Today's sermon is on intolerance:

[guillaumeb]

Our reading is from the Gospel according to C.S. Lewis, from Mere Christianity, and it deals with intolerance.

The late, ex-atheist, C.S. Lewis once wrote:

“ If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.”

C. S. Lewis (1960). Mere Christianity (New York: MacMillan)

What Lewis is referring to is the many paths argument. That there can be many paths to God, and many paths that result in a good life. Each person might have their own personal path, and that path might contain elements from a number of belief systems.
But if some atheists must, as a function of their beliefs, reject all other paths as false, what does that say about these atheists?


Now, if this definition by C.S. Lewis of what it is to be an atheist is correct, does this mean that atheists are sui generis intolerant of all forms of religious belief? Before we consider that, it would be good to consider another source which defines what it is to be an atheist. To help me, I went to the American Atheist site.

WHAT IS ATHEISM?
The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

So C.S. Lewis defines atheism as believing that all religions, and all believers, are mistaken.
The American Atheist site rejects the word belief when describing atheism. I cannot speak for them, but perhaps their idea is that the word belief is too loaded with religious connotations.
But no matter if one believes in a god or does not, neither belief is provable. The concept of atheism can no more be proven than can the concept of a god. Theism, or non-theism, is a belief system.
We believe in things like religion, or philosophy, or political things, even though we cannot demonstrate that what we believe is provable in a scientific sense.

And the point of all of this, this sermon on intolerance, is that intolerance is a very human failing. It is not limited to certain groups of people, it is universal. We can read of centuries of Christian intolerance for non-Christian belief systems, but we can also read of the intolerance for theism that was and is demonstrated by the non-theists who govern in Russia and China.

And we can see the obvious intolerance, expressed as condescension and mockery, that people like Richard Dawkins exhibit when referring to people of faith. The condescension that is referenced by C.S. Lewis in his book. The idea that people of faith are simply wrong about their faith because Dawkins has come to the conclusion that there is no God. And because Dawkins has arrived at this conclusion, he apparently must go out and preach the Gospel of anti-theism. In my mind, this makes Dawkins every much as intolerant as any theist who denounces all other beliefs as sacrilege.

In conclusion, we must always remember the words of Jesus from Mathew 7:5 when he said:

First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

Go in peace brothers and sisters.

[Iggo]

1. Sermon?

Okay, that's enough.

[guillaumeb]

2. Remember to put something in the collection basket on your way out.

And thank you for not falling asleep during my sermon.

[Bretton Garcia]

14. C.S. Lewis is not a typical Catholic, or liberal either

He's much more liberal than Catholics. So liberal, his beliefs cannot be reconciled with Catholic doctrine, dogma.

We might like his liberalism in itself. However? Even a liberal will typically defend a certain core of values. For example, a liberal will typically not support a Nazi or totalitarian government. Since after all, such governments oppose liberalism, and freedom.

So most liberals are not ABSOLUTELY liberal; they will not liberally allow totalitarian regimes.

It is for this reason that many do not like the churches. Who overwhelmingly asserted for millennia, that their rules are from God, and are therefore absolute; allowing no liberal deviation.

Modern liberal churches are slightly better. But since they still nominally assert obedience to the old "God," they still to some extent serve as enablers, defenders, for the old religious extremists.

[guillaumeb]

17. I agree with most of what you said. However..........

each believer approaches belief in different ways. Yes, some believers form congregations and participate in mutual celebrations.

But I feel that each group, each believer, must be judged, so to speak, by their actions rather than their labels.

Westboro Baptist Church is one group under the Baptist label. Their views are well known even though the actual congregation is tiny and basically an extended family. Are all Baptists everywhere enablers of the Westboro extremism because they share a name?

[Bretton Garcia]

30. As long as they follow "God," ....

... that in itself is going to bring a lot of baggage with it. And will resonate with and amplify, even fundamentalists.

[rug]

21. He was Anglican not Catholic.

[Bretton Garcia]

25. I think like many Anglicans, he meant back and forth.

The two churches tried for reunification many times.

[rug]

27. He was raised in the Church of Ireland, became an agnostic, then came back to the Church of England.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. So, a Lincoln, not a Ford.

[rug]

29. A fair analogy.

[masmdu]

3. careful

You write,
"But no matter if one believes in a god or does not, neither belief is provable."
But atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. You seemed to understand that until the above sentence.

Also, Dawkins is not condescending to those who choose to believe unless and until their beliefs are imposed on or effect others. Only then is he rightly condescending towards their lack of ability to reason and think critically because they become a threat to others.

[guillaumeb]

4. As I wrote, some atheists have a problem with the word belief.

Atheism is not a lack of a belief, it is an alternative belief to theism.

Dawkins is condescending to believers and dismissive of the idea of theistic belief.

