. Sodcially conservative yet fiscally liberal!

Edit: So in response to the OP's question. Yes, I have found atheists to be the most intolerant group.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: daniel49
The flaw in this argument is that neither practiced the tennants of the supposed faith.

So your argument is if you aren't 100% perfect in following your church, then you are an athiest?

What a wonderful way to win your arguments. Every bad person in the world is therefore an athiest and therefore athiests are all the bad people! Wow! Of course, now you have all these athiests who believe in God, which pretty makes the definition of athiest useless.

 

[lyssword]

I can humbly say I do not have enough experience (even if I met 1000 ppl, it would still not represent the whole group) to judge either. I do believe that we are all human, and it depends on circumstances, etc..

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daniel49
The flaw in this argument is that neither practiced the tennants of the supposed faith.

So your argument is if you aren't 100% perfect in following your church, then you are an athiest?

What a wonderful way to win your arguments. Every bad person in the world is therefore an athiest and therefore athiests are all the bad people! Wow! Of course, now you have all these athiests who believe in God, which pretty makes the definition of athiest useless.

100% plz prove to me hitler and amin were anywhere near to 1%.

One could easily say the argument is just as strong that they were completely Godless men.

 

[johnnobts]

Quick, someone start up the christian persecution complex, stat!

-----------------------

www.persecutedchurch.com

more Christians have been martyred in the modern era than any time in human history.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: daniel49
100% plz prove to me hitler and amin were anywhere near to 1%.

One could easily say the argument is just as strong that they were completely Godless men.

Hitler was born and raised Christian and said he believed in it. Then he did things in God's name. How is that not 100% proof that he was a thiest. So what if he isn't a good thiest, he still was a thiest.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daniel49
The flaw in this argument is that neither practiced the tennants of the supposed faith.

So your argument is if you aren't 100% perfect in following your church, then you are an athiest?

What a wonderful way to win your arguments. Every bad person in the world is therefore an athiest and therefore athiests are all the bad people! Wow! Of course, now you have all these athiests who believe in God, which pretty makes the definition of athiest useless.

Boy, it didn't take long for the "No true Scotsman" fallacy to rear it's ugly head.