Is it ok if I am tolerant of atheism but not anti-theism?

Is it ok if I'm tolerant of religious people but not the people who disrespect my lack of belief?

Tolerance does not mean putting up with people who are rude, disrespectful or threaten you harm. Tolerance simply means you respect people's right to do their own thing and you don't act against them for doing so.

I find it interesting the way you classify atheists from anti-theists, and I also wonder how you would classify me. These are thoughts that went through my mind when you made your four points defining an anti-theist.

1. I do think you're delusional, but every group believes the other to be delusional. The only reason Christianity is not considered neurosis is because of the large numbers. If you say you have a personal relationship with God, you're religious. If you say you have a personal relationship with your stuffed moose head, you're schizzophrenic.

2. I don't seek to destroy religion altogether, but I do seek to destroy certain aspects of religion that I consider archaic and counter-productive, for example the belief in Creationism or the unwavering devotion to all ten of the Ten Commandments. I don't want stickers in my Biology textbook.

3. There should be no atheist that believes science are the solutions to everything, but I believe that science has the potential to provide all answers. We simply lack the intelligence and technology to do so. We should consider how young we are as a civilisation, though, having been around merely six or seven thousand years, and only about 200 years of that have been industrialised. I can only imagine what we will know in ten thousand years, or even five thousand years. Explaining the universe in supernatural terms is convenient, but it doesn't really solve anything.

4. Interesting choice of words: "sub-human." What is a "human" exactly? Religious people separate humans from the animals and believe humans to be superior. Men fuss about the abortion of babies, but give no second thought to killing a cow to eat it. Does a fetus have more feeling that a full grown cow because it is human?

(Edited).

It's your life, you can intolerate whoever you want.

I'm an atheist and will self-identify with 2. and 3. but not 1. and 4, assuming you amend 2 and 3 as follows:

2. A person who seeks to destroy ORGANIZED religion as he/she thinks IT IS A DANGER TO FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. (Caps emphasize differences.)

3. A person who thinks that science and technology ALWAYS PROVIDE BETTER ANSWERS THEN BELIEF.

People who hit all four your criterion are atheists and assholes.

I would never advocate that someone be treated as sub-human, but I will never allow that someone is allowed to legally obstruct peoples' non-destructive pursuit of happiness, which both fundamentalists and mainline Christians and Jews (to say nothing of Muslims) routinely do.

Likewise, someone who walks up on the street and calls you delusional is simply rude. But anyone who is truly an atheist, if asked and pressed to tell the truth, will tell you they think your beliefs are wrong, that you are the victim of delusion and that however much they may respect and like you personally, they do not respect your beliefs.

If you look at my version of 2., let me explain that my methodology is that children should not be brought up to think of themselves as Christian (or whatever), but should make an educated decision on their own when they grow up. This isn't all that far from what Baptist theology purports to support, but I think that if applied organized religion would die out within a few generations.

Let me further qualify that I consider myself anti-clerical in addition to being an atheist, because it's the clergy, formal or self-appointed, that cause the politcal and social problems.

So my 2 franklin bills there.

I can agree though I admit to arguing more passionately about my beliefs for the obvious reason that I believe them to be true. I prefer to be tolerant to all faiths. I consider even atheism a faith since there is a standard of beliefs associated with it. I agree that I am more irked and tend to respond in a satirical fashion to any of your afforementioned anti-theist pet peeves, but in my defense I do the same towards those who, on the opposite side of the spectrum, practice their "radical fundamentalism". does that make sense?

I suppose. But I am not afraid of any of them. (I'd be inclined to diversify them further by saying they are either sceptics or atheists or heretics) That way you can say that thing about them having similar attitudes. They are of the same group of primates, but a different, unenlightened group. Atheists simply do not believe there is a God. Sceptics may argue the point, and heretics will attack you. (But "heretic" doesn't seem quite accurate either.) Hmmm....will have to get back to you on that. Maybe we could call them Marxists. Activist against religion. Anyone who uses "Religion is the opiate of the masses" as their slogan. That's how we will know them. Just little left-wing parrots, is what they are. XD

unquestionably, there's no longer a "scale". each and every of those words merely has a distinctive definition. additionally, I merchandise to the term, agnosticism usually, on account that unquestionably skill you do no longer "understand"....and to this point as i'm in touch, no individual can understand no remember if or no longer there's a God, because of the fact such issues are unknowable. So anybody is an agnostic.

Attacking people with words is a lot different than assassinating doctors who do abortions or strapping bombs to your chest and walking into a crowd. Comparing people who tell you religion is bad for people with fundies who have a tendency to actually physically harm others is just unfair. Free speech is still a right.

You don't like what they are saying. Too damn bad.

Here Here! I think this is also good you brought this up for the true atheists who sometimes get categorized as haters because of the anti-theists. Much like the Christians who get blasted because of the rude fundamentalists. Gods peace :)

It would be perfectly wise to be tolerant of atheism. Atheists are defined as people who do not have a religion. Only a extremely small minority are anti-theists. Anti-theism is no different to, as you stated, radical fundamentalism. So it would be very good to be tolerant to atheists, but not to anti-theists.

i see your point... i think most of the anti-theists are upset at the people who wave there religious flag pompously and claims they are god warriors meant to serve jesus or allah or whomever have you. I'm not even atheist, just agnostic, but the only beef i ever have is the prevention that religion causes when it comes to sciences that could be explored. People preventing stem cell research is probably my biggy. but really even if i dont believe in your religion it gives you content with your life and some sort of goal, and its hard to run around with people telling us were gonna burn in hell for our sins, and maybe thats why some come of so hateful