The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Who's more intolerant: Christians or Non-Believers?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,052 times Debate No: 21240
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)




The question of tolerance. I here way to often, that us Christians are intolerant and that we are holding our species back from progression. I would like to provide a new perspective to our position on this matter.

1st round for acceptance.

No direct insults.
profanity is allowed (not sure if the site allows this, but I don't mind it at all)


I thank Pro for what appears to be an interesting debate.

Let's set the boundaries for the debate.

1. Pro will argue, according to his post, that Christians are (overall) more tolerant than Non-Believers.

2. I will as Con argue that Non-Believers are (overall) more tolerant than Christians.

3. Although Pro allowed profanity, he didn't seem to show any signs of wanting to use it himself. I would like to request that profanity is avoided in this debate.

I would like to state that I myself am a Christian who will be showing the sad truth that Christians do often bend towards intolerance.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright alight alright!! you gonna learn today! (Kevin Hart) just had to start this off with that.

I want to thank my opponent, for accepting my "Challenge". I'm a bit disappointed that a fellow brother in Christ is my adversary, and not a true non-believer, for this might not be as fulfilling as I was hoping. At any rate, let us begin.

So, who is more tolerant? Christians, or Non-believers? I title them 'Non-believers' because, I truly do not believe atheists exist.

I've been in home of believers and non-believers my entire life, we've enjoyed the hardships and joys of life together in many ways. None of us ever considered one another tolerant or intolerant, we simply view each other as people we loved and cared about; other views and beliefs, was something we could continuously talk about and without rupturing a single cord of our bind together.

We lived by similar moral spectrum's, we confided certain short comings, we ate, we drank, we loved, we wept, we were human. Imperfect but quick to anger, compassionate but impatient, loving but selfish..all at once.

You by now, should be asking yourself: what is this guy talking about?

Good, I hope I've clinched your interest. I'm 23 yrs old, I'm father of a child born out of wedlock, I'm step-father to another child born out of the sanctity of marriage, and a man who's fornicated repeatedly with their mother. I'm in to all kinds of different things, obviously Christianity, but also: movies, music, brandy, UFC, legalization(420), BF:3, MW:3, the same stuff a lot of you are in to.

And guess what, I'm not trippin on any one else... I believe being a homosexual is wrong, I believe in sin, I do not support abortion, I believe in one God; the God of the Bible; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What does any of that have to do with you(if your a non-believer)?

I have a very short list of Christian friends - my fianc��... My immediate family are all Christians, but my cousins, and other relatives, not so much. Do I hate them? of course not.. I see them all the time, we always hang out, get a little tipsy, and laugh about other times, we hung out and got tipsy!! lol My family and I are kind to most people.. we aren't perfect, so if you show up actin a fool, don't expect a hug.

I'm a Christian, and there are many out there like me. I am a sinner, and I cannot help it.. I sin from the minute I wake up, to the minute I fall asleep. I deserve no place, but hell, and I believe it's a place we ALL deserve! I believe only Christ lived a perfect life, and faith in him, will grant you the same. So, if I've been forgiven a life of sin, undeserved, and completely unwanted; who am I to treat someone else like ISH for their short comings?

I didn't want to believe this, and I still don't. I hate the Law of God, I hate that I feel bad for things I do.. I hate that God is sovereign and is the King of Kings.. I wish I was God. I wish I could make up my own rules and do what ever the EFF I want to do without feeling like ISH for it. I don't want to believe.. But I have to, because he is real, and he is sovereign, and because there isn't a single person that can explain life to me, without sounding like a brat, who wants to eat his ice cream before dinner, or even comes close to the solid truth that there is one true God, he doesn't EFF around, and wether or not you want to believe he will be back when he's good & ready we'll all be subject to his wrath.

I save my reasons for Non-believers being intolerant for round 3


Although I understand Pro's initial surprise at me being a Christian and taking the Con side of this debate, I hope it becomes clear why I accepted this debate.

I am a Christian, I believe Christians are right in their belief, etc. However, I do realize that for Christians it is easy to have certain pitfalls.

All people have their own pitfall, many times based on their beliefs or their personality. One person might have a pitfall of easily falling to anger. Another person might find it easy to be extremely selfish and care only about him/herself. That is why Christians have their own pitfalls that some other people don't have.

