CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Hate to say it but yeah. Think about it from our perspective. Its like being in a math class, and you're the only kid who understands 2+2=4. But every single other kid in the class does not. They keep asking questions and holding up the class, and many even assert that 2+2=5 or 15 or 167. It gets frustrating.
Your analogy is wrong both Atheists and Religous types think they are right but it is impossible to prove either is right or wrong apart from the odd point here and there.
I don't see how that makes my analogy wrong. I wasn't making it to show how things really are, but this is to show how atheists feel in the world, applying to the debate question of tolerance. I know that the analogy doesn't reflect how things actually are, it reflects how atheists feel in reguard to religious tolerance.
It's because your equating believing an idea which as of yet has no more proof Behind it than its counter part to being the only one in a math class to understand some thing that can be proven. Simply put 2+2=4 can be proven "god doesn't exist" and "god dose exists" can't be proven therefor your argument is invalid.
Good for you? And did i say we were better? Though come to think of it, we actually are. Because we can then back what you see as "snobbyness" with EVIDENCE, and LOGIC, and REASON. You know, that kind of stuff.
EVIDENCE? What evidence? LOGIC AND REASON? It dose not seem logical or reasonable that given all the things that could go wrong that this world, the human race, and every thing else was created by complete random chance
So random natural processes are SOOOOO ABSURD. But a magical sky daddy poofing things into existence as well as every other ridiculous thing in the bible being true is more likely? Please.
A god is illogical, therfore it is logical not to believe in him.
I'm saying that the chances that a planet will form that is able to support life are so astronomically small that it seems almost overly simplistic to just chalk it up to random chance. And the bible is historical account of actual events but written in a way that our ancestors could understand it given their relative lack of scientific knowledge when compared to us.
Let's say that the odds for any given planet are 1 in a billion, that does not sound very good.
0.0000001%
But, if you have a billion planets, the probability that at least ONE has life becomes:
1 - (999,999,999 / 1,000,000,000)^1,000,000,000
(the fraction is raised to the billionth power)
1 - 0.36788... = 0.63212
So, despite the low odds for life on a single planet (one in a billion), the probability for life climbs to 63.2% if you have a billion planets available.
For 4 billion, it becomes 98.2%
astronomically small? Hardly. We KNOW there are billions of planets. Easy. There are billions of GALLAXIES for crying out loud.
The bible is a historical account? Barely. It is very inaccurate in many ways:
And even if it was, so what? It tells us history, okay, does that mean that everything it said about god is true? Not at all. We know creation is absolutely false. Because of this it makes god obsolete. What's the point of a god if we know he didnt make us/anything? He becomes pointless.
It is doubted jesus ever existed and even if he did he was a regular man, and at best, a wise man whos teachings were elaborated by man as things always are to the point that they became myth. That's it. Myth.
Jesus never existed? That statement is pretty well miss proven by the existence of Christianity why would there be a global religion about some one who never existed? Creationism is just a simplified description of intelligent design remember our ancestors weren't as smart as us. And the whole 1 in a billion and there are a billion planets thing dose not dissprove god if any thing it reinforces the idea because why was earth that 1out of a billion
Wicca has no holy book yet it exists. So did Greek mythology, and Egyptian. People make things up.
Creation could only be known BY god. He didn't tell anyone else. So how did people know anything about Adam and Eve and how he created anything? They couldn't have.
Because we're lucky? Think about it, if a planet was naturally created through natural processes over time to the point where is has life. What would the inhabitants of such a planet be thinking? Exactly what you are. Trying to equate supernatural examination with things that naturally happen because the mind can't comprehend them. We could easily be on Zakglorg 7 or something if the Big Bang repeated itself. It's chance. But there are waaaay more than just 1 billion planets. There's trillions potentially, making the percent chance of just 1 having life sustaining characteristics 99.99999% guarenteed. There's probably hundreds if not thousands of planets like ours than can sustain life, were really not special.
This logic is completely backwards. This is the exact opposite of how theists and atheists think. Religious people can't agree on what they believe. With all of the different religions, and all of the different sects of the different religions it is ridiculous to believe that everyone in the class believes 2 + 2 = 4
Let me clairify. Lets say 2+2=4 is atheists. And anything other than 4 is theists. So they all can believe different things like 35, or 67, ect. But are all wrong.
So by simple virtue of holding beliefs that differ from yours we now in effect can never be right? Wow that's a pretty intolerant thing to say. I mean considering how you are in fact excepting that god dose not exist with as little evidence to prove that he doesn't as we have that he dose. You guys can talk your shit about religion all you want but in reality your just like us.
How is it intolerant? I dont care IF you believe this that or the other thing. Do whatever the hell you want. But if it is a supernatural belief in a deity it will be WRONG. Its that simple. I dont care if you believe it.
I know i cant prove theres no god. But you cant prove there is one. The only thing that can be done is take a logical side based on what we can resonably say is more likely to be true based on evidence in which case NOT believing is more logical based on evidence against god and the LACK of ANY tangible decent evidence for him whatsoever.
My evidence in this matter is your lack of evidence. Atheism doesnt make the claim there is no god and neither do I. Theism on the hand (you included in that) does say there is a god. The burden of proof lies on you, not I. And it is your as well as the entire theistic communite's inability to provide such evidence that i can stand confidently on the atheism side of the religious question.
Atheists LACK belief in god so as far as belief in go is concerned Theists believe god exists (1) ANTITHEISTS believe god does not exist (-1) and Atheist/agnostics say "i dont know" (0)
Atheism is supposed to be simply the lack of a belief in any gods; nothing more. At some point, a doctrine of "and you've got to hate religion" seems to have been added into the picture. The obsession with religion is not atheism, that's New Atheism.