[masmdu]

6. Yes, I saw you wrote that but that doesn't make it so...

And, yes, you already said that about Dawkins too. Did you notice my qualifier?

[Goblinmonger]

7. The "a" at the beginning of the word

means "without." You do know that, right? Would you argue that apathy means that you actually do have emotion? Or that something which is achromatic has color? Or that an atonal song actually is in a specific key?

The word literally means "without belief in a god" A THEISM.

It's not that hard. I know you want it to be a belief system, but that doesn't make it so.

[EvilAL]

41. sometimes people just can't understand

That it is possible to not believe in something that other people believe in. They'll say since I can't possibly know whether somewhere in the universe god exists, that means that I believe there is no god. Frustrating bullshit.

[rug]

95. The question is not well-formed.

People, if rational, who do not believe something, do not believe for reasons.

In the case of atheism, the common - but far from universal - reason is lack of (material) evidence.

While that does not make atheism a belief, it rests on an underlying assumption - or belief - that nothing immaterial can have existence. Ergo . . . .

I don't call atheism a belief, I call it an intellectual conclusion. I reserve the right to question the bases on which the conclusion rests.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. As long as you keep pretending that is true

You're going to keep encountering angry atheists.


You're salting the field yourself.

[tonedevil]

5. I haven't seen much...

evidence of Christian tolerance as mentioned in this post. A specific incident I remember is more typical of my experience. A fellow I worked with had explained to me his troubled youth and subsequent religious conversion. This co-worker and I were eating lunch in the break room when another co-worker joins us. Somehow our talk turns to religion. The more recently entered co-worker states she is spiritual not religious and goes on to say she thinks all religions offer something and if you follow the general rules you will be on your path. The co-worker who was there first says that in no uncertain terms Jesus said I am the way , the truth , and the light not I am a way, a truth, a light. That is the tolerance I see in Christians I have encountered.
Perhaps how you come to atheism makes a difference. For myself I was probably 8 years old, I had some exposure to church my parents were Christian, but not enthusiastic about it. The stories like Adam and Eve struck me as tall tales. My mom explained they were parables. That was all good at first then I read a book of Native American creation myths. They were presented in a way that let the reader know people believed these myths, but we know better. I couldn't and can't see the difference between those stories and Bible stories. I'm going to imagine you don't believe the world is on a turtle's back. In that same way I don't believe the world was created in 7 days. Is this what you mean saying atheism is just another belief? If so it seems a trick of semantics.

[guillaumeb]

9. So when I wrote:

And the point of all of this, this sermon on intolerance, is that intolerance is a very human failing. It is not limited to certain groups of people, it is universal. We can read of centuries of Christian intolerance for non-Christian belief systems, but we can also read of the intolerance for theism that was and is demonstrated by the non-theists who govern in Russia and China.

do you see my recognition that all people exhibit signs of intolerance?

As to the Biblical story of Creation, I have written in other posts about the meaning of the names "Adam" and "Eve" and how the names suggest that the characters are symbolic.

We all believe certain things. I see atheism as the other side of the coin from theism. Another belief system.

[okasha]

40. Its a truism that converts tend to be more dogmatic

than people raised in a given faith. The attitude usually wears off eventually, but can initially be a pain in the ass even to longer-term members of the faith.

Example: One of my best students went from lackadaisical generic Protestant to full-throttle Opus Dei-everyone-but-Catholics-is-going-to-hell RC. (I was horrified, for the record.). Today, he and his family--only two children--ahem!-- are still devout but quite liberal Catholics, supporting married and women clergy and a good measure of liberation theology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. define:intolerance

unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
"a struggle against religious intolerance"
synonyms: bigotry, narrow-mindedness, small-mindedness, parochialism, provincialism, insularity, fanaticism, dogmatism, illiberality

It does not mean "a disagreement". Atheists don't think there are gods; that doesn't mean that they don't tolerate other people thinking there are gods. You talk about "paths". You say that a theist might think that "there can be many paths to God"; and, yes, since an atheist doesn't believe in God, they would disagree with that. But then you also talk about "many paths that result in a good life". There is nothing about being an atheist that would make someone "reject all other paths as false" if you're talking about "a good life". You've incorrectly conflated a path to gods with a path to a good life.

Now, it may be that an atheist also has opinions about things other than the existence of gods that results in them thinking "all other paths are 'false'", including paths to "a good life". They might be a fanatical objectivist or communist, for instance. But that's a function of those systems, not of their atheism. And the intolerance of some religions doesn't come from the basic concept of what any religion is, but from particular features of those intolerant religions.

A "belief system" needs to be a system, whatever you think about the word "belief". And atheism is one thing - a lack of belief in gods. So it's not complex enough to be a "system". Some related things might be called a "system" - humanism, for instance.

