Are Atheists the most intolerent group of all?

[Bowfinger]

Pity. I'd hoped you might be different.

Originally posted by: daniel49
Since you already admitted its not christ haters but christian haters [ False ] with your little jig and dance...I think you have proved my point for me.

Since you have resorted to blatant lying to evade my points and questions ... I think you have proved my point for me, i.e., that too many self-professed Christians will quickly betray His teachings when they become inconvenient. Thank you for your help.

Other then that your tact seems to be to dismiss outright every attempt to explain anything.

Yes, because asking you to support your claims with evidence is the same as dismissing them. :roll:

Frankly I am kind of bored with your feigned objectivity and have seen a few atheists make good points in here that I believe were of value.

Yours were not among them, and I feel I have wasted enough time with you.

Translation: "I will not stand by my words, and you've caught me in too many distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies for me to continue to pretend I am responding. Therefore, I will proclaim success and slink away before anyone notices."

I'm off to get legislation approved so that you can only agree with my posts from here on out.
That is my goal to control your life right?

More dishonesty. The problem with so many self-proclaimed "Christians" is they are such awful witnesses for Christ.

 

[dragonfang]

ignorant, logicless people who lack the openmindedness to consider others' arguments and the reasoning to argue the points raised up by "heathens" are always amusing.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's kind of funny, because I know a lot of religious people, having grown up in Christian churches, and I can't remember a single occasion where I heard any one of them say something that was intolerent, or belittling of another person's beliefs or lack thereof. But for some reason whenever the topic of "religion" comes up, there's always one or two proud athiests who immediately pop up to slander any and all religions.

Obviously, things have been done (and continue to be done) in the name of one religion or another that are not alright, and are downright horrible in some cases. But there's also things being blamed on video games, or television, or violent movies, or rap music. There's ALWAYS someone or something being blamed, and just because the person creating the problem happens to be religious, or works for a religious organization, athiests automatically use it as an excuse to hold up the religion as faulty, and usually evil.

That being said, people can believe whatever they want. I'm a Christian, my wife is not. My parents go to church every Sunday, and they have never once said a single word about my wife and I choosing not to go, or the impact it could have on our new baby girl. They fully accept and support whatever decision we make in regards to how we raise our daughter, and how we choose to walk our own lives.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No, that's how a democracy is supposed to work. In practice, democracy can be perverted by special interests with deep pockets or by a tiny but passionate minority intent on imposing their views on others. Some of the "Christian" extremists meet both criteria. That's one of the reasons they are so offensive to the rest of us. They are not satisifed with proportional representation. They work to impose their minority views on the rest of us, which is what I complained about from the very beginning.

In this case your that special minority, you just haven't recognized it yet.

So you keep suggesting, yet you still haven't provided a single example of how we are trying to take away your rights. On the other hand, I provided multiple examples of how you are trying to take away mine.

I note that you again decline to provide any examples of how we are trying to take away your rights, even though you keep insinuating that we are.

[ ... ]

(Edit: On second thought, your very premise is backwards. [- 1 -] I want to preserve others' rights. [- 2 -] You want to take them away. [- 3 -] America was founded on the principle of protecting citizens' rights, specifically on protecting minorities' rights from the tyranny of the majority. That's what the Bill of Rights is all about. [- 4 -] Your position is both un-Christian and un-American.)

speechless

Because ... ?

You couldn't be farther from the truth. But I'm glad to know that you know me and my motives better then I do.
It must be wonderful to be so enlightened.

Speaking of cop-outs. It's easy to throw out empty, blanket denials. How about offering something concrete you can support with evidence? What did I say that is wrong? Let's look at it point by point:

1. You continue to evade providing any examples of how we are trying to take away your rights.
   
2. You've already conceded you want to take away others' rights (but excused it as wanting to live in a country that reflects their values).
   
3. Are you claiming America was NOT founded on the principle of protecting citizens' rights, that this is not what the Bill of Rights is all about? If so, what is your version of the story?
   
4. Are you claiming that attempting to take away others' rights is Christian and is consistent with America's democratic principles? If so, say so, and support your claim with something substantive.

Since I "couldn't be farther from the truth", you should have no trouble providing specific, factual evidence supporting your denial.

[/b]By the way, you ignored this:

• "Care to show us how Christ ever supported the imposition of faith on a population by the state, or even His support for the church as big business? Based on my memory of the New Testament, He would find both concepts repugnant."

Wanted to be sure you didn't miss it too.

I didnt ignore it, I merely answered the 2 part question as a whole
Beyond what I have already told you, the only advice I would offer is render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers and unto God what is Gods.
I'll let you look it up

I'm familiar with the quote. It seems to me it is far more supportive of my premise than yours. That's OK, you're off the hook. They were rhetorical questions. I know you cannot support either with scripture. The simple fact is, the self-proclaimed "Christian" forces who lobby to impose their faith on all of us via the government are NOT following anything Jesus taught. The simple fact is, Jesus would be appalled at the church as big business. That blatant hypocrisy drives a lot of people away from Christianity.

