Why are “some atheists” so intolerant of religious believers?

[Cassandra]

I am not sure it is a good idea to reveal the forum name here.
I am trying this understand this, that is all. To do that I had to explain what happened. Of course there are always two sides to any story.

But evidence is evidence so if there is no evidence for what I was accused of doing, and he could not produce it when asked to. I went looking for the evidence myself and I proved my point, that I was being accused falsely. I posted that evidence to him in a private message and he still did not acknowledge it. Where do I go from there?

All I see is someone reflecting negatively without allowing us to check his story.

 

[Shad]

And some atheists stay in that stage for a lifetime.

Toss in the forum, in my view, is more likely to attract those types be it longer term phase or short. Preaching to the choir so to speak.


Frankly I have no idea how you would **** someone off that is not already "primed" to be angry. We have disagreed often enough but you have never pissed me off.

*The filter missed something.... hah

 

[Shad]

I have noticed that when comparing people raised in a religion with those newly converted to that religion, a similar phenomenon appears. The newly converted are extremely enthusiastic and strict about their approach to the religion, while those raised in it are much loser and relaxed about it. I have seen similar differences between native speakers and second language learners of languages too.

Yah I have seen and heard the same from many people over the years from across the global.

 

[Trailblazer]

As unjust as passing a verdict with only one side of the story?

This is not a trial so there is no verdict. Moreover, I am not trying to get anyone to take my side. I was just explaining my experience. You can take it or leave it, believe it or disbelieve it.

"Disrespectful and arrogant" doesn't necessarily imply incorrect.

There is no such thing as correct when it comes to beliefs, since they cannot be proven true or false.

I said: I would never tell anyone what their intent is, let alone contradict someone who already stated their intent.
You said: By my count, you did this about 14 times just in the OP of this thread.

I was talking about behaviors I observed, not intent. Show me where I implied the intent of any one in particular, as they implied my intent, over and over and over. Do you even know what that feels like? Probably not, because I do not see very many people doing that here, since they are respectful, and they would never get away with it for long, since there are too many good people on this forum who would speak out against it.

It does not matter if you you or anyone on this forum believes me, since that is not what this is about, me being right and them being wrong. Why turn it into a contest? Nobody else did.

The only place where you could say I might have implied intent is this: "There is no reason why those atheists would act out that way unless they were afraid of what I have to say." and "It seems rather obvious to me that if the atheists on that forum are hostile towards me it is because they are threatened in some way."

I was inviting dialogue and I was not talking about anyone in particular. Admittedly, there might be other reasons they would act out . Now is your chance to present your opinion.

I said: "Of course most of the atheists are glad I am gone."

I said: "Finally, they call that forum a “free thinkers” forum and I find the very ironic, because nobody has changed the way they think since I went there five years ago."

I was not implying intent when I said what I said above, but I can now see I should not have said it because I cannot know who is glad I am gone and I cannot know what they are thinking.

We all make mistakes and I am not ashamed to admit them when I make them, but I won't have people telling me what my intent is because there is no way they can know it.

 

[syo]

Some atheists are actively against God.

 

[Trailblazer]

I can think of one way around it, but you've refused to do it.

Since you have that power but have chosen not to use it, I don't believe you.

I was told by someone on this forum I cannot reveal the forum name on this forum, so no, there is no way around it.

I am not sure if there is a rule against my telling you the forum name in a Conversation. I don't know why you would want to go there, you would not be able to find out what happened there because this has been going on for years. You would just stir up trouble, and I do not want to make trouble for that forum or its owner. I left voluntarily and I want to forget about it now.

 

[Trailblazer]

Some atheists are actively against God.

And some are only actively against the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In December 2017, I left a forum I had been posting on for about four years to come here because of a falling out with the atheist forum owner. I was here for about a year and then that atheist forum owner saw me posting on another forum in that forum group and invited me back to his forum. I went back in December 2018, reticently, and since then I have only been posting here on RF on a limited basis, because I do not have time for both forums. I am now very sorry I ever went back there and I hope I never make the same mistake again.

That forum pretends to be a forum for believers, ex-believers and nonbelievers but it is inhospitable for believers of any kind, particularly for believers of the Baha’i Faith. That is putting it mildly. We are discriminated against because the forum owner has a vendetta against my religion. Christians and Jews are tolerated as long as they do not talk too much about God or their religious beliefs. Mostly what they talk about on that forum are politics and social issues. So they really should not call themselves a “religious forum.”