Now, Pro has not yet even started to argue his side, a practical equivalent to a forfeit. Yes, he talked about himself and his life and all that, but there has been no argumentation. I believe this to be the equivalent to a forfeit. Debates are supposed to be argument from the start to finish, not talking about your personal life as passing that off as a "debate".

I trust that a true debate will begin in Round 3.

Now, here is why Christians are often more intolerant than others: They have a strong conviction that they are right, and that others should be saved.

Christians are somewhat unique from, especially, atheists, because they believe in a certain doctrine and they believe that others should join them in their faith, that we should convert others. I agree that we should as Christians try to teach others and help them along to be saved as well.

However, we need to be careful. It's extremely hard to keep a healthy balance between teaching/mentoring in the faith and feeling intolerant or disdainful towards other beliefs.

It's easy as a Christian to wonder why a person would ever believe there's no God, and it's easy to feel negative towards that person. They believe, I believe, that if that person isn't converted, he's going to hell. Thus we feel a sense of urgency to convert that person.

Compare this to atheists. They don't believe there's a God, they believe nothing happens when we die. Thus there's no urgency. They don't have an urgency to go out and warn people that in fact they're safe. There's no such thing as a "warning that you're safe".

Take for example, a coal mine. Three men believe that the mine is going to collapse, and they urgently spread the word to everyone else. They want to save everyone's lives, they're urgent. Then take for example two other men who decide that based on all observation of facts, the coal mine will not collapse.

They'll obviously tell people to not worry about the collapse, but they lack urgency. There's nothing necessarily harmful with believing the coal mine will collapse, so there's no need to rush around and shout out that they're safe indeed.

It is because of this that Christians find it easier to be intolerant. Many grow up in a sheltered environment (although not all, in the example of Pro which I sympathize with), and when they encounter a different worldview it's a slap in the face. They don't understand, they don't try to understand why that person believes as such.

An atheist has no reason to really hate religion unless it directly affects him and thus is often more tolerant and open.

The second reason why Christians tend not to be as tolerant is that some even believe it's wrong to be tolerant. (1)

There's a controversy in the issue, so some Christians are intolerant because they actually believe it's wrong to be tolerant.

In Summary

I thank Pro for the interesting debate topic, and I hope that Round 3 will not be a practical forfeit.


Debate Round No. 2


I hope that some of our audience saw the point of my first round remarks. I agree, not much argument, and much more description.

I'm glad that was recognized; my first objective was to clear the air of any reason within my life to be intolerant, based on the reasons most people say, a Christian would be.

Now my opponent claims that my first round was a forfeit, but with all that I said, as a true Christian and true believer, he was left with nothing but reasons WHY a Christian MIGHT be intolerant.

I believe a brief definition's in order
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

Like I mentioned before, if everyone agrees - there is no tolerance or intolerance because there is no difference. A Christian is to be caring, compassionate, and generous. Are we? not even to the slightest degree we were instructed to be. Most Christians know this, and wouldn't even try to condemn a person based on their actions or beliefs, that is not our place and the funny thing is most of us wouldn't even be recognized as Christians. Why? because the true intolerant have painted a a very detailed, and untruthful image of us.

At last, whom are these intolerant?
Which channel can I watch, where a Christian view is mentioned, and isn't mocked or humiliated?

Can I even watch Football? Nope, though he pulled through very cleanly, Tebow was hated on by as many people as could be!
How about sitcoms? big bang theory, Family Guy, American Dad, South Park, nearly all of Comedy Central, HBO, Showtime.. Who doesn't mock our beliefs and call us idiots or cavemen?
Where is the tolerance for our views in movies like Easy A (Though its a funny flick) who straight out mocks teen Christians everywhere for there beliefs, what a sick twisted image is portrayed of them?! Very similar to the movie Paul (once again funny @$$ flick) where we are mocked yet again, as simple minded fools. Really, Jesus blowing Darwin's brains out for his blasphemous theories?? Talk about ignorant and intoleranct aye?

These are just the obvious, and most viewed displays of intolerance. What about the things you don't see on TV for millions to view?

Simply read the first comments posted on this debate!

To conclude, you don't have to look hard to find intolerance on behalf of the Non-believers, its put out in the openfor everyone to see without any regard for explanation or consideration for the views they slander. I do not believe and don't wish to persuade people to believe, that all Non-believers are intolerant or that all Christians are tolerant, but to make it easy to see, that it is obvious, more Non-believers are intolerant than Christians.