"Belief" and "believe" are words with several meanings. You, for instance, talk about both "believing that all religions, and all believers, are mistaken", and also "believe in things like religion, or philosophy, or political things". The former could be put as "thinking that..." or "reckoning that..." or "having concluded that ...". But the latter would be paraphrased as "have confidence in...". And "believe in" might also mean "think exists" (we all believe religion and philosophy exist, so your use was the "confidence" version; but if you ask "do you believe in ghosts?", it's a matter of their existence, not whether you can trust them). So, for clarity of conversation, "belief/believe" are often better avoided, I reckon.

[guillaumeb]

10. I said that there can be many paths to a good life.

Nothing in that restricts living a good life to theists. So no, I did not say that one must be a theist in order to live a good life.

As to atheism not being a system, if atheism is a way to approach the world, that qualifies it (in my view ) to represent a system. It may not be codified and ritualized but it is a systematic way to approach existence.

And yes, belief is a difficult word to use in many cases. But some of your examples are C.S. Lewis' words.

[tonedevil]

11. Is not believing...

in the world existing on the back of a turtle a way of approaching the world?

[guillaumeb]

12. Atheism IS a way of approaching existence.

It is a way of approaching existence, a way of viewing existence, as if there is no god, as if this existence is all that there will be for a human. It is also the belief that this physical existence is all that there is. Belief because it is unprovable.

[tonedevil]

13. So not believing...

in the Turtle that holds up the world is a belief system?

[guillaumeb]

16. The answer to that is simple:

Do you believe in things? I did not say that one has to believe everything that anyone says, that is absurd. But presumably you do believe something about this existence, and presumably you have a belief regarding death.

[tonedevil]

24. I have no...

idea as to death. I've spent time with dying people and been there when a few past on. If something other than what can be observed through medicine occurs it isn't obvious to me. I guess the closest to a belief about death is the battery runs out and the machine stops. My prime beleif regarding existence is that I do exist I yave my own observation, but I don't have an all encompassing theory.
What is the difference between not beliving in a god created world and not beliving in a turtle back world? To me both are stories presented without evidence and in fact for my part the stories have elements that are contrary to personal observation.
You say one does not need to believe in everything, but what makes the god concept something that must be regarded? Unless I am not understanding you seem to be saying there is something fundamentally different between not beliving in the turtle and not beliving in god. The only difference I can detect is you reject the turtle, but believe in the god. I find neither story believable or relevant. That's what defines my atheism for me. And, why I reject the idea my atheism is the opposite side of the god coin.

[guillaumeb]

35. If it works for you that makes it your path. eom

[Mariana]

23. There are atheists who believe there is an afterlife.

I gather there aren't many of them, but they are out there. There are also atheists who believe that ghosts, spirits, or other supernatural entities or phenomena are real. The only thing that makes atheists atheists is they have no belief that any gods exist. An atheist can believe in literally anything else and still be an atheist.

[guillaumeb]

36. A nice clarification. Having heaven without a deity? eom

[AtheistCrusader]

31. More false equivalence. I'd hope for better from you.

I do not believe that god exists.
I believe that god does not exist.

Do you see how the burden of proof shifts with a subtle ordering of words?

I do not 'believe' the physical world is all there is. I am open to the possibility there is more, but I require evidence before I will start accepting hat there *is* and for a small fee someone can tell me all about it.

[guillaumeb]

37. Then you are open. A good thing.

We will all have to wait for death to see who among us is correct.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I've yet to meet an ahteist that isn't open to the possibility.

There are some that dismiss it as entirely unlikely, but who would be amenable to evidence.

Even Dawkins was willing to see evidence. Shermer looks at evidence in person all the time.

[guillaumeb]

39. What constitutes evidence?

I cannot imagine what evidence there would be that could convince someone that an afterlife is real.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. It can be a NYT bestseller and a 100+million dollar movie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_for_Real

The claims made by that family were convincing evidence to some people. I can tell, because like Lee Strobel's 'case for christ' book, said people are always buying copies of it and trying to get me to read it.

For a skeptic, it's going to need to be something a little more material, like said god presenting itself for cross examination, or some otherwise-inexplicable discovery, like a carved obelisk with introductions and instructions, on the moon, in some elemental material we can't identify. That sort of thing. Non-fake-able evidence of intelligent influence.

[guillaumeb]

49. There is no arguing with a NYT bestseller AND a big budget movie.

If a carved obelisk were to be discovered, it would quickly be reproduced in miniature and millions of copies would be sold.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. But they wouldn't be made out of unobtanium.

Another 'thing' I would accept is the 'rapture', as described in the bible.

I have a list of Christians who will, and will not be 'taken away' in that event, should it happen, and I would consider it credible validation of the Abrahamic faith.

I have several bars that religious claims could meet to convince me.


