Why is there so little tolerance of "faith" here?

The Flat Earth Society clearly discourages prejudice on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality and presumably other things, yet some of its members have no qualms about insulting each other just for believing in God. I can see that a lot of the religion-related comments are intended as jokes, but claiming that believing in God makes you an idiot, implies that you have low intelligence etc. must surely be considered at least a bit offensive? Myself I am agnostic, and I do not consider atheists to have any more scientific evidence supporting their position than do those who believe in God. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of science. Shouldn't people be free to believe what they want without being insulted, just as they should be free to be open about their sexuality?

Lets be clear, the scientific evidence shows that there is a direct inverse relationship between intelligence and religious belief.  This scientific evidence came from a study by MENSA that found that of 43 studies into the relationship, 4 found no relationship and 39 found the inverse relationship.  So there is significant evidence that shows that people who believe in God are less intelligent than those who don't.  You can deny this fact, but if you can't put forward strong counter evidence, it would seem clear that your opinion is simply a biased belief that religious people are more intelligent than the evidence suggests.  Of course there are exceptions, this is a trend.  There are plenty of people who are religious and highly intelligent.

Surely we should have a right to present the results of scientific studies in public.  Should science be censored if people find it offensive?

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that God exists, there is no evidence that God exists and there is no evidence that believing in God makes a persons sense of morality any better, or that they gain anything that they would not gain if they did not believe in God.  Not only that but we can see many serious problems with religion and the impact that religion has on our society.

Shouldn't I be free to express my beliefs on religion, just as religious people are free to?  If somebody posted and said "I believe in God, and that everybody who doesn't believe in God will go to hell," would you make the same attack against that person.  Claiming that people are going to burn in hell could be seen as an insult.  Shouldn't I be free to not believe in God without being insulted.

I tolerate people's right to believe whatever they want, and I expect to be given the same right, and obviously the rights to express my views on this forum.

Wow. This proves that some people WILL believe something that comes out of a politician's mouth.
No wonder America has Bush >.<

Thats because god doesn't exist.

Wow. This proves that some people WILL believe something that comes out of a politician's mouth. No wonder America has Bush >.<

America has bush because the country is filled with Christian's, Conservatives, and Christian Conservatives. Many of whom absolutely love him (or did at the time of the election).

It's important to note that around 30% of the population voted for him.

I was very unsure what Crazee Peanuts post was even supposed to mean, since nobody who posted before him was from America.  Seemed a little irrelevant.

I also don't know how it proves that people believe what comes out of politicians mouths, or which politicians he was talking about, and which comments he was referring to.  A truly bizarre statement.

It's important to note that around 30% of the population voted for him.

We know what that means about the other ~30% that voted against him, but what does this tell us about the other 30% that didn't vote at all?  

(Whew, I got that extremely simple math correct, right?  I really suck at this stuff...)

Could be that they think the whole system is so corrupt that they don't want to give it their support by participating?  In Australia it is compulsory to vote but I know a few people who don't for that reason.

Wow. This proves that some people WILL believe something that comes out of a politician's mouth.
No wonder America has Bush >.<

I found that offensive... I, personally, wish George Bush wasn't voted in, I'd rather have a monkey in office. But I'm only 14 so I can't vote, pity. So it's not my fault that he's in so don't blame Americans, blame complete and utter retards.

Also, I don't care whether anyone's a Christian or Atheist, or Agnostic or a sun worshiper (thank-you George Carlin, once again!). I just don't want you calling me an evil person with no outlook on my eternity other than suffering and flames and anguish, then telling me that they're religion is the most tolerant and peaceful and loving and FAIR (finite sins getting infinite punishment isn't fair, in my opinion).

I think that's a pretty weak opinion.  There are people out there that do think your religious views make you evil and do think that their religion is the only moral position that people can take.  There is no doubt that many people hold the view that religion and morality are linked.  Why are you afraid of having these people express their opinions?  Does it really hurt you if people with delusions about the world think you're evil?  Surely if they express their religious opinions, it gives you a chance to completely counter those claims with actual evidence.  There is certainly a wealth of knowledge about the actual lack of a link between morality and religion.

Your argument that religion is not fair because "finite" sins get "infinite punishment" is ridiculous.  Why would you even attempt to take part in the morality of religion?  The fact is that there is no evidence that that claim is true anyway, don't play these hypothetical games with religious people, if they claim that a particular thing is true, ask them to back it up with a objective source, and when they can't, ask them why you should believe that.  Even better, smash them with some of the actual evidence that exists.  Your opinions are naive at best.

And your opinions come across as being very devout sometimes.

Define that statement.

I mean that it's people like you that get on your high horse about their cause (and are so far up their own ass) that are a problem. It doesn't matter whether the cause is religious, atheist, racist, sexist, nationalist or whatever - a biggot is a biggot no matter what the cause.

If I was Dawkins I would hate to have you associate yourself with my work.

Next you'll be claiming that scientists who hold religious beliefs aren't real scientists.

Give some evidence for those accusations.

Give some evidence for those accusations.

Are you trying to claim that you are tolerant towards relgious beliefs??? I'm sorry I always thought you were intollerant of religion and felt you were justified to be so.

I mean that it's people like you that get on your high horse about their cause (and are so far up their own ass) that are a problem. It doesn't matter whether the cause is religious, atheist, racist, sexist, nationalist or whatever - a biggot is a biggot no matter what the cause.

What is your source that "people getting on their high horse" is the problem.  What examples of people committing acts that are a problem in the name of atheism can you give?

Nobody cares what your opinions are, if they aren't based on facts.

Gee, I don't know, how about the Chinese government persecuting people for having a religious belief?

More importantly, when I talk about people getting on their high horse I am speaking of people being intollerant of others because they are so convinced they are right. You are a biggot and you think that just because religious people are "wrong" it's okay to be intollerant towards them.

I find it funny because you are anit-homophobic but you are intollerant of religion. Believe it or not there are people out there that cannot believe that God doesn't exist. True this is a product of how they were raised but it's a very strong belief that they can't just change on a whim or by somebody showing them they have no evidence for the belief. To them it's just "natural".

Seriously, how much better off do you think the world would be if people stopped believing in God?

Gee, I don't know, how about the Chinese government persecuting people for having a religious belief?

Clearly the Chinese government does not persecute people simply because of their religious belief, and claiming that is the case is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.  If, as you claim, the Chinese government are persecuting people in the name of atheism, you should be able to provide one quote from the Chinese government that this is the case.  Why is it, if that is the case, that almost all religions are allowed to practice their beliefs unheeded?

Look, I'm actually providing a source to demonstrate that what I'm saying is true, instead of making unverified claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

More importantly, when I talk about people getting on their high horse I am speaking of people being intollerant of others because they are so convinced they are right. You are a biggot and you think that just because religious people are "wrong" it's okay to be intollerant towards them.

I think religion is wrong because there is so much evidence that suggest that that is the case.  I am a believer in making decisions based on facts, not on conjecture and speculation.  I would like you to give some examples of my "intolerance" towards religion.  I can cite many times when I have advocated that the only way we should defeat religion is through words and argument and that everybody should have the right to believe whatever they want.  I have stated on numerous occasions that I think forcing your opinions on to other people is immoral, and that certainly applies to forcing people to be atheists.  We need to convince people to be rational and base their arguments on evidence instead of how they feel.  Nothing else will succeed.  Can you explain how that position, that I have constantly repeated, is an "intollerant[sic]" position.

I find it funny because you are anit-homophobic but you are intollerant of religion. Believe it or not there are people out there that cannot believe that God doesn't exist. True this is a product of how they were raised but it's a very strong belief that they can't just change on a whim or by somebody showing them they have no evidence for the belief. To them it's just "natural".

I don't believe it, and I'd like you to provide some evidence that that is the case.  I very much doubt that you can, because I don't believe that such evidence exists.  I think it is far more likely that you just made that statement up because you think it sounds right.  This is entirely the problem I am talking about.  People claim things are true without being able to show why they think it is true.  Such dogmatic beliefs cause many problems in the world.  Instead of making stuff up, why don't you try to give us some facts.

Seriously, how much better off do you think the world would be if people stopped believing in God?
[/quote]

Fairly sure I said "almost" in there somewhere...

edit:

Also important to note that their tough stances on Christianity and a small amount of other religions has nothing to do with atheism, but rather a position on what those religions stand for.  It is not the beliefs that they oppose, but the power connected with the actual religions.

I was going to tell him the same thing. Also included in the article is:

The Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is a necessity for many high level careers and posts.

That source you provided to "support" your claim did absolutely nothing for it.

---

You don't force religious people to be atheists but you certainly do insult them. You practically call them stupid for believing in something you don't.

The fact that you want to "defeat" religion is exactly what I'm talking about. Talking about defeating religion is not tollerant no matter what else you may say.

---

No I didn't make it up beast. One of my friends (who always did better in school than me and is now a doctor) believes in God. I asked him how he can believe in God when he's so smart and he said that he just couldn't believe there wasn't a God. He doesn't tend to get into debates about it and he'll be the first to admit there's no evidence for it but he still just can't switch of his belief switch. If you find that hard to believe you're dumber than I thought.

That's not a source at all.

A source would be some kind of scientific evidence that suggests that what he thinks is the case, is actually the case.

That's not a source at all.

A source would be some kind of scientific evidence that suggests that what he thinks is the case, is actually the case.

Um... I stated there are people that believe in God purely because they can't "switch" their belief "off". You asked me to provide you with a source. I told you about my friend and you go on a rant.

As he says himself, he can't prove it's the case but despite that he can't not believe. How am I supposed to "scientifically" (you do love that word) provide you with evidence of his beliefs (which is what I'm discussing, not whether the beliefs are correct or not).

You don't force religious people to be atheists but you certainly do insult them. You practically call them stupid for believing in something you don't.

The fact that you want to "defeat" religion is exactly what I'm talking about. Talking about defeating religion is not tollerant no matter what else you may say.

How is that "intolerant?"  I am simply expressing my views.  Clearly I tolerate religion, because I discuss it with people all the time.  I am happy to invite Mormons around to my house to discuss religion and I take no action to stop people from being allowed to practice their religious beliefs.  I certainly do not disrupt people's religious ceremonies and I certainly do not take any action to force them to alter their beliefs.  Why is it that you do not attack religious people for not tolerating my views by stating that God exists and that we need to take Jesus into our heart to be saved - implying that I am bad person and wrong in my beliefs?  Surely if they are allowed to make such statements, I should equally be allowed to express my view that the only impact religion has on the world is a negative one.

This is a view backed up by the work of people like Dr Marc Hauser, Dr Richard Dawkins and Dr Robert Winston - who show that we've evolved to have a predisposition to religion, but that our morality is separate to that religion and religion actually disrupts those moralities.

For example - how many atheists oppose homosexuality?  How many religions do?  Why do religious people feel that they have the right to actually physically force their opinions on to other people?  Why shouldn't we have the right to vocally oppose that?

Clearly the Chinese government does not persecute people simply because of their religious belief, and claiming that is the case is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.  If, as you claim, the Chinese government are persecuting people in the name of atheism, you should be able to provide one quote from the Chinese government that this is the case.  Why is it, if that is the case, that almost all religions are allowed to practice their beliefs unheeded? (i just wanted to see what glow was.)

Persecuting based on religion and persecuting in the name of atheism do not have to be one in the same. Saying almost all religions are treated fairly while such a blatant bias against the people practicing ONE religion is so heinously obvious is just washing over their intolerance. The chinese would be about as likely to come out and say they were persecuting folks based on religious beliefs as a top NASA official would be to come out and say their is a flat earth conspiracy. I KNOW you said Almost... but the almost is really kinda pointless when they kill christians because of their beliefs, regardless of if they are atheists, hate the religion, or fear the change the power the religion holds might bring.

What's your point?  How is that relevant to the discussion?  The claim that I was refuting was that China is a country that persecutes religious belief because it is atheist.

Um... I stated there are people that believe in God purely because they can't "switch" their belief "off". You asked me to provide you with a source. I told you about my friend and you go on a rant.

As he says himself, he can't prove it's the case but despite that he can't not believe. How am I supposed to "scientifically" (you do love that word) provide you with evidence of his beliefs (which is what I'm discussing, not whether the beliefs are correct or not).

If you can't provide any real evidence for what you're saying, you would have to admit that what you've said may not be the case, but that you feel that it is the case.  There is obviously a significant difference between presenting something as a fact and presenting something as your opinion.  You claim that your friend cannot change his beliefs, but that is totally speculation.  He feels that that is the case, but there are actually many examples of very ardent believers who have "seen the light" and converted to atheism.

Quote from: beast on February 20, 2007, 08:20:44 AM

.

For example - how many atheists oppose homosexuality?  How many religions do?  Why do religious people feel that they have the right to actually physically force their opinions on to other people?  Why shouldn't we have the right to vocally oppose that?

very true. But... how many atheists DO oppose homosexuality? Seriosuly. I WOULD like to see some sort of study on that, if you have a link or a website you know of. Thats some good info right there.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=29

The majority of secularists (not necessarily atheists) support gay marriage - Secularism is the only religious position in the survey where over 50% of people support gay marriage.

How is that "intolerant?"  I am simply expressing my views.  Clearly I tolerate religion, because I discuss it with people all the time.  I am happy to invite Mormons around to my house to discuss religion and I take no action to stop people from being allowed to practice their religious beliefs.  I certainly do not disrupt people's religious ceremonies and I certainly do not take any action to force them to alter their beliefs.

Again, the answer is in the "defeat" part. No you don't physically go round disrupting people's ceremonies and so forth but you certainly are actively outspoken against religion. I'm sure when you discuss religion with religious people it's not just a case of let bygons be bygons.

Perhaps you haven't done a good way of portraying yourself on this forum but it comes across as you want religion gone as you see it as a social evil. You may not physically attack religion but you certainly do verbally attack it. You may not try and force them to convert but you certainly could be called an atheist missionary.

Why is it that you do not attack religious people for not tolerating my views by stating that God exists and that we need to take Jesus into our heart to be saved - implying that I am bad person and wrong in my beliefs?  Surely if they are allowed to make such statements, I should equally be allowed to express my view that the only impact religion has on the world is a negative one.

I do "attack" such statements as well. It's not that I don't think they should be allowed to say it but damned if I'm not going to object to someone saying, "The moral decay of our society is a result of people turning away from Jesus."

I'm not trying to supress your opinion, merely stating that in my opinion you are highly intollerant.

This is a view backed up by the work of people like Dr Marc Hauser, Dr Richard Dawkins and Dr Robert Winston - who show that we've evolved to have a predisposition to religion, but that our morality is separate to that religion and religion actually disrupts those moralities.

I'm not arguing with that at all. Though I think you should refrain from quoting Dawkins as you have twisted his words before.

We're not discussing the pros and cons of religion. We're discussing your intollerance of people's belief in God. We're discussing your religious devotion to atheism. We're discussing your hypocrisy.

For example - how many atheists oppose homosexuality?  How many religions do?  Why do religious people feel that they have the right to actually physically force their opinions on to other people?  Why shouldn't we have the right to vocally oppose that?

You're taking the extreme and saying "this is what belief in God means". I oppose anybody who tries to force their opinions onto other people and will vocally oppose it, funnily that's very close to what I'm trying to do with you.

What about all the people who are either religious or believe in God and support homosexuality? I know Catholics that support Gay marriage - you can argue that they aren't proper Catholics if you want but you won't get anywhere with them. People like you don't seem to realise that many religious people today aren't just blind followers and have a sense of morals not based on what the church tells them.

It's important to remember that there's a huge difference between intolerance of religion, and intolerance of religious people. Certainly tolerance of religious people is very important, since people should not be persecuted because of their beliefs, or forced to act against those beliefs, except in extreme cases (for example, if a person believes that god requires him to commit murder, it's entirely reasonable to force that person to act against his beliefs by preventing him from comitting murder.) Both beast and I are very tolerant of religious people, and think that everyone else should be as well. (Beast, tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm pretty sure we're essentially in agreement on these issues.)

However, tolerance of religion is in fact problematic, because it causes people to restrain themselves from pointing out how religion and science are contradictory, and how religion is a major source of strife. Beast and I both think that religion should be defeated by reason, but it is important to remember that this is a battle of ideas, and the weapons are rational arguments, which don't hurt anyone, and education (no, I don't mean indoctrination - I mean teaching facts, and teaching an inquisitive and skeptical nature, and allowing people to make up their own minds). A healthy skepticism is always beneficial whenever one is confronted with surprising claims - be it that God exists and performs miracles, or that some people can predict the future by looking at the stars, or that humans evolved from single-celled creatures - and one should always require evidence to back them up. Religion needs to lose its privileged status as being somehow immune from such skepticism, but somehow the idea of "religious tolerance" has become so ingrained that it is anathema to criticize it.

