Chris Pattern says that "atheists are "intolerant" of religion."

[ivykaty44]

Is he correct? And should atheist be tolerant of religion?

"There is no vitriol against atheists on MN."

Possibly because there isn't much to say against people who demand proof and "rational" is not much of an insult.

So you agree that we should be able to disapprove, DarthNiqabi? What, and disapprove without being called "intolerant"?

nailak - Read the definition of "tolerance".

Enough with the conspiracy theories. It's so tiresome. Now it's athiests who are a secret organised super-powerful group of the ever hated "progressives" trying to bring down the world order?

Last week I thought it was the Greens? And before that Tony Blair?

But people don't go around in real life telling people who are religious that they have imaginary friends and it's all sky pixies. I mean I have to check with SGB but I'm sure even she doesn't lambast people at the school gates if they are wearing a cross or whatever.

The comments this man made were about real life. Is this happening in real life? I have not heard any reports.

People express their views much more strongly on MN than in real life due to anonimity. I don't think that many of them go around behaving that way in their day to day lives.

Or are people saying that they want people to moderate what they say on MN? When it comes to religion only? Or on all topics which cause high emotion (BF/FF, WOHM/SAHM etc etc etc etc)

'"There is no vitriol against atheists on MN."

Possibly because there isn't much to say against people who demand proof and "rational" is not much of an insult."

I don't think it is for that reason. The religious MNers are not out to prove that God exists because it can't be proved, they are not out to win an argument or score a point. They don't care if others don't believe. They are not shaken in their faith by being called bucketheads, nutters etc. They accept that others think differently and they know that atheists have logic and reason and science behind them. But they believe because they feel it, they access an area that logic, reason and science can't reach. Faith is like love, science has a hard time explaining it. Progressive scientific reasoning and logic cannot penetrate faith.

It is really about respect for others' deeply held views. Religious MNers respect atheists for their deeply held views. They would of course prefer not to be called bucketheads, but that doesn't matter either, it is all water off the religious MNers' backs. If faith faded due to insults then martyrs would never have sacrificed themselves for their beliefs and religion would have been eradicated many years ago. the 'League of Militant Athesits' know it will take much more than insults to re-educate the proletariat who persist in great numbers in praying to their 'imaginary friends' rather than to their 'Great Leaders'.

SardineQueen, many things really revolve around power and politics and yes powerful people conspire to achieve their objectives. That is how the world worls. Big Brother doesn't really love you, in spite of what he says. The world is full of con men, deceivers and Bliars. If you can spot them coming, you won't swallow their pill. The world is not a Panglossian paradise, progressives really do exist.

It's atheist and atheism.

I'm talking about disapproval.

I could also disprove your premise that your niqab is part of Islam but that would again get you calling me "intolerant"

The Daily Mail will inform you about what the Bliars are up to. You can read about the ex-armed services van driver and his battle to save his job from the progressives.

I'm an atheist and i would defend people's right to their beliefs whether main-stream religion or more alternative (makes no difference to me which people choose as I've said further up the thread and where I've described how I personally feel about religious beliefs in terms I would not use outside of a debate such as this for fear of causing offence) in the same way I would any other social or political freedom.

Most of the time I have little/no opinion about religious beliefs but occasionally they are used by a minority as an excuse for anti-social or immoral behaviour which is wrong and I will challenge that behaviour but otherwise leave people to their own devices. You can't police the thought - and neither should you try - but only the actions. In the UK most of the time our actions are benign whatever our belief system but in some instances those actions are not and we manage that through our legal system.

I am proud that the UK is for the most part liberal and tolerant.

Darth that's MN though. It's not just religion where people say things to each other that are quite strong. TBH I think that on threads about religion people moderate their language and tread a little more carefully than they do on other emotive topics.

"progressives really do exist"

Hooray!!!!! I'm all for progression, rather than regression. I'm a forward looking kinda gal

sorry, that should be

"his battle to save his job from the progressive serpent, just like St. George, the patron saint of England, once did long ago. Plus ca change, plus il y a des progressifs."

'Hooray!!!!! I'm all for progression, rather than regression. I'm a forward looking kinda gal'

I think that's because you don't fully understand what the progresssives' plans are. Bliar showed you some of them. The people understood and voted them out.

"Progressive scientific reasoning and logic cannot penetrate faith"

Don't we know it.

"Religious MNers respect atheists for their deeply held views."

You are making the mistake of thinking that atheists have immutable "views" like religious people which reasoning and logic cannot penetrate. That is demonstrably false.

If tomorrow there was the slightest shred of proof that there is a God, or if you could possibly come up with an argument that would logically conclude that there must be a God, the atheist talking to you would start to believe in your God there and then.

But you can't. So you are hiding behind the illusion that if religious people wanted to, they could argue that God exists, but they don't because they "respect atheists for their deeply held views".

Sorry but LOL.

I agree with kate middleton.

If people don't understand why it seems to be the "athiest" people who can get more upset, it's because they have things in their way due to religion that they don't like, and that affect their lives and their children's lives. And they are expected to pay for these things through their taxes.

The majority religion (CofE) have the country set up in a way that acknowledges them as default and organises society accordingly. People who eg dont' want their children to be excluded from their local school that is paid for out of their taxes understandably get a little frustrated. It is easy to be calm and moderate when you have the upper hand, when everything is going your way. And whatever people think on this thread, about intolerance and people being mean to christians (which seems to be the general thrust) - it is a fact that Sunday is different to other days, the country is generously littered with churches, the call to prayer is loudly rung across the nation, all state schools are supposed to have a daily act of broadly christian worship, songs of praise is on the main television channel etc etc etc etc. That's why people who feel in a minority get so het up.

'If tomorrow there was the slightest shred of proof that there is a God, or if you could possibly come up with an argument that would logically conclude that there must be a God, the atheist talking to you would start to believe in your God there and then.'

But there never will be proof. Proof is impossible. You are looking for proof and you will never find it, that door is locked. Only faith will open the door, it is a different dimension, a different plane. Some would say you may need to wear a bucket on your head to access that dimension, others would say that is the true dimesnsion and all else is illusion.

LOL @ the words "progression" and "progressive" having only one meaning in Claig's world.

If I went into work tomorrow and said that I had a great plan to progress the IT systems, I expect Claig would rush in with a tinfoil hat on, denounce me as an athiest/environmentalist/socialist/bolshevist/communist/whatever it is this week - ist and effect a citizen's arrest

sorry that should have said,
"all else is New Labour"

Proof is not impossible. If a massive bearded bloke / multi-armed combat woman / scandinavian man with a giant hammer appeared in the sky and started dishing out orders then I think people would come round the the whole Deity idea PDQ.

'denounce me as an athiest/environmentalist/socialist/bolshevist/communist/whatever it is this week - ist and effect a citizen's arrest'

Certainly not. I read the Daily Mail, I am tolerant. I understand how many good people the progressives have lured into their trap.

What happens to religious people if God appears, and it's the wrong one? Have any of the religious people on the thread considered that?

I've always had a soft spot for the Viking gods TBH. They were deities I could get on board with.