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

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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?

Have you never assembled a puzzle, or a plastic model kit? Or even baked a cake that came in a box?

You created the puzzle, the model, or the cake-- but you had no part in the design of any...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

This is a question of religion and not one of science. The way that you pose it really does not make much sense. I have not argued against belief. The argument was about science and what can be demonstrated. Intelligent design is not science and its assertions are not supported by evidence.

How has this been unclear to you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you never assembled a puzzle, or a plastic model kit? Or even baked a cake that came in a box?

You created the puzzle, the model, or the cake-- but you had no part in the design of any...

That is an interesting answer and not one that immediately came to mind since he is trying to misrepresent my arguments as against belief in God when they were not.

 

[Jollybear]

Have you never assembled a puzzle, or a plastic model kit? Or even baked a cake that came in a box?

You created the puzzle, the model, or the cake-- but you had no part in the design of any...

True, but, someone still design the box, the puzzle and the model.

Created or designed, either way takes intelligence.

 

[Jollybear]

This is a question of religion and not one of science. The way that you pose it really does not make much sense. I have not argued against belief. The argument was about science and what can be demonstrated. Intelligent design is not science and its assertions are not supported by evidence.

How has this been unclear to you?

Is cosmic evolution, atoms to molecules science?

Is life evolution, chemicals to life science?

Is chance+time creating the universe science?

Or is that philosophy?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is cosmic evolution, atoms to molecules science?

You are dragging this off topic and throwing in more than was part the previous discussion about ID. I will give answers but then I am done here. I see no point to expanding the discussion outside the previous scope, unless you are trying to set up a 'gotcha' moment.

Yes. Cosmology is science. It is more than just atoms and molecules though. Did you know that.

Is life evolution,

Biological evolution is a topic of science.

Life, however, is not evolution, though it undergoes evolution. Your question did not make sense.

chemicals to life science?

The origin of life is unknown, but is studied in science. There is currently only enough information available to formulate, but not to test hypotheses.

Your questions are poorly worded and executed. If you want me to guess what you are asking, then you get what I come up with. Like it or not.

Is chance+time creating the universe science?

Is this something claimed by scientists? I have not read this outside of creationist claims that it is. As far as I am aware, no one knows what was before the Big Bang. It is not a very good question. It is not something I have claimed.

Or is that philosophy?

Is what philosophy? You are unclear.

 

[Jollybear]

Did you mean to say something?

 

[Shad]

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

Sure basic tribalism. Happens the other way as well when atheists become theists.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

Believe whatever you want to. I was not banned, I was put on moderation and then I decided to leave.
I do not want to get even, I am not that kind of person. I want to be on amiable terms with the forum owner because I don't like disharmony, so I sent him a personal message so he would understand that I have nothing against him personally. I just do not appreciate being accused of doing what I did not do, since that is unjust.
I did not spam the forum with Baha'i stuff, I only answered questions asked of me.

 

[Shad]

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

Yup. Politics for one

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you mean to say something?

Yes. I did.

 

[siti]

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 .

Thanks for that. Like I said - I'm glad you are here. I didn't mean to impute any wrong on your part - just to point out that a lot of monochromatic thinkers would look at a post like yours and see inconsistency...I appreciate your explanation and respect your position - but I'm guessing the atheists TB was referring to in the OP would not.

 

[Jedster]

Some atheists are actively against God.

I don't see how that is possible since they have no God(gods) belief.

 

[Cassandra]

Believe whatever you want to. I was not banned, I was put on moderation and then I decided to leave.
I do not want to get even, I am not that kind of person. I want to be on amiable terms with the forum owner because I don't like disharmony, so I sent him a personal message so he would understand that I have nothing against him personally. I just do not appreciate being accused of doing what I did not do, since that is unjust.
I did not spam the forum with Baha'i stuff, I only answered questions asked of me.

I do not believe anything either way.

It is just that people that spit in the well they drank from do not impress me.

 

[HonestJoe]

I did not single out atheists as a "subgroup." I was careful to say that this is not about atheists, it is only about one particular atheist who has treated me unjustly. I have no problem with any of the other atheists on that forum, even though they attacked by beliefs constantly. This is about INJUSTICE and INEQUITY, and not about belief and unbelief.

Why did you choose to refer to atheism at all then? Why didn’t you ask about “some men”, “some internet users” or “some people”? It may well have been entirely subconscious, but you were clearly identifying this as an attack coming from a type of person rather than the identified individual (so much easier to do over the internet unfortunately). Ironically, that is part of the answer to your initial question. The person you’re complaining about probably has a very similar perception of the conversation as you do, just from the opposite direction.

