Are Atheists/Agnostics the Most Intolerant Group on A2K ?

90+% of the evolution threADSare started by religious folks wishing to try to initiate an argument where they can show by their "superior moral position" that evolution is neither fact nor worth consideration by "real " scientists. If you doubt me, just go into the A2K thread logs in either science or philosophy and look at the titles
Evolution HOW?

Evolution, what "real" scientists believe

and a number of titles that are openly hostile from the getgo. Fortunately , the facts of science dont support the ANTI evolutionists. Usually they will spill their guts and then move on , having left most unconvinced.
Once in a while someone will start a real inquiry thread about the scientific aspects of evolution and what constitutes evidence or the genetics basis . Those are usually good for awhile. Then, usually out of the blue somebody posts "Evolution is crap and inconsistent with science"
Then the thread goes off with a new direction of argument.
Nobody gets "dumped" on without first seeking to become the dumpee

In reference to what Revel and Patio wrote, i would observe this: much of what the religiously motivated here complain about results from their own obtuse churlishness, in that they come to a place which bills itself as a "knowledge site," and indulge the most ridiculous fantasies, and expect that they are somehow entitled to have that nonsense respected. For the first few years here, i tried to respect a divide between the Spirituality & Religion forum and all of the others. But that is pointless.

The religiously convinced come here and indulge in what amounts to no more that special pleading. They want what they believe to be taken seriously, and they get down-right nasty with what others believe when it is not consonant with the superstition du jour. They do not restrict their ranting to the S & R forum, they inject it into every other forum. If you venture into political threads, historical threads, legal threads, science threads, you will find the wild-eyed bible thumpers at every turn. Their arguments run the range of fallacy, and they can turn nasty in a heartbeat.

Why should i restrict my acid comments about the superstitious and their pernicious effect on society to some dark little corner of the site, if they are making hay while the sun shines? If this is a knowledge site, than i am entitled to point out that 99% of their claptrap is a subject of speculation and not knowledge. If they are going to heap scorn on others in all the categories outside S & R, why should i show a restraint which they don't seem to believe constrains them? Why should their crackpot ideas be accorded a respect not accorded here to crackpot ideas of a non-religious provenance?

Once again, the whining of the religiously motivated about the treatment they get is special pleading. They are accustomed to living in a society which has sufficient courtesy not to inquire too closely into the fairy stories in which they choose to repose their faith, and they think it somehow entitles them to free ride with their nonsense in debate. People who spout foolishness here when the subject is something other than religion get shot down pretty damned quick. The holy rollers are entitled to no free ride.

Littlek--

I have to admit the epithet is well deserved. I prefer "prig" but we don't always get what we want in this weary world.

Though I am in no way Christian and am in fact, what could be considered agnostic, I must point out that what Setanta describes is not the majority of Christians.

Most Christians I've met are quite tolerant.

As usual, however, the most borish, loud and intolerant people are somehow being represented as the majority because (1). They're the loudest and hence their voices drown out anything else (2). Their equivalent on the other side are equally loud and drowning out any commemnts about how they are not representative of the whole.

Truth be told, some people cannot accept certain arguments because their brains are not hardwired to do so. No matter how logically you put it, no matter how much empirical evidence you provide, their brains will not accept it, even if it is the truth.

I wince when my side starts becoming just like the bigots of the religious side, whom are not representative of the whole.

Boy, setanta, don't know quite what to say except for most part I think you are wrong.

In any event, I think a good deal of the hostility of religion does come from some people of religious faith injecting it onto other areas where it really does not belong.

I have no problem discussing or even debating religion but where can you go when all one side does is just dismiss it as fairy tales? Even if it is fairy tales what harm does it do unless forced on others to incite such hate?

Revel: First of all, you make the accusation which all the religionists do when faced with criticism--that you are hated. I know it just warms the cockles of the christian heart to consider oneself a martyr, but it just ain't so. I don't hate people of religious conviction; i do despise their belief set, and do so because of the great harm which it always has and always will entail. You flatter yourself to think that you are hated for your beliefs; it is a canard of which the religious are so fond because it vindicates for them the false notion they have of being the possessors of a unique truth, for which they will be obliged to suffer, as did their alleged savior. There is a powerful element of masochism in modern christianity.