Not a one has happened yet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. You said:

What Lewis is referring to is the many paths argument. That there can be many paths to God, and many paths that result in a good life. Each person might have their own personal path, and that path might contain elements from a number of belief systems.
But if some atheists must, as a function of their beliefs, reject all other paths as false, what does that say about these atheists?

You put "a good life" in the same sentence as "to God". And then you talked about some atheists rejecting all other paths as false, "as a function of their beliefs" (having talked about no beliefs for them apart from atheism, which you consider one). So you are implying that some atheists reject all other paths as producing a good life, and that this is somehow forced by "their beliefs". And that's wrong, and I can't see why you wrote it all unless you were trying to persuade someone it is right.

An atheist just doesn't think there is a 'God', or gods, and so doesn't think there is any "path to God". They don't think they're on such a path themselves. So, to answer your question straightforwardly, without the spin on "a good life" you tried to sneak in:

What this says about atheists is that they think no one, including themselves, is on a path to God.

ie there is no 'intolerance' involved.

I don't see atheism as "a way to approach the world". I'd use that for liberalism, humanism, rationality, and so on. I don't see my non-belief in ghosts as a way to approach the world, or as a system.

[guillaumeb]

18. Let me clarify:

You referenced my paragraph as your beginning. What I was referring to is a belief among Christians and other believers that there are many paths to God, and many paths to a good life.

The rejection of all other paths is part of the quotation from C.S. Lewis and is so identified by the block quotation and the reference below. Your argument would be with C.S. Lewis because he was the one who said that as an atheist, he felt he had to reject all belief in a deity.

And I would say that some atheists apparently feel a need to use mockery as a tool when speaking of believers. My argument here is regarding intolerance, and how intolerance is expressed. In my view, there is no difference between an intolerant believer and an intolerant atheist.

As to atheism and a world view, I would think that each individual atheist approaches this in a different way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. Lewis talked about belief in a deity; you added the "good life" bit yourself

and that's what I'm objecting to. Again, here's the answer to your question, which Lewis sort of gave, but you invested much more in, and then incorrectly brought in 'intolerance':

Atheists don't believe in gods

Atheists therefore don't think there are any "paths to God", but that says nothing about "intolerance", which you have spent days trying to stick on atheists. Atheists don't think they're on a special "path to" anything, and aren't being "intolerant" when they give their opinion that no one is.

My argument is with you, though that doesn't mean I accept Lewis as a wise man, or particularly worth paying attention to.

Mockery is sometimes worth using. We use it about Trump a lot, for instance.

"In my view, there is no difference between an intolerant believer and an intolerant atheist" - since you have extreme difficulty with the definition of 'intolerant', I don't think your view on that is yet worth anything.

"As to atheism and a world view, I would think that each individual atheist approaches this in a different way."

I'm glad you think that. It's another sign that atheism is not a "system".

[guillaumeb]

20. We have different opinions as to what intolerance is.

Richard Dawkins, in my opinion, epitomizes the atheist that C.S. Lewis talks about. Judging by his many pronouncements on the subject, Dawkins obviously feels that the very concept of theistic belief is worthy only of sarcasm and mockery.

And your hairsplitting about belief and atheism is, I feel, because some atheists feel that the concept of belief is reserved for theism.

You said: Atheists don't believe in gods



Let me rephrase your statement.

Theists believe in a god(s).

Atheists believe that there is/are no god/gods.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. If you 'rephrase' my statement, it becomes yours, not mine

and you use the exact formulations I've already pointed out the problems with - "believe in" and "believe that". Plus, of course, you're rejecting explicitly what the American Atheist site said, to redefine what many atheists say about themselves. If you see people trying to explain our positions as "hairsplitting", then I see you as using a broad brush, with sloppy use of language, to paint false pictures of what atheists think.

Here's something to show you that Dawkins doesn't feel "that the very concept of theistic belief is worthy only of sarcasm and mockery":

(you can also try this, because I think I saw the original, but Channel 4 blocks viewing of it in the UK on copyright grounds, so I can't check it's the one):

Dawkins by no means reacts to all religion, or religious people, with sarcasm or mockery; but he does with the more foolish instances.

[guillaumeb]

33. I will confess that I have not as yet looked at the 1:28 clip.

But in the 4:42 clip, Dawkins starts off by talking of religion as a "quaint notion", continues with calling religious attempts to deal with science as a "pretentious copout", and continues with a dialogue with an Archbishop Rowan Williams of the COE.

I do not know how you feel about this, but using terms such as pretentious copout and quaint notion do not strike me as respectful or tolerant. What they do sound like, at least to me, is condescension. A wise elder listening to the children speaking and nodding his heads as if in agreement.

During his dialogue with Archbishop Williams, Dawkins is respectful in tone at least, but that is nothing more than politeness.

