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

[ivykaty44]

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

claig, the religious babushkas come out of church, dust off their Stalin portraits and mourn the loss of communism as well.

slug, I think you are right. They probably have it worse economically now than they had it then. It is very sad. Oligarch high rollers are riding around in limousines and the ordinary people suffer. It's the same the world over, but worse over there.

Aquinas is greatly more rational than that article makes out his argument to be. He liked rational thiking and shows a highly critical element in his work - his work is readily comprehensible to the modern mind.

The conundrum accepted 'God does not exist. God is eternal' is a quote from Kierkegaard who did not credit the primacy of rationality but credited primacy to the realm of Faith.

I personally think K. liked that kind of thought because on the battlefield of rationality, Religion had long since lost the battle (if it ever should have been there! Though K. evidently thinks it shouldn't). If you allow yourself to say 'well, i have faith, i don't have to and indeed can't justify myself' it makes you very difficult to tear down with rational argument, and indeed this represents the frustration of rational argument vs. emotional argument.

I completely disagree with the statement that 'atheism is like belief' - atheism is not close to theism (or meaningful theism) as if you really believe in the God of a religion, that should change how you live your life. If you decide there isn't a God of any kind, you are free to live as you please, as a land primate, on a very pretty rock, in a vacuum bound only by the principles of physics such as they are in this locality of the cosmos and by the training you have received from your fellow land-primates.

FWIW, arguments about the former soviet bloc aside, i reckon in this country if you performed a comprehnsive attitude survey, you'd find that atheists were more tolerant than religious believers. In the absence of such evidence, I am only going to claim that there is nothing peculiar to atheism which maks you more or less tolerant.

anybody got some stats on this?

Did anyone hear Melvyn Braff on breakfast TV claiming that "Christians have a microphone" while "atheists have a megaphone" ?

Along the lines of the disucssion on this thread, I disagree inasmuch as Christians just don't see how priviliged and ingrained in society their position is.

I would have agreed with him, if he had meant that Christians have a microphone that is then wired up to lots of lots of speakers so have in effect a far greater reach, whereas atheists have to use a megaphone to try to reach people on an indidviual basis (the lack of mention on atheism as an option in schools, for example).

However, somehow I don't think that is what he meant!

Bragg not Braff of course

i reckon in this country if you performed a comprehnsive attitude survey, you'd find that atheists were more tolerant than religious believers."

I think British CE Anglicans iught to have their own special group.

I bet British Anglicans are more tolerant than any religious group and in sum are more tolerant than in sum atheists (cripes wouldn't want to offend by calling you a group). We just can't bear ourselves.

Tis all out of guilt and self-abasement, and we beat Catholics at it hands down.

well, i reckons that on the one hand Anglicans are very unlikely to vote BNP as they don't emerge from the social strata that encourages that sort of politics, on the other hand they emerge from MC/professionalbackgrounds that are also socially conservative (small c), and churchgoers generally are older than average.... although tolerance apparently does increase with age as a personality trait. Attitue surveys by social class would suggest the typical Anglican to be fairly tolerant, though the difficulty being that I don't know where the 'typical' atheist would be placed in that social survey.

people who have thought about it enough to call themselves atheists (as opposed to 'dunno' or 'christian i suppose') have hopefully adopted a sufficiently critical persepctive to throw out unreasoned crap of the kind that promotes intolerance, but i confess...that is conjecture on my part.

what is true is: atheism dos not have an organised front or any particular campaign aims, so can't be anything but tolerant, as it isn't rally equipped to do anything else but tolerate.

It's a bit weird expecting an atheist to be tolerant of religion. Having said that, I'm an atheist and I don't give a fig really what religious beliefs other people have as long as they don't try to impose them on my family.

LOL ladylush - surely that mans you are being tolerant

well that seems to be the contested point. religious leaders seem to think Atheists are intolerant bcause they (in the person, say, of Dawkins) argue against religion in the public domain, and question its validity there.

i think most atheists would respect a persons right to believe whatever rubbish they wish though.

tolerance does not mean agreement.

I think someone who abused anyone for a specific reason would be described as intolerant. It doesn't mean you have to do something about it apart from the abuse. That would be the difference between intolerance and discrimination. I can imagine abuse of erm erm think, nonrecyclers, twat bastards who believe the utter bullshit fantasy that they aren't damaging the environment, they're so fucking stupid - well that's intolerant. It doesn't undermine the principle of free speech to call it intolerance, it's just pointing out that using free speech in that way is intolerant. If you agree with it, you're going to think, quite right, but if you disagree, and have your thought out reasons for disagreeing, you can recognise the intolerance.

I sense atheists are establishing themselves as a coherent group a little on the thread. After starting out saying, we're not a group, we don't believe in anything, so how can we be a group, there has begun a separation. It is not just "we don't believe in anything" but "we have thought about it and don't believe in anything". I think atheists should recognise the distinction and recognise the disingenuity or even pretence that you do not cohere.

Gooseberry I do think you have a point - atheists are a pretty diverse bunch in terms of how their unbelief is defined, but we have all arrived at unbelief in the end.
However, I think the coherence doesn't stem so much from what we do or do not believe as from a very strong feeling that the world as we live in right now does not acknowledge matters of common humanity. Instead, it still tends to base its legislative principles on matters of faith, thereby imposing faith-founded principles on those who don't share that particular faith. Glaring examples are Catholic adoption agencies, female bishops and gay marriage.

What many of us want - rather than putting down those who believe - is a serious dialogue about what makes us human and what should lie at the foundations of our laws. If we look at all the major faiths in the world, there are many things that they have in common, and those things tend also to be the same for atheists. Legislation should start there. Then we can start thinking - and I do mean thinking, and debating - about complex ethical issue, which are currently often presented in very black and white terms by both sides. I think dialogue is the key to tolerance and understanding - when we stop questioning and debating, we tend to start fighting and sending each other bombs in parcels.

My DH is an atheist and is intolerant of religion (theistic ones, anyway). He sees far too many problems caused by it to be able to see its redeeming (no pun intended) features.

I'm an atheist and can tolerate religion so long as its not expecting preferential treatment, an automatic right to greater respect etc. I wouldn't want to tolerate abuses committed in the name of any religion (neither would I do so in the case of any non-religous organisation).

Yes Vintage but what I said was that it's a bit weird expecting an atheist to be tolerant of religion.

I think atheists are far more tolerant of religions than religions are of each other.

I can't think of any atheist conflicts in the world.

I think it's important to mark a distinction between religion and faith.

I agree, organised religion leads to an awful lot of intolerance and pain, which often overshadows the good it also does.

But I have a faith. It's personal to me, and informs how I live my life, my values, the choices I make (though not perhaps as much as it should). I'll share it with folk if asked, but I don't preach. And I certainly don't hold my way as the only way - I don't feel I know nearly enough to assert that I am right and everyone else is wrong.

It's this that I think both 'sides' of the debate are guilty of - and in believing that those who disagree with them are some how 'less' than them, in intellect or compassion or faithfulness.

I've always found the quote 'you know you've succeeded in creating God in your own image when he hates the same people you do'.

helpful. I've always found it helpful (darned eagerness to post).

"It is not just "we don't believe in anything" but "we have thought about it and don't believe in anything""

Of course, we have thought about it before reaching a decision. Why is that surprising?

Question: On any subject, is it "intolerant" to say "You are wrong"?

And if so, given that atheists obviously think religious people are wrong to think there is a God, are the only tolerant atheists those who keep their mouth shut?

Ok, so this is what Chris Pattern says about it. But what is Chris Patten's opinion?