Debating/arguing isn't the problem it's intolerance thats the problem, many Theists enjoy a good debate but why should they have to put up with being insulted for their beliefs
I absolutely agree with you that they shouldn't have to put up with being insulted. I guess it would help if I looked up the definition of the word intolerance before speaking. I often hear people claim, "you are being intolerant" when you try to point of flaws in their logic, but after looking up the true definition I see that I was mistaken. The true definition is "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own;"
No problem, it doesn't help when you hear the word being used the wrong way it'll lead to false misinterpretations. I always try and keep an open mind about peoples views although that can be hard when you read some of the rubbish posted on here that people insist is the truth!!
Theists aren't the only ones who are insulted with their beliefs you know. Atheists are insulted as well, but for our 'non' beliefs. Which isn't fair either. We shouldn't be told we are going to hell just because we don't believe in god, or jesus, etc. Personally I think everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want. And everyone else should at least respect it, they don't have to agree though.
This is true and I agree with you, the reason this debate started though was because there were some Atheists on the site who were being very intolerant of other peoples beliefs, insulting people who had previously been debating politely stuff like that, if you browse some of the debates on religion you will see what I mean (I wouldn't blame you if you didn't though there's a hell of a of a lot of them). There are also some religious people who do the same, when I first joined the site the religious where the bolshier but it went the other way for a while.
I believe people should be entitled to believe or not believe whatever they want and shouldn't be insulted for it but unfortunately there are a few from both sides (religious and atheist) who won't respect or listen to another persons point of view, its sad but can make for a fun debate!!
Don't go telling people to be respectful and tolerant. If everyone did that, this site would die.. What we need is more ass holes like me that know how to apply just enough heat to keep people coming back for more abuse in the hopes of winning. ;)
I dont think me telling people to be respectful and tolerant is gonna change much, Jesus basically said that hundreds of years ago and look at all the trouble that caused so I think we're safe
If he was thats trolling on an epic scale, Jesus the ultimate Troll. Can you imagine getting to the other side meeting God and him saying yeah Jesus was joking and i've grounded him it would explain why he hasn't come back
So..., it's ok for theists to believe that you are going to hell but it's not ok for them to tell you? Can they tell everyone else that you are going to hell? ;)
I think atheists think that anytime they get into an argument about religion with a theist, they are trying to push their beliefs on them. They have to go on a total defense of their beliefs. While the theist was not trying to offend
Asking an atheist to be tolerant of religion is like asking a working man to be tolerant of overbearing stupidity. Sure, they can; they just don't want to.
I agree there are some on both sides that show no tolerance for anothers beliefs, just recently though I have found Atheists to be more abusive about it. One thing I have noticed about both sides is that the most vociferous are also the most arrogant as if they know everything there is to know about life the universe and everything
No. Atheism is stupid. Period. One cannot rationally deny the possibility of God's existence. Period. Any such bald assertion as atheism is irrational. Period. Atheism is the fanaticism of blind faith. Period. There's nothing rational about it. Period.
The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so. The irreducible primary of being is the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression. The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he opens his yap and denies there be any substance behind the construct.
It’s not logical to declare that which is indisputably possible to be impossible. Do you follow?
Atheism is irrationalism. Who are the ninnies incessantly imagining that science can affirm or falsify the transcendent? Atheists! That’s irrational. If you’re not talking about empirical data, you’re not talking about science. Duh!
Do not tell me that atheism is rational or commonsensical. It is not!
It is stupid to reject a claim that is unfalsifiable, untestable, unconfirmed and unnecessary in multiple recorded instances? Does that mean that reliance on faith, which essentially amounts to believing something is true because you want it to be true, is some how a sign of intelligence? Question Mark
One cannot rationally deny the possibility of God's existence. Period.
One cannot rationally confirm the possibility of God's existence. Period
Any such bald assertion as atheism is irrational.
Well, it sure appears as though you make enough bald assertions yourself that you should be able to recognize them from miles away. You are also redundant. Period
Atheism is the fanaticism of blind faith.
Please identify the fanaticism and faith that is intertwined within the definition of atheism. Polite period.
There's nothing rational about it. Period.
This is the third time you've made this statement. You should try to either type less or type different things. Period
The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so.
Support this. Virtually everyone on the planet received their introduction to the concept of God from an outside source.
The irreducible primary of being is the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy.
Please elaborate.
The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied,
The Department of Redundancy Department Strikes Again!
and the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression.
A) why would God not be subject to it?
B) Energy is not subject to it. Everything is made of energy. The Singularity that preceded the Big Bang was composed entirely of energy and not subject to time. So it can sit in the "Prime Mover's" Chair just as easily as a God.
The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he opens his yap and denies there be any substance behind the construct.
Care to give an example?
Do not tell me that atheism is rational or commonsensical.
Atheism is rational and would be common sense if "common" folks had more sense, education and well-developed critical thinking skills.
You write: “It is stupid to reject a claim that is unfalsifiable, untestable, unconfirmed. . . .
Hence, the limits of sensory perception/the limits of scientific inquiry are the limits of reality/human cognition?
You continue: “. . . unnecessary in multiple recorded instances?”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
You write: “Does that mean that reliance on faith, which essentially amounts to believing something is true because you want it to be true, is some how a sign of intelligence?”
Faith has nothing to do with the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. It’s self-evident. It's at the base of knowledge. It's derived from reason, not faith. I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism.
You write: “One cannot rationally confirm the possibility of God's existence. Period.”
Oh, yes, one can! That’s the irony of it all. The positive affirmation that God must be does not violate the imperatives of logic while the flat-out denial of God‘s existence does. See the above and think about it.
You write: “Well, it sure appears as though you make enough bald assertions yourself that you should be able to recognize them from miles away. You are also redundant.”
These assertions are the logical imperatives of ontological realities. One cannot rationally deny the existence of God. By definition, God is not an empirical entity. Essentially, all the atheist is saying is that God doesn’t exist because God is not an empirical entity. Wow! Just wow!
This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent. I’m not saying that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. I’m simply saying, for the sake of argument, that neither of these potentialities can be rationally denied. Period.
Hence, the limits of sensory perception/the limits of scientific inquiry are the limits of reality/human cognition?
