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

[ivykaty44]

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

cote i find you intolerant, because you cant accept other peoples choices as legitimate

Have not read the rest of this thread as I suspect it will be the usual shite the atheist mners come up with but I think he is absolutely correct. You will rarely find religious people disrespectful about others beliefs (in this day and age anyway) even if their own beliefs are the polar opposite, atheists (on mumsnet as I do not know any in RL) however feel there is nothing offensive about referring to others beliefs as mumbo jumbo and superstitions and ridiculing them in the most childish language they can think of.

Well, I suggest you do read it becasue you are making exactly the same type of generalisations that make anyone - whether religious or atheist - pissed off.

It has actually been a remarkably civilised discussion. Read in particular pointybunnyears comments: she ennunciates very clearly why (some) religious people feel particularly threatened by what they see as an attack on their religion and ascribe it (unreasonably) to "atheists" as an homogenous mass, as opposed to people (who may or may not be atheists) having an issue with the privileged position that religion had (and in many cases, still has) afforded those that followed that religion.

The thing is with the superstitous squawkers is they are just like Twitards or Justin Beeber fans - they can't accept any criticism or disagreement with their particular viewpoint, however silly and unimportant. It's all 'Waaa, waa, you have to respect my imaginary friend/shit musical taste, how dare you introduce facts into a discussion?'
A person's right to believe any old bullshit is worthy of respect as in it's not acceptable to go round their house and piss on their Sacred Artefacts, or hang around outside one of their group rituals pointing and laughing, but most people don't do that anyway. However, in an open discussion forum, there is no need to tiptoe round other people's sensibilities when they are posting nonsense, particularly when it's harmful nonsense, as a lot of religion can be.

I would have thought most atheists are like me and not just tolerant but apathetic.

I take issue with religious beliefs being used as justification for immoral or antisocial behaviour but it is the behaviour I object to rather than the belief.

I do not give a shit which brand of mumbo-jumbo people believe any more than I care what style of pants they like to where. Not my business.

Ok, maybe I'm here too early, but I think it's possible to accept that this kind of mockery and abuse is not demonstrative of tolerance or even apathy, but of animosity, even extreme animosity.

I don't know why I've engaged with it to the extent of acknowledging it at all. Partyhats reaction is bad but it's a reaction to many, many threads full of this kind of thing and SGB's kind of thing.

However, one doesn't meet this kind of unnecessary unpleasantness in real life very often, it's true.

Hi Pointy (what was yr name before the bunny got your ears??)

Yes, I agree I think overt wind-up language does tend to derail the discussion. But it is noticable that on this thread, as on others people were shouting out abuse, aggression etc...well before SGB turned up on cue to do her party-piece.

That finely honed sense of over-sensitivity that religions bring out in people is part of it's defense mechanism for privilidge.

The person that I find intolerant is SpringChickenGoldBrass and if I was her DC I would be exploring religion to see why she was so angry and see why she makes it sound so exciting! (I would also want to spend time with my grandparents to find out why she is like that).
I can just respect most atheists and am interested in their views, but rants and lots of posts about 'imaginary friends' turn me off completely, so that if there is anything worth hearing among it all I would miss it completely!

I never know why someone is world authority on what others should think and has no respect for differences,
SCGB has spoken-no one needs to think for themselves!! (because THEY ARE WRONG!)

(My rant is over )

Ever heard of these charming folk? A bunch of militant socialists called "The League of Militant Athesists" or the "Society of the Godless".

It's slogan was
"Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism"

'Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, S.o.G. aimed at fighting religion in all its manifestations and forming scientific mindset among the workers. It popularized atheism'

Behind some powerful, leading atheists is really a political objective.

'All religions, no matter how much they 'renovate' and cleanse themselves, are systems of idea... profoundly hostile to the ideology of... socialism... Religious organizations... are in reality political agencies... of class groupings hostile to the proletariat inside the country and of the international bourgeoisie'

Nuns and priests were butchered and churches desecrated under the communists in the Soviet Union, the Great People's Republic, run by ideological socialist revolutionaries.

