Practical Reasons for Religious Tolerance

Leo Volont

Registered Senior Member
Whether rationally justifiable or not, people become very emotionally invested in their Religions. What do you suppose occurs when these people feel that their Religion is under imminent threat? Psychology tells us that people in such a crunch will be impelled to Fight or Flight. Well, we cannot expect that everybody will run away. So much of the Violence we see in Religious History has been when Religion had taken to an active defense to an impending threat.

Usually the Atheist Community points out how reactively violent the Religious Communities are between each other. “Oh how terrible that the Religions are so antagonistic with each other… its all so simply Barbaric.”

But now the Paradigm is shifting.

I heard a News Story on the Radio about the Neo-Atheists. Probably because of the great success the Far Right has enjoyed with Confrontational Hate Politics, the youngest generation of Atheists have decided that they too would benefit from just such a similar strategy… an “Ends justifies the Means” kind of thing”.

So the tone has gotten harsher, more insulting… exactly like the Fox Network is toward Liberals except it is Atheists attacking Religion. Nothing is off limits. If Religion really is Evil, then the War against it should be total.

Oh, and if the Religions react violently to these assaults, well, again, it is something that can be blamed on Religion. When the First Punch can be rationalized away and justified, then the Punch Back can be blamed. All the focus can be placed upon the Religious Evil of fighting back. Besides, with Religion, any fighting, even fighting back, is clearly hypocritical. Yes, it just so happens that in regards to the Atheists, they can never be blamed for Hypocrisy. After all, Morality needs to come before Hypocrisy.

Anyway, lets look at this new Historical Dynamic, where Atheism is stepping into the Role of Opposing Religion for the purposes of instigating a New Religious War. Yes, yes… Atheism is NOT a Religion. My point is only that Atheism is now ACTING like a Religion, and in the worst way.

Oh, wait! I was ready to say that the most cogent argument AGAINST Religion had been that Religions caused polarization and conflict between Civilizations and Societies. We are supposed to believe that if it were not for Religious Differences, then all would go smoothly between different ethnic and racial groups – tribal affiliations, differences in language, culture, moral expectations, property dispositions, etc… all these things would be only a laugh and smile away from resolution if it were not for the hateful divisiveness that only Religion can be capable of. Only Religions cause War. And this is Religion’s biggest problem, or is it?

But now that Atheism seems poised on it own version of Religious War, do they really now find War to be such a problem? Now, I guess Atheism is growing more Higher Minded, and is probably claiming that the Biggest Problem with Religion is a Matter of the Highest Principle – that it Simply Isn’t True! Atheists have a Moral Duty to stop the Religions in their Lies! What is a little violence when it comes to defending the Highest Principles of Truth? Yes, it seems that Atheism is gearing up for War, and they no longer have a problem with that kind of thing… now that they are a part of it.

Anyway, I have one final argument here against Atheism, that it cannot possibly have any Moral Basis for exactly the same reason they insist that there is no God – that there is no Scientific Evidence for it. Yes, yes, I have heard it a million times that Atheism is not hostile to Morality. But just look around. The WORST Criminal Organization – the most ruthless and terrifying criminals – have all sourced out of the Territories of the Former Soviet Union… where Materialism and Atheism had been indoctrinated culturally for just 3 Generations. No, people were not positively taught to be Evil. I’m sure every opportunity was taken to stress the importance of Social Responsibility, Cooperation, Kindness, Altruism. But with the backdrop of Materialism and Reason, with its rejection of Religion and Spirituality… well, Morality just seemed silly. Selfishness… even Ruthlessness simply seemed for useful.

I wish Atheism would admit that they have a serious problem. Civilizations cannot survive, let alone coalesce, without Moral Beliefs… the general acceptance of inherently irrational moral assumptions. But since Atheism has turned Science into a Virtual Religion… Anti-Religion, that is, well, Morality necessarily has to be rejected. Natural Selection is not for Nice Guys.

When Push comes to Shove, the Atheist Community will count on Survival of the Fittest… what we usually refer to as “might makes right”.

And with their superior Technology, they will probably win any fight. But imagine the World these victorious Atheists will inherit, where they cannot make a single compelling argument not to be thieves and liars.

