Religious tolerance is often a contradiction in terms.
It seems the more religious a person is, the more intolerant they are of those who believe differently.
That's one nice thing about not being religious; I can accept people of any belief system with ease - I won't necessarily adopt their beliefs, but I have no problems accepting them. In fact I don't 'tolerate' people who believe differently. If you 'tolerate' something you are enduring the existence of something distasteