Polite atheism. Is it possible?

[lucaspa]

No one will make such a hubbub if you say you don't believe sports teams will win or commonly if you don't believe we should be at war.

You forget the riots of British soccer fans? I can introduce you to some sports bars where there will be a "hubub" if you announce your beliefs about the team. By "hubub" I mean you will be in a hospital.

However, that you shifted the argument from how people react to the intensityof the reaction is an implicit agreement with what I said. To say "I do not believe the Celtics will win the NBA Championship" is the same as saying "I believe the Celtics will not win the NBA Championship." It's not a neutral position of "non-belief".

people become flustered that it is possible to not believe in God, though not necessarily insist that God does not exist (which is a form of general atheism/nontheism, not identical with atheism itself)

Wow. You are making up a lot of distinctions here in your attempt to run away from atheism being a faith. You introduce "general atheism/nontheism" as distinct from "atheism". I would think that "nontheism" would be more "neutral", but you associate it with the extreme position of insisting that deity does not exist.

What you described is atheism. The belief that God does not exist but not the insistence that God does not exist. Michael Shermer has termed the "insistence" as "militant atheism". I like the term.

Let's get back to basics. There is the question: Does deity exist? There are 3 basic answers:

1. I believe deity exists. Theism
2. I believe deity does not exist. Atheism
3. I don't know whether deity exists or not. Agnosticism

Atheism as a belief statement is little more than I do not believe in God, it does not imply the person makes an absolute statement regarding God, since the vast majority of atheists would be considered skeptics.

As I've demonstrated, that "I do not believe in God" is the same as "I believe God does not exist." I never said that atheism made an "absolute statement", but only a statement of belief. The belief could be wrong. Right? Or are you claiming that atheistism is knowing God does not exist.

The vast majority of atheists consider themselves to be "skeptics". But that is another attempt to hide the faith status of atheism. In his book Skeptics and True Believers Chet Raymo points out that most theists, including Jesus, can be classed as skeptics. Most atheists are not at all skeptical. They are certainly not skeptical about the statements they make about atheism or about atheism in general. They are true believers.

The "absolute statement" comes when an atheist says "God does not exist." That tries to take a faith and make it an absolute "fact". At that point you have militant atheism.

And concerning agnosticism, Huxley's term was moreso an attempt to make skepticism more overarching, not unlike Pyrrhonism in some regards. But agnostics can be theists in that they say we cannot know God, but only experience and believe in it, which is not identical to knowing by necessity.

Now you are trying to change both the history of the term and how it is used. Agnosticism is about knowledge of the existence of God, not in "knowing God". Christianity insists that we can never fully "know" God but instead experience Him. And you are never going to call Christianity part of agnosticism.

Huxley, in his own words, was trying to find a word that described his mental attitude of neutrality toward the question of the existence of God:

"Huxley, who had instructed Haeckel on metaphysical rectitude, found himself charged with heresy after preaching a Sunday 'lay sermon' in Edinburgh 'on the physical basis of life.' It sounded like materialism -- life and mind a glorified chemical process -- altheouh he insisted that materialism was as absurd ultimately as spiritualism. ... They [religous writers] protrayed him as a man of matter without a soul, an atheist, and immoral.
"He was none of these, even if there was some dispute as to what he was. He came clean in April, when a group of liberal chruchmen made a last attempt to reach a religious consensus among the nation's feuding intelligentsia. ... but before anyone could pin him down he came up with a new indentying label -- he coined the name 'agnostic'. An agnostic did not deny or affirm God's existence; he did not pretend to know whether the world is made of matter, spirit, or whatever. Like 'lunar politics', the subject was endlessly and pointelessly debateable." Desmond and Morris, Darwin, pg 568.

 

[razeontherock]

Lucaspa wrote "Atheists do have a tendency to try to portray atheism as having more epistemological value that theism, don't they? It therefore makes me very amused when atheistic arguments turn out to be even more irrational and anti-science as some theistic arguments."

Good point! Still, there's a limit to the rational mind's ability to comprehend Christianity. We are limited by what Scripture terms a "carnal mind." On the subject of definitions, that would make an interesting word study into the original language(s).

I don't think I've been anything but fair minded in assessing Christianity as a complex and diverse faith/belief system.

You do seem reasonable, even tempered, and well-educated. Not a bad start, but the Bible is very clear that even as much as a tiny little speck (mustard seed) of real Faith is a full-blown miracle, as in, beyond our own ability. This is clearly to be added to our other faculties, not to dismiss them.

This is on topic, as I can't imagine why anyone would find life-changing Faith as making someone inferior, even though I've been reading a lot of people's ideas about it. (Shows up in other threads, too)

 

[razeontherock]

There is the question: Does deity exist? There are 3 basic answers:

1. I believe deity exists. Theism
2. I believe deity does not exist. Atheism
3. I don't know whether deity exists or not. Agnosticism

Isn't there an element of agnosticism that says "I don't care if God exists?"

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Isn't there an element of agnosticism that says "I don't care if God exists?"

It isn't always considered a variety of agnosticism, since it doesn't say anything about whether you can know or not know that God exists. It speaks in terms of teleology, is there a real purposeful end to the question of God's existence. And it's called apatheism, coined by Denis Diderot

 

[ToHoldNothing]

OK, on any search for truth you must believe some things that you may never prove. The basic beliefs seem to be:
1. I exist.
2. I am sane.

The second is needed to trust your sense impressions, which are the evidence that leads you to "belief" in physicaly objects, causality, time, and space. ALL evidence is ultimately what we sense. What we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, and feel emotionally. These are called "personal experiences".

It is from these sense impressions that belief in deity arose. It came orginally from experiences of people that they concluded were from deity.

I would agree with those ideas, since it's certainly within my beliefs that we are innately uncertain about our beliefs to the extent that they are unquestionable, since by their nature they are easily questionable in ontology and etiology

One can have a numinous/transcendent experience and conclude it is not from a deity, but from a transcendent force or simply a psychological phenomena little different from other experiences derived from stress or emotional stimulation. To suggest that because a majority conclude God is to be dismissive of the thesis I put forward (not a dogma) that religion and even God consciousness to a great extent is not innate but learned and taught, albeit the learning and teaching vary as well.

Now, "positing something as basic as a creator that is limited in the universe" is really no different than positing atoms or anything else in science. We have the observations that 1) the universe exists and 2) that it has this particular order rather than some other order. How to explain these observations.

One hypothesis is: deity created it and chose to give the universe the order it has. This is no different than observing how pressure and volume of gasses vary and positing very small invisible hard balls that are bouncing against the sides of the chamber.

Positing a creator is not the same thing as positing God, since God is by general nature transcendent from the universe, whereas a creator is not by necessity required to transcend the creation, but only be superior to it in nature. And positing a creator is hardly the same thing as positing atoms or the like, since the atoms and electrons and protons and neutrons and quarks and other quantum molecules are without personality or intent, they behave according to laws and such that we observe and posit through our observations regarding them. God on the other hand with regards to Christianity requires a synthesis of the initial teleological thinking we have as children (though not all of us, Aspies apparently don't, which I can attest to) with revelatory thinking that suggests that we are to regard ourselves as less than perfect and submissive to a deity that chooses to reveal what it will.

Trusting God is different than positing its existence. You have to stop and aks: trust it to do what? After all, to say "trusting in humans" means we are trusting in something other than their existence. We are trusting their behavior: honesty, peacefulness, etc.

If you look at the OT, a major theme is God earning the trust of the Hebrews. Scripture again and again gives reasons why the Hebrews should trust Yahweh: freeing them from Egypt, settling them in Canaan, protecting them from enemies, etc. It is emphasized again and again that God's promises are kept.

I never denied trusting God was different from positing God. I said trusting God is different than trusting humans, on a number of levels. I don't honestly need a refresher course at present on Jewish and Christian theological exegesis of God's role in the scriptures.

Welcome to atheist dogma #4. It's the idea that people only believe in deity because they are told (taught) to by others. Left to themselves, the dogma runs, people would be atheists. This ignores the evidence that millions upon millions of people over the centuries report personal experience of deity. This is not something they are taught.

As to "innate", maybe infants all have personal experience of deity and it is innate in them to be believers. Maybe it is atheism that is alien and needs to be taught.

Using the term dogma in relation to atheism is like using the term political party when talking about stamp collectors. atheists don't have such high and mighty ideals that are written down and are unquestionable.

Maybe things that we view as foreign are only so because of misunderstandings or presumptions that we know what they are unquestionably. Atheism might seem alien to you because you appear to posit that it is somehow deviant and abnormal because it is the minority position. But basing the definition on ideas of conforming to an in-group's standard is hardly fair if you're treating these people as humans and not brutes that you want to convert, assuming they're bad from the start. And positing maybe is pointless to me either way. I honestly don't think the question of whether infants in particular understand God is relevant, since as it is commonly said, "Mother is the name on God on the lips of all children"

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You do seem reasonable, even tempered, and well-educated. Not a bad start, but the Bible is very clear that even as much as a tiny little speck (mustard seed) of real Faith is a full-blown miracle, as in, beyond our own ability. This is clearly to be added to our other faculties, not to dismiss them.

This is on topic, as I can't imagine why anyone would find life-changing Faith as making someone inferior, even though I've been reading a lot of people's ideas about it. (Shows up in other threads, too)

There are different degrees of faith that we acquire or have natural tendencies towards. Basic faith in physical objects, sensory reliability and our existence as real and not illusory are things shared by atheists and theists to a great extent. But faith in God, gods, karma/vipaya, providence, magic, ghosts and things like that require larger leaps of faith to put it in somewhat familiar terms.

Life changing faith is not necessarily what an atheist would regard as making the person inferior, it's the change in personality that makes the person feel entitled to tell everyone else how inferior they are for not trying to have the same experience as they had. It's selfish and egotistical to think that life changing faith has to only occur in one particular context and for only believers in "God" or gods as opposed to atheists who can indeed have life changing events happen in their lives that change their perspective.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You forget the riots of British soccer fans? I can introduce you to some sports bars where there will be a "hubub" if you announce your beliefs about the team. By "hubub" I mean you will be in a hospital.

However, that you shifted the argument from how people react to the intensityof the reaction is an implicit agreement with what I said. To say "I do not believe the Celtics will win the NBA Championship" is the same as saying "I believe the Celtics will not win the NBA Championship." It's not a neutral position of "non-belief".

It's a neutral position if you honestly don't care either way about the result

Wow. You are making up a lot of distinctions here in your attempt to run away from atheism being a faith. You introduce "general atheism/nontheism" as distinct from "atheism". I would think that "nontheism" would be more "neutral", but you associate it with the extreme position of insisting that deity does not exist.

What you described is atheism. The belief that God does not exist but not the insistence that God does not exist. Michael Shermer has termed the "insistence" as "militant atheism". I like the term.

Let's get back to basics. There is the question: Does deity exist? There are 3 basic answers:

1. I believe deity exists. Theism
2. I believe deity does not exist. Atheism
3. I don't know whether deity exists or not. Agnosticism

I prefer to not add a word to atheism to clarify its intensity, it's better to change the prefix to contra instead of a. Though antitheism could also work for what you termed militant atheism.

And there are more answers. "What is deity?" "I don't care either way if deity exists or doesn't exist" and the more epistemological version of agnosticism "I cannot know whether deity exists"

And I didnt' associate nontheism with extreme denial, that would be contratheism. Atheism could be said to be equal to nontheism in some respects, since they both imply a general negation or absence, not active working against.

As I've demonstrated, that "I do not believe in God" is the same as "I believe God does not exist." I never said that atheism made an "absolute statement", but only a statement of belief. The belief could be wrong. Right? Or are you claiming that atheistism is knowing God does not exist.

The vast majority of atheists consider themselves to be "skeptics". But that is another attempt to hide the faith status of atheism. In his book Skeptics and True Believers Chet Raymo points out that most theists, including Jesus, can be classed as skeptics. Most atheists are not at all skeptical. They are certainly not skeptical about the statements they make about atheism or about atheism in general. They are true believers.

The "absolute statement" comes when an atheist says "God does not exist." That tries to take a faith and make it an absolute "fact". At that point you have militant atheism.

Belief can be tentative and skeptical and therefore not dogmatic or absolute in terms of such things as God's existence or nonexistence. I don't imagine many atheists are beyond being corrected in the future if there is some significant evidence brought forth to prove God's existence. Very few are extreme/militant atheists in the larger span of atheism in general.

Now you are trying to change both the history of the term and how it is used. Agnosticism is about knowledge of the existence of God, not in "knowing God". Christianity insists that we can never fully "know" God but instead experience Him. And you are never going to call Christianity part of agnosticism.

Huxley, in his own words, was trying to find a word that described his mental attitude of neutrality toward the question of the existence of God

I can call Christianity part of agnosticism because there are Christians that assert that belief is all they can assert with regards to anything about God, not knowledge. And I continue to do so until otherwise argued cogently and efficiently, so there.

And if that's the case, Huxley was apatheist, not agnostic.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

See the "professed"? What do all these "profess"? The Nicene Creed.

1st definition is most common usage, certainly not the only one used overall

What is "Christian nature"? It is possible to look upon Jesus Christ as Savior and/or Messiah -- what you call "Christian nature" -- but that is not sufficient to be Christian. It is necessary, but not sufficient. Christianity is also a particular Christology -- or belief about the nature of Jesus. The religions you mention differ from that Christology and, therefore, are not Christian.

Christianity has multiple Christologies, otherwise there wouldn't be a study of it in seminaries, lol. Christianity doesn't have to be an orthodox Christology, the primary distinction is how they regard Christ, as God's anointed (in whatever way that is believed, adopted, innate, etc) as opposed to God's prophet or messenger

 

[chilehed]

There are degrees of leaps we make, I don't disagree there. Believing in physical objects, causality, time and space, are all almost innate to our beliefs even from childhood. But even positing something as basic as a creator that is limited in the universe in some way is a leap beyond our basic beliefs. Trusting in humans is not the same as trusting in God. Again, I would include trusting and believing we love and trust our friends, family and lovers as a basic belief, similar to the others I listed. But God is something less than innate, more primarily taught to a person over time and evolving over time. Therefore it is quite substantively different by nature and accident

I guess you missed the part about how Christianity holds that God, in fact, has entered time and space on a number of occasions and left evidence of his presence, most fully in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

So no, it's not substantively different at all, either by nature or by accident.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I guess you missed the part about how Christianity holds that God, in fact, has entered time and space on a number of occasions and left evidence of his presence, most fully in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

So no, it's not substantively different at all, either by nature or by accident.

Believing that objects you interact with are physically present aside from your perceiving them is not in any real way the same as believing in such a particular theological utterance regarding an entity called God. And no I didn't miss that part, I've heard it plenty as a religious studies major and that's all it is is an utterance of a conviction that I don't happen to share.
The leap to a God entering time and space and then leaving clues like a Scooby Doo mystery is an even larger leap, not unlike Antony Flew's illustrative story of the invisible, intangible gardner, essentially not any different in overall assessment from there being no gardener at all

 

[Adelice]

1.- Atheist arent better than anyone else , indeed from my point of view theyre worse most of the time , at last the IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG ones. Most of the ones i have interacted with dont even try to make atheism look like an more decent way of life to all the world and beyond.

2.- No , denying god wont make you smarter just has denying santa wont make you more smart all of sudden and give you all the world answers in one day. Your just has able to be wrong has anybody else. Why would i believe to someone who been an bishop of an church 20 years and 5 years ago decided to go out? And all of sudden he is the new " atheist " archetype?

3.- No im not an christian neither , but i been in presence of rather closed minded atheist who feel exactly the same has if talking to any other hardcore christian believer , you get more luck talking to an wall than to any of both.

4.- No ones gives you the right to prove or disprove any other persons beliefs , at last in the sense of being not considerate and entering to pick out fights with anything that doesnt use the same mindset that you , thats just rude and annoying to every being who feels actually rather good and happy to be praying to god or any other being , we are all equals in our freedom of belief or disbelief.

5.- Your in a PHASE , angry proud atheist phase , believe me i was in the same phase too , until i interacted enough with atheism to see theyre just the same has any other human being and has any other mass of human beings who try to think the same , trying to look like that to others wont bring you anything good at all , no atheist arent perfect because they most of the time act the same has any other strict preaching christian , so just accept your beliefs and let others do theyre own , is healthier for anybody.

 

[The4thrider]

1.- Atheist arent better than anyone else , indeed from my point of view theyre worse most of the time , at last the IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG ones. Most of the ones i have interacted with dont even try to make atheism look like an more decent way of life to all the world and beyond.

2.- No , denying god wont make you smarter just has denying santa wont make you more smart all of sudden and give you all the world answers in one day. Your just has able to be wrong has anybody else. Why would i believe to someone who been an bishop of an church 20 years and 5 years ago decided to go out? And all of sudden he is the new " atheist " archetype?

3.- No im not an christian neither , but i been in presence of rather closed minded atheist who feel exactly the same has if talking to any other hardcore christian believer , you get more luck talking to an wall than to any of both.

4.- No ones gives you the right to prove or disprove any other persons beliefs , at last in the sense of being not considerate and entering to pick out fights with anything that doesn't use the same mindset that you , that's just rude and annoying to every being who feels actually rather good and happy to be praying to god or any other being , we are all equals in our freedom of belief or disbelief.

5.- Your in a PHASE , angry proud atheist phase , believe me i was in the same phase too , until i interacted enough with atheism to see they're just the same has any other human being and has any other mass of human beings who try to think the same , trying to look like that to others wont bring you anything good at all , no atheist aren't perfect because they most of the time act the same has any other strict preaching christian , so just accept your beliefs and let others do they're own , is healthier for anybody.

...

 

[chilehed]

Believing that objects you interact with are physically present aside from your perceiving them is not in any real way the same as believing in such a particular theological utterance regarding an entity called God. And no I didn't miss that part, I've heard it plenty as a religious studies major and that's all it is is an utterance of a conviction that I don't happen to share.
The leap to a God entering time and space and then leaving clues like a Scooby Doo mystery is an even larger leap, not unlike Antony Flew's illustrative story of the invisible, intangible gardner, essentially not any different in overall assessment from there being no gardener at all

So much for polite (or intellectually honest) atheism.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

So much for polite (or intellectually honest) atheism.

Politeness doesn't require that I take religious convictions and utterances as witness to the truth of those claims, nor that I take them at face value as automatically unquestionable. Criticizing the God thesis Christians, Jews, etc put forth is not the same as making an ad hominem attack upon them.

And as for intellectual honesty, I seriously doubt any person is wholly intellectually honest, or if anything we rarely see those people in this situation without them appearing to be fools to us to begin with. My beliefs are certainly not beyond criticism and adjustment in the future and my taking an initial stance of atheism and skepticism doesn't suggest I will persist in atheism in the same form with new arguments and dialectical considerations from others with different beliefs and defenses of the coherence of those beliefs.

 

[FoneTap]

I can answer this question in the following way.

I have some very good friends who are born again christians. I would never get into a "does god exist" kind of conversation with them as it would almost certainly end bad, eventhough they are some of the nicest people you will ever meet and I am not especially aggressive/rude myself.

I think "polite atheism" is possible but the problem is that the atheistic position seems inherantly offensive to some christians because we question the very things they hold most dear.

The christian would have to be able to look at their beliefs in a purely intellectual way and yet belief comes from such a deeply personal and emotional place. How do you reconcile this...?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I can answer this question in the following way.

I have some very good friends who are born again christians. I would never get into a "does god exist" kind of conversation with them as it would almost certainly end bad, eventhough they are some of the nicest people you will ever meet and I am not especially aggressive/rude myself.

