Atheism

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

Lash wrote:

I think the pre-emptive dislike from non-believers stems from the fact that the Christian fully believes the non-believer is going to hell and they're ok with that. Give them half a chance and they'll TELL you you are.

In Denmark most of us are atheist only a minority are christians or of other religious observation. We scorn christianity for it's blatant selfcontradictive ways and we consider belivers to be simple minded, naive, desperate and stupid.

Well, aren't you just full of tolerance and love.

0 Replies

Hex is a pathetic figure, no doubt. But there is nothing which calls upon him to either tolerate christians, or to love them. You're projecting your (alleged) values, which is one of the reasons that others find christians disgusting. Also, given how little real tolerance and love christians commonly display, many people are lead to consider them hypocrites.

3 Replies

I think tolerance and love are a difficult task for us all. Those who admit the difficulty, the meek and unassuming, do the best job of it. The reality seems to be that both religious and athiest have their fair share of those skilled and those unskilled at this.

2 Replies

@wayne,

Sure, but when you stay in the rain, you get soaked..

0 Replies

@wayne,

You missed the point of my remarks. Christians claim that tolerance and love are virtues which arise from their beliefs--never mind if they display those virtures, they tout them. An atheist may decide to be tolerant and loving, but there is no dogma driving that ethos, as christians claim they have.

The meek are playing their own games, too. There is often a passive-aggressive guilt trip behind the sufferance of the allegedly meek.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta, responding to Intrepid, wrote:

[T]here is nothing which calls upon him to either tolerate christians, or to love them. You're projecting your (alleged) values, which is one of the reasons that others find christians disgusting. [ Also, given how little real tolerance and love christians commonly display, many people are lead to consider them hypocrites.

On top of that, Intrepid seems to be confused about the meaning of "tolerance". It means, "I may not like what you're doing, but I'll put up with it rather than do anything to impede it." Tolerance has nothing to do with love. Hence, although Intrepid was intending to be sarcastic, what he said was actually right in part. Although Hexhammer's post certainly wasn't full of love for Christians, it was indeed full of tolerance: Hex doesn't like Christianity, but he puts up with it. That's what tolerance means.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Oh I don't think I missed the point. My point is that people are people no matter their religion. Those that realize that, do best at the tolerance thing. The meek / humble rarely have an agenda, of course there is such a thing as false humility.
We gain nothing by judging the judgemental, although we often do, myself included.
Actually, I think that's what the christ was teaching, but you are right, lots of christians fall far short of the mark. But then, that's human.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Inferentially, you exclude atheists from the set of those who will be tolerant--although i suspect that is not what you meant.

I never have subscribed to the call for people not to be judgmental. We make judgments from the time we arise in the morining until we retire at night. We decide what we want to eat, we decide how to get to work, we decide whom we trust among those we encounter each day. I don't see anything wrong with being judgmental. If there's a problem with that, it comes from those who are being self-righteous. Those who deplore being "judgmental" are being self-righteous in their own way--the implication is that they try not to be judgmental, and on that one, i call bullshit.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

They're judging those who are judgmental. (Bad judgmental person, bad.)

0 Replies

No dessert for them!

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Tolerance is not judging the judgemental, it is accepting people as human. Which is to be fallible.
Sure, we make decisions and judgements everyday. But there is something to be said for the man that can look at another and see a fellow human being.
I really don't see that as a religious value so much as simple humanity.
A positive attribute in a civilized society.

0 Replies

All things in moderation--including moderation. We all tolerate one another far more than we show intolerance. It is simply a core virtue of the social contract to such an extent that we don't notice it. But i have no problem with intolerance for that which is an offense to a person's most deeply held beliefs. The significant manner is the reaction which arises from that intolerance. To voice it is not a problem for me. To assertively act upon, when there is no question of criminality, is offensive to me, and, i believe, to good order in the social contract. Which is why fundamentalist religious types disgust and even sometimes alarm me.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

All things in moderation--including moderation. We all tolerate one another far more than we show intolerance. It is simply a core virtue of the social contract to such an extent that we don't notice it. But i have no problem with intolerance for that which is an offense to a person's most deeply held beliefs. The significant manner is the reaction which arises from that intolerance. To voice it is not a problem for me. To assertively act upon, when there is no question of criminality, is offensive to me, and, i believe, to good order in the social contract. Which is why fundamentalist religious types disgust and even sometimes alarm me.