What you might not understand is that I have no problem with atheists and I do not consider them a subgroup. Baha'is believe that we are all one people, so we do not divide people into subgroups. But maybe because you consider yourselves a subgroup, you project that thought onto me?

I’m part of countless subgroups; we all are. I’m not talking about pretending that isn’t the case, only about treating people on their individual merits despite that fact. I’ve no doubt this is a Baha’I principle too but I expect you also recognise that we’re all flawed human beings and need to actively work to achieve these principles in our day-to-day lives.

 

[Abdemem]

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 am muslim, and I read daily some verses of the holly coran which tell us all about our life, and regarding faith we have this verse:

S5-V82. You will find that the people most hostile towards the believers are the Jews and the polytheists. And you will find that the nearest in affection towards the believers are those who say, “We are Christians.” That is because among them are priests and monks, and they are not arrogant.

Please discover this video with me:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

If you're all about the evidence, then read through the Kitzmiller v. Dover transcript. The expert witnesses do an excellent job of outlining all thd evidence that tells us that:

- creation science was a response to court decisions that got creationism kicked out of schools. It was an attempt to keep as much creationism in school science curricula as possible.

- ID was a response to court decisions that got creation science kicked out of schools. It was a second - though still pretty transparent - attempt to keep as much creationism in school science curricula as possible.

In some cases, creation science textbooks were only slightly rebranded to make them fit the new ID approach.

You're perpetuating lies. I don't think you originated the lies, and I believe that you're sincere in your support for ID: but still - you've been duped.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

True, but, someone still design the box, the puzzle and the model.

Created or designed, either way takes intelligence.

So? I answered your question. Now you move the goal-posts in order to fit your silliness.

Nice try.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Created or designed, either way takes intelligence.

Tell me: Does the pattern of a snowflake take intelligence to form?

Or try this-- in a shallow box, dump a single layer of marbles-- but not completely covering the bottom. Gently shake the box-- what happens? Do you know? I do-- the marbles will arrange themselves into a perfect hexagonal pattern. Did this take intelligence? A random machine can shake that box, in case you try to imply intent.

All around us-- there are non-intelligent patterns. Many follow mathematical patterns.

All are a result of the Structure Of Things-- take that snowflake-- it *has* to form a pattern, because the water molecule is held together by atomic force-- and settles into a shallow Y shape.

This shape causes an unequal, partial electrical charge across each molecule. Positive-ish towards the two small hydrogen atoms (the 'arms' of the Y) and negative-ish towards the fat oxygen atom.

These partial charges are why the pattern forms, and why water is so darn good at taking apart salt compounds (dissolving)....

Design? Hardly-- it's simply because hydrogen has one electron, and oxygen lacks two electrons to be a Noble Gas. Simple numbers game.

No Intelligence Of Any Kind Required to make that snowflake...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

First, please allow me to express my sympathy. You are obviously a sensitive person, and feel hurt by what happened in that other forum. But as others have noted, you don't have to be there, and it seems like it's vexing you. You are welcome here by most posters.

Judging someone according to their belief or non-belief is no different from judging them according to the color of their skin. People are people and they should all be afforded the same dignity and respect.

I'm assuming that you mean religious beliefs. I continually judge people by their beliefs and bet that you do as well. I judged the tiki marchers at Charlottesville adversely for their bigotry. Somebody left a post on this thread mocking taking climate change seriously. Opinions like those tell me a lot about a person's character and / or how a person processes information

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

Once again, I'm assuming that you mean an unfounded belief held by faith. Some beliefs are well supported. I'm expecting to go out in the car this afternoon, and I expect it to start when I turn the key in the ignition just like it has the last several hundred times it was tested.

"Proven" and "true" are words I'm using less and less. If an idea has demonstrated its usefulness in reliably predicting and at times controlling outcomes, the idea is a keeper and is appropriate to add to one's fund of knowledge whether one considers that proof or not. Consider these terms:

• Instrumentalism - belief that statements or theories may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity. Peirce and other pragmatists defended an instrumentalist account of modern science.

• Empirical adequacy - A theory is empirically adequate, roughly, if all of what it says about observable aspects of the world (past, present, and future) can be confirmed

• Fallibilism - the principle that propositions concerning empirical knowledge can be accepted even though they cannot be proved with certainty.

Some beliefs can be regarded as true if they can meet these criteria without troubling oneself with ideas like ultimate truth or absolute truth. Newton's work on celestial mechanics was improved upon by Laplace and Einstein, who demonstrated that Newton's work was incomplete, and for certain applications, inadequate. Nevertheless, Newton's equations can be used to send a probe to Pluto and expect them to rendezvous in a time and place anticipated by those equations. Is Newton's work true? It's surely useful, and that's what matters.