[trotsky]

43. Well done, muriel. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

46. You are definitely misrepresenting Muriel's point.

We touched on this earlier, shifting the meaning to an active belief, rather than a non-belief.

I often liken it to something like a rocket launch. Belief, is that rocket off the pad and in flight. Non-belief is no launch at all. Rocket's still sitting there, unfueled, unlit. It's the best analogy I can come up with, because at any time, someone who doesn't believe, might fuel that rocket and light it, might start believing. But it's an overt act, an effort. Something you invest into.

Nonbelief, isn't. It's a null. Not an effort at all. No fuel. No fire.

[HassleCat]

32. Speaking for all atheists

Yes, very presumptuous. We don't care what you believe, how fervently, etc. All we ask, or demand, is that you resist the temptation (!) to insert your religious beliefs into the operation of our government.

[guillaumeb]

34. On this we agree. Separation of CHurch and State is a Constitutional

foundation. And it should be.

[trotsky]

42. It's great you are here to tell atheists that the problem is with their "belief system."

Also great to see you handed your hat in this thread repeatedly.

[rug]

44. It's great to see you give up meta for the new year.

Whatever will you do?

[guillaumeb]

48. At least this time I was not accused of attempting to define Christianity.

I confess to being surprised that the charge was not raised.

[rug]

55. These stale attacks remind me of vaudevillians two years after motion pictures.

[guillaumeb]

58. When one only has one trick, it is necessary to repeat that trick endlessly. eom

[tonedevil]

75. You have certainly...

shown us example after example of that.

[guillaumeb]

47. Excellent repeated use of smilies and other related emoticons.

I was searching for something, anything, positive to say. This was it.

But actually, the comment about atheists is from ex-atheist C.S. Lewis. I merely quoted and commented on it.

[trotsky]

51. Thanks!

I can see why you'd rather not address your once-again-demolished attempts at arguments, though!


Time to start a new thread and try again?

[guillaumeb]

57. A double emoticon usage.

Showing double the insight.

Well...............,showing something.

But it does give some insight into your thoughts.

[trotsky]

66. Yeah!

Since you have once again resorted to your trademark personal attacks, you get emoticons.

[guillaumeb]

68. I was hoping for a triple.

Thanks for not disappointing.

[trotsky]

71. I give you what you want.

Too bad you won't give me what I want. A retraction of your false claims about me, and an apology.

Instead you just keep making it personal, so that's what you are getting in return.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Every believer is an ex-athiest.

Also, Lewis has a lot more to his persona than the fact he claims to have been an atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

He was then sent to the health-resort town of Malvern, Worcestershire, where he attended the preparatory school Cherbourg House, which Lewis calls "Chartres" in his autobiography. It was during this time that Lewis abandoned his childhood Christian faith and became an atheist, becoming interested in mythology and the occult.[4] In September 1913, Lewis enrolled at Malvern College, where he remained until the following June. He found the school socially competitive.[5] After leaving Malvern, he studied privately with William T. Kirkpatrick, his father's old tutor and former headmaster of Lurgan College.

If we're going to bestow such honorifics, maybe you should say 'Christian turned atheist, returned to Christianity'


Edit: (I don't know any atheists that are 'interested in mythology and the occult')

[guillaumeb]

59. If most humans are theists,

does that suggest that theism is..........., I wish to say the norm, but that smacks of negativity toward atheism as the abnormal. And I would not suggest that. Nor would I agree with that characterization.

SO let us ask, if theism is so consistent across cultures, (except for Communist China and the USSR where atheism was forced on people), if theism is so consistently found, does that make theism the default for sentience? At least on earth, and among homo sapiens and possibly homo Neanderthalensis?

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Specifically, christianity is the statistical norm in the US.

But that's changing.


I think we've generally all agreed in the past that humans appear predisposed to something like the construct of religion as we know it today.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

Art/artifacts that appear to be possibly religious in nature date back to the middle paleolithic era so perhaps homo Nanderthalensis did.


My jibe was more along the lines of; humans are born with no specific concept of god(s) to believe in. It is a culturally transmitted idea.

[guillaumeb]

61. Agreed.

Human babies are blank canvas. Religion, like language, is a way of building community. Why humans feel the need to search for something higher is something to explore.

DO (edited to add) some humans need something higher than them because in our social systems we generally have a rank and place?

[AtheistCrusader]

62. I would inject the word 'some' before 'humans' there.

I agree it's a statistical majority, at least for now, but it is not all humans.


It may be nothing more than an instinct developed evolutionarily as a survival mechanism.


*I* certainly do not need something higher for any purpose, and don't consider myself higher or lower than my peers (humans).
Sometimes I wonder if we are indeed 'higher' in any sense, than say our more developed cetaceans.

