Skybird, good post, but I do have a disagreement...
Quote:
|
Religious zealots often accuse atheism to be a.) intolerant and b.) immoral, but both accusations are pointless.
|
This could be semantic because, had you said "atheists", I would have agreed.
However, atheism is of itself a specific belief. One can no more disprove the existance of a deity than prove one - thus is the very nature of the debate, as it were. Atheism, by its very nature is not tolerant of any other belief system. It quite simply postulates that it is the correct system, thereby clearly implying that all others are wrong. This argument holds similarly true for most religions.
Quite franky, I find atheism to have more in common with religion than agnostisicm does.
However, the ATHEIST, in very much the same way as a deist, can have varying levels of tolerence for another system of belief. That being said, I personally find the actions of the more zealous atheists to be consistant with the actions of the more zealous deists. In other words, atheism seems to be becoming a religion unto itself.
The bottom line is this: if you're an atheist who holds the belief that there is nothing to believe regarding a deity, then you truly have nothing to proclaim. There is no god, that's the way it is, so why talk about nothing?
But, when you begin peddling your atheism, you become exactly what you are supposedly opposing - a belief system. At least in the popular terms.
Either way, modern "atheism" has seemed to lock itself in a struggle between God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, Brahma, etc. I find it ironic that so-called atheism would choose to "lock horns" with things atheism itself believes doesn't exist.
As for me? I'll remain agnostic until I find proof one way or the other.