The more dangerous the ideas, the more intolerant I become.

Thanks. Yes I see your point. If someone thinks Elvis is still alive I might be tempted to let them get on with it, but if they’re saying the Holocaust didn’t happen, I don’t think we can agree to disagree. The trouble is, for each piece of woo-woo you have to do your homework just to get started, so it’s hard work putting someone right on their pet subject.

Even in the Atheosphere, I don’t tend to go out of my way to “battle” with religionists unless they show up, uninvited and with woo-guns drawn, at my blog or a friend’s. The problem with tolerating the believer but not the belief, as you and some commenters have pointed out, is that in some cases (possibly many cases in BlogWorld), believers confuse their “selves” with their beliefs. They have no personae that exist outside of and apart from their beliefs.

When I’m confronted by such a person, I follow his or her lead. If that individual’s very personhood is inextricably bound up in nonsense, if that individual defines himself or herself as a personification of that nonsense, I kiss toleration goodbye and send it on its way. The more dangerous the ideas, the more intolerant I become.

I think it’s important not to tolerate ignorance. Or ignorant people. Because you know what?

Ignorance is contagious.

I guess tolerance depends on the context. If you’re just chewing the philosophical fat with a religious aquaintance there’es no point in getting personal, but if they’re agitating for creationism to be taught in your kid’s school that may be a different matter.

I do think I’ve been debating an entirely separate sort of Christian than you, however, as it doesn’t seem you’ve been having to deal with this. Lucky!

It probably helps that I live in the UK, where the majority of people are religiously apathetic. The main taboo is having strong opinions and talking about religion in public, whether religious or not.

That said, opinions on religion seem to be polarising and I have found some zealous believers. Actually, the JWs did have a tendency to just repeat their beliefs again or quote the Bible ad nauseum.

Atheists should aspire to take the higher ground and be gently rational and critical.

It is ironic that Christians are crying ‘intolerance’ after subjecting the rest of the world to violent intolerance for centuries.

Kelly is right that many self-styled apologists take everything as a personal attack, so much so that they cannot seem to differentiate between attacking an argument and attacking a person.

Perhaps I’m lucky to have mostly come across less aggressive apologists.

The Christian persecution complex (or persecution doctrine might be more accurate) seems to be one of those memes which has evolved to prevent them from ever having to take disagreement seriously.

I know some theists are offended by the mere existence of non-believers. That’s why we need to reiterate that it is not reasonable to be offended by tactful disagreement. I know it is incredibly hard to stay tactful in the face of a belligerent apologist, so maybe it’s better to walk away from the discussion in those cases. Rather than be goaded into anger or making personal attacks, which would cloud the issue of whether we are being tactful, ideally we should leave the conversation saying we’re not willing to be insulted.

I know that’s idealistic and I’ve been one to strike back with unreasonable personal attacks before, but I try not to.

the chaplain,

Welcome to the atheosphere!… Nonetheless, if you’ve done your best to be civil, that’s all you can do. You can’t control other people’s responses to you.

Thanks! You’re quite right, it’s hard enough to control one’s own responses when your morality is being questioned!

I agree with your intent to separate believer and belief and hope that it will make a difference in at least some cases. There will be cases in which it will not matter, as some people will still be offended by the simple fact that you disagree with them. Nonetheless, if you’ve done your best to be civil, that’s all you can do. You can’t control other people’s responses to you.

Kelly is right that many self-styled apologists take everything as a personal attack, so much so that they cannot seem to differentiate between attacking an argument and attacking a person. Ever since St. Paul, this has been a problem within Christendom in particular.

They cannot separate the belief from the self, and thus will vew the criticism as an attack on their core beliefs, on their very identity.

I know that is a problem.

However, I don’t think that should make us give up trying to communicate effectively. We can at least be tactful and not give them any justifiable reason to be offended. If they’re still offended by polite disagreement, then it’s their problem. If you’re civil in what you say you can at least defend your approach. You could maybe even show by analogy that disagreement is not in itself offensive.

It depends on whom you’re talking to, but I’m hopeful sometimes it work in some cases.