I think "polite atheism" is possible but the problem is that the atheistic position seems inherantly offensive to some christians because we question the very things they hold most dear.

The christian would have to be able to look at their beliefs in a purely intellectual way and yet belief comes from such a deeply personal and emotional place. How do you reconcile this...?

Atheism is not necessarily opposed to Christianity, as there is a movement of sorts called Christian atheism, where one doesn't believe in God but follows Jesus' teachings regardless. It is a minority, but to say atheism automatically is offensive to everything about Christianity forgets that there are common ideas that can be found by atheists and Christians, not least of which is the validity of the Golden Rule as an ethical principle. At best, the rejection/nonbelief/disbelief in God is the only potentially offensive thing within atheism, since it is technically the only thing atheists could generally agree upon.

Christians don't have to regard atheists as beyond conversation or even agreement, since one can point out areas of common ground they search for in one way or another. But one can regard one's beliefs as rational on one level, but personal and emotional on another. Though this does require defining "rational" more along the lines of "psychologically compelling" or "cogent" or even the somewhat synonymous term "reasonable"; that is, the person's life has become more oriented or rooted or generally acquired some purpose to it that wasn't there before.

 

[FoneTap]

Atheism is not necessarily opposed to Christianity, as there is a movement of sorts called Christian atheism, where one doesn't believe in God but follows Jesus' teachings regardless. It is a minority, but to say atheism automatically is offensive to everything about Christianity forgets that there are common ideas that can be found by atheists and Christians, not least of which is the validity of the Golden Rule as an ethical principle. At best, the rejection/nonbelief/disbelief in God is the only potentially offensive thing within atheism, since it is technically the only thing atheists could generally agree upon.

Christians don't have to regard atheists as beyond conversation or even agreement, since one can point out areas of common ground they search for in one way or another. But one can regard one's beliefs as rational on one level, but personal and emotional on another. Though this does require defining "rational" more along the lines of "psychologically compelling" or "cogent" or even the somewhat synonymous term "reasonable"; that is, the person's life has become more oriented or rooted or generally acquired some purpose to it that wasn't there before.

Thanks for that interesting answer.

I have a few points though.

1) Teachings of Christ. What do you think are the one or two most important teachings of Christ, how do you suggest an atheist obey these, and if not do you really think one can define themselves as christian in any way without those basic precepts.

For example, these may not be "teachings" per se, but I do not recognize Jesus was the son of god, I do not recognize there even is a god, and I am appalled by the notion anyone died for my "sins".

2) Golden rule
This is a bad example as I do not strictly live by this principle. Nor do most christians in my opinion. I'll explain:

If I am in the position of legitimate defense, I will kill to live, although I would certainly not like to be killed myself.

In the same way I cannot give everyone all my posessions because I would love for people to make me gifts in return. If I do this I will be penniless and I will fail to live up to my responsability to my family.

"Always do unto others" which predates christianity, is not always applicable and I can't strictly agree to it.

Perhaps this is harder than it appears?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Thanks for that interesting answer.

I have a few points though.

1) Teachings of Christ. What do you think are the one or two most important teachings of Christ, how do you suggest an atheist obey these, and if not do you really think one can define themselves as christian in any way without those basic precepts.


For example, these may not be "teachings" per se, but I do not recognize Jesus was the son of god, I do not recognize there even is a god, and I am appalled by the notion anyone died for my "sins".

Love your neighbor as yourself seems the primary teaching apart from the commandment he puts forth to love God with all your heart, mind and soul (which frankly already presupposes we all know what that "God" is). A lot of Jesus' teachings could be practiced by a Secular Humanistic/Atheist Jew as well, methinks. That's what makes Christian and Jewish atheism so possible is their rootedness in a tradition that does not necessarily suggest that you must be a certain group or ethnicity to be an ethical and otherwise good person to everyone around you.
Defining oneself as a Christian seems more commonly rooted in creeds, so it's not as if the idea of Christian atheism works the same way Jewish atheism can (since there's the distinction of religious and cultural/ethnic Jewishness).
And those ideas are not necessarily crucial to following Jesus' teachings, those are crucial to salvation in general, which isn't necessarily part of being an atheist, though it can be in some sense if you stretch the word enough

2) Golden rule
This is a bad example as I do not strictly live by this principle. Nor do most christians in my opinion. I'll explain:

If I am in the position of legitimate defense, I will kill to live, although I would certainly not like to be killed myself.