I did miss this somehow though:

This is where you totally miss the point. You might be able to use this as an example of Steeple's disdain for Christians. I'll let him address that if he cares to. It simply does NOT in any way suggest a hatred for Christ, however. It just doesn't. You claimed a lot of people in P&N hate Christ, not that they dislike Christians. There's a world of difference between the two.

In the words of Mahatma Gandhi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Thats a copout if I ever heard one....I think you not only miss the point your avoiding the point.
Keep trying to portray yourself as an objective person however.

I'm sorry, but it's really simple. Do you stand by your words or not? Do you still claim that there are "a lot of Christ haters" in P&N or not? If so, you have yet to provide even one example. If not, if you're now backpedaling from your words, stop dancing and be up-front about it. Show the integrity to admit your outrageous accusation was wrong instead of trying to pretend you didn't make it. Demonstrate some of those Christian values.

Since you already admitted its not christ haters but christian haters with your little jig and dance...I think you have proved my point for me.
Other then that your tact seems to be to dismiss outright every attempt to explain anything.
Frankly I am kind of bored with your feigned objectivity and have seen a few atheists make good points in here that I believe were of value.

Yours were not among them, and I feel I have wasted enough time with you.

I'm off to get legislation approved so that you can only agree with my posts from here on out.
That is my goal to control your life right?

Good job providing examples like he asked... err... you failed to give evidence again... DODGE!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Sphexi

Originally posted by: 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.

That's kind of funny, because I know a lot of religious people, having grown up in Christian churches, and I can't remember a single occasion where I heard any one of them say something that was intolerent, or belittling of another person's beliefs or lack thereof. But for some reason whenever the topic of "religion" comes up, there's always one or two proud athiests who immediately pop up to slander any and all religions.

Obviously, things have been done (and continue to be done) in the name of one religion or another that are not alright, and are downright horrible in some cases. But there's also things being blamed on video games, or television, or violent movies, or rap music. There's ALWAYS someone or something being blamed, and just because the person creating the problem happens to be religious, or works for a religious organization, athiests automatically use it as an excuse to hold up the religion as faulty, and usually evil.

That being said, people can believe whatever they want. I'm a Christian, my wife is not. My parents go to church every Sunday, and they have never once said a single word about my wife and I choosing not to go, or the impact it could have on our new baby girl. They fully accept and support whatever decision we make in regards to how we raise our daughter, and how we choose to walk our own lives.

You never saw intolerance? Funny, my wife's family was COMPLETELY unaccepting of me.. and I'm not an "atheist." She is catholic. It is always funny how people see "no signs of intolerance" when they are the ones going to church...

Btw, in this thread there is a ton of misinformation about "proud atheists." Most people are not atheist that don't believe in religion. They simply do not have the information to determine whether a god exists or not... therefore, they just live their life and what happens after happens. It would be just as ignorant to assume god doesn't exist as to assume god MUST exist... People just love giving LABELS to people... which are merely ASSUMPTIONS...

 

[jakedeez]

This is really silly. There is simply no way that the claims made by the OP can be "proven" or even very convincingly argued. Why you ask? Because it would take a massive amount of polling data, which would be suspect anyway, to try and quantify which group was the most "tolerant".

As to your point OP about "atheists" which btw - I agree with the general assessment that you have the meaning skewed if not completely wrong, causing more death is also very silly.

Okay, let?s just start by looking at the first one, which you were so kind as to ?give us? but haven?t amended your OP so clearly you don?t believe you have really lost the point?

Hitler? an Atheist? so the point was that the master race was to be blond haired, blue eyed, Germans, but from a diverse religious pool? I see someone just must have gotten the memo wrong and killed a couple of million Jews?

Okay, now let?s get to what you call, ?so-called ?religious wars? of all previous centuries combined.? First off, I would really like to see some source data? second; let?s talk about population percentages, not just raw number. Third, even however, if we were to accept your statement that the total number of people killed by atheists was greater then the number killed by theists, both in number and percentage terms, it wouldn?t mean that atheists were less tolerant any more then it would mean they were smarter?.

Why? Because your argument is a red herring. You start by asking, ?are atheists more intolerant then theists?? Then talk about war, understandably, but then go on to equate body counts to tolerance. Perhaps some or most of the people you listed were atheists, and perhaps some wars were in part started by, or lead by them, however, that doesn?t make the total sum of tolerance, or even average tolerance clearly higher amongst atheists then it is amongst theists.

It is in fact much easier to point to examples of religious intolerance then it is atheistic intolerance. Think, KKK, IRA, al-Qaeda, PLO, ASG, GI, AL, EIJ, IAA, Hezbollah, JeM, LT, Jewish Defense League, ISYF, Army of God, Lord?s Resistance Army?. the list goes on. With all that, I can?t think of one group that is violent based on being atheist, even if the point is conceded that many of the leaders of massive slaughters were not religious, it does not mean they commanded the armies the way they did because they were atheists? and even conceding that wouldn?t mean that atheists were less tolerant then theists?

 

[Nightfall]

This has been said before, but I will say it again.

There are certain people out there that are not tolerant of anything but what they believe. I know more than a few people on both sides who either believe in god or don't believe and feel the need to convert or look down on people who don't follow what they believe. Its stupid IMHO.