[guillaumeb]

63. Agreed. I should have added the qualifier. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Crocodile tears.

“In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated,” Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield
(In defense of his diocese receiving state funds to operate an adoption service, upon notice they would lose that funding if they continued to refuse to adopt to same-sex parents.)

[1965Comet]

53. This must not apply to the Christians who believe

one must accept Jesus as their personal savior in order to enter heaven.

The OP has found a Christian who tolerates other religions, big whoop. There are many of those. On the other hand, there are many other Christians who believe only they are going to heaven (see, e.g., the Rapture, the belief in the existence of Hell, etc).

[guillaumeb]

56. Welcome to DU 1965 Comet

I had an 1965 Mustang, and a 1965 Falcon, and numerous other Ford products, but never a Comet.

This relates to the subject of intolerance, and one former atheist's recounting of how he felt an atheist had to approach the subject of theism. It was not intended by me to accuse any or all atheists of being themselves intolerant. I have known intolerant atheists, and I have read things by atheists that I consider to exhibit extreme intolerance for theists.

I have also read things by theists, and known theists, who were equally intolerant of atheism. And given how theists massively outnumber atheists, it is likely that there are far more intolerant theists than atheists.

But if people want to talk about intolerance, it is wise to remember that intolerance afflicts many.

[1965Comet]

64. If you were just posting a truism,

why bother?

[guillaumeb]

65. As a balance to all of the posts that point out intolerance by believers.

And there are many.

[trotsky]

79. Yeah, because it's the Religion group.

And atheism isn't a religion. Go figure.

[guillaumeb]

81. So when somethign is posted under the heading Religion (Group)

that means the topic is religion? I feel positively enlightened.

[trotsky]

84. More importantly, it means that one can post something negative about religion...

without having to be FOX News style "fair and balanced" and point out that somewhere, an atheist wasn't perfect either.

As I have mentioned repeatedly, I realize how very much this bothers you. As you have made perfectly clear, you don't think that "real" or "genuine" religious beliefs can ever be responsible for something negative. No, to you it's always someone who has "corrupted" the religion or has other, ulterior, non-religious reasons for doing the detrimental thing. That's your problem. No one else has to satisfy some 1:1 ratio that you've determined must be followed in order to allow criticism of religion.

[trotsky]

67. So correct me if I'm wrong...

but the upshot of this appears to be you saying that until there are no more intolerant atheists in the world (including those who kick a Trump-defending, Clinton-hating atheist out of their group), then there can be no discussion about the intolerance that is built into many of the major religions' founding documents, and then exhibited in the behavior of their followers?

[guillaumeb]

69. Not wrong. But my focus is a bit different.

And the point of all of this, this sermon on intolerance, is that intolerance is a very human failing. It is not limited to certain groups of people, it is universal. We can read of centuries of Christian intolerance for non-Christian belief systems, but we can also read of the intolerance for theism that was and is demonstrated by the non-theists who govern in Russia and China.

And we can see the obvious intolerance, expressed as condescension and mockery, that people like Richard Dawkins exhibit when referring to people of faith. The condescension that is referenced by C.S. Lewis in his book. The idea that people of faith are simply wrong about their faith because Dawkins has come to the conclusion that there is no God. And because Dawkins has arrived at this conclusion, he apparently must go out and preach the Gospel of anti-theism. In my mind, this makes Dawkins every much as intolerant as any theist who denounces all other beliefs as sacrilege.

This was my ending. And intolerance should be pointed out. Some here might, (I would say narrowly), focus on intolerance when it is done by theists. As a counterpoint, I have pointed out this example of intolerance from a group of non-theists.

I hope this clarifies.

[trotsky]

70. What we CAN and SHOULD discuss, most particularly here in the RELIGION group...

is the relationship between religion and intolerance, including specific examples of it and how it affects the world (and politics) today.

And you don't get to stop that just because you find an example of an atheist being intolerant. Yes, I know that you hate having ANY negative discussion of religion here in the RELIGION group. You've made that patently clear.

But you don't get to control the topics discussed here. And you never will.

[guillaumeb]

72. Apparently I was not clear enough. So let me repeat:

This was my ending. And intolerance should be pointed out. Some here might, (I would say narrowly), focus on intolerance when it is done by theists. As a counterpoint, I have pointed out this example of intolerance from a group of non-theists.

SO I actually stated that intolerance should be pointed out.

I am not certain how you read that as opposite of your contention that:

But you don't get to control the topics discussed here. And you never will.

Perhaps I should have posted this example of atheistic intolerance in the Atheists group, but it might have been blocked there.

[trotsky]

73. You said intolerance should be pointed out - but only under the conditions that you prefer.

Apparently *I* was also not clear enough. So let me repeat:

But you don't get to control the topics discussed here. And you never will.