It reminds me of Voltaire, virtually the Father of Modern Atheism… he had been a Big Deal during what they called the Age of Enlightenment. Anyway, Voltaire had been put in charge of conducting the first French Lottery, and he rigged the game so he could win it himself (as any good Atheist would have) and thus became very rich. He bought an Estate and at first ran it like a true down to the bone Atheist. But then suddenly he built a Chapel and hired a Catholic Chaplin to oversee it and to conduct daily Mass. His Atheist friends were appalled. But Voltaire explained… “it is cheaper than letting the servants walk away with all the silverware”. His Estate could not run without a Moral Basis. Voltaire leaves us with the quote “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him”.

Morality exists in the same Spiritual Atmosphere as God. We cannot do without the One because we need the Other.
 
Whether rationally justifiable or not, people become very emotionally invested in their Religions. What do you suppose occurs when these people feel that their Religion is under imminent threat? Psychology tells us that people in such a crunch will be impelled to Fight or Flight. Well, we cannot expect that everybody will run away. So much of the Violence we see in Religious History has been when Religion had taken to an active defense to an impending threat.

Where there's a 'change' there is fight, disorder, resistance. This is a normal thing, it's just bad when yourself is in it. I wonder how would you think if you lived in a period of any religious violence back in history.

Usually the Atheist Community points out how reactively violent the Religious Communities are between each other. “Oh how terrible that the Religions are so antagonistic with each other… its all so simply Barbaric.”

And your point is? It's not only simply barbaric, it's also embecilic. "Your god is not mine, you shall die!"

But now the Paradigm is shifting.

This sentence is nonsense. You don't observe it while it is starting to happen. You realise when it's already happened.

I heard a News Story on the Radio about the Neo-Atheists. Probably because of the great success the Far Right has enjoyed with Confrontational Hate Politics, the youngest generation of Atheists have decided that they too would benefit from just such a similar strategy… an “Ends justifies the Means” kind of thing”.

Similar? Kind of thing? “Ends justifies the Means” is a pretty concrete way of thinking. What are you saying is not clear.

So the tone has gotten harsher, more insulting… exactly like the Fox Network is toward Liberals except it is Atheists attacking Religion. Nothing is off limits. If Religion really is Evil, then the War against it should be total.

Atheists are willing to fight with religion. Yes, hopefully. Again, what are you saying? Did they declare a war on religion? A jihad?

Oh, and if the Religions react violently to these assaults, well, again, it is something that can be blamed on Religion. When the First Punch can be rationalized away and justified, then the Punch Back can be blamed. All the focus can be placed upon the Religious Evil of fighting back. Besides, with Religion, any fighting, even fighting back, is clearly hypocritical. Yes, it just so happens that in regards to the Atheists, they can never be blamed for Hypocrisy. After all, Morality needs to come before Hypocrisy.

Again, what's your point? You are only making a propaganda for religions. Religions have already stood in the way of every progress in human history. And they continue to do so. Human rights cannot be even acknowledged because of the damage they have done. If you claim there will be an open violent war -I very much doubt it- it will be like any war. Cruel,violent,horrible. Where is the hypocrisy?

I am sick of this lame accusation that atheists don't have morality. It's as perverse as one religion blaming another for being it. People with religious belief cannot comprehend the idea that a person can be perfectly moral without any religious bullshit. What's more, people became atheists when they see you don't need that bullshit to act like human, while all kinds of murder and infamy is done under the name of religion.


Anyway, lets look at this new Historical Dynamic, where Atheism is stepping into the Role of Opposing Religion for the purposes of instigating a New Religious War. Yes, yes… Atheism is NOT a Religion. My point is only that Atheism is now ACTING like a Religion, and in the worst way.

That's bullshit. What's so hypocritical in fact is you blaming atheists for being extreme while there is the religion simply a natural habitat for that. There can't even be a comparison.


Oh, wait! I was ready to say that the most cogent argument AGAINST Religion had been that Religions caused polarization and conflict between Civilizations and Societies. We are supposed to believe that if it were not for Religious Differences, then all would go smoothly between different ethnic and racial groups – tribal affiliations, differences in language, culture, moral expectations, property dispositions, etc… all these things would be only a laugh and smile away from resolution if it were not for the hateful divisiveness that only Religion can be capable of. Only Religions cause War. And this is Religion’s biggest problem, or is it?

You are painting concepts to black and white and tweaking out what you need. Yes, religions are responsible from a huge amount of violence, wars, torture. "If we didn't have religion", examples in imaginary situations just lead to stupid ideas like you presented above.