The web is just chock-full of religious web sites. There are so many places for the religious to go to be comforted with the notion that they are not alone in their delusions. However, they come here. As FM pointed out, they very often come here to pick a fight, although they wouldn't admit to that. They come here to post attacks on a theory of evolution, or to start a quarrel with those whom they perceive to be agnostic or atheist, without even clearly understanding what those terms mean.

Get over yourself, you are not hated. I don't know you, if you came up to me on the street and bit me in the ass i wouldn't have any reason to associate you with the person here using the screen name Revel. To either love or hate something, you must know it. I know nothing of you. I do despise religious belief, and have made clear why that is so.

You write: " . . . but where can you go when all one side does is just dismiss it as fairy tales?" You can go to any one of the many religious web sites which i have mentioned, at which your fairy tales will be discussed in depth, by others who assert it to be "gospel truth."

Whom is the objective, who is the subjective.

setanta, I was only talking about this particular section of able2know (which by the way is entitled "spirituality & religion") not the world at large. If this is not the place to discuss religious or spiritual issues the title of the section is misleading.

I think you need to make use of a muzzle.

In any event, I doubt I will linger as I really don't like getting into religious fights or having my faith questioned so I will probably be back on the political boards. It has just a been a bit boring lately.

Ya know, this thread has been a perfect learning tool that its own stated premise is bagassed wrong. Are the a-religious the intolerant ones?. ANSWER-hell no. They just seem to have an affinity for facts.Facts seem to be what the "religious" deny. And as set said , an I paraphrase,
'If you pose something stupid doesnt mean it has to be automatically and universally accepted just cause its wearing clerical garb".

Then, most of them disappear into the shadows because they are "bored". Love it.

geeze louise, i can't even tell who is 'truly' christian and who is 'truly' agnostic or atheist on the board. do we really fall into groups of hostile and friendly folks by religion? i can think of other reasons, but religion didn't strike me as one.

Dag, no politics are more exclusionary than those of religions, and most particularly vitriolic are the politics of the religions centered on the Abrahamic mythopoeia.

Abrahamic mythopoeia --
I'm writin' that one down.

You can not accept something without being a bit of a smart elect about it without cause.

In other words it can be like this:

I believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

The non believer can say, from where do you form your belief and then proceed to point out flaws of that belief.

But if he/she just says something like, "yea, and I believe in the easter bunny." How is that a learning tool in spirituality and religion?

Are the elect smart? And how are we to know for certain that they truly are the elect? After all, the community of saints could just be a big flim-flam, ya know?

I think the atheists and agnostics can often SEEM like the most intolerant group, and I think it's because they have the least tolerated view.

For example, theists of all kinds can find plenty of common ground and understand the nature of faith based thinking.

Atheists/Agnostics however do not generally indulge in fanciful nonsense and find it difficult to understand why anyone would.

Theists often make bold claims like "My god exists" or assume it to be a fact ......to which the atheist has only to reply "Prove it" to be seen as intolerant.

Just my take on the situation.

Some of us atheists do understand, having once been theists.

I seem to stand in my own ballpark here, as I don't have complete vitriol to those of faith, though I mostly agree on all points made by people who don't speak with faith.
I know many loving and - yes - wise people of religion, of varied religions.
I have the same near violent dismissal as the most exacerbated posters anti religion on a2k.

I stand in understanding of both, but am not a believer.

But as a sixty year old woman, I insist on a blanket for some to rest, perhaps even for years, as they think. I am not a big fan of bludgeoning from either side, though I guess it works sometimes, either way.
We are all on a continuum.

I hope for a world that continues to have less and less tolerance for religion.

Similarly, I hope for a world that has less and less tolerance for racism.

The point being that intolerance can be a good thing. May the world grow less and less inclined to abide the idiocy of religion.

But to answer your question, no. Christians, for example, belive atheist will burn forever in hell. We, on the other hand, just think their beliefs silly.

Religious foolishness is a far greater source of intolerance than those who have little patience for its nonsense.

I won't argue with you, Craven, as I agree. But people don't just move to a point of view overnight.

Usually.