Tolerance of atheism. Discuss.

[AnonymousRevival]

In addition: 'Spiritual Atheist' I do not believe in a god, but I do believe in a supernatural spirit.

[kimham8a]

You are correct that the belief one way or the other on evolution is irrelevant to atheism, but thats only because atheism doesnt believe in anything without sufficient evidence, and I'm not confusing atheism and science, I'll refer you to the wikipedia:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."...."Atheists cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of supernatural entities such as gods."

And if you read my post again carefully I never claim that atheism believes one way or the other on evolution.

You're confusing atheism with agnostism. Atheists believe there is no god, agnostists believe there isn't enough evidence to support either way. However, atheism is easier to type and say (I'm not sure if I spelled ''agnostism'' right) and it's more commonly used to describe both those ways of belief.

Unfortunately you are confused.
Atheist: I do not believe
Agnostic: I do not know
Gnostic Atheist: I do not believe in a god and know it does not exist
Agnostic Atheist: I do not believe in a god but do not know if one exists
Gnostic Theist: I believe in a god and know it exists
Agnostic Theist: I believe in a god but do not know if one exists

In addition: 'Spiritual Atheist' I do not believe in a god, but I do believe in a supernatural spirit.

Darn, this list is getting long, I see why people just call them all atheists.

[Skotadi Phobos]

Reading through the thread a quote came to mind, I'm not sure where it came from or who is responsible for it. "Don't mistake God's grace for approval"

[memimemi]

Darn, this list is getting long, I see why people just call them all atheists.

Yeah, it's almost as annoying as trying to keep separate the Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformers, Episcopalians, 7th-Day Adventists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals....

Darn, this list is getting long.  I can see why today's ADHD culture lumps all these groups together...  wait, what?  They don't?

Then let's play fair.  What may seem like a small semantics issue to those on one side of a fence can actually present a wide array of insights into the actual workings of things, from a position perched upon it.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was a bit of wit.  Otherwise, it would be the equivalent of looking at a Pole, a Brit, and a German, and saying "meh, they all look the same to me."

And that would be messed right up.

[BluePriest]

Darn, this list is getting long, I see why people just call them all atheists.

Yeah, it's almost as annoying as trying to keep separate the Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformers, Episcopalians, 7th-Day Adventists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals....

Darn, this list is getting long.  I can see why today's ADHD culture lumps all these groups together...  wait, what?  They don't?

Then let's play fair.  What may seem like a small semantics issue to those on one side of a fence can actually present a wide array of insights into the actual workings of things, from a position perched upon it.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was a bit of wit.  Otherwise, it would be the equivalent of looking at a Pole, a Brit, and a German, and saying "meh, they all look the same to me."

And that would be messed right up.

I always see them all lumped up as 1 thing. Just Christians. The only one I dont see lumped up are christians and catholics (which I dont quite understand why, perhaps just because of how large the catholic church is). The only time I dont see it lumped together is when people ask me what kind of christian I am.

Sure you dont see them lumped together when you look at churches, but there's no equivalant in atheism to compare this to since the earth isn't littered with "Church of Atheism"s. Just about the only time I ever see anything more specific than Christian brought up, is when people talk about specific churches (not the domination, just the church) or when the people talking are already Christians. I almost never see Atheists, when talking about Christians, get any more specific than Christians. 

[OldTrees]

Darn, this list is getting long, I see why people just call them all atheists.

Yeah, it's almost as annoying as trying to keep separate the Catholics, Baptists, Anglicans, Unitarians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformers, Episcopalians, 7th-Day Adventists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals....

Darn, this list is getting long.  I can see why today's ADHD culture lumps all these groups together...  wait, what?  They don't?

Then let's play fair.  What may seem like a small semantics issue to those on one side of a fence can actually present a wide array of insights into the actual workings of things, from a position perched upon it.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was a bit of wit.  Otherwise, it would be the equivalent of looking at a Pole, a Brit, and a German, and saying "meh, they all look the same to me."

And that would be messed right up.

I always see them all lumped up as 1 thing. Just Christians. The only one I dont see lumped up are christians and catholics (which I dont quite understand why, perhaps just because of how large the catholic church is). The only time I dont see it lumped together is when people ask me what kind of christian I am.

