In history, there has never been a war, movement or religious mission which has had the purpose of imposing Atheism, or convincing others to "convert" to Atheism. Atheists have always been tolerant of all religions. While no major religion is devoid of signs of intolerance in some part of their history, towards other religions. In this context some have mentioned despots like Pol Pot and Hitler. But they were not atheists (Hitler was a Catholic, and later just Christian; and Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist.) What they actually attempted to do was establish a "nationalist" religion. And there were other despots who were Atheists, like Stalin or Mao, . And they did include in their constitutions the concept of Atheist State. But they meant that the state (not the people) would be Atheist. In any case, Atheism was never the driving force in their "revolutions" I'm not saying that all believers are intolerant of other religions. But the fact that, in history, intolerance by atheists is, for the most part, absent, is very much noteworthy.
Seems like historical accident to me. Historical atheists fall into two major camps: Liberals who also happen to believe in freedom of religion, and socialists who would've loved to impose atheism if it was possible, but they knew that it would be political suicide. There's nothing inherent to atheism that makes it more tolerant.
Atheism has been pretty underground for most of human history so we really haven't seen how intolerant an atheist movement can be. My guess is atheists could be just as intolerant and cruel as any other group of people when given the power. This is because atheists are humans and humans tend to dominate one another when given the power to do so. I consider myself an agnostic atheist btw.
I'm an atheist, and I'm tolerant until someone tries to peddle their religion on me - then, I blow them away. For, example, when Jehovah Witnesses come to the door, I hold up my hand and say, "I am willing to respect your beliefs and I am asking you to respect mine." If they start up after that, THEN I attack.
The OP is mistaken. The USSR forced atheism on their people. They did not allow religious displays of any kind. This wasn't because of some love for atheism though. It was because they didn't want religion taking power and influence away from them.
I'm not saying that Atheists are morally superior. I'm just saying that atheism does not inspire wars or any movement with the objective of imposing atheism onto others.
That's what I'm trying to convey. Atheism has never been the motivation for a war or movement. Of course, opposition to a certain church is frequent. Just like the USSR's reaction to the Orthodox Church. But the fight was for their political power. Not to impose Atheism as a belief.
I know it's open to criticism but I prefer indifference to tolerance. I mean, I don't particularly care about religion but I do support someone's right to practise their religion (within the bounds of the law of course). I don't like proselytisers but when they bang on my front door I will be courteous to them, they obviously strongly believe which is why the are at my door. I don't tolerate them, that's patronising. I am simply indifferent. I am not indifferent though to the influence of religion in my secular society though. That I oppose. Practise your religion but don't let it impinge upon me.
Okay, to begin with, some atheists do feel a "fanatical" need to spread atheism. That's a project I'm sympathetic too, in fact. But even if no atheists anywhere ever cared about spreading the non-faith that wouldn't prove some inherent atheistic quality of tolerance. This is a bit like the whole debate about Islam vs Muslims. Do we consider Islam to be the doctrine as written down, or do we consider Islam to be what happens when over a billion people live and act over the course of 1400 years? In other words, nothing you can say about the behavior of atheists can ever tell you anything about the nature of atheism beyond nonbelief in a deity. It's rather easy for me to imagine a world in which atheists act violently to stamp out religious belief.
Ask them if they'd be happy for the local chapter of "Satan R Us" to pay them a house call to discuss conversion. I've had mixed results with this approach. Some immediately blurt 'NO!', realising too late that they've shot themselves in the foot. Others are more cunning, and run with 'of course ... I'd love the opportunity to show them a better way'. You can qualify that by suggesting that the terms of the scenario are that they can only listen, not preach back. That usually sorts them.
This is utterly false. The majority of the Soviet Union throughout its entire history remained religious and there were both Orthodox churches and Muslim mosques in the Soviet Union.
What proves that quality is the fact itself that there has never been any significant movement, crusade or war to impose atheism onto others. Atheists are as human as anybody else. I agree that there is nothing intrinsic to atheism that makes them tolerant. But there is also nothing that makes them intolerant. There is no "Kill the infidels" or "stone them till they die" in Atheism. If an atheist wishes to consider moral values, they will necessarily need to adopt a humanist perspective.
Personally, I don't care what others feel about their religions until they try to press their views, unwanted, on me. I tend to deal with all others on a live and let live basis. Unfortunately many of the religious types just can't seem to let this alone. I aonly get aggressive in response to an aggressive approach from others.
Requiring them to "only listen" is not equivalent to the Jehovahs Witnesses are doing. You are not captive to them or forced to only listen, you can close your door or walk away or engage them - its your choice. Why aren't you satisfied with a simple "No thank you" and closing the door? That's the tolerant approach if you don't agree with them and don't want to be bothered.
You attack? Hahahah sorry, I imagined Ash Ketchum from Pokemon screaming to his Pikachu, "Pikachu, thunderbolt them for their religion!" That being said, I'm a Catholic. I won't impose my religion on you, but I will silently judge you, as you are bound for hell. Just kidding hahahaha our pope said that an atheist is better than a hypocritical Catholic, so you'll probably get up there before me.
Atheist isn’t the opposite of religious, it’s the opposite of theist. Atheists can be religious and theists can’t be irreligious and pretty much all of the things you say about atheism can be said about theism too. The belief in gods element of many (though not all) religions isn’t a significant factor at all in this context. Many of the bad things (and good things for that matter) which have come about through religion pretty much independent of that. Religions are socio-political groupings and their influences on wider society are much like those of other socio-political groupings. The claim that “Atheists have always been tolerant of all religions” is patently untrue. There are atheists on this very forum who demonstrate intolerance of religion. Atheists are just people with a specific belief on a single topic and are otherwise capable of exactly the same opinions, statements and actions as anyone else, good, bad and indifferent. The main difference is that there has rarely been extensive organisation based around atheism but that’s just a quirk of history and doesn’t automatically say anything about the implicit validity or nature of the position.
In the context of this discussion, when I say "atheists" I am referring to "atheism". It is intrinsically a tolerant position, in that atheists are not moved by atheism to wage wars, or initiate violent movements to "convert the non-infidels (fidels?)" Of course, atheists can be intolerant for other reasons. But, as I said several times, there is no "kill the infidels" or "stone them till they die" in atheism.
There isn't in theism either. Atheism isn't "intrinsically tolerant", it's entirely morally neutral because it isn't something people do, it's something people are. We all either believe in gods or we don't. Literally anything else you say about any individuals or groups are beyond these simple terms.
I have no idea what might be a difference between being "neutral" and "tolerant" that would be relevant to this discussion. Tolerance is also not something people do. It's something people are. So still no difference. You said it: Atheism "is entirely morally neutral". I don't see how you can get more tolerant than that. On the other hand throughout history, both as seen through their writings and often through their actions, religions have been intolerant.
I never feel the need to attack Jehovah Witnesses. They are never overly pushy...I just politely say no thanks. Even though I don't believe like they do, I know they are going door to door to be kind and invite people into their "grup".