My most recent academic background is in psychology, so I wonder why people think and do what they think and do. It seems rather obvious to me that if the atheists on that forum are hostile towards me it is because they are threatened in some way. Of course, they would never admit that. It is not as if I am a bit pushy about what I believe, and in fact I only discussed my beliefs if someone else posted to me about my beliefs. Then I responded and I got blamed for proselytizing. This is wholly unjust.

This last falling out was precipitated by the forum owner having a hissy fit for what he considered me mentioning my religion too much and then he put me on moderation. I sent him a private message that I will not post on his forum while on moderation because that is unjust, since I broke no forum rules, and I told him I was leaving his forum. Of course most of the atheists are glad I am gone. I am also glad I am gone because now I am back here and the atheists on this forum have been so different. They are mature adults, not little children acting out.

There is no reason why those atheists would act out that way unless they were afraid of what I have to say. They do not react to the other believers on that forum that way because they do not dare talk much about God or their religion, because they are too afraid of being insulted. But I never cared about being insulted; I stood right up to them, but I was always polite. And I never told them that they should believe in God, as I am very well aware of the reasons atheists do not believe in God and I respect those reasons. Why can’t we all just get along? Is that too much to ask?

Imagine that! I dare to talk about God and my religion on a “religious forum.”

The forum owner just wants to control everything I post, it is so obvious. Why can’t other people see this? It is psych 101 stuff. I know atheists are intelligent, but the atheists on that forum seem to wear blinders regarding the reasons for their fearless leader’s behaviors.

Finally, they call that forum a “free thinkers” forum and I find the very ironic, because nobody has changed the way they think since I went there five years ago. They are not free to think anything that contradicts their atheism and they don’t want to hear about it. Then they rank on believers and say we are not free to think because we have a religion. They say we are just “brainwashed believers.” It is comical that they cannot understand their own behavior, but it is also rather sad.

I understand that a lot of atheists are ex-believers who were hurt by Christianity but it is not fair to take that out on me. I did not do anything to them except try to be their friend. But they cannot be friends with a believer, all they can do is tell me I am wrong about what I believe. They say there is no God, no soul and no afterlife but they have no proof of that. I readily admit believers have no proof either, but there is evidence. By contrast, atheists have no evidence that there is no God, no soul and no afterlife, so they should just admit that, instead of insisting they know. I guess it makes them uncomfortable to have to think about these things, but if they are so sure they do not exist they would be able to just blow me off instead of getting antagonistic. This is psych 101 stuff.

I am interested in what the atheists on this forum have to say about this, but I am also open to hearing the opinions of believers.

I'm an atheist, and I don't like intolerance, of any kind. So I make it a habit not to go to places where I'm likely to find more intolerance than I can stomach. Saves a lot of grief, really.

People of good will, whether theist, atheist, or anywhere else on the belief spectrum, can still talk to one another if they really try. Talk to the idea, the point, not the person. Ad rem, not ad hominem.

 

[columbus]

When some people leave a religion they do not leave the zealotry behind but merely transfer it to another worldview. Hence a lot of atheists go into an "anti-theist stage" in which theists are not tolerated in general regardless of how the theists acts.

This is something I have noticed.
Not all, but many of the most virulent antitheists were raised in a conservative religious environment, where other beliefs were evil and needed to be attacked. That "us v them" attitude came along with them.
Tom

 

[Jollybear]

You made assertions and declared evidence without explaining it or demonstrating that it was valid evidence.

Thats incorrect.

I know of no inconsistency that I expressed or that you pointed out.

Because you know not what yee do.

It was not a question of like or dislike. You do realize that you are boiling down all the logic and evidence of my arguments and discarding based on a false claim about me? Right? So much for your pleas of getting along. That is an inconsistency of yours that speaks for itself.

My statements to the OP wer not about getting along, they wer about staying on the subject.

Your arguments were assertions with nothing to support them. You claimed everything was evidence and left that hanging as if it meant something.

Incorrect.

I can accept that.

How can you accept that when everything above shows you reject that? See, thats the inconsistency again.

Have you read the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document?"

Ive seen it in a documentary and this whole thing about the word "creationism" and "intelligent design" is just a thing of samantics, the main thing is to deal with the evidence and arguments instead of pecking away at words or samantics.

 

[Cassandra]

I was told by someone on this forum I cannot reveal the forum name on this forum, so no, there is no way around it.

I am not sure if there is a rule against my telling you the forum name in a Conversation. I don't know why you would want to go there, you would not be able to find out what happened there because this has been going on for years. You would just stir up trouble, and I do not want to make trouble for that forum or its owner. I left voluntarily and I want to forget about it now.

