Theism vs. Atheism

[SolusCado]

I'm really not sure where to post this, so if there is a better forum please let me know.

Anyway, I have only recently discovered this site, and for the most part I love it. I am however noticing something that I have noticed in real life as well, and it is something I find quite curious - so I wanted to open a topic to discuss it.

I grew up among religious conservatives, and found the majority (or at least the leaders) to be what I call "Ostrich-Christians"... they are judgemental, hateful people who think anyone who believes differently from themselves are wrong and, perhaps more importantly, should be corrected. And of course it is up to these people to correct them. When it comes to learning anything beyond their belief system, they stick their heads in the sands and refuse to learn. I of course have been sickened by this attitude, and my life has turned into a bit of a crusade against such attitudes. If nothing else, it opens up Christianity as a whole, if not theism as a whole, to ridicule and dismissal by those who value knowledge (such as the scientific community).

On the other hand, among those who DO value knowledge I have noticed an interesting dichotomy. Theists seem to be the ones who are more open to ideas and information than the atheists. Atheists ridicule with hatefulness those who believe anything that cannot be proven, despite the fact that human knowledge, throughout the history of mankind, has grown from ideas that at first could not be proven. Now, I am not suggesting that theism can ever be proven - but where does this hateful attitude from atheists come from? (And please, for the theists in the group - don't respond with a religious reasoning, such as they are sinners, or don't know God, or anything like that. I've known atheists who are perfectly capable of NOT ridiculing others for their beliefs.)

To summarize - and to be a bit more specific - why have I found so many more atheists on this site full of ridicule and offensive comments than the theists? I get that the theists, in the less educated world, are the ones that are full of ridicule and offensive comments, but shouldn't "enlightenment" lead us all to communicate about ideas without the need to insult those presenting the ideas?

 

[wynn]

where does this hateful attitude from atheists come from?
...
To summarize - and to be a bit more specific - why have I found so many more atheists on this site full of ridicule and offensive comments than the theists? I get that the theists, in the less educated world, are the ones that are full of ridicule and offensive comments, but shouldn't "enlightenment" lead us all to communicate about ideas without the need to insult those presenting the ideas?

I wonder about this too, especially since some atheists with college education and higher display that same hateful attitude.

What I have found in discussions with them is that they generally do not consider themselves hateful or ridiculing etc.

It seems that, at least some of them, consider that IMO militant, angry, aggressive, ridiculing attitude as normal or natural, that it is their basic modus operandi.
Note that some of those hateful atheists (as well as theists) have that same negative attitude when it comes to other things as well, not only in relation to religion.

 

[SolusCado]

I wonder about this too, especially since some atheists with college education and higher display that same hateful attitude.

What I have found in discussions with them is that they generally do not consider themselves hateful or ridiculing etc.

It seems that, at least some of them, consider that IMO militant, angry, aggressive, ridiculing attitude as normal or natural, that it is their basic modus operandi.
Note that some of those hateful atheists (as well as theists) have that same negative attitude when it comes to other things as well, not only in relation to religion.

Hmmm... I guess I have always seen tolerance as a result of education and intelligence, but it seems as though some of the most educated atheists are the least tolerant. That they think intolerance is normal or natural seems shocking, but that WOULD explain the desire to eliminate religion (i.e. a complete intolerance to religion). Of course, the inability to recognize that it hasn't been religion, but rather religious intolerance, that has plagued mankind for centuries would certainly seem to indicate a LACK of either intelligence or education, if not both.

 

[wynn]

Of course, the inability to recognize that it hasn't been religion, but rather religious intolerance, that has plagued mankind for centuries

This introduces the question - Where does religious intolerance come from, why does it happen? Can it be prevented, and if yes, how; if not, why not?

When, for example, the Catholic Church states that it is the one and only right church and that all others are heresies - is this "religious intolerance"? If yes, why?

 

[spidergoat]

I think the hate comes from a lifetime of having to deal with the irrational ideas of theists who also demand that the political sphere reflect their crazy ideas. Many of their ideas generate hate and violence, such as the Christian attitudes towards homosexuality, abortion, denial of evolution, and climate science. You seem to be equating absolute faith in something with a scientific hypothesis, which is an invalid comparison.

If atheists seem more rude, perhaps that is because Christians feel the same way, but think that expressing their true feelings would have spiritual repercussions. Athiests tend to say what's on their minds.

 

[spidergoat]

This introduces the question - Where does religious intolerance come from, why does it happen? Can it be prevented, and if yes, how; if not, why not?

When, for example, the Catholic Church states that it is the one and only right church and that all others are heresies - is this "religious intolerance"? If yes, why?

Religion and intolerance go hand in hand. God isn't moderate.

 

[SolusCado]

This introduces the question - Where does religious intolerance come from, why does it happen? Can it be prevented, and if yes, how; if not, why not?

When, for example, the Catholic Church states that it is the one and only right church and that all others are heresies - is this "religious intolerance"? If yes, why?

