Can atheism be described as 'intolerant'.

[Rum]

The article about Atheist clubs in American schools http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5308B contained the phrase "a fashionable 'new atheism' which is every bit as intolerant as Christian fundamentalism" which got me thinking.

Personally I am pretty tolerant of people who wish to believe nonsense as long as it doesn't interfere with me and my life. Does anyone recognise atheism as this intolerant? Should it be?

[angrychimp]

"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it. " -Edith Sitwell

If an atheist takes this approach the only people who call him intolerant won't matter.

[leo-rcc]

The article about Atheist clubs in American schools http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5308B contained the phrase "a fashionable 'new atheism' which is every bit as intolerant as Christian fundamentalism" which got me thinking.

Personally I am pretty tolerant of people who wish to believe nonsense as long as it doesn't interfere with me and my life. Does anyone recognise atheism as this intolerant? Should it be?

It has nothing to do with atheism itself, just the atheist.

If an atheist blows his top when a person says "God bless you" when someone sneezes, well I think that is quite intolerant. If an atheist calls a theist names just for believing a fairy tale, then that is quite intolerant and not to mention downright rude.

Calling theists out on their bullshit arguments is not intolerant, attacking the person because they hold a different belief is.

[charlou]

Just as there's nothing wrong with criticism or judgement, there's nothing wrong with intolerance, per se. I think there's a place for intolerance of certain behaviours, for example, and, as a lawful society, we manifest our intolerance of certain behaviours in legislation.

[Clinton Huxley]

I think by intolerant, some theists mean any atheist who actually opens his/her mouth. Theists don't mind nice, quiet atheists who never complain.

[The Dawktor]

The article about Atheist clubs in American schools http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5308B contained the phrase "a fashionable 'new atheism' which is every bit as intolerant as Christian fundamentalism" which got me thinking.

Personally I am pretty tolerant of people who wish to believe nonsense as long as it doesn't interfere with me and my life. Does anyone recognise atheism as this intolerant? Should it be?

It has nothing to do with atheism itself, just the atheist.

If an atheist blows his top when a person says "God bless you" when someone sneezes, well I think that is quite intolerant. If an atheist calls a theist names just for believing a fairy tale, then that is quite intolerant and not to mention downright rude.

Calling theists out on their bullshit arguments is not intolerant, attacking the person because they hold a different belief is.

I think I can alter from shoulder-shrugging 'what a twat!' thoughts- to in-your-face challenging speech depending on the situation. Professionally I challenge pseudoscience non-sense pretty much everytime- it is my job to educate patients after all. I am a lot less likely to challenge their theist nonsense beliefs whilst I'm working. I have a mortgage to pay!

[Animavore]

I'm only intolerant with the more stupid side of religion (yeah I know, its all stupid but, I mean the more stupid side) otherwise I'd lose lots of friends and piss off family. Almost all people believe in some woo or other. I'm one of only a few people I know in this town who's actually a full atheist and skeptic. Most are agnostic who dabble in other woo like New Age and UFOs etc...
The only person I know who pisses me off is one friend who is a creationist. There's absolutely no need for it at all. I wouldn't mind but he's on his own out here. He doesn't belong to a church or group so he sticks out like a sore thumb. I grit my teeth when he mentions it to people and they laugh at him and tell him to shut up then he comes complaining to me because people don't engage him the way I do. I'm really just looking out for him but more and more I'm convinced he's a (intellectually) dead man.

[CJ]

Atheism can not be intolerant any more than Islam can. People are intolerant or not as the case may be. A dogma can influence people and over the last few years there has been a sea change in the attitudes I have seen expressed by atheists. That change is becoming dogmatic in some ways, but that is to be expected in exactly the same way that some elements of feminism have become dogmatic. If any group (females or atheists) are continually suppressed and then that suppression is released then the result, in my opinion, is a backlash. We are at the beginning of the atheist backlash now and as more atheists feel free to express their opinions it's going to be the more outspoken that will flavour the backlash, it always is. So some atheists are intolerant and as they are the ones that will shout loudest atheism will become seen by some as intolerant although atheism as and idea is like Islam can not be intolerant as such people have to act on the idea.

I do understand Islam does have intolerant ideas built into it, so as such can have institutionalised intolerance in a way that atheism can't. However that does not stop some atheists being intolerant of theists and taring us all with that brush. Does that make sense?

Atheist dogma was an oxymoron, I don't think it is anymore. There is an unwritten dogma beginning to emerge, Christopher Hitchens being, IMO, the most outspoken proponent of the 'all theism is bad' school of thought and as he is such a good publicist, like it or not, he is perceived as a spokesman for Atheism (note the capital A).

[Chinaski]

I don't tolerate intolerance. As faith is by definition intolerant of anyone who engages in critical thinking, I am intolerant of faith.

[Drewish]

Yep, atheism is innately intolerant, agnosticism is the one TRUE religion.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Atheism can not be intolerant any more than Islam can. People are intolerant or not as the case may be. A dogma can influence people and over the last few years there has been a sea change in the attitudes I have seen expressed by atheists. That change is becoming dogmatic in some ways, but that is to be expected in exactly the same way that some elements of feminism have become dogmatic. If any group (females or atheists) are continually suppressed and then that suppression is released then the result, in my opinion, is a backlash. We are at the beginning of the atheist backlash now and as more atheists feel free to express their opinions it's going to be the more outspoken that will flavour the backlash, it always is. So some atheists are intolerant and as they are the ones that will shout loudest atheism will become seen by some as intolerant although atheism as and idea is like Islam can not be intolerant as such people have to act on the idea.

I do understand Islam does have intolerant ideas built into it, so as such can have institutionalised intolerance in a way that atheism can't. However that does not stop some atheists being intolerant of theists and taring us all with that brush. Does that make sense?

Atheist dogma was an oxymoron, I don't think it is anymore. There is an unwritten dogma beginning to emerge, Christopher Hitchens being, IMO, the most outspoken proponent of the 'all theism is bad' school of thought and as he is such a good publicist, like it or not, he is perceived as a spokesman for Atheism (note the capital A).

+1

Well put CJ. Pendulums have a habit of swinging too far the other way after they have been held in one position for too long.

I think it is enough to have no shame in declaring your atheism if asked, and to be prepared to back that up if challenged, but I don't feel the need to force it down anyone's throat if they would rather keep their religion to themselves. Those that set themselves up to challenge atheism, or to proselytise their delusions, deserve everything they get - but they can still be challenged without being personally insulting, once you stoop to personal attacks, you have lost the argument.

[FBM]

Self-righteous indignation and it's compaion, arrogance, are equally ugly. Together they breed intolerance, and whether it's from religion or reason, the result is too often bloodshed and divisiveness, rather than patience, compassion and peaceful co-existence.












One more beer and I'm off to bed.

[floppit]

I think there's a wapping great difference between intolerance of ideas and intolerance of people. I can't pretend to be very tolerant of the ideas surrounding alternative medicine and theism - although some of the latter can be interesting at times, just not the magical bits. Given a copy of the Daily Mail I can't but notice my tolerance of emotional outrage is almost non existent, especially when the outrage is poured out to make some 'other' group of people appear worthless. On the latter point I find myself no less annoyed if the targets are those who believe, when it crosses the line into emotive attack and parts from why the reasoning is wrong I find it unattractive enough to challenge it.

I've been an atheist for many decades and only in the last year or so have I thought of atheism as anything beyond not believing in god - christ! I still spell it wrong half the time.

[charlou]

Yep, pretty much agree, floppit.

The dominance of emotive thinking and behaviour is counterproductive to the progress of humanism, wherever it arises.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I do not suffer fools gladly." That regardless of my opinion about the Great Sky Fairy.