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

[ivykaty44]

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

bemybebe. We can all disagree amaiably about many issues, but when we descend to the level of insulting others who wear garments for religious reasons and say that these garments are bin liners, we have crossed the line. It is arrogant and contemptuous of other people. This is what the thread is about - intolerance and respect. Let's agree to disagree, but let's not be rude, insulting and contemptuous of others. We all have rights, let's also respect other's religious rights that are within the law. Let's argue about it, disagree etc., but there is no need to be hostile and insulting to other people's religions, customs and religious beliefs.

These garments are clearly not bin liners, and if you offered a burqa wearer a bi liner, she wouldn't wear it. So there is no need to refer to these garments as bin liners, unless you are deliberately trying to offend.

I am offended by the use of the term 'bin liner' and it makes me feel sick, and I am not even a Muslim and don't wear a burqa. So I can just imagine how sick it must make a Muslim burqa wearer. Let's disagree, but let's be civil.

bit late but no they shouldn't be. They should be tolerant of beleivers as long as beleiver are similarly tolerant of them and everyone else.

Oh hello claig.

what about female circumcision, should we tolerate it also? according to you does it fall under child abuse or "other people's religions, customs and religious beliefs", so "no need to be hostile"?

bemybebe. I think we should be intolerant of some things such as female circumcision. I think we have to stand up for our values. I am a conservative, I believe in defending our values. But the use of 'bin liner' to refer to a burqa is not in the charitable Christian tradition, it is not part of our culture to denigrate other people needlessly. The French have banned the burqa, but I don't think their decent politicians have referred to it as a 'bin liner'. If they have, then they are outside the great, charitable tradition of Christianity.

Jusk skimmed through this. I am an atheist and tolerate religion, especially when the religion is promoting kindness and peace.

Am I ever intolerant - I dont like people using religion as an excuse for cruelty, if this counts.

Not very knowledgeble on islam, but 100% in agreement with CoteDAzur, I have always found the burka oppressive. It is just a gut instinct that women cannot express themselves, when covered from head to toe. A good friend of mine is a turkish muslim, and I have never seen her in a burka or even a veil. We quizzed her on this once, and she said that it was not necessary to wear a veil, to be a muslim. She also said that her family make a donation to the poor at ramadan, rather than fast.

Or on the otherhand everyone is atheistic about some gods. Atheists just disbelieve in one more than the monotheists.

Not necessarily: see agnostic atheists - a definition which seems to encompass some (but not all) of the "atheists" who have chosen to participate in this discussion.

Just come back to this thread and seen claig is on it - I'm now debating whether I have the energy to get into it with her...

Perhaps I will when she provides a definition of what progressive is to her - claig, refusing to state your position in this way is leaving you open to a lot of abuse and speculation, you know. Is your definition of the word part of a great mystical belief that only the inducted faithful are privy to, sort of like the different levels of Scientology? Because I've looked it up here and I see nothing that suggests global conspiracy, unless you believe that all social change is necessarily bad. I mean, things like votes for women and all that...

Is it permissible to mark one's place in a debate like this one, or is it a fax pas?

BTW, Himalaya - I've ditched the ears.

Pointythings - I also looked it up in Wikipedia (which I know is not infallible) and still couldn't see what she was getting at so I decided not to feed the troll not to engage in the weird ramblings on that particualr conspiracy theory

It will, DarthNiqabi - if only you have faith. Or something.

The truth is probably out there.

I am sorry, I thought that everybody knew what a progressive was.
Progressive is a political term, used by politicians to claim that they are offering progress. but being a political term, it obviously plays loose with teh facts. It is not a conspiracy. It is real. They do call themselves progressives, they do promise the earth, the moon and everything in between.

There is no point looking up the word progressive in a dictionary, because this is politics and nothing is real, nothing is as it seems. Nick Clegg is progressive and told us "we are the bosses". Some Guardian readers probably believed him. Nick Clegg is progressive and told us there was no way he would be in favour of tuition fees for students. The Guardian newspaper is progressive and enthusiastically backed him in the election and urged its readers to vote for him. This is politics, this is spin, this is illusion. It is not conspiracy, it is all too real. New Labour is progressive and promise to "build a progressive future". Needless to say, the Daily Mail is not progressive.

It is no use looking up the word progressive. To understand the meaning of the word progressive in its political sense, you need to consult an urban dictionary for the phrase "snake oil salesman". The definition you find is

'comes from the 19th-century American practice of selling cure-all elixirs in traveling medicine shows. Snake oil salesmen would falsely claim that the potions would cure any ailments. now-a-days it refers to fake products.'

Snake oil is 'any dubious or fraudulent remedy or cure' and 'medicine or therapy that doesn't work'.

Progressives are modern-day snake oil salesmen.

Having said that, not all progressive policies ar bad. They are just policies that progressives try to appropriate for themselves to claim the moral high ground. Progressives can claim the high ground by denigrating the opposition as regressive. Some New Labour, LibDem and tory policies are good and some are bad.

Revolutionary socialists claim they are progressive, and I am sure that the 'League of Militant Atheists' claimed they were progressive and that the Russian Orthodox worshippers were regressive and needed to be re-educated to the modern progressive thinking. There are all types of progressives and Cameron and Osborne claim they are progressive too.

I think the dangerous progressives are the revolutionary socialist ones and that includes the 'League of Militant Atheists'. they are against religion for political reasons, not religious. They have political objectives that religion stands in the way of.