I'll also repeat, for what must be the hundredth time: this is the RELIGION group. Sure, atheism comes up regularly, but trying to point out examples of individual atheists acting in a way that you think is intolerant (not providing access to their group for a Trump-loving, Clinton-hating individual) is simply not a counterbalance to the intolerance found within the holy texts of religions.

[guillaumeb]

74. Again, you are adding your own commentary to what I said and trying to pass

your commentary off as my words. Which will fail because anyone who cares can read what I actually said here, absent your misleading addition.

And I would say that, based on the responses here, this post obviously struck a nerve among some atheists .

Note that I used the qualifying some atheists, rather than all atheists.

Interesting choice of tactics on your part, where you add some of your words to my posts and then claim that your commentary is actually my commentary.

[trotsky]

76. What "struck a nerve" was your insistence on defining atheism as a belief system.

Much like someone might "strike" YOUR nerve if they said that to be a Christian meant that you must support burning crosses.

Do you understand? Please say you do, and I can move on to address the rest of your post.

[guillaumeb]

77. I do understand.

[trotsky]

78. So you're no longer going to classify atheism as a belief system? n/t

[guillaumeb]

80. I simply meant that I understand your point.

But do not understand the reluctance of some atheists to describe what they believe as.............beliefs.

[trotsky]

82. My "belief" is that I don't accept the claim of theists like yourself that a god exists.

If you're going to call atheism a belief system, then logically you are bound to call many other things belief systems.

Such as NOT believing in leprechauns. Or unicorns. Or fairies. Are those belief systems? If not, please explain why not.

I realize that it's very advantageous for you to frame atheism as a belief system, so that you can structure your arguments more convincingly. That is OBVIOUSLY why you do it. But when you have MULTIPLE atheists telling you you're wrong about what atheism is, do you then understand how no one is finding your arguments convincing?

Why do you continue to insist you get to define what atheism is?

[guillaumeb]

83. Multiple atheists engaging in the "no true Scotsman" argument?

Who are you, or any self-identified atheists here, to decide what atheism is?

You can decide what it means for you to be an atheist, but that has no bearing on how or what other atheists believe. Unless of course, you have appointed yourself to be the definer of what atheism is.

Belief is not a bad word.

[trotsky]

85. First, educate yourself about what "No True Scotsman" actually means.

Remember your "atheist intolerance" thread about the pro-Trump guy who got kicked out of the Boston Atheists group?

If a bunch of atheists had responded to you saying the pro-Trump guy wasn't actually an atheist, THAT would be an example of them engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Get it?

[tonedevil]

87. It's a tautology...

but you can't educate the ineducable.

[guillaumeb]

89. Or discuss music with the tone deaf? eom

[tonedevil]

92. The opportunity for discussion...

is still there, but the tone deaf person may not understand everything that is said. It gets tricky when the tone deaf want everyone to take the tuning pitch from them.

[tonedevil]

86. Belief isn't a bad word...

it just doesn't fit in this case. You ask Who are you, or any self-identified atheists here, to decide what atheism is? Much more to the point who the hell are you to define atheism? You should learn another trick or two this one is tired.

[guillaumeb]

90. If you read my post, you would not have asked this question.

I say this because I make no attempt to define what an atheist is, or what an atheist might believe. If you are tired you should rest before engaging.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Can you find any examples of atheists describing atheism as a 'belief system'? (nt)

[guillaumeb]

91. I can, but I will save this for a future post.

[trotsky]

97. Yes, of course you will.

[guillaumeb]

99. I realize that it is difficult, but you will have to wait.

Anticipation makes things even better.

[rug]

93. "Our belief is not a belief."

Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great (London: Atlantic Books, 2007) 5.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. A contradiction, that, out of context, tells us nothing

and isn't about a system anyway.

[AtheistCrusader]

108. This quote is large enough anyone can see it is not taken out of context.

[rug]

118. Ah, context. Are you the first one to jump up when believers demand context?

[AtheistCrusader]

122. He was speaking, and I think he made an error.

In print I would have made the first 'belief' capitalized, and put a &quot TM)" after it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

96. How about you spare us the self-indulgent moralizing and just tell us how you want us to behave?

Who, in your opinion, is a model atheist?

[guillaumeb]

98. Self-indulgent moralizing?

How ............devastating. Given that the sermon was on intolerance, and how universal it is, I would think the answer would be obvious.

As Gandhi said, be the change you wish to see.

[Act_of_Reparation]

100. It's a very simple question.

I'll ask it again: Who, in your opinion, is a model atheist?

[guillaumeb]

101. I have no idea.

First, because unless I personally know this atheist, how would I judge. I do know one atheist who exhibits extreme intolerance toward believers. He seems to go out of his way to make fun of religion and believers. I had occasion to represent him on numerous occasions in my job.

I would say that a model atheist is one who respects the views of others while feeling comfortable with her/his own views.