Not with absolute certainty, no. However, in the interest of intellectual honesty, it is incumbent upon the analyst to speak with a sense of certainty only on those items that can identified, measured, and isolated. These are the things we can test, make predictions about, and directly identify any affects they may have on us and the surrounding environment. These are based around observed and (usually) understood laws of nature. If something fails to meet this criteria, that something's properties cannot be specified, and its very existence can only be confirmed in cases of necessity. Which brings us to our next point:
You continue: “. . . unnecessary in multiple recorded instances?”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
It is possible to infer the existence of something in cases where a currently unidentified acting agent is required in order to have an observed affect. I imagine you'll fully agree that the universe operates as an intricate web of cause-and effect. Therefore, if a cause is not imminently observable, minimal defining characteristics can be inferred by ruling out all possible known agents and assigning the remaining acting properties to whatever it is that we are looking for. This is why physicists have posited dark matter, the higgs-boson, and nearly all known particles and forces prior to isolation. But we have to be very careful about only inferring the absolute minimal requisite properties prior to isolation and direct observation of the item/phenomenon/etc. This does not mean that that is all there is on the topic, it just identifies what we really know about it any given time.
The "multiple recorded instances" is really just shorthand for the entire history of correct application of the scientific method. No matter how many biological, geological, astrological (etc.) processes we've identified and figured out, we have never seen irrefutable evidence of an active consciousness behind them. Everything we've seen is the result of c-and-e interactions dictated and manipulated by the laws of physics, and will continue on predictably in certain environments whether in a lab or nature.
Often, people will note the complexity, the balls-out awesomeness of nature, and say that it gives the appearance of design. But this appearance is at best an evident trait rather than an imminent trait. In other words, it is possible there is a consciousness guiding the universe, but there is no proof that such a thing is necessary, and without that requisite necessity, things like God, the soul, afterlife realms and what-have-you is all unfounded speculation.
And of course you are going to hide behind infinite regression, which seems to be the only leg you are even attempting to stand on. You are taking the concept of "the absolute beginning" and hedging all of your bets on that, which probably feels safe to you because it is one area science is still not certain on, the biggest and oldest mystery we have. Infinite regression is an almost foolproof tactic for establishing that there was some kind of beginning to this all.
(I say "almost" foolproof because it is reliant on time being completely linear and finite. The linearity seems obvious since it is virtually immutable within the confines of the human experience, and temporal finitude is pretty much a certainty at this point. However, time isn't even a factor when you talk about the singularity, so typical rules of cause and effect go out the window. Time's finite nature excludes it, as far as we can tell, from being a factor prior to the big bang event. Linearity, chronological order, is an emergent property of time and so is not useful in deducing what happened "before" time. Even then, time's linearity within the universe itself is not 100% established, as it may well be cyclical which also defies our normal understanding of time. All of this is an aside, though, and generates more speculation than solid answers. So for now I will operate as if linearity is proof of some variety of beginning.)
This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent. I’m not saying that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. I’m simply saying, for the sake of argument, that neither of these potentialities can be rationally denied. Period.
Nor can either be absolutely affirmed at this point. However, between Occam's Razor and the responsibility to only affirm what is necessarily true, I am inclined to take option (1) at this time. The best we can say is that some sort of foundation was there. The specifics of this foundation are still unknown. Adding characteristics such as intelligence and persona is stepping well beyond the realms of necessity unless you care to establish otherwise. Therefore the Rational approach is to not accept these characteristics as indisputable truth. Treat it as a possibility if you wish. I do. But a possibility is not an undeniable truth, and to accept it as such requires faith. Period.
One last comment before I move on to the next installment:
I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility..
To clarify, I am an agnostic atheist, not gnostic. I do not flatly deny that it is possible that God exists. I simply analyze the lines of evidence attempting to support this claim and have found them wanting.
You write: “Please identify the fanaticism and faith that is intertwined within the definition of atheism.”
I already did. Twice. There’s no rational foundation on which you can stand and baldy deny God’s existence. One may arguably say within reason that God may not exist, but that’s all, and the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry have no bearing on the matter whatsoever.
You write: “This is the third time you've made this statement. You should try to either type less or type different things.”
Well, I can’t help it if atheists are thickheaded.
Rawlings: “The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so.”
You write: “Support this. Virtually everyone on the planet received their introduction to the concept of God from an outside source.”
Dude. Zoom! Right over your thickhead! No. We do not get the construct of ultimate divine origin in and of itself from some “outside source”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. What idea of God are you denying?
Rawlings: “The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied. . . .”
You write: “The Department of Redundancy Department Strikes Again!”
No. The Department of What’s-That-Universally-Self-Evident-Construct-of-Origin-You-Keep-Denying Redundancy strikes again!
Rawlings: “. . . the idea God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression.”
You ask: “why would God not be subject to it?”
Uh . . . this has to be explained to you? Seriously? By definition, God is the transcendent, immaterial, eternally self-subsistence entity. He doesn’t need a cause. Even Hawking et al. understand that. That’s why they attempt to irrationally argue the nonsense that the gravitational energy of the vacuum/singularity of quantum physics, which is quite obviously a material something of mass without matter, namely space, is a metaphysical/existential nothingness. Uh . . . excuse me, but plenty of physicists have a serious problem with Hawking, Krauss et al.’s semantic hijinks too, and Hawking, Krauss et al. know bloody damn well that they’re not talking about a metaphysical/existential nothingness. They are in fact talking about a material cause, the origin of which remains subject to the problem of infinite regression.
One may arguably say within reason that God may not exist, but that’s all,
That is all I'm saying. However, since you are the one making the claim, you are the one required to support it. My role is to critique your line of reasoning. You aren't likely to find me providing any reasoning that God is absolutely fictional, you will simply see me highlighting the perceived errors in your reasoning. What is really at the heart of this discussion isn't whether or not God exists, but rather whether it is more rational to accept that he does or to remain critical. My stance is that the critical approach is more logical and honest.
and the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry have no bearing on the matter whatsoever.
They don't have a bearing on the truth of the matter. But, as I stated above, this is really about determining which stance is more rational. And for that, sensory perception and scientific inquiry are perfectly germane to this conversation.
Well, I can’t help it if atheists are thickheaded.
Pot, meet kettle.
We do not get the construct of ultimate divine origin in and of itself from some “outside source”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Sure we do. You can say that attempting to suss out the origins of the universe is essentially inherent, and I will let you go down that path with little argument. We can say that the idea that there was a definite beginning is built into our psyches, but:
a) This amounts to an instinct or side effect of our ability to reason. This is not, in and of itself, any closer to truth than saying that the Earth is flat simply because it appears flat from the ground.
b) All we are really universally inclined to say is "in the beginning...there was something." The specific details come from whatever faith is being discussed. One god or many? Is it independent of creation or part and parcel with it? Does its origin precede universal creation or coincide with it? A wide range of possibilities have been offered, and these are the "outside sources" i refer to: your family, your spiritual advisers, the very society around you. Its virtually impossible to isolate an individual away from these things and such an experiment would probably be unethical, but if we staged it repeatedly, I'd wager that the idea of God would not be universally emergent. Certainly not your notion of God.
What idea of God are you denying?
None of them and all of them. On one hand I'm denying the evidence used to support your claim instead of the claim itself. On the other, I submit that all notions of an intelligent, universe-level creative force acting with intent are not imminently supportable (at least not the ones I've been presented with).
By definition, God is the transcendent, immaterial, eternally self-subsistence entity.
The definitions of God were constructed backwards. What I mean is, if we want to define, say, an apple, we construct the definition based on our observations of what apples are and delineating them from all other objects. But since we can't empirically describe God, we assign our own definitions to him. In order to tie him to everything he is assumed to be responsible for, which is everything, we essentially have to remove all limits to preclude any logical impossibilities that may emerge. We intentionally define God by properties whose very existence are as unsupportable as the concept itself.
Name-checking folks like Hawking and others doesn't do much except highlight the appearance of origin, not the nature thereof, as you are trying to claim.
They are in fact talking about a material cause, the origin of which remains subject to the problem of infinite regression.
Except energy, the substrate upon which everything is built. Which nicely segues into the next part...
You write: “Energy is not subject to it. Everything is made of energy. The Singularity that preceded the Big Bang was composed entirely of energy and not subject to time. So it can sit in the "Prime Mover's" Chair just as easily as a God.”
Precisely! And you just brought us right back to what I’ve been telling you all along, haven’t you?
This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.
That is to say, the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy is inescapable.
Rawlings: “The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he opens his yap and denies there be any substance behind the construct.”
You write: “Care to give an example?”
Every time you open your mouth and deny. . . . Dude! You just affirmed it again: “[s]o it can sit in the ‘Prime Mover's’ Chair just as easily as a God.”
Just so! The inescapable alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy . . . only, ontologically speaking, your space-mass energy is still subject to the issue of causality due to its materiality, and the notion that it exists outside the dimension of time is strictly asserted relative to our cosmological notion of time. Relative to a divine cause of eternal transcendence, it would still be subject to a definite, albeit, undeterminable, beginning from this side of the limits of general relativity’s explanatory power. That’s all.
You write: “Atheism is rational and would be common sense if ‘common’ folks had more sense, education and well-developed critical thinking skills.”
LOL! Well, I’ll take the commonsense of common folk over the delusional sense of intellectual superiority of the arrogant, self-appointed prigs of the new atheism any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. As for education, mine in regard to the history of ideas and events, and, subsequently, in regard to philosophy and the classic rules of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression are clearly beyond your intellectual background. And I’d willing to bet that mine in regard to mathematics and science is more advanced as well. As for the unexamined product of your critical thinking skills, it has been utterly routed, and that is clear to anyone with an IQ above that of small rash. Indeed, you repeatedly, albeit, unwittingly, prove my point again and again by your very own words.
You write: “Also, why are you so angry about this topic?”
Precisely! And you just brought us right back to what I’ve been telling you all along, haven’t you?
Umm, no. You are trying to tell me that this PM is an intelligence that acts with intent. I am saying that we have no evidence of this, and am offering an alternative that is simpler and more open to investigative inquiry.
That is to say, the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy is inescapable.
I'm not arguing that. Show me an atheist who is. What I'm arguing is that you jump a couple steps off the logical line by assuming additional traits without substantiation.
Here's another question, to help highlight this:
Let us assume that, yes, a God was indeed responsible for using the big bang to create the universe. Fine, then. But why is it imminently obvious that said entity still exists? What if it ceased to be during the Big Bang, or "died" at any point prior to now? How can you establish that he is still with us, influencing events by his will?
only, ontologically speaking, your space-mass energy is still subject to the issue of causality due to its materiality, and the notion that it exists outside the dimension of time is strictly asserted relative to our cosmological notion of time.
Far as we can tell, the existence of energy is not subject to causality. Unlike matter, time and space and even the laws of physics, energy appears to have existed "prior" to the big bang. Energy, it seems, is at the core of everything that exists now. If we were to find God, it might be in energy. But energy shows know evidence of acting intelligently and with intent. Divinity is guessed at, not shown.
As for education, mine in regard to the history of ideas and events, and, subsequently, in regard to philosophy and the classic rules of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression are clearly beyond your intellectual background. And I’d willing to bet that mine in regard to mathematics and science is more advanced as well.
We can have an academic dick-measuring contest if you want, but we'd have to be reliant on the honor system, and you're better served by showing off your skills in rationality and persuasion than hiding behind ad hominems and bluster.
Angry? LOL! Projecting?
You've been slinging around insults and being a multipurpose blowhard since before I jumped in. You've done a lot better on your first two responses to me, but your opening statements were seething with either rage or an exaggerated sense authority before I popped in. I'm just challenging you because it is good exercise, and have little emotional investment in the issue.
Umm, no. You are trying to tell me that this PM is an intelligence that acts with intent. I am saying that we have no evidence of this, and am offering an alternative that is simpler and more open to investigative inquiry.
Umm, yes. Your argument was rounding refuted, and you just moved the goal posts again. So I’ll just blow this nonsense off.
I'm not arguing that. Show me an atheist who is. What I'm arguing is that you jump a couple steps off the logical line by assuming additional traits without substantiation.
Here's another question, to help highlight this: Let us assume that, yes, a God was indeed responsible for using the big bang to create the universe. Fine, then. But why is it imminently obvious that said entity still exists? What if it ceased to be during the Big Bang, or "died" at any point prior to now? How can you establish that he is still with us, influencing events by his will?
Blah, blah, blah . . . what?
Far as we can tell, the existence of energy is not subject to causality. Unlike matter, time and space and even the laws of physics, energy appears to have existed "prior" to the big bang. Energy, it seems, is at the core of everything that exists now. If we were to find God, it might be in energy. But energy shows know evidence of acting intelligently and with intent. Divinity is guessed at, not shown.
Material energy of space-mass would arguably be subject to causality as physicists, philosophers and theologians have shown. But in any event, we’re getting into the realm of that which is unfalsifiable. We’re getting into the realm of metaphysics and the teleological. There’s no way of assessing whether or not any transcendent force/energy beyond the Big Bang were acting without intelligence or intent. Your statement is meaningless for reasons that apparently fly right over head.
We can have an academic dick-measuring contest if you want, but we'd have to be reliant on the honor system, and you're better served by showing off your skills in rationality and persuasion than hiding behind ad hominems and bluster.
That’s an incredible statement given that you think your atheism places you above the heads of ordinary mortals.
You've been slinging around insults and being a multipurpose blowhard since before I jumped in. You've done a lot better on your first two responses to me, but your opening statements were seething with either rage or an exaggerated sense authority before I popped in. I'm just challenging you because it is good exercise, and have little emotional investment in the issue.
No. I’ve just been laughing at the pseudo-intellectualism of atheism.
Umm, yes. Your argument was rounding refuted, and you just moved the goal posts again. So I’ll just blow this nonsense off.
Bullshit. I didn't move the goal posts one inch. Long before you and I started this debate, or were even born, there was contention as to whether or not an intelligence was requisite for universal creation, or if it could have happened naturalistically without intent. Somehow you fail to identify that there is a difference between these two notions. If I had been arguing that the universe had arisen out of nothing, you would have more to stand on, but that has never been my contention. If you are arguing that intent is not part of the definition of God, then perhaps this conversation would better be served by you defining what you mean when you say "God".
Blah, blah, blah . . . what?
Come on now, this shouldn't be too hard to figure out. If you believe God is still alive and kicking, what is your reasoning? Your whole "irreducible primary (do you mean "primacy"?) of being" argument offers you nothing regarding God's actual nature. Again, if you are arguing a less-common concept of God than is usually presented, you should present your definition.
But in any event, we’re getting into the realm of that which is unfalsifiable.
Oh NOW you care about falsifiability. Never mind that your whole belief system is plagued with unfalsifiability.
There’s no way of assessing whether or not any transcendent force/energy beyond the Big Bang were acting without intelligence or intent.
You believe this, yet repeatedly state that it is indisputably obvious that the universe was created by such a means. Has it never occurred to you how inconsistent your logic is?
Your statement is meaningless for reasons that apparently fly right over head.
If you are so sure of this, why not explain it. Your arrogance has yet to be supported by your displayed knowledge.
That’s an incredible statement given that you think your atheism places you above the heads of ordinary mortals.
No, I just think my thinking is clearer, more consistent and more supportable.
By the way, have anything to offer regarding my other two responses?
“Long before you and I started this debate, or were even born, there was contention as to whether or not an intelligence was requisite for universal creation, or if it could have happened naturalistically without intent.”
Right. Exactly. So what the beep?
“Somehow you fail to identify that there is a difference between these two notions.”
You’re out of your friggin’ mind. I’m guilty of no such failure. That’s precisely the distinction I made. Goal-posting again, eh?
”Your whole "irreducible primary (do you mean "primacy"?) of being" argument offers you nothing regarding God's actual nature.”
No. I meant precisely what I wrote: “the irreducible primary of being relative to the problem of origin: (1) inanimateness or (2) consciousness. Period. The secondary concern of primacy would go to one or the other, depending on which of the two alternatives of the irreducible primary were the origin of all being. But you already know all that. You’re just goal-posting again, pretending not to understand, aren’t you? LOL! How lame.
“Oh NOW you care about falsifiability. Never mind that your whole belief system is plagued with unfalsifiability.”
Intellectual dishonesty. Fraud. Liar. Goal-posting. Behold the pathological depravity of atheism. I never argued that theological matters were subject to scientific falsification. You’re the only one who’s tried to argue that stupidity, albeit, to the negative. Theological considerations arise from certain axiomatic observations that reach beyond the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry. They’re not subject to the methodology of science. Instead, they’re subject to the universal rules of logic per the comprehensive expression of identity, and the ontological arguments of theology, which include the fundamentals of mathematical calculi and geometric forms, are not proofs of God’s existence, but proofs regarding the existence and the nature of the divine construct of origin, including the proof that the construct, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to infinite regression. The theological ontologicals are logically sound and cannot be rationally countered.
”You believe this, yet repeatedly state that it is indisputably obvious that the universe was created by such a means. Has it never occurred to you how inconsistent your logic is?”
Again, you lie. And you wonder why I treat atheists with such contempt. Recall. In that instance, you were speaking in the context of science, ya dolt. Hence, the context of my response is scientific. Non-empirical considerations about reality cannot be assessed scientifically. Such reside beyond the purview of science. If you’re not talking about empirical data, you’re not talking about science. The only one who keeps confounding this distinction is you, ya friggin’ retard. The logical inconsistency is yours, repeatedly yours, precisely because you can’t keep this obvious distinction in your mind for more than one brief moment at a time.
LOL! We exist! So let's put things in their real context.
Believing that a divinity exists, an intelligent Being greater than inanimateness, and is the Creator of all things apart from Himself is irrational, but believing that life magically arose from a non-living collection of mindlessness in the face of staggering complexities is perfectly rational, eh?
Abiogenesis is pipe a dream, a fantasy. That’s your god. That’s your myth.
LOL! And of course you’re talking about the near-eastern geocentric cosmology of the ancient Hebrews. Dude, Genesis is not a scientific treatise. It’s a theological treatise rendered in the ancient’s pre-scientific perspective of things. Yeah. Right. Like they would have had the first clue (given their primitive technology, which is to say nothing but their five senses) what God was talking about had He gone on about a heliocentric universe, the Newtonian theory of motion, general relativity, quantum mechanics, multiverse theory. . . . That’s a pretty lame comeback given that I obviously do not believe that. What are we now about 500 years into the post-Copernicus era? LOL! How's that abiogenesis (the new spontaneous generation of atheistic mythology) workin' out for ya?
Wrong. wrong and wrong again. we are not talking about deductive logic here pal. This is an a posteriori matter - it cannot be deductively solved! God's existence is not necessary.
you're right - the possibility of his existence can't be denied. the same way that it can't be denied that a plane could crash into your home at any minute! the point is that it isn't likely! perhaps if you actually read what real intellectual atheists say then you will realise that they actually don't try to show that the idea of god is impossible. Only a fool would.
Aside from you being utterly wrong, you've just gone way off topic. We're talking about Tolerance. Not stupidity.
Mankind, at it's birth, is alone and scared. The world is so large and they are so small, when they look into the night sky, they only see lights. They don't know what those lights are, either. Actually, they don't know a whole lot about anything.
So, mankind decides, subconsciously, perhaps, to try to explain their world, define it. So, an idea from one, the idea that all mankind is protected by a larger force (God, for the sake of argument, because at this point in society, arguing that Zeus protects you is... outdated.) This force watches over mankind, says the man. People like the idea that their lives lie in the hands of a benevolent force, unseen and unheard, but always present. It gives them comfort. From there, many people spread the stories and as anyone who has every played "telephone" as a child knows, the stories get distorted through time until the same race that believed one thing so long ago now believe many different, but fundamentally similar, things (Christian vs Islam vs Judaism, essentially)
Eventually, mankind's arrogance and fear come to a boil, resulting in wars over whose version of the same comforting tale is correct. Those men pray to their God for strength in proving their truths and slaughter each other over a story that was told thousands of years ago to comfort people.
Fear bred Religion,
We invented God.
-common sense-
edited for clarification
That, by no means, implies that God is not important. I believe that mankind invented God as a place to house a Well of Courage that was, until then, inaccessible. For a time, God gave man strength. But, as a child will grow and leave the nest to make it on their own, I believe that mankind, as a whole, has seen enough and understands enough about our world to access the Well of Courage without the need for God to guard it. The time has come for man to take ownership of it's Well. It is time for mankind to be it's own Gods.
The idea of God objectively exists in and of itself: it imposes itself on our minds in terms of origin without our willing that it do so. The irreducible primary of being is the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and the idea of God, unlike the material realm of being, is not subject to the challenge of infinite regression. The atheist necessarily proves the cogency of these assertions every time he denies there be any substance behind the construct.
The idea of God is not a figment of human culture.
You write: “Do you mean to say that someone who was born on an island and had no contact with religion of any kind would believe immediately in God?
I think not. The concept of a higher power is a construct of discussion between multiple people in order to explain the inexplicable.”
Well, think again. And once again, this impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.
Islands? Religion? Dialogue?
1. I exist.
2. The universe exists.
3. Conscious entities, inanimate entitles.
Any person of normal intelligence can readily apprehend the alternatives of the axiom of origin relative to the irreducible primary of the inanimateness-consciousness dichotomy. There’s no mystery here.
I can say, for certain, that before I was introduced to God through church, I had no concept of a God. Then again, I was raised on facts, produced by science.
When i learned of God, I immediately and deeply believed He could not exist.
When i learned that science couldn't answer all of the questions, I immediately believed it would, eventually.
My mind wasn't poisoned by threats of eternal damnation until I was of sufficient mental maturity to see them as such. I was introduced to religion at an age when I was capable of deciding the truth or fallacy of it myself.
Though i have always wondered HOW the universe came into being, I never once thought that a transcendental, all powerful being was responsible for it.
The concept of God is a humanization of an unbiased natural force, the basest natural force whose identity can only be described as existence.
Please don't take this the wrong way but there is one little problem. Currently it looks like people, instead of taking ownership of the well, have decide to have government guard the well. They want the government to watch over them, protect them and take care of them. They see government as a benevolent force. Except that the government is not unseen and unheard, but it is always present. ;)
The difference being that mankind's governments were invented as a way for the needs of the many to be looked after by a few individuals, who are also men. We have moved past the necessity of God's protection and begun to take care of ourselves.
Perhaps my previous statement was too bold. I would like to retract to the point of mankind is on the brink of freedom and the time has come, in my opinion to take the societal plunge. We can protect ourselves now, we don't need daddy anymore. God has a way of telling mankind exactly what it needs to hear. We are now old enough to tell ourselves what we need to hear.
Which, almost ironically, is how religion started. Man telling itself what it needed to hear.
Damn right. Why the hell should I put up with their silly beliefs in my face all the time. If they want to go talk to an invisible man in the sky then fine, their business. But I don't want them in my self waving a Bible shouting "Repent!" I don't go around with a Darwin fish around my neck waving The Origin Of Species at people saying " No, THIS is the truth."
Of all the deciding things that will send me to hell, this is not even on the top 1,000 :)
But being a perfectly kind human being, simply not following the laws of their silly superstitions can send you to an eternity of pain, shows you what a crap religion it is!
But on a serious point, if you think, Heaven would be filled with the Ned Flanders type, however Hell would be filled with all the greatest rock musicians and party animals, not to mention all the great scientific intellectuals. Way I see it, all the good people go to hell. (Well, maybe not the murderers and rapists and Mou Mous but oh well..!)
right atheists are not tolerant towards religion because we don't believe in religion and if you live in the US your constantly having god rammed down your throat or thrown in your face. its on our currency !!! Christians feel like atheists are not tolerant because they don't realize the overbearing qualities of their beliefs. if believers kept there beliefs to themselves Atheists would have nothing say hence no intolerance.
It's just from what I have seen Atheists seem to have this need to disprove religion now I'm fine believing in what makes since to me and letting others do the same but why do atheists always feel that they have to prove me wrong just because I believe in god?
Atheists are intolerant, just as religious people are. It's hard to be tolerant when people say so many stupid things. The most tolerant people are the agnostics, because they have no side in this war.
I think, if anything, the religious community lacks tolerance for atheists.
How many atheist groups are there in your area? Now how many church groups? Religious folks have national holidays celebrating their religion, church property everywhere and churches own many of our best universities. They get tax breaks because they are religious, when no atheist group has ever received these breaks, no matter how many people they help. There are armies of these guys running around our neighborhoods in cheesy suits asking people if they have found Jesus.
Look what we tolerate. Are you kidding me?
On the other hand, America is so intolerant of atheism that atheists have no voice in politics at all. There has never been a non religious president, ever. Even an agnostic could never be elected.
People are allowed to base their beliefs in logic, not faith, without being labeled intolerant. An unwillingness to entertain non-sense is not intolerance. Wanting your kids to learn facts in school, instead of fairy tales about talking snakes, is not intolerance.
Wake up and look around, brah. The intolerance is packed into all these churches every Sunday.
I've never argued with someone about my faith without them bringing it up first, and I'm not starting here, but to say that Theist people lack tolerance of Atheists is entirely false. I don't care if you are Atheist, but Atheist do not receive the benefits that organized religion receives because Atheism is unorganized. Also, Atheism is not necessarily based on a simple disbelief in God as many would argue, but instead a hate of religion. Atheism is more or less a Hate group, and for the KKK to receive tax breaks would be a horrendous mistake, and the same goes for Atheism.
Have you ever had an atheist knock on your door and try to convert you to their belief system? I haven't.
So is atheism a "hate group" or is it "unorganized"? You should make up your mind.
The KKK huh? The KKK is a protestant christian organization that does not have much tolerance for other belief systems, if you hadn't noticed. It's funny that you remind everyone of the extremely religious and violently intolerant Ku Klux Klan.
Atheism is an unorganized hate group. Now I don't mean that in a bad way ;)
Atheists should get organized. Something along the lines of an atheist religion.. Before the Jews and the Christians, there were many Gods. They changed it so that there was one God. Now we need a new religion to change it again so that there's no God ;)
And what better group of people than the ones that hate religion? And what better way is there to change religion than with a religion ;)
You guys could go door to to door converting people ;)
You can preach the opposite of fire and brim stone.
You can keep pedophiles out of your religion.
You can still thump the bible but only as a demonstration of your contempt for it ;)
There is no way you can compare the KKK to an Atheist. The KKK killed multiple people because they were different. Atheists believe that there is no god. Comparing those things is like comparing Saw to Breakfast Club. Also not all Atheist hate religion I think your mixing another thing up again. I have two very Religious friends and I'm Atheist. I don't hate them so please fact check before you write.
That was a pretty hate filled rant you went on there you really should try being more tolerant of the religious community just the fact that they believe differently than you doesn't make them your enemy.
There wasn't really any hate in it at all, was there?
Studies show atheists are distrusted more than rapists. That they are the most disliked group in America. They continue to be insulted and persecuted. It's a perfectly valid thing to state.
They are their enemy, and that is because of what they do and not what they believe. Although their beliefs also say to murder and persecute atheists, so...
The cartoon is meant to lighten the topic so that those people who do not want to take it seriously don't have to. Those who do want to take the topic seriously can simply ignore the cartoon. ;)
That was the implication. Because Atheists are always saying how religiously tolerant they are and then they blame intolerance on religion it's self if not then just Christianity. Oh hypocrisy.
As with every group there are lots of different people, some are tolerant and some are not. Keep in mind that this is a debate site. There are two types of people that debate, those who have a sincere interest in learning other people's perspectives, and those who just like to argue and try to prove that they are right to boost their ego. Unfortunately, this website seems to be dominated by the latter group. Also keep in mind that the whole purpose of this website it to debate, so if you think someone pointing out the flaws in your logic is being intolerant, then you shouldn't be on a debate site.
There are some people who do debate on here properly as you say pointing out flaws etc, unfortunately there are some that are intolerant of others and they normally start with insults and being abusive instead of debating properly
I agree, that is why I said "some are tolerant some are not." There is no excuse for people to be insulting and abusive. It just shows their lack of maturity. I wish they would realize that no matter how good their arguments may be, being a dick about it is just going to make the person tune you out, not listen to what you're saying.
Thats exactly it, what I also find interesting is that its usually the ones that act like Dicks complain no-one listens to them. A lot more people will listen to a reasonable argument.
That is a grand over-generalization of what it means to be an atheist. Atheism is simply: Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Sure maybe some are intolerant towards religions, but so are some religious people. Atheist are usually in fact very tolerant towards religions, they just refute all religious beliefs. And i also ask, what morally correct thing can a theist do, that an atheist cant do?
tolerance, like charity begins at home. If we're going to make gross generalisations like this then we have to consider what the theists attitude is here. I'm sorry to say but there is just no way that a theist has a tolerant attitude of any atheist. actually, theists don't even tolerate EACH OTHER! whether you say you tolerate someone's belief is irrelevant.