In sum, one should of course be tolerant towards people who believe differently, but that's no reason not to criticize their beliefs if such beliefs are not only false but also damaging.

Well said David, I agree completely.  There are a number of times where I have defended people's right to religious expression, with no possibly gain for myself, but simply upholding my belief that people should be free to express their views.  The other day I saw a man preaching at a market and a policeman came up and told him he would have to go somewhere where there were less people.  I felt I had no choice but to defend the preacher, as surely he should have has much right to yell about God as the apple man has to yell "apples, apples, apples."

That's not to say that I don't completely disagree with what he preaches, and tell him so at every opportunity, but we should never censor views that we think are wrong.  In fact I find that I learn much more from discussions with people I disagree with, than from discussions with people I agree with.  Having your opinions challenged is always a good thing, although sometimes we don't see that as the case.

Though I think you should refrain from quoting Dawkins as you have twisted his words before.

If you're going to make such accusations, put forward some evidence that this is the case.  Otherwise please don't lie.

What about all the people who are either religious or believe in God and support homosexuality? I know Catholics that support Gay marriage - you can argue that they aren't proper Catholics if you want but you won't get anywhere with them. People like you don't seem to realise that many religious people today aren't just blind followers and have a sense of morals not based on what the church tells them.

Yes, there are many people who support gay marriage.  At no point have I said that that is no the case.  In fact the scientific evidence shows that we all (or at least, in line with natural distribution) have the same sense of morals.  Religion simply changes the specifics, but religious and non-religious people are equally motivated to do what is right and to try and make the world a better place.  The difference is that many religious people think opposing abortion or flying planes into buildings makes the world a better place.  Of course, as you would expect with natural distribution, there are atheists and non-theists who also have views we would see as immoral.  However it is religion and dogmatic beliefs that skew the natural distribution and lead to larger than expected numbers of people with views that are not in line with our evolved morality.

Moral Minds; How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong by Dr Marc Hauser is the dominate text on this subject.  Dr Robert Winston has also done some great studies that back this up, especially into the morality of children.

It's important to remember that there's a huge difference between intolerance of religion, and intolerance of religious people. Certainly tolerance of religious people is very important, since people should not be persecuted because of their beliefs, or forced to act against those beliefs, except in extreme cases (for example, if a person believes that god requires him to commit murder, it's entirely reasonable to force that person to act against his beliefs by preventing him from comitting murder.) Both beast and I are very tolerant of religious people, and think that everyone else should be as well. (Beast, tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'm pretty sure we're essentially in agreement on these issues.)

However, tolerance of religion is in fact problematic, because it causes people to restrain themselves from pointing out how religion and science are contradictory, and how religion is a major source of strife. Beast and I both think that religion should be defeated by reason, but it is important to remember that this is a battle of ideas, and the weapons are rational arguments, which don't hurt anyone, and education (no, I don't mean indoctrination - I mean teaching facts, and teaching an inquisitive and skeptical nature, and allowing people to make up their own minds). A healthy skepticism is always beneficial whenever one is confronted with surprising claims - be it that God exists and performs miracles, or that some people can predict the future by looking at the stars, or that humans evolved from single-celled creatures - and one should always require evidence to back them up. Religion needs to lose its privileged status as being somehow immune from such skepticism, but somehow the idea of "religious tolerance" has become so ingrained that it is anathema to criticize it.

In sum, one should of course be tolerant towards people who believe differently, but that's no reason not to criticize their beliefs if such beliefs are not only false but also damaging.

I agree entirely with that save one point about religion in general. I know you were generalizing for the sake of simplicity, but honestly, is there anything wrong with atheistic religions such as Buddhism? Such a thing is simply faith in general, even though it is a religion. I just wanted to bring that up.


~D-Draw

Well, the problem is not so much with theism, as it is with supernatural belief of all stripes, as they cause people to act differently based on the idea that falsehoods are in fact true. This isn't restricted to theistic religions - for example, Scientology is a non-theistic religion which is terribly irrational and troublesome. If a "religion" has no supernatural beliefs at all, then I would say it is not properly classed as a religion at all, but rather as a philosophy. I don't know enough about Buddhism to judge, but other people seem to think that it is described more accurately as a philosophy than a religion.