Are atheists "intolerant"?

This is a clip from episode 512 of
"The Atheist Experience" TV show

Watch the TV show at
http://www.atheist-experience.com/

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• atheist
• experience
• intolerance

[dkthg]

ATTENTION: YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESPECT ANYONES BELIEFS.

THAT IS ALL.

[stevehayes13]

Beliefs are not entitled respect. On the contrary, all beliefs should be subject to criticism, and stupid beliefs merit only ridicule.

[ophios]

I find it funny that "I think your stupid" is bad, but "I think your evil, and your should die" is just fine. "I think these people are strange" is bad but "everyone who isn't me will rape and murder we must ban everything by them and destroy everything they hold dear" is just fine.

[Lennon4ever1]

Atheism could only be intolerant if atheists forced their views and disbelief on the population and 'our GOVERNMENT endorsed this and outlawed religion! -I don't know one atheist who would advocate that

[redddbaron]

@thesparitan There is something to be wary of in Christianity. That is symbolically called "the Leavening of the Pharisees". When Christians forget this warning they can sometimes be manipulated into the barbaric bronze age roots from Judaism. Muslims too, since they have the same roots.

Scroll down I discussed it with ACR already.

[thesparitan]

@redddbaron Actually the Jains are far more peaceful than Christians. Christianity is one of the most violent religions in history.

[redddbaron]

@acr08807 So what do you think happened? Because very quickly after that "pure fiction" happened, Christianity spread through the entire western world. I don't know too many people willing to die for Rudolph the red nosed reindeer.

So they saw/felt/heard about something. What's your explanation? Conspiracy theory?

[acr08807]

@redddbaron The crucifixion is pure fiction. A child's story.

[redddbaron]

@acr08807 Now see? You could have made an analogy with Father Christmas and you possibly could have made a point. There was a Saint Nicholas. There is also nearly nothing left of the original person in the current cultural mythology surrounding him. All sorts of other cultural and religious celebrations and rituals were blended, so a weak analogy could be made.

But Rudolph is pure fiction. A child's story.

[acr08807]

@redddbaron "God exists." That's a statement that purports to be a fact. That's what a hypothesis is--nothing more. You believe that statement, and many others about God, in the absence of evidence. That's just sad. I am exactly as agnostic about your version of God as I am about the existence of Father Christmas, so to call me an agnostic is to lump me in with a lot of people with a very different philosophical approach than mine. And calling my analogy lame doesn't make it wrong.

[redddbaron]

@acr08807 "does not make your hypothesis true."

That I think is the primary fallacy. God is not quantifiable in a hypothesis. People try all the time and fail, Christians and Atheists alike. The fact that you are agnostic proves at least you are honest. The analogy with Rudolph is a bit lame though.

[acr08807]

@redddbaron I believe things because I see the evidence, and I'm not afraid to say I don't know. Let me rephrase to be clear--every version of any god that I've ever heard of is fictional.  Your version might be real, just as Rudolph the red nosed reindeer might really be able to fly. I just don't think either is bloody likely, and you're saying that the nonexistence of God "is certainly not true" does not make your hypothesis true.