I would argue that the claim that others is not religious intolerance but rather a fundamental element of the religion itself. This is something you find almost ubiquitously throughout religions. Rather, religious intolerance (indeed, intolerance in general) is others aren't allowed to follow their own religion (or whatever kind of intolerance you are addressing). Racial intolerance for example isn't believing that your race is superior; it is denying other races the same rights as your own.

With that clarification in place, I believe that intolerance in general is a natural component of the human species (an evolutionary trait that no doubt led to our dominance above other species, but will hopefully be eradicated sooner rather than later). Since religion has been for so long an area of the human mindset that carries such core emotional strength (conviction, if you will), it has been easiest to control large groups of people - to exert intolerance - using religion.

In other words, religious tolerance isn't a result of religion; it's a result of people.

 

[SolusCado]

Religion and intolerance go hand in hand. God isn't moderate.

You are confusing "religion" and "God". To make any claim that "God is" or "God isn't" is to make a claim regarding a specific definition of God - specific definitions of "God" are religions. A specific religion may not be moderate, and thus its definition of God isn't. But for you to lump all definitions into a single reference of "God" is to render your statement meaningless, unless you can show that every single religion (or even a majority) define God in such a way that they would all say He "isn't moderate".

As to your first sentence... I refer you to my previous post.

 

[birch]

well, if a religion was tolerant, then it wouldn't be a problem as much but whatever philosphies are intolerant needlessly are going to be met with similar resistance to counteract it.

 

[SolusCado]

Religion and intolerance go hand in hand. God isn't moderate.

Oh, and incidentally - your statement itself is an excellent example of what I am referring to in my OP. As a theist, your statement would be analagous to me saying something like "Science isn't open-minded". The statement itself is ridiculous, and while it may apply to many atheists, to judge all of science based on "its adherents" is a form of hyperbole that really shouldn't be a part of forums such as this (ideally, IMO).

 

[SolusCado]

well, if a religion was tolerant, then it wouldn't be a problem as much but whatever philosphies are intolerant needlessly are going to be met with similar resistance to counteract it.

What wouldn't be a problem?

 

[SolusCado]

I think the hate comes from a lifetime of having to deal with the irrational ideas of theists who also demand that the political sphere reflect their crazy ideas. Many of their ideas generate hate and violence

So, the hate comes from a lifetime of dealing with ideas that generate hate. Don't you see the hypocrisy with that statement?

 

[SolusCado]

So, the hate comes from a lifetime of dealing with ideas that generate hate. Don't you see the hypocrisy with that statement?

Or at the very least, the futility in it?

 

[spidergoat]

So, the hate comes from a lifetime of dealing with ideas that generate hate. Don't you see the hypocrisy with that statement?

No I don't. Some hate is justifiable. I don't hate them for generating hate per se. I just think they are hating the wrong things and for absurd reasons.

I don't really hate theists, some of them are close friends, but I do hate the ideology, and it's arrogant demand that we accept it in the absence of evidence.

 

[birch]

What wouldn't be a problem?

there are atheists who overextend or jump the gun just like some theists and say that there is no god etc. that is the problem where intolerance is displayed by some atheists because there is no proof either way. as far as practicing religion, everyone has a personal right to and and with others with similar beliefs as long as it does not infringe on others.

but on these type of forums, most atheists are arguing from a standpoint that there is no proof for usual assertions that god exists by theists among other religion related beliefs etc.

besides the belief or unbelief in an existence of god or creator, there may be issues with aspects of some religions itself which are not viewed favorably by some or would cause disagreement. for instance, christianity puts the utmost imperative on the belief and worship of god rather than anything else. some people would find this moot or ineffective when it comes to issues of morality or betterment of society when religion touts itself to be the cornerstone of it. why is unbelief in god a greater sin than any evil actions against life? what value does belief inherently have? i don't agree that it does and so many would have a negative opinion about religion or aspects of it. just because someone doesn't agree with something or rejects something personally doesn't mean that it's intolerance. we all practice a discrimination and make choices in all areas of life. it's only intolerance if they somehow do not allow you to believe or practice what you choose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c2mjq2n3Yg

 

[SolusCado]

No I don't. Some hate is justifiable. I don't hate them for generating hate per se. I just think they are hating the wrong things and for absurd reasons.

I don't really hate theists, some of them are close friends, but I do hate the ideology, and it's arrogant demand that we accept it in the absence of evidence.

Hmmm - I SORTA agree with you. I have before said that the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance. I wouldn't go so far as to call it hate, which I think is nothing but destructive and, as you said - leads to violence. To think that hating anything and it not lead in the same direction as all other hate throughout the history of mankind is just plain dumb. Or is it insanity? (To keep doing the same thing and expect a different result...)

As for hating the ideology, I don't know of any theist ideologies that demand others accept it - in the absence of evidence or otherwise. And in any case, isn't it just as arrogant to demand others refute it in the absence of evidence disproving it? (IOW, it is arrogant to demand others believe there is no God without evidence to that effect.) That is kind of my point regarding tolerance... for either side to demand anything is arrogance and intolerance. Why does it seem that the "educated" theists accept this but the "educated" atheists do not?