Thank you, and I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.


Pro has opened his argument by saying that tolerance and intolerance are the same. Or at least it read that way. If that's his position, then why are we having this debate? He clearly contradicts it later in his argument.

I will move on to respond to Pro's statements and then reinforce my own, which he did not attack.

Pro basically brought up several examples of intolerant people or TV channels. That's great, but he's only scraped the surface. If he is to prove his own side of the resolution he must actually prove that Christians are usually more tolerant than non-believers. He's only mentioned some anti-Christian examples, but it goes farther than that.

Realize that there are many religions and views, not just Christianity. Pro is trying to say Non-Believers are often hostile towards Christians, and I actually agree. Out of all the religions non-believers like to pick it, Christianity is at the forefront.

But the resolution doesn't say: "Who is more tolerant toward eachother: Christians or non-believers." It says "Who is more tolerant: Christians or non-believers". Thus we have to look at the bigger picture, not just at atheists' reaction to Christianity.

Christians are only 33% of all religions. (1) Atheists are often more tolerant towards other religions because they feel less threatened by them. Christians are more "in-their-face", a "threat" to their life style. Other religions don't pose such a threat.

Thus, I have responded to Pro's analysis of examples of intolerance, but I would like to mention another reason why atheists are more tolerant: Postmodernism.

Postmodernism is basically the belief that there is no absolute truth. Postmodernists don't mind being told someone's belief, and they often encourage that person to continue in his/her belief, because "everyone has their own truth". Although I disagree with postmodernists, obviously, they are quite tolerant to any other belief.

Christians are never postmodernists because Christians believe in the absolute truth of Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross.

Thus, atheists are a lot more likely to be tolerant than Christians, period.

Now also remember that Pro hasn't responded to my contentions, the fact that Christians have more reason to be intolerant. Pro only mentioned it. I would argue that my contention is the stronger of the two because it is a more sweeping statement that applies to most Christians, and I've shown how atheists are a lot more tolerant to religion, even if not to Christianity specifically.

Pro has only given a scratch on the surface: simple examples that don't prove anything.

For this reason, I urge you to vote Con. Thank you for your time.


Debate Round No. 3


I'll begin this last round with the definition of tolerance once again:

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

In no way did I even remotely claim that there is no difference between tolerance and intolerance; allow me to reiterate - if there is no disagreement, there cannot be be tolerance nor intolerance, because by deffinition(above), tolerance can only be present in the case of a difference in opinion or practice.

My opponent once again only describes the difference in belief systems, and not a single proof of intolerance on behalf of the Christian person.

As we see in the deffinition of the word tolerance; a fair, objective, and permissive attitude, is what we must base wether or not tolerance is being practiced. Simply stating the difference in opinion is not a proof of intolerance.

It is well known, for the most part, that Christians believe in absolute truth and many non-believers do not. What the debate is about, however, is do the Christians respond to the Non-believers views more tolerantly. The entire argument(if it can be called that) set forth by my opponent, has in no way even begun to show an example of intolerance in the Christian but instead lists the difference in beliefs, and how they are different.

I hope you can recognize the significance of my examples as they are valid, and not just the surface of the intolerance portrayed by Non-believers. I see it as the begining of propaganda, I'm not sure if you ever seen the things that were integrated into Nazi Germany's society the years leading up to WW2 and the holocaust.

My opponent wished to split hairs by pointing out this is not a debate of who's more tolerant toward each other, but who is more tolerant. Need I really discerne the gray area or difference between either?

Christians come in many forms, and as such, only a small few are the intolerant and, in my opinion, hardly worth being called Christian. The only example in history, of intolerance on behalf of a so called Christian society, has been long extinct, and replaced very slyly with secular intolerance. Once the heratics could no longer use the power of the word, they transitioned back to there true beliefs, and use their abuse of the faith, as an example of Christian intolerance. It's a very cunning tactic, and obviously, has been effective for secular advancement.

Now, without such dispicable acts, where is the intolerance of Christians in todays society? Where's our public or national displays of intolerance? I can only think of one misunderstood intolerance; Gay marriage. I would have to disregard the notion, being as we were asked to vote, and we voted based on what we believe, how could anyone be so intolerant as to expect us to forfeit our right to do at least that?