Well said. I can find no reason not to agree.

1 Reply

@wayne,

Yes Wayne--but Setanta doesn't say anything about the tolerance being a strategy and one fragile enough to break down under very little pressure. There is quite sufficient intolerance in the world to suggest that intolerance is an evolved trait in human nature and, as such, ineradicable.

We can all be tolerant when things are running smoothly. And it's hardly tolerant to say that fundamentalists disgust and alarm him when they are really quite harmless and the problems he thinks they cause are in his own head. Setanta's intolerance is notorious. Fundamentalists are to him, like spiders are to delicate young ladies, and his tolerance threshhold goes skittering off into the distance when he is exposed to them. As it does when exposed to a few other equally harmless activities. He can't even tolerate my posts and they are only some marks on a screen. And he boasts of the fact on every occasion that presents itself.

It was a load of self-flattering glop I'm afraid. He had probably been watching a country-house period-piece among the bonnets. A milking your empathy udders job.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I think the pre-emptive dislike from non-believers stems from the fact that the Christian fully believes the non-believer is going to hell and they're ok with that. Give them half a chance and they'll TELL you you are.

My experience has been the opposite, Lash, unless I'm misreading your intent on who is ok with the nonbeliever going to hell. My experience with Christians (Hell is a Christian manifestation) is that they not only care that the nonbeliever is going to Hell, they care to the point of having to save him from himself and force their salvation on him.

Edgar's experience with the woman in the appt complex reminded me of an interaction I had with an acquaintance at the health club. We'd worked out side by side every Saturday for years but never spoke much other than about the football games on TV or other inane stuff. One day he came in and asked if he could change the channel. Everyone said sure and we were all then watching Fox news. I jokingly said, "Oh, you're the one who keeps tuning the TV to Fox!!!"

The conversation went on from there and we had a very pleasant (tolerant?) discussion about fundamentalism and how I believe that Christian fundamentalists are the most dangerous people on the planet. He was intrigued and, as a Christian fundamentalist, wanted to know why I felt that way. I gave him my reasons and he was fascinated because he said he is so sure in his faith that he feels obligated to live his life to ensure that all of mankind gets saved -- or as much of it as his can influence through politics during his lifetime.

This was an educated, professional, well-meaning member of my community who believes in his heart of hearts that nonbelievers are going to Hell and he must dedicate his life to save as many of us as possible. That means putting God in charge of Washington, our states, communities, schools and homes first. The rest of the world comes next.

He did nothing to dissuade me from my position that fundamentalist Christians are the most dangerous people on the planet.

2 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

This was an educated, professional, well-meaning member of my community who believes in his heart of hearts that nonbelievers are going to Hell and he must dedicate his life to save as many of us as possible. That means putting God in charge of Washington, our states, communities, schools and homes first. The rest of the world comes next.

This describes most conservative American Christians I've met as well.

On a tangent to your remark about this Christian being "educated, professional, [and] well-meaning", did you read Sam Harris's book The End of Faith? In the course of looking at some of the Massachusetts witch trials, Harris points out how the only aspect of the proceedings was the courts' and the juries' belief that witchcraft exists. Everything else about the proceedings was utterly rational, professional, and conscientious, given the participants' belief in that proposition.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Can anyone locate "hell" anywhere in our universe? What about "heaven", too.

BBB

3 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

You'll have to ask this question to people who believe in heaven and hell.

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Can anyone locate "hell" anywhere in our universe?

East St. Louis.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Ha, when I saw you'd replied I expected it'd be "Gary, IN." Close enough.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know