 

[SolusCado]

there are atheists who overextend or jump the gun just like some theists and say that there is no god etc. that is the problem where intolerance is displayed by some atheists because there is no proof either way. as far as practicing religion, everyone has a personal right to and and with others with similar beliefs as long as it does not infringe on others.

but on these type of forums, most atheists are arguing from a standpoint that there is no proof for usual assertions that god exists by theists among other religion related beliefs etc.

besides the belief or unbelief in an existence of god or creator, there may be issues with aspects of some religions itself which are not viewed favorably by some or would cause disagreement. for instance, christianity puts the utmost imperative on the belief and worship of god rather than anything else. some people would find this moot or ineffective when it comes to issues of morality or betterment of society when religion touts itself to be the cornerstone of it. why is unbelief in god a greater sin than any evil actions against life? what value does belief inherently have? i don't agree that it does and so many would have a negative opinion about religion or aspects of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c2mjq2n3Yg

You make many excellent points, but by the same measure, one could ask what value does life inherently have? These are questions of philosophy, and while there are many arguments with which some would agree and others would disagree (which is healthy, promotes growth, and why I like this site), why or how does hate, condescension, or condemnation serve to further anything other than more hate, condescension, and condemnation? IOW, how does intolerance ever lead to anything other than more intolerance?

 

[spidergoat]

Oh, and incidentally - your statement itself is an excellent example of what I am referring to in my OP. As a theist, your statement would be analagous to me saying something like "Science isn't open-minded". The statement itself is ridiculous, and while it may apply to many atheists, to judge all of science based on "its adherents" is a form of hyperbole that really shouldn't be a part of forums such as this (ideally, IMO).

But science is inherently open-minded. Theism isn't. I'm sorry for not being more specific, but it's hardly necessary. All the major Judeo/Islamic/Christian conceptions of God are intolerant. The claim is God spoke to some representative, and declared his rules that we are to follow or suffer eternal torture. These religions are only moderate due to the influence of secular government and scientific advancement. Their adherents are only moderate to the extent that they ignore the tenets of their faith.

You are confusing "religion" and "God". To make any claim that "God is" or "God isn't" is to make a claim regarding a specific definition of God - specific definitions of "God" are religions. A specific religion may not be moderate, and thus its definition of God isn't. But for you to lump all definitions into a single reference of "God" is to render your statement meaningless, unless you can show that every single religion (or even a majority) define God in such a way that they would all say He "isn't moderate".

As to your first sentence... I refer you to my previous post.

Yes, every major monotheistic religion defines God's rules in such a way that precludes tolerance of many things that a secular and humanistic point of view would consider within the realm of personal freedom.

 

[spidergoat]

Hmmm - I SORTA agree with you. I have before said that the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance. I wouldn't go so far as to call it hate, which I think is nothing but destructive and, as you said - leads to violence. To think that hating anything and it not lead in the same direction as all other hate throughout the history of mankind is just plain dumb. Or is it insanity? (To keep doing the same thing and expect a different result...)

As for hating the ideology, I don't know of any theist ideologies that demand others accept it - in the absence of evidence or otherwise. And in any case, isn't it just as arrogant to demand others refute it in the absence of evidence disproving it? (IOW, it is arrogant to demand others believe there is no God without evidence to that effect.) That is kind of my point regarding tolerance... for either side to demand anything is arrogance and intolerance. Why does it seem that the "educated" theists accept this but the "educated" atheists do not?

So, if you value tolerance of religious ideas above all, where do you draw the line? What if a religion demands that it's followers sacrifice virgins on an altar? Tolerance really means ignoring something, refusing to consider it's effects on society and the future of humanity. I'm not sure I believe in tolerance. I would rather engage with people I disagree with, to have them come to terms with the extent of their rationality or lack thereof.

 

[SolusCado]

But science is inherently open-minded. Theism isn't. I'm sorry for not being more specific, but it's hardly necessary. All the major Judeo/Islamic/Christian conceptions of God are intolerant. The claim is God spoke to some representative, and declared his rules that we are to follow or suffer eternal torture. These religions are only moderate due to the influence of secular government and scientific advancement. Their adherents are only moderate to the extent that they ignore the tenets of their faith.

That's just it, within the scope of those religions and their concept of hell, eternal torture is for God to provide, not man. The religion itself; the idea itself - contains certain mutual exclusivities. Those religions do not however advocate hate and the intolerance of the existence of others - or even the belief in other religions. IOW, the adherents of, say, Christianity, are not commanded to abolish other religions - but rather to believe in THEIR God - just as every other religion (almost) commands. That is NOT intolerance.

Yes, every major monotheistic religion defines God's rules in such a way that precludes tolerance of many things that a secular and humanistic point of view would consider within the realm of personal freedom.

But, again - the adherents have the freedom to choose to ahdere to those beliefs; each individual has the freedom to pursue everything that secular and humanistic points of view would consider within the realm of personal freedom.