Another flaw within my opponents argument, is that our beliefs are threatening to a Non-beliver. I can in know way see this being true; since they do not believe in anything we do, how could they feel threatened? If i mention the boogey man is going to come out of there closet and eat them in the middle of the night, will they really feel threatened? maybe in a "what a f**kn psycho" kind of way, but not in the slightest bit portaining to the way they believe or live their lives.

The only people who would feel so threatened, in my oppinion, are those who do not feel very strongly about what they believe.

I would see absolutly no reason not to be offended, or feel threatened on the other hand; if someone was in there face, mocking there beliefs, or purposely insulting a key factor to their reason for believing. However it is rare that a Christian would ever do those things, and as my experiences go, many Non-believers love to take that role upon themselves.

The statement that if you believe in absolute truth, you won't be tolerant, is rediculous! It seems my opponent continually forgets what tolerance is.

I will not at all try to convince you that every Christian is tolerant, that would be a complete lie, and you all know this; neither am I affirming that all Non-believers are intolerant. I believe it is true, and should be evident, the you will much more likely find intolerance among the Non-believers than the modern Christian.

Finally, if you have a firm grasp on what tolerance is, and truly understand its meaning and purpose, you will see, based on our arugment here and based on the examples of intolerance Non-believers openly display, that Christians are infact the more tolerant,and that you actually have to forcibly ignore the proof of intolerance on the non-believers behalf, and search in the deepest corners to find it on behalf of the Christians.

I understand that I am severly outnumbered on this subject because I have a pro-christian position, and because of that, i do not expact to win this debate, however i do hope that you can recognize the issue in its proper context, for tolerance in its deffinition, and vote PRO!

Thank you


I thank Pro for his timely response.

I accept his definition of tolerance.

Throughout my argument, I will be using ">>>" To quote Pro, so that everything is more clear.

>>> "In no way did I even remotely claim that there is no difference between tolerance and intolerance"

I see now, the sentence structure was odd, so I derived the wrong conclusion. This does not affect the debate in any way though.

>>> "My opponent once again only describes the difference in belief systems, and not a single proof of intolerance on behalf of the Christian person."

This is most certainly not true. I described the difference between what people believe, but I also explained why that makes it easier for Christians to be intolerant.

Now, regarding the definition of tolerance, it says "A fair, objective, and permissive attitude". That means whenever a Christian tries too hard to evangelize and force it upon another person, he is not have a permissive attitude. Half the Christians that evangelize fall into this. I know I can easily slip into intolerance in such a manner.

A second point under this is the word "Objective". Many times Christians hear a new worldview, go to their Bible, and don't even pause to look at the context of verses. They ignore any and all logic behind the opponent's argument "because the Bible says this!" Now, as a Christian I believe the Bible to be truth, but I also am aware that it requires context. You can't just jump into a verse without looking at any mitigating context it may have. Christians who do this are often not Objective.

Meanwhile, atheists, when they look at Christian believes, try very logically and objectively to disprove us. I believe they fail at doing it, but that's what they attempt. Christians don't "objectively" try to disprove atheists very often, usually they just read a verse from the Bible.

Thus, we've already seen that, based on this definition, Christians are simply more prone to being intolerant. That is a sad thing, but a truth.

>>> Nazi Germany example

I'll respond with my own example. It's from the same comment that Pro said was an example of intolerance. However, pointing out a flaw in someone's argument is not intolerance, if it's objective and fair.

"Christians - deny evolution True, but not an example of intolerance. It's simply disagreement
Christians - Killed galileo Was not aware of this, and am not sure if it was true. Depending on the motive, this could be intolerance.
Christians - killed people who were not in their same belief To a certain point, it's true historically. There was a time that Christians were on their Crusades, killing others because they weren't Christian. Muslims did this too, but Muslims are not the only unbelievers. "

Also, on the topic of Galileo, the catholic church threatened to torture him if he didn't recant his theory of astronomy. (1)

I could bring up a lot of examples of intolerance, but the reality is that you see it every day and I've already shown you logically that Christians are a lot more prone to it.

>>> "My opponent wished to split hairs by pointing out this is not a debate of who's more tolerant toward each other"

This is not splitting hairs, this is actually very important to the debate.

Under one resolution, we're only talking about Atheist tolerance towards Christians, and Christian tolerance toward Atheists. Under the other, we're talking about All non-Christians' tolerance to any other belief, and Christians' tolerance to any other belief.