But now that Atheism seems poised on it own version of Religious War, do they really now find War to be such a problem? Now, I guess Atheism is growing more Higher Minded, and is probably claiming that the Biggest Problem with Religion is a Matter of the Highest Principle – that it Simply Isn’t True! Atheists have a Moral Duty to stop the Religions in their Lies! What is a little violence when it comes to defending the Highest Principles of Truth? Yes, it seems that Atheism is gearing up for War, and they no longer have a problem with that kind of thing… now that they are a part of it.

Why stopping religions in their lies should be atheists' responsibility?!

You claim to present arguments against atheism and atheists then you fit them the role of policing the religions. Are you aware what are you talking about or simply confused?

Anyway, I have one final argument here against Atheism, that it cannot possibly have any Moral Basis for exactly the same reason they insist that there is no God – that there is no Scientific Evidence for it. Yes, yes, I have heard it a million times that Atheism is not hostile to Morality. But just look around. The WORST Criminal Organization – the most ruthless and terrifying criminals – have all sourced out of the Territories of the Former Soviet Union… where Materialism and Atheism had been indoctrinated culturally for just 3 Generations. No, people were not positively taught to be Evil. I’m sure every opportunity was taken to stress the importance of Social Responsibility, Cooperation, Kindness, Altruism. But with the backdrop of Materialism and Reason, with its rejection of Religion and Spirituality… well, Morality just seemed silly. Selfishness… even Ruthlessness simply seemed for useful.

I won't even dignify this 'socialism is the greatest evil' with a direct response.

I wish Atheism would admit that they have a serious problem. Civilizations cannot survive, let alone coalesce, without Moral Beliefs… the general acceptance of inherently irrational moral assumptions. But since Atheism has turned Science into a Virtual Religion… Anti-Religion, that is, well, Morality necessarily has to be rejected. Natural Selection is not for Nice Guys.

You certainly have a problem in understanding that atheists are not interested in making anything in to a religion.

When Push comes to Shove, the Atheist Community will count on Survival of the Fittest… what we usually refer to as “might makes right”.

You are aware that now in the world we are already living according to this rules? No?

And with their superior Technology, they will probably win any fight. But imagine the World these victorious Atheists will inherit, where they cannot make a single compelling argument not to be thieves and liars.

*Chuckles. Now you are getting delusional.

It reminds me of Voltaire, virtually the Father of Modern Atheism… he had been a Big Deal during what they called the Age of Enlightenment. Anyway, Voltaire had been put in charge of conducting the first French Lottery, and he rigged the game so he could win it himself (as any good Atheist would have) and thus became very rich. He bought an Estate and at first ran it like a true down to the bone Atheist. But then suddenly he built a Chapel and hired a Catholic Chaplin to oversee it and to conduct daily Mass. His Atheist friends were appalled. But Voltaire explained… “it is cheaper than letting the servants walk away with all the silverware”. His Estate could not run without a Moral Basis. Voltaire leaves us with the quote “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him”.

Well, god is expired. The same man, you just thought very clever to mention also understood human nature perfectly well, that "Homo homini lupus" excludes no one. NO. ONE.

Wiki: Homo homini lupus is a latin phrase meaning "man is a wolf to [his fellow] man." First attested in Plautus' Asinaria (495, "lupus est homo homini"), the sentence was drawn on by Thomas Hobbes in the dedication of his work De cive (1651): "To speak impartially, both sayings are very true; That Man to Man is a kind of God; and that Man to Man is an arrant. Wolfe. The first is true, if we compare Citizens amongst themselves; and the second, if we compare Cities." Hobbes's observation in turn echoes a line from Plautus claiming that men are inherently selfish.
The phrase is sometimes translated as "man is man's wolf", which can be interpreted to mean that men prey upon other men. It is widely referenced when discussing the horrors of which humans are capable.


That's why we need rationalism and science.
That's why wee need laws and rules.

That's why we DON'T need your god or your religions. The mankind your religions portray; a delusional freak created in an image of a made up creator -a perverse sense of patriarchal control- is so far from what human naturally is, you can't even agree what's more to believe in, but only to defend. Bliss. Isn't it? When someone embraces god, she/he feels bliss. I'd rather inject myself with some sort of drug to feel that, at least I would be aware of and responsible for my own stupidity.

Morality exists in the same Spiritual Atmosphere as God. We cannot do without the One because we need the Other.