[trotsky]

103. Are atheists allowed to criticize and find fault with the views of others? n/t

[guillaumeb]

105. As long as they are self-critical as well.

The same applies to theists obviously.

[trotsky]

109. And you have established yourself as the judge of whether "they" are self-critical, I presume?

Another reminder for you: this is the Religion group. I'm sorry you feel there should be a FOX News style "Fair and Balanced" coverage of the (in your mind) equal offenses of believers and non-believers. Thank you for your thread about a Boston Atheist group kicking out a Trump defender. That most certainly fully offsets the stories about the Catholic Church working hard to deny non-straight, non-cis people their rights. Atheists are clearly JUST as intolerant, based on your story. Thanks again!

[guillaumeb]

111. You are welcome, but once again you insert what you feel must/should? be included

in my actual remarks.

Never good to presume, especially when the presumption is unsupported by any actual evidence.

[trotsky]

113. Which is why I formed it as a question.

Talk about inserting what you feel/must be included. LMFAO

The evidence is clear, though, for anyone who doesn't ignore it. In fact, you just confirmed it once again. You are certainly most helpful today.

Perhaps one day you will "be the change you wish to see" and apologize for your repeated personal attacks and false accusations. You might be surprised.

[Act_of_Reparation]

106. How would that look in practice?

"One who respects the views of others while feeling comfortable with her/his own views" is too much fluff and too little substance. I want to know, precisely, how you think an atheist should behave in a discussion about religion. What could they contribute?

[guillaumeb]

107. Allow me to break down your question.

First, some discussion could center around the why of belief. Why choose atheism, why choose theism. If you chose atheism, presumably you had a reason for doing so.

Many posters in the religion group seem to search out items that present believers, or specific believers, in a bad light. And some posters seem to link such conduct with the act of believing itself. As if theism inevitably leads to bad behavior.

Second, the reaction to my post about the Boston group of atheists who banned someone for being Trump supporter was interesting and illuminating for the strong reaction to my comments calling this ban an example of intolerance as practiced by a particular group of atheists.

[Act_of_Reparation]

110. Vagaries make your position no clearer.

You have chastised atheists for being intolerant and disrespectful. I am asking you how an atheist could contribute to a discussion of religion without being intolerant or disrespectful towards religious belief. This shouldn't be so difficult a question to answer. You need only scroll through the various Religion threads, pick a topic, and illustrate how the terrible atheists could have handled themselves better.

[guillaumeb]

112. But if I did it that would deprive people of the satisfaction

of self-criticism and self-analysis.

[trotsky]

114. Translation:

You've got nothing.

You've leveled very serious accusations. You clearly think mean old atheists are being completely unfair to believers when they talk about negative aspects of religion and religious belief here in the Religion group (I know, what an odd place to do that!). Why not contribute to the discussion and help those mean old atheists understand what you think they're doing wrong? Why just lecture others that they aren't meeting some nebulous standard? Why not help frame the discussion and address the problems you think exist?

[guillaumeb]

116. Scroll back to the top, reread the original post, and save me the trouble of cutting

and pasting what I have already said.

[trotsky]

120. What you've already said is quite clear. There's no need for me to read it again.

You don't actually have concrete suggestions and guidelines for how you want others to post in here; you're just upset that religion is being talked about in less than flattering ways. So you scour the Internet to find an example of atheist intolerance (and what an example - trying to get sympathy for a Trump supporter who got kicked out of a group!) and use it to try and discount the credibility of those posting negative stories about religion. "See? Atheists can be intolerant too! It's not fair to post about religious intolerance!"

Which ties neatly into your opinion that true, sincere religious belief is always good and never bad.

Yeah, I had you figured out from the very beginning.

[guillaumeb]

121. Again, stating as my opinion what you "feel" should be my opinion.

When you said:

Which ties neatly into your opinion that true, sincere religious belief is always good and never bad.

I will accept your characterization IF you can link to specific posts where I actually said anything like that.

[trotsky]

123. No, as I said, you couldn't have made it any clearer.

So thanks once again!

[Act_of_Reparation]

115. Careful, now. Your bullshit is starting to show.

No one is seriously entertaining the possibility of inventorying their thoughts, attitudes, and behavior because you quoted CS Lewis at them. Please cut the foreplay and just tell us what the fuck it is you want.

[guillaumeb]

117. I thought I was quite clear. But see my reply 116 if more is needed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

119. You thought wrong.

You don't like condescension and mockery. No one likes condescension and mockery when they feel it is directed at them. The problem is these terms are subjective, and we all have different ideas of what constitutes condescension and mockery. Ergo, the repeated requests for practical clarification.

[trotsky]

102. "...be the change you wish to see."

Wow.

[guillaumeb]

104. Glad you liked it.