>>> Heritics changing religions and saying Christians were intolerant in the past

Pro just claimed that all the people that did the crusades and such were not Christian and were just acting like they were, then they changed religions just so they could blame it on Christians and slip away. This was simply a wild assertion with no evidence or anything.

It's time for a definition here.

Christian: "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." (2)

These people professed belief in Jesus as Christ. They were Christians.

>>> Resistance to gay marriage is not intolerance

I agree, Christians have their reasons for not believing in gay marriage (although some do believe in it), and it's not intolerance. But once again Christians still slip into intolerance so often. It's no longer manifested in Crusades that kill thousands of people, of course, but they are still intolerant.

>>> "Another flaw within my opponents argument, is that our beliefs are threatening to a Non-Believer"

I don't recall making that assertion at all. In fact, Pro just SUPPORTED my position. Christian beliefs are not threatening to a Non-Believer, it doesn't mean anything to them especially since many of them are post-modernists. They don't care if you believe in this or that.

Pro just supported the argument that Non-Believers don't have much of a reason to be intolerant. He's practically conceding the whole debate.

>>> "The statement that if you believe in absolute truth, you won't be tolerant, is rediculous [sic]"

I agree that statement is ridiculous. The problem is, I never made that statement. I said that if you believe in absolute truth, it's a lot easier to be intolerant. When you are a post-modernist, you're a lot more likely to be tolerant.

Pro hasn't refuted this statement, and thus this flows Con. Even if you buy all of Pro's argumentation, this point already takes out all of his, because he merely states examples and doesn't give reasons why Christians are naturally more tolerant.

>>> "I understand that I am severly [sic] outnumbered on this subject because I have a pro-christian position"

First I want to point out that I am not trying to bash Christianity although it may sound like I am. I'm just admitting one of the pitfalls of Christianity. As I said before, everyone has their special pitfalls. Christians have the pitfall of tending to be intolerant. Most aren't violently so, but they are intolerant. WE are intolerant. I'm not excluding myself. In my personal experience I've had times where I realize I'm being intolerant and have to stop and think.

Second, this quote from Pro brings up the important point that as a voter, it would be very much appreciated if you put aside your personal opinion when voting. As you can see, you can vote on who you agree with before and after the debate. This gives no point to either side, because what you yourself believe is irrelevant to the debate. However, when voting on the better argument, it is completely based on our argumentation and not your personal belief.

Thank you very much for reading this debate and voting, though!

I've clearly shown that Christians are prone to intolerance because 1) They don't have a postmodernistic view (thank God for that) and 2) They feel an urgency to save others by conversion, and thus have an easier time being intolerant.

Once again thank you for reading and voting, and I urge you to vote Con because of the sad reality that Christians are more intolerant than Non-Believers.


Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Zealous1 4 years ago
Indeed. I liked the topic quite a bit.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
Of course Christians are less tolerant. The debate lies in if that's a good thing.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
this is gonna be interesting
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
historically that is
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Doulos: Its true
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
super ignorant statement by 16kadams
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
I assume that Pro is affirming, "Christians are more tolerant than non-believers." Right? And "non-believers" means "atheists" right? It could mean non-Christians.

The debate will be more interesting if it's about the present-day world.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Christians- deny evolution
Christians- killed Galileo
Christians- Killed people who where not in their same belief.

Yeah their tolerant...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I found Pro's personalized debating style ineffective as it failed to touch on Con's points until very late. Even then, Pro's case was essentially a compilation of examples of intolerance with little explanation as to why such intolerance is specific to non-believers. Con, on the other hand, explained how the actual ideological differences between the two groups will likely lead to widespread and consistent examples of intolerance, to some degree, by believers. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: At the end of the day, Zealous' arguments were succint, the point was obvious, and his arguments were sound. Paradox's arguments never seemed to take off, and had a serious problem of stating the unnecessary, which limited his argument a lot.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G- pro made the little mistakes "here to" should be "hear too" and so on. Args- Since it is difficult to quantify intolerance, I have to look at the analysis provided and con gave more compelling reasons why a "Non-believer" would be inclined to be tolerant. I liked the urgency analysis, which wasn't addressed specifically. That's a lot stronger than the analysis from pro that says essentially Christians should be good. Feel free to PM me or comment with questions