Why take such extreme measures against believers in 'sky fairies'? What was their objective, why did they fear religion and why were they determined to stamp it out and re-educate the proletariat?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless

well before SGB turned up on cue to do her party-piece.

I knew she would! A good example of what Chris Patten means. She would give a wonderful boost to religion -fanatics always make most people want to do the opposite (evangelistic Christians have the same affect on me)

'Ever heard of these charming folk?'

My guess is most people haven't heard about them. I doubt the BBC has given them much attention in its publicly funded award-winning history programming.

What's the problem with an ex-armed services veteran having a cross in the window of his work van? Why was he at risk of getting sacked? What was a poster of revolutionary socialist Che Guevara doing in his bosses office?

So he believes in 'sky fairies'. Why does that threaten Che, Mao, Stalin and their gang of revolutionary socialists?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377684/Electrician-Colin-Atkinson-faces-sack-Christian-cross-van-dashboard.html

I thought the revolutionary socialists were progressive. Maybe that's the reason. God and religion aren't progressive enough for their tastes.

There were no bucketheads in the 'League of Militant Atheists'. No socialist who wears a tee shirt with Che Guevara saying 'Viva la revolucion' is ever a buckethead. It seems that the only bucketheads are those who are not progressive enough, those who wear a cross to demonstrate their faith in God rather than in Karl Marx. If the ex-armed services van driver had an image of the hammer and sickle in his van, he may even have received a progressive promotion.

If the ex-armed services electrician worked for a firm called Che Guevara's Electrical Services, that would be hunky-dory, but if he worked for Christian Electrical Services, doubtless a progressive somewhere high up would see if this contravened some bureaucratic legislation (most probably a socialist one). Maybe they are preparing a regulation against bucketheads. God help us.

Ask yourself why the revolutionary socialists hate religion so much, why do they see belief in 'sky fairies' as so important? What is it that they plan to do when they have finally eradicated it?

You are another one who makes me want to do the opposite, claig!

"why the revolutionary socialists hate religion so much"

Presumably because in their utopian world of equality, dispersed ownership of means of production, etc there is no place nor need for "the opiate of the masses".

exoticfruits, good then you should join SGB.

I agree with DarthNiqabi, I rarely see religious people call atheists bucketheads on MN. There is no vitriol against atheists on MN. Atheism is a respected intellectual and philosophical position. No atheist is a buckethead. Religious people on MN don't care if someone has atheist views, that is not threatening at all. Everyone can believe what they want, anyone can vote for Gordon Brown. It's still a free country, with free beliefs and freedom of faith. The communists and their 'Society of the Godless' are not yet in charge. Praise the Lord.

Some here don't seem to know what the word "tolerance" means.

Tolerance = the practice of deliberately allowing or permitting a thing of which one disapproves.

So, "tolerate" does not mean "accept". It does not mean "like" or "be fine with".

Keeping this in mind, what SGB says is actually correct: We do tolerate religion and the religious, in the sense that we don't go and aggress them, but in a place like MN where opinions are exchanged, we should be free to voice our disapproval.

I'm not openly intolerant of religious people; just inwardly, I kind of think, gosh, they're so gulliable.

However, I don't believe wars would become fewer if everyone was atheist; 'religion' is used for the reason of war but without religion, people would find something to fight over.

Chris Patten doesn't know what he's on about though.

Darth, most atheists are sincere in their beliefs and have thought it through. They are not intolerant of religious people's views, they just disagree with them. They base their beliefs on sound philosophical, scientific and logical reasoning. But there are a minority of very powerful political operators who are atheists and are indeed intolerant of all religions, not just Christianity. They are driven by political objectives and not religious ones. They don't give a stuff about 'sky fairies', because they don't believe in them, but they are very determined to stop others believing in 'imaginary friends'. They have very good political reasons for doing so, because religion stands in the way of what they intend to achieve. The revolutionary socialists don't believe in freedom and equality, 'love they neighbour as thyself' goes against what they plan to do. Those beliefs are the opium of the people and they need to prevent people believing those things in order to achieve their political goals.