Your story does not ring true to me. Frankly from what I read, I find it more likely that you were banned and want to get even. It happens a lot. Maybe they did not fancy you spamming the forum with Baha'i stuff.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thats incorrect.

Your response is again, incorrect. You made assertions and followed them up with more assertions as your evidence.

Because you know not what yee do.

Another ad hominem attack and no follow up evidence of some alleged inconsistency. Typical. I know what I did and did not do and I know what you are doing. You failed to establish an inconsistency again, unless it is your own. That you have established.

My statements to the OP wer not about getting along, they wer about staying on the subject.

You included people discussing each other in that response to the OP. Something you have been incapable of accomplishing when we have been in discussion. You could not let 'me' go as the topic of discussion. I wanted to discuss the issues and there was no reason for me to be the topic of discussion. Well, no valid, logical reason. I know why you did it.

Why cant all groups of people just be free in discussing and make the discussing about the subject and not eachother? Is that too much to ask?

See. You want people to not do what you spent most of your posts doing to me. It is hypocrisy.

Incorrect.

You are again, incorrect. Your arguments were assertions with nothing to support them except more assertions.

How can you accept that when everything above shows you reject that? See, thats the inconsistency again.

I accept that you do not believe. Why would that be so hard to accept. That you do not believe is different than you being able to objectively support an assertion.

seen it in a documentary and this whole thing about the word "creationism" and "intelligent design" is just a thing of samantics, the main thing is to deal with the evidence and arguments instead of pecking away at words or samantics.

It is not semantics. They outlined their plan to oust science from the classroom and replace it with religion. A clear violation of the Constitution. It was a creationist political action plan to insert pseudoscience into the classroom.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yah I have seen and heard the same from many people over the years from across the global.

It seems to be pretty common for people to do in a number of situations both religious and secular.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some you really need to soak overnight in a weak vinegar solution, to get rid of the excess tannin. They make the dish unpleasantly bitter. Or mildly toast on a cookie sheet first, then crush up into a mild vinegar or lemon juice solution to get rid of the bitterness.

Some report that soaking in baking soda solution works even better, but I cannot speak from a personal experience.

I have heard that too. I wonder what a good marinade would do?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

With fava beans & a nice chianti?

Wine. I forgot the wine.

 

[Neuropteron]

I dunno! But perhaps here's a clue as to why they might be suspicious of people they perceive to be of the religious bent...

And yet here you are - in a religious debate forum - with unbelievers...I'm perfectly happy that you are here BTW - but how does your profession of belief in this scriptural injunction match your propensity for cavorting (conversationally of course) with "Belial"? (2 Corinthians 6:15 - note the verse you quoted was 14).

Anyway, @Trailblazer , I reckon that kind of "inconsistency" (for fear incurring the wrath of the mods by using a more direct term for saying one thing and doing another) is one reason "some atheists" are "intolerant of religious believers". And before you become offended at the "injustice" of that observation - remember, you did ask.

My comment was simply to explain why a believers should not be surprised to be misstreated by unbelievers.
"Keep in mind...a slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (Joh 15:20).

Talking to honest people about the Bible can hardly be considered cavorting with Belial.

John pointed out that the whole world was lying in the power of the wicked one (Belial). Paul said that they were blinded by Satan.
However this in no way infers that people have become Belial and that speacking to them about the truth of Gods word somehow make me an accomplice to Satan.

"For a necessity is laid upon me. Really woe is me if I did not declare the good news!" 1Cor 8:16)

Although Jesus told his followers to be no part of the world (joh 17:16), he also explained that they would have to have some association with people of the world, otherwise they would have to become hermits.
For a follower of Christ discernment is required to balance these requirements .

 

[Neuropteron]

I dunno! But perhaps here's a clue as to why they might be suspicious of people they perceive to be of the religious bent...

And yet here you are - in a religious debate forum - with unbelievers...I'm perfectly happy that you are here BTW - but how does your profession of belief in this scriptural injunction match your propensity for cavorting (conversationally of course) with "Belial"? (2 Corinthians 6:15 - note the verse you quoted was 14).

Anyway, @Trailblazer , I reckon that kind of "inconsistency" (for fear incurring the wrath of the mods by using a more direct term for saying one thing and doing another) is one reason "some atheists" are "intolerant of religious believers". And before you become offended at the "injustice" of that observation - remember, you did ask.