Any theist who conforms to an abrahamic religion (3/4 people in the world roughly) believes that anyone who doesn't believe what they do, is going to burn in hell for eternity. it's very easy to tolerate someone when this is your belief.
can you even say that you're tolerating a belief, if this is what you believe? a thiest's belief is way more dogmatic than an atheist's. Is it really tolerance to say "you're entitled to your belief, but if you don't believe what i believe then you're going to hell?" Atheists don't "lack" any "religious tolerance" at all. They give it the rational respect it deserves.
You might not believe in God but you seem to have a firm belief in double standards, complain about people making generalisations about Atheists then make sweeping generalisations about Theists.
Hey I complain about people making generalizations all the time. I then turn around, usually in the same argument/post, and make sweeping generalizations. I find that this approach add comedic value and a touch of hypocrisy, for good measure. Ah, the irony ;)
Their beliefs are what gets them through the day. Some people need religion, some people don't. Some can operate on faith, some need proof. All Atheists really have is a calculated way of PROVING things. We lack all of the answers, but we attempt to understand the questions beyond the simple "It is, because God wills it" philosophy. Atheists desire to know WHY something happens. Religion shuns the "why" and replaces it with a simple "God did it" and the people who subscribe to that don't require an answer to "why", they only care that it IS. Faith is a very beautiful concept, organized religion is a scourge. I sincerely hope that those here can understand the distinction. Too much evil has been done in the name of one God or the other for any but the ignorant to forget.
Remember, before you decide to flame me:
What I said is "God is good, the Church is bad." and that goes for ALL churches. When a church becomes powerful enough, they fear the loss of that power and attempt to destroy all opposition. That's human nature, not the nature of a God.
The Tibetan monks also don't bother with the "why" and they also don't follow a God. It is faith in its purest form. I guess it is the only religion that is not a scourge ;)
So let me try to sum up what you just said. I'm tolerant of the idea of god. But I'm intolerant of religion. Yet more proff that atheists are intolerant of religion
Maybe its because of your attitude people cant tolerate you, "we have it all" what utter bollocks you cant prove or disprove the existence of God which makes your attitude as bad the religous nutter who says he knows for definate God is real and anyone who doesnt believe him will burn in hell
Then you agree that theists have just as bad an attitude as an atheist. Look at your own comment and see how you have generalised one comment "we have it all" to represent the entirety of atheism. One atheist does not speak for another. atheism is an individualistic belief. it is unique to each person, it can mean many many things over and above not beleiving that there is a god.
sure no one can prove anything - not deductively at least. The same way you can't deductively "prove" that the sun will come up tomorrow? but would any part of you doubt that it will? it's called inductive logic. It goes hand in hand with abductive logic. even if you did doubt that the sun would rise tomorrow - you should then be an agnostic, not a theist. if we're to talk of tolerance then we have to put it in perspective - tolerance of atheist's in RELATION to theist's tolerance.
The only thing I agree with is some Theists have a bad attitude same as some Atheists although recently Atheists have been more obnoxious and are quicker to be abusive.
Interesting you have asumed I am a Theist and your telling me that my beliefs make me an Agnostic, sorry my beliefs are mine to believe and mine to choose. I did not make the generalisation that was the Atheist guy I was disputing who used the term we have it all, thats why I used the speach marks as I am on my phone and couldn't highlight anything seems he didn't get the memo about not speaking for others and all belief systems are individualistic not just Atheism
AND THEIR BELIEFS ARE TRIPE, WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO BACK THEMSELVES UP? NOTHING. WE HAVE IT ALL
Thats exactly what the man is talking about. your acting like a child. Calling another person's belief tripe just because it doesnt line up with what you believe is tripe. and what is worse is that you caps lock everything like an immature troll
An atheist religion? Isn't that an oxymoron? I mean a religion dedicated to the worship of what science? Like your priests are scientists and you mass is just a physics lecture? Would there be a separate denomination for each scientific study each using there own study of science to learn all the answers? And then the different atheist denominations start to argue over which scientific study is the correct one. And arguments turn into violence and an atheist holy war brakes out. Holy shit ATHEIST CRUSADE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA XD. I'm haveing way to much fun with this
I am one of the agnostics, and yes I am one who loves to pokes religious belief. But I do know when to stop and when now avert the conversation if it gets wee obnoxious or annoying. I think that the lacking of the tolerance goes both ways.
I think it's not the tolerance that is obnoxious about atheist, but rather the uproar and internet spread, including the comics and always present youtube videos, which are all around us, which not that much is seen from the deist.
I tolerate, but love to poke with care. :P (yes makes me seem rather mean and thus wee intolerant)
I don't find this true. I fully respect those who have religious beliefs of any sort. Even if I disagree, I believe that everyone has the right to their own opinions. Just because I am an atheists does not mean I "lack religious tolerance' Religion has nothing to do with that. Its just the kind of person you are.
Being an atheist means not believing in the concept of god. Atheists are a minority in this world. The problem with religious people is that they just can't keep their religion to themselves. They just have to thrust it upon you. Atheists on the other hand will only debate you if you ask them to or push them to. Strident atheism's recent rise has been as a reply to rising extremism in religion and not on its own. Most atheists want humanism and compassion to prevail in this world. Religious people on the other hand lack humanism and compassion, are judge people for frivolous reasons and create unnecessary problems.
Tolerance levels have to be measured by the same yardstick that the theists follow. The theists have never tolerated each other. They even have rights issues over God. The Catholics says they own him. They have unwanted fights in the name of God. The atheists by comparison only use their most potent weapon - the word.
um its the other way around religious people especially christian are the most judgmental intolerant hypocritical people ever and do not follow the teachings of Jesus in fact do the opposite.
Have you heard of the vocal minority? Generally, it appears to me that there are small minorities of theists and atheists that like to argue to till they're blue in the face, but the vast majority of both sides are willing to let the other alone.
And really, that's all we should hope for; you have your beliefs, I have mine, and our mutual beliefs are of no concern to the other.