In the same way I cannot give everyone all my posessions because I would love for people to make me gifts in return. If I do this I will be penniless and I will fail to live up to my responsability to my family.

"Always do unto others" which predates christianity, is not always applicable and I can't strictly agree to it.

Perhaps this is harder than it appears?

Not everyone understands the Golden Rule the same, since there are two versions that have been formulated, the positive and the negative. The first is doing unto others what you would have them do unto you, the other is the reverse, do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you (formulated by Confucius, I believe). If you think of the latter one, there are more potential common ethical ideas to be drawn from it than the former, since there is more to be posited in saying what should not be done as opposed to what ought to be done.

I never said this was easy, but it's not as if polite atheism has to agree that the Christian's beliefs are correct or even meaningful, they just have to tolerate that they exist in some form or fashion, extreme or moderate.

 

[FoneTap]

1.- Atheist arent better than anyone else , indeed from my point of view theyre worse most of the time , at last the IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG ones.

Your first sentence looks like intolerance in its purest form but then you try to to justify yourself. Do you think there are no "I'm right you're wrong" christians? How many christians have you heard say "your non-belief or belief in another god seems ok to me"

of course never, the whole point of christian belief is that jesus is the only way. How is this not "I'm right, you're wrong" ?

Most of the ones i have interacted with dont even try to make atheism look like an more decent way of life to all the world and beyond.

You are making the mistake of thinking atheism is some form of banner movement. Holding no belief in god is just a state. It is not a choice. I am not claiming it to be more "decent" or satisfying, in fact many atheists wish they could believe as this can make life simpler and provide an easy explanation to many struggles in life. (It's all in god's plan) we don't have this explanation and must contemplate the full grim reality of this cruel world where good things happen to bad people and horrific things are inflicted upon the innocent every day. That said, I myself do not wish I did believe for many reasons.

3.- No im not an christian neither , but i been in presence of rather closed minded atheist who feel exactly the same has if talking to any other hardcore christian believer , you get more luck talking to an wall than to any of both.

Maybe this was not only an atheist who holds no belief in god, but one who actively believes there is no god. This is quite a leap and very few atheists get this far. Even someone like Richard Dawkins dissociates himself from this position.

5.- Your in a PHASE , angry proud atheist phase , believe me i was in the same phase too , until i interacted enough with atheism to see theyre just the same has any other human being and has any other mass of human beings who try to think the same , trying to look like that to others wont bring you anything good at all , no atheist arent perfect because they most of the time act the same has any other strict preaching christian , so just accept your beliefs and let others do theyre own , is healthier for anybody.

Thanks for that I agree with the sentiment fully, in addition to non-belief you seem to equate every believer all in one lump sum. The conclusion is clear, everyone is equal and the same and belief in god makes no difference. We are in agreement there.

The problem with the end of your statement and the broader point that needs to be made is that atheists are often forced to speak out and defend themselves which can make them look militant, aggressive or intolerant.

Speaking for myself, I am completely intolerant of any belief or position that tries to impose itself upon me or implies I am less important or hold less rights because I hold no belief in god. This would include your very first statement.

This would include any time someone tries to put religion in public schools, tries to convert my children, attacks the seperation of church and state in any way, and uses my tax dollars to fund religious or "faith based" initiatives that are specifically designed to exclude me.

The accusation that people of unbelief in god such as myself are totally left alone yet chose to become aggressive and attack peaceful believers without provocation and for no particular reason is a very poor one indeed.

Likewise, the implication that if we would be silent and stop voicing our opinions that everything would go back to peace and respect for all is very dangerous and in my opinion a direct path to non-respect of our rights.