My comment was simply to explain why a believers should not be surprised to be misstreated by unbelievers.
"Keep in mind...a slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (Joh 15:20).

Talking to honest people about the Bible can hardly be considered cavorting with Belial.

John pointed out that the whole world was lying in the power of the wicked one (Belial). Paul said that they were blinded by Satan.
However this in no way infers that people have become Belial and that speacking to them about the truth of Gods word somehow make me an accomplice to Satan.

"For a necessity is laid upon me. Really woe is me if I did not declare the good news!" 1Cor 8:16)

Although Jesus told his followers to be no part of the world (joh 17:16), he also explained that they would have to have some association with people of the world, otherwise they would have to become hermits.
For a follower of Christ discernment is required to balance these requirements .

 

[Jollybear]

Your response is again, incorrect. You made assertions and followed them up with more assertions as your evidence.

You can believe that if you want and you surely will and i wont stop you. But, i will disagree.

Another ad hominem attack and no follow up evidence of some alleged inconsistency. Typical. I know what I did and did not do and I know what you are doing. You failed to establish an inconsistency again, unless it is your own. That you have established.

Pointing out a logical inconsistency is not ad hom, calling me a hypocrite for it IS ad hom.

You included people discussing each other in that response to the OP. Something you have been incapable of accomplishing when we have been in discussion. You could not let 'me' go as the topic of discussion. I wanted to discuss the issues and there was no reason for me to be the topic of discussion. Well, no valid, logical reason. I know why you did it.

No, you dont want to discuss the issues, when i try, you wont do it.

See. You want people to not do what you spent most of your posts doing to me. It is hypocrisy.

Wrong, i practice what i preach.

You are again, incorrect. Your arguments were assertions with nothing to support them except more assertions.

Yea thats your assertion. But, continue to believe it. Go ahead.

I accept that you do not believe. Why would that be so hard to accept. That you do not believe is different than you being able to objectively support an assertion.

I do not believe? I do not believe what? You lost me there. What do i not believe?

It is not semantics. They outlined their plan to oust science from the classroom and replace it with religion. A clear violation of the Constitution. It was a creationist political action plan to insert pseudoscience into the classroom.

You can believe that if you want too, i will not stop you but i wholeheartedly and firmly disagree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can believe that if you want and you surely will and i wont stop you. But, i will disagree.

I do not have to believe what I have a thread full of evidence to support.

Pointing out a logical inconsistency is not ad hom, calling me a hypocrite for it IS ad hom.

You only claim to have pointed one out and not even what it was. You could be making that up or completely confused.

If you are being hypocritical, it is not. You were. So it was not.

No, you dont want to discuss the issues, when i try, you wont do it.

Untrue. When I try to discuss the issues you call me atheist and demand to know about my beliefs. Again, a thread full of evidence for this.

Wrong, i practice what i preach.

I know you believe that, but I do not see it. In fact, you spent a lot of discussion trying to talk about me, so, once again, your claim is not true.

Yea thats your assertion. But, continue to believe it. Go ahead.

Yet again and assertion supported by the evidence is a winning argument. But do carry on denying and believing as you like.

I do not believe? I do not believe what? You lost me there. What do i not believe?

Do you not remember what we were talking about? It was only like this evening. You disagree that ID is not a political ploy. I accept that you do. It is not difficult to accept what you believe about ID. That is all you have about ID. Belief.

You can believe that if you want too, i will not stop you but i wholeheartedly and firmly disagree.

Since it is widely known and the Discovery Institute admitted it, I hardly have to believe it on any grounds of faith. You, of course, can continue to deny it for no reason.

 

[Jollybear]

I do not have to believe what I have a thread full of evidence to support.



You only claim to have pointed one out and not even what it was. You could be making that up or completely confused.

If you are being hypocritical, it is not. You were. So it was not.



Untrue. When I try to discuss the issues you call me atheist and demand to know about my beliefs. Again, a thread full of evidence for this.



I know you believe that, but I do not see it. In fact, you spent a lot of discussion trying to talk about me, so, once again, your claim is not true.



Yet again and assertion supported by the evidence is a winning argument. But do carry on denying and believing as you like.



Do you not remember what we were talking about? It was only like this evening. You disagree that ID is not a political ploy. I accept that you do. It is not difficult to accept what you believe about ID. That is all you have about ID. Belief.



Since it is widely known and the Discovery Institute admitted it, I hardly have to believe it on any grounds of faith. You, of course, can continue to deny it for no reason.

2 simple questions for you.

1, did God create the universe?

2, if he did create it, how can you create what you dont design?