The tolerant atheist

Impossible, I tellya.

VICTIMIZED, yet again, eh?

Figures, sho nuff.

yep

Only religion would make good fathers slit their sons' throats and make good mothers throw their children off of cliffs, eh?



Obviously, they all must have believed in god, and that's the only reason they did it. No good atheist would ever do that.

This woman claims she done what she done just to save her own damn self. Obviously some kinda holy roller. No atheist would ever do that.

OK, I'll say it.

Serious error of logic there. It assumes that religious people who do bad things are 'good people'. Where has that been proven?

Think about the historical burning of 'heretics'
Think about the perpetrators of female circumcision.
Think about the execution of adulterers.
Think about the denial of blood transfusions which used to be the practice of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Think about the burning of wives on husband's funeral pyres.

That is not an answer to Leadfoot's objection. Anyone who has been paying attention will know i'm not a member of his fan club, but his logic there is unassailable.

mark

No need to answer. Set saved me the trouble.

That's okay ! You will have plenty of time to contemplate your request for 'proof' next time you are stuck in a security line at an airport !
I think Heller hit the nail on the head when he got the Padre in Catch 22 'praying for a tight bomb pattern'.

Good movie, long time ago, can't remember that scene, but I can easily imagine a scenario where praying for a tight bomb pattern would be the act of a good man or a bad man.

The definition of what is considered good and who thinks a person is good can be very relative, vague and elastic.

A person who attends religious service and doesn't break laws is not necessarily good. No more than a person who, in a moment of weakness and desperation, robs and breaks the law is bad. An extreme example, granted.

Someone who believes in a Supreme Being is not deemed to be 'good' or 'right'- they just believe a certain specific way that doesn't dictate what the rest of their morality or 'goodness' is.

Someone who doesn't believe in a Supreme Being is not bad, they just follow a certain specific belief system. Non-believers can be quite upstanding, moral and dedicated citizens. And they also may not be - just as Theists are, too.

Sorry, this doesn't apply to lots of atheists, including me.

Not believing is not a belief system, it's absence of belief.

Likewise, the evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence.

Are you just saying you agree with me? Otherwise, will you please tell me why you are lecturing me on the very point I originally made?

Or if you don't follow what I'm saying, ask Set to explain it to you. He at least, got it.

I'm not in patronizing, abrasive discussions nor will I have my intelligence insulted.

Furthermore, I will not engage in semantics over that issue of atheism being a non-belief system. IMHO, that is off-topic and an obfuscation.

FWIW, I'm agnostic and ... that is my belief system. To engage in a semantic discussion in that area is disingenuous, My participation here is related to the issue of the OP subject about atheist tolerance.

What I do not tolerate is that my point of view is not tolerated, as I tolerate yours.

Where is it that I showed an intolerance of your POV. I took issue with you on straying off topic and attempting a semantics discussion. Please show me where I showed such an intolerance. I'm betting that you can't.

To restate my POV, I'm very supportive, as an agnostic of atheistic viewpoints. In fact, as a rule I tolerate anyone who is not a rigidly dogmatic and doesn't shove their religion or spirituality (or lack thereof) down my throat.

My point of view, that you call a semantic issue, is absolutely not that.

Calling an absence of belief a belief system is much more than a semantic issue.

It is denying other people the right to their opinion as if everything in life was a matter of belief.

If you are taking what I said as an attack or negation of what your view point is after I wrote my reply, it's a misinterpretation, or worse, a distortion.

I can't help how you are filtering this. My words and intent either are coming across to you or they're not.

Atheism is a philosophy. Theism is among others thing, is a philosophy. Getting bogged down into semantics does not shed more light.

I wish you well.