I'm sorry, claig, but nothing you are saying about progressives in any of the above makes any sense. Of course you can't trust a politician to be honest - people who aspire to power seldom are, and even if they start out decent, power soon corrupts. This also applies to people who hold power in religious organisations, naturally.

But are you really saying that people who aspire to social change are always in it for themselves? Really? Isn't it possible that people who campaign against FGM, equality for gay people under the law, prison reform, improved treatment for the mentally ill - that they're just doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do for their fellow human beings and the world that we live in? That would be a level of cynicism that I find mind-blowing - I really hope I've misunderstood you here.

Your use of the word 'progressives' as the root of all evil also reminds me rather of the way you used the term 'servants of Mammon' or something of that ilk in the thread that sprang up around the Pope's visit, and it did come across as a little unbalanced. You seem to latch on to an idea or a concept and then build up an edifice of belief around it - and of course you are free to do so, but it makes it difficult to take your arguments seriously. So does the fact that you appear to use the Daily Mail as a source of serious reference rather than cheap entertainment.

Very few people on this thread seem to be the kind of militant atheists that Chris Patten seems to think are lurking under every rock, and the kind of atheism that you describe is not atheism at all - it is a belief in its own right. To my mind the whole point of not believing is choosing not to belong to the mob, because people do things in mobs that they would never contemplate doing alone, in the company of their conscience. Some of us get a bit too passionate sometimes, there are extremists everywhere, but tarring all of us who do not believe with the same brush, as Chris Patten has done, is both foolish and hurtful. That is what this thread is about.

Himalaya "Or on the otherhand everyone is atheistic about some gods. Atheists just disbelieve in one more than the monotheists." love it, very true!

I just nipped back in quickly to ask Claig what (if any) views she (?) has about Prog Rock? It's a genre that I rather enjoy, but I am feeling increasingly concerned that I may be opening myself up to dark forces. Any advice?

'But are you really saying that people who aspire to social change are always in it for themselves?'

No I am not saying that. I said that some New labour policies are good. I am in favour of the minimum wage and would like them to turnm it into a living wage. I am in favour of equlaity and human rights and help for the mentally ill and a good NHS etc. I am using the term in an irionic sense because I don't believe that the destruction of so many our civil rights by the progressives was progressive, whatever they call themselves. I don't think that Bliar was progressive or that Nick Clegg saying he is progressive ties up with him imposing high tuition fees on students. I think many powerful people claim to be progressive as a cloak for what their real policies are.

I don't just read the Daily Mail. I don't know if the Daily Mail mentions what the use of the term progressive implies. I don't really care if anyone takes my arguments seriously. i only make a case. I think some people will agree with some of my views but the majority won't. But I base my views on a wide review of politics, and I also read the Guardian to inform my opinions.

I am not anti atheists. I think they have a sound philosophical and trational basis for their views. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they are militant. However, I did bring up some militant atheist organisations under the Soviet regime to show that there is a powerful group of political activists that are atheistic for political reasons. Opinions are formed by opinion formers. The media, the Guardian, the BBC, the Daily Mail all play their part in forming the debate. Behind the opinion formers are very often political people with political objectives and a political slant.

I don't agree with Chris Patten. But I am not in favour of atheists or not who term the burqa a 'bin liner'. I find that offensive and intolerant. I don't mind being called a buckethead and a l'ittle unbalanced' because I know that I am not. But I don't like other people being insulted by the use of terms such as 'bin liner'.

Live and let live. Religious people and atheists should all be free within the law to believe whatever they like.

I don't know much about prog rock. What bands are they? Is it Led Zepp, Hawkwind etc.? If so, then yes.

'Live and let live' - we need a lot more of that, I think most of us agree on that. I would also never describe a burqa as a bin liner.

Would you agree that there are also people who choose to subscribe to extreme religious beliefs (I am thinking some of the more extreme Christian groups who exert so much influence in the US) for political reasons? In some places there is as much political and financial mileage in being a hard-line Christian as there is in being atheist, or socialist.

And I'm not arguing that there are people behind the media on all sides of the political spectrum who are pushing their political agendas - that is why I am teaching my children not to believe everything they read and hear.

I think all founding principles of whatever stripe benefit from being questioned from time to time - if only to give them a mental MOT and find them still fit for purpose.

Think Rick Wakeman

Bands like Floyd and Supertramp...

Dark side? Or OK?

If that's dark side then so am I

'Would you agree that there are also people who choose to subscribe to extreme religious beliefs (I am thinking some of the more extreme Christian groups who exert so much influence in the US) for political reasons?'

Yes I would agree. But on the whole people are good. They are often duped by political leaders who use them. the millions of Christians and millions of voters of all parties are good people. It is the leaders who take advantage of their good nature.

'that is why I am teaching my children not to believe everything they read and hear.

I think all founding principles of whatever stripe benefit from being questioned from time to time - if only to give them a mental MOT and find them still fit for purpose.'

Excellent. i agree entirely with that. We always need to question and be sceptical. We have seen them come and go and we have seen them all before, we can read teh score. We have to be wary of snake oil salesmen in sharp suits, telling us they are 'straight kinda guys'. We have to question what they mean when they suddenly start calling themselves progressive in much of their publicity. None of us have all the answers. We are just searching for the truth, and the truth is hard to find.

I think there is some quote I read once, that God loves the atheist, because the atheist is nearer to God than teh believer, because the atheist has asked questions and thought about it, and often teh believer may just be acting on auto-pilot.