Again, "atheists have no morality". Bullshit. Keep it saying it 500 times a day, may be it happens.

You are drawing a delusional world to support -very badly- your own points, trying to claim now it's different, but alas, you are the old lame religious who just doesn't get it.
 
Last edited:
Great post :)

Give me a break, Sam! And you claim to be objective? Inquiring?
In the original posts, -no matter what you 'believe' in- there are many 'mistakes' based on ignorance, manipulation and bias where is your debating self, searching for the 'truth'?

Or do you also 'believe' that world is in danger of an atheist jihad?
Contradiction in terms? No kidding.
 
Last edited:
Leo seems to pop in occasionally, post a rant of fallacies and delusions and comes back in a month or two to do it again. He probably posted this at several forums.

Once again we to believe that the only thing stopping the theists from killing all of us is the fear of punishment from their god/gods…. Nasty people huh?.


But now that Atheism seems poised on it own version of Religious War,
Yeah ….right.
 
Well, I would come by more often, and follow through on my Posts, with replies, etc.... however, your Moderators had given me Warnings in the past.

Well, what can one do with warnings?

They are terribly unfriendly things, and do not make one feel at all welcome.

So... consider yourselves lucky that I remember the page well enough simply to leave an essay once in awhile...
 
Give me a break, Sam! And you claim to be objective? Inquiring?
In the original posts, -no matter what you 'believe' in- there are many 'mistakes' based on ignorance, manipulation and bias where is your debating self, searching for the 'truth'?

Or do you also 'believe' that world is in danger of an atheist jihad?
Contradiction in terms? No kidding.

Yeah haven't you been keeping up with the neo-atheists? They are a dangerous bunch of fools and their ideology is exactly as Leo describes it. Wait till you get to the US. You can attend a few of their talks and tell me what you think of it. [Look up "The Four Horsemen"]

Here is one example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316#
 
So much of the Violence we see in Religious History has been when Religion had taken to an active defense to an impending threat.

Usually the Atheist Community points out how reactively violent the Religious Communities are between each other.

… an “Ends justifies the Means” kind of thing”.

If Religion really is Evil, then the War against it should be total.

Besides, with Religion, any fighting, even fighting back, is clearly hypocritical.

Atheism is stepping into the Role of Opposing Religion for the purposes of instigating a New Religious War.

Only Religions cause War. And this is Religion’s biggest problem, or is it?

What is a little violence when it comes to defending the Highest Principles of Truth?

Anyway, I have one final argument here against Atheism, that it cannot possibly have any Moral Basis

The WORST Criminal Organization – the most ruthless and terrifying criminals – have all sourced out of the Territories of the Former Soviet Union…

with the backdrop of Materialism and Reason, with its rejection of Religion and Spirituality… well, Morality just seemed silly. Selfishness… even Ruthlessness simply seemed for useful.

I wish Atheism would admit that they have a serious problem. Civilizations cannot survive, let alone coalesce, without Moral Beliefs…

Natural Selection is not for Nice Guys.

“might makes right”.

imagine the World these victorious Atheists will inherit...

Age of Enlightenment.

“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him”.

Morality exists in the same Spiritual Atmosphere as God. We cannot do without the One because we need the Other.

The qualifiers of your post appear to contradict the qualifiers of another post you made in another thread. What can we glean from your so-called morals and ethics?


War can be very useful. In the years to come, with the Earth's Population getting more and more out of hand, the Powers that Be will have to recognize the Utility of War and announce that no further Crap will be taken from any Tribe or half-baked Nation... that if some Society somewhere demonstates itself as being Barbarian, to any suspect degree, then it will simply be Wiped Out and re-settled. the Ancient World did a lot of Wiping Out and Re-Settling. Its a lost art which we should endeavor to retrieve.

Well done, Leo! I dub thee 'Knight of Hypocrisy'. :bravo:
 
No, I thought that was crap. I don't have to agree with everything he says. After all, I can even find some things in common with you, even though I find most of your opinions pretty worthless.
 
Yeah haven't you been keeping up with the neo-atheists? They are a dangerous bunch of fools and their ideology is exactly as Leo describes it. Wait till you get to the US. You can attend a few of their talks and tell me what you think of it. [Look up "The Four Horsemen"]

Here is one example:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316#

1. "Religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude."
2. "...what we say offends the core..."
3. "There is no polite way to say to a person do you realise you wasted your life in the glorification of a myth."