Christians used to be less unified. Many were worried about religious persecution if certain other denominations controlled the government. Catholics can trust fellow Christians easier than they can trust Baptists. When this was recognized there was an effort to become unified (see other denominations as fellow Christians) for more political power.

[memimemi]

I always see them all lumped up as 1 thing. Just Asians.. The only one I dont see lumped up are Chinese and Japanese (which I dont quite understand why, perhaps just because of how large China is). The only time I dont see it lumped together is when people ask me what nation my grandparents were born in.

Sure you dont see them lumped together when you look at a map, but there's no equivalant anywhere outside of asia to compare this to since the earth isn't littered with "not-Chinas." Just about the only time I ever see anything more specific than Asian brought up, is when people talk about specific countries (not the domination, just the country) or when the people talking are already Asians.. I almost never see non-Asians, when talking about Asians, get any more specific than Asians.

Do you see why I may raise objections to this line of reasoning?

Just because you couldn't be bothered to look at different cultures of non-belief, does not negate their existance, any more than racism negates the diversity of those being stereotyped.

[Laxadarap]

I always see them all lumped up as 1 thing. Just Asians.. The only one I dont see lumped up are Chinese and Japanese (which I dont quite understand why, perhaps just because of how large China is). The only time I dont see it lumped together is when people ask me what nation my grandparents were born in.

Sure you dont see them lumped together when you look at a map, but there's no equivalant anywhere outside of asia to compare this to since the earth isn't littered with "not-Chinas." Just about the only time I ever see anything more specific than Asian brought up, is when people talk about specific countries (not the domination, just the country) or when the people talking are already Asians.. I almost never see non-Asians, when talking about Asians, get any more specific than Asians.

Do you see why I may raise objections to this line of reasoning?

Just because you couldn't be bothered to look at different cultures of non-belief, does not negate their existance, any more than racism negates the diversity of those being stereotyped.

I think you seem to be missing the point.  He isn't saying that he believes it is like that, he is merely making an observation of the people around him, and it's one that I agree with.

Something else that I would like to point out is that people are ignorant.  Everybody knows that China and Japan are in Asia, but honestly, if you were to walk up to somebody on the street, what are the odds they could name 5 of the Christian religions? They would get Baptist, Catholic (if they felt it was Christian, I still don't see how you call it non-christian), and maybe Episcopalian or something.  Even if you told them all of the religions, they wouldn't be able to distinguish between them simply because they don't know the beliefs.  Humans care about what is relevant to them, or at least what they can justify as relevant.  These countries are, but the different religious denominations simply aren't.  It's good enough to know that blah blah blah is a Christian sect.  The argument kind of follows the same path as street smarts vs. being scholarly. 

[Belthus]

In my experience, people who refer to themselves as "Christian" are evangelical or fundamentalist. Catholics say they are Catholics. Mainline Protestants say their denomination: Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.  One muddying factor is that evangelical Christianity overlaps with the Mainline Protestant denominations, so some Baptists are evangelicals, as are some Presbyterians, and so on.

It has also been my experience that evangelical/fundamentalist Christians only consider those who have been born again to be true Christians. Thus, they try to convert not only Muslims, Hindus, et al., but also Catholics and Protestants who do not profess to have had a specific moment of enlightenment.

As for non-believers, non-belief for most of us is not a central part of our everyday lives, unless believers go out of their way to make life hard for us. I doubt that Christians (of all stripes) spend much time thinking about Zeus, Isis, or any of the other gods they disbelieve.

[memimemi]

I think you seem to be missing the point.  He isn't saying that he believes it is like that, he is merely making an observation of the people around him, and it's one that I agree with.

Then perhaps it's time to find a more critically-thinking group of friends, or move somewhere where people aren't satisfied with generalizations of wide swathes of humanity.

Something else that I would like to point out is that people are ignorant.  Everybody knows that China and Japan are in Asia, but honestly, if you were to walk up to somebody on the street, what are the odds they could name 5 of the Christian religions? They would get Baptist, Catholic (if they felt it was Christian, I still don't see how you call it non-christian), and maybe Episcopalian or something.  Even if you told them all of the religions, they wouldn't be able to distinguish between them simply because they don't know the beliefs.  Humans care about what is relevant to them, or at least what they can justify as relevant.  These countries are, but the different religious denominations simply aren't.  It's good enough to know that blah blah blah is a Christian sect.  The argument kind of follows the same path as street smarts vs. being scholarly.

Good thing these people aren't in this discussion, then, as it's relevant here.  I must say, i'm used to facing the argument from ignorance; the argument from the ignorance of others is new to me.  How does the fact of the existance of ignorance justify ignorance?

Do you realize what you're saying, here?  Basically, that other viewpoints are 'not relevant.'  Is there anywhere outside of religion where this reasoning is anything less than abhorrent?

I don't understand the quibbling between various sects of Christianity, am not a Christian, and don't hang out with too many people for whom religion is a big deal.  So, I guess I'd be justified in saying 'you're not relevant; your schisms are unimportant; you all look the same to me.' 

Look, when discussing Asian foreign policies [closest analogy], one would expect to need a little knowledge about the various cultures one is about to meet, even if one is from a place where there are no Asians, and Asian culture isn't relevant to day-to-day life.  Is it so odd that some would expect the same level of knowledge acquisition when venturing into a discussion of Atheism?

[eaglgenes101]

I think you seem to be missing the point.  He isn't saying that he believes it is like that, he is merely making an observation of the people around him, and it's one that I agree with.

Then perhaps it's time to find a more critically-thinking group of friends, or move somewhere where people aren't satisfied with generalizations of wide swathes of humanity.

Something else that I would like to point out is that people are ignorant.  Everybody knows that China and Japan are in Asia, but honestly, if you were to walk up to somebody on the street, what are the odds they could name 5 of the Christian religions? They would get Baptist, Catholic (if they felt it was Christian, I still don't see how you call it non-christian), and maybe Episcopalian or something.  Even if you told them all of the religions, they wouldn't be able to distinguish between them simply because they don't know the beliefs.  Humans care about what is relevant to them, or at least what they can justify as relevant.  These countries are, but the different religious denominations simply aren't.  It's good enough to know that blah blah blah is a Christian sect.  The argument kind of follows the same path as street smarts vs. being scholarly.

Good thing these people aren't in this discussion, then, as it's relevant here.  I must say, i'm used to facing the argument from ignorance; the argument from the ignorance of others is new to me.  How does the fact of the existance of ignorance justify ignorance?

Do you realize what you're saying, here?  Basically, that other viewpoints are 'not relevant.'  Is there anywhere outside of religion where this reasoning is anything less than abhorrent?

I don't understand the quibbling between various sects of Christianity, am not a Christian, and don't hang out with too many people for whom religion is a big deal.  So, I guess I'd be justified in saying 'you're not relevant; your schisms are unimportant; you all look the same to me.' 

Look, when discussing Asian foreign policies [closest analogy], one would expect to need a little knowledge about the various cultures one is about to meet, even if one is from a place where there are no Asians, and Asian culture isn't relevant to day-to-day life.  Is it so odd that some would expect the same level of knowledge acquisition when venturing into a discussion of Atheism?

Argument from ignorance is like this:
We aren't sure of Adolf Hitler's sexual orientation.
Therefore, he was probably homosexual.

[BluePriest]

I think you seem to be missing the point.  He isn't saying that he believes it is like that, he is merely making an observation of the people around him, and it's one that I agree with.

Then perhaps it's time to find a more critically-thinking group of friends, or move somewhere where people aren't satisfied with generalizations of wide swathes of humanity.

The least tolerant people I see are the people who claim others need to be more tolerant. You unfortunately, help support this observation. You have the idea that you should  see people as individuals and pot a group. Then you lump everyone that doesnt see people as individuals into 1 group, and then not only that, but assert that it is best to avoid communication with these people, and even move so that you dont have to deal with them. Unfortunately tolerance of ignorance is another thing we need to have. If you can not tolerate ignorant people, you cant expect the ignorant people to become any less ignorant, and as famously stated by someone I forget, "If you arent part of the solution, then you're part of the problem". 

To relate to the topic at hand
This is the big problem with people claiming with that others need to be more tolerant of atheism.  Its easy to be in a group and say that others need to be more tolerant of it. If you are in a group its easy to see the persecution it receives and be blind to the persecution it causes in an attempt to be "equal" with other groups.