Perfectly true.

So far, in the first twenty minutes, I didn't see anything other than the truth on the subject.

What I see as change and revolution, you see danger and chaos.

There is no way for us to meet in the middle. Beacasue you are stuck in the first minute of the 58.
 
Actually I watched the whole crap shoot. There should be two parts of it.

Of course you may find yourself agreeing with all his crap. I consider him a lunatic.

This is a man who was raised/schooled by Anglican priests and has worked in a university established by friars and monks and belongs to a Royal Society established by a monk.

Everything he is, he owes to the efforts of religious people. Unfortunately what he is, is full of shit.

They should have tossed him in the woods when he was born so he could express himself as nature intended.
 
Last edited:
Actually I watched the whole crap shoot. There should be two parts of it.

Of course you may find yourself agreeing with all his crap. I consider him a lunatic.

This is a man who was raised/schooled by Anglican priests and has worked in a university established by friars and monks and belongs to a Royal Society established by a monk.

Everything he is, he owes to the efforts of religious people. Unfortunately what he is, is full of shit.

They should have tossed him in the woods when he was born so he could express himself as nature intended.

Well, actually the whole thing makes more sense if he was raised in a religious environment. He doesn't owe anyone anything, if he discovered something by his own, regarding the world surrounding him. That's a sick sense of loyalty.

In the end these people are not a threat to anyone. I am sure they are disturbing you or some other people out there and I am glad they do.
 
Well, actually the whole thing makes more sense if he was raised in a religious environment. He doesn't owe anyone anything, if he discovered something by his own, regarding the world surrounding him. That's a sick sense of loyalty.

In the end these people are not a threat to anyone. I am sure they are disturbing you or some other people out there and I am glad they do.

What he "discovered" is that religion is incompatible with science. Which is the big joke. You'd be hard pressed to find a scientific institution in his country not established by the religious.

What he also "discovered" is that he could use his chair as Oxford Professor for Public Understanding of Science to promote his views/book on Atheism. As well as evicting an excellent Professor of Science Education because he was a minister [although he covered his ass by furiously typing out a letter of "commiseration" the night before it was announced]

So yeah, I'm very "disturbed" by what would have been considered dishonorable if a theist had done it.
 
Last edited:
What he "discovered" is that religion is incompatible with science. Which is the big joke. You'd be hard pressed to find a scientific institution in his country not established by the religious.

It IS incompatible, Sam. And that's the main joke wasted away.

It's not just his country, probably you can find so few scientific institutions not established by the religious, at least by root. And you know that. You also know the reason, the relations between foundations, institutions and tradition. You'd be having a hard time finding a philosophy department completely independent from theology for example. If I am not wrong, California Berkeley and Columbia NY could be examples.
 
No, I thought that was crap.

It's all crap. Theists have enjoyed centuries of killing in the name of their god but Leo is upset because others are sick and tired of it. Leo would much rather drop the bomb than give up his cult beliefs. You would agree with him.
 
Yeah and where are all the atheist institutions of yore? Or were they just too busy being materialistic to have anything to do with abstract thinking? The fact that atheists in religious societies have "discovered" science after 50,000 years [?] of humanity is hardly evidence of anything but the reverse. If they would have been left in the woods they would still be navel gazing being unable to comprehend anything beyond what is made evident to them and considering philosophy to be an irrational "waste of time"
 
Yeah and where are all the atheist institutions of yore? Or were they just too busy being materialistic to have anything to do with abstract thinking? The fact that atheists in religious societies have "discovered" science after 50,000 years [?] of humanity is hardly evidence of anything but the reverse. If they would have been left in the woods they would still be navel gazing.

Blithering lies aren't going to help your case, Sam.
 
Blithering lies aren't going to help your case, Sam.

Feel free to show me an atheist scientific institution more then 100 years old. They're so blooming fantastically smart, they must have done something, right?

The only reason there are any atheists in science is because the monks and friars started educating them too.
 
Your not making any sense. Religion is old. Belief is very old. Atheism is very new compared to old religious systems. Especially, being able to discuss it very openly. And you also know that. You are a believer and you refuse it, because it's too difficult to think about otherwise.

How can you deny that almost all of the scientific progress is built bit by bit by the people who stood against religion and were banished, tortured or killed by the religion. Yes, there are 'reasonable' religious people, but I have to say that it's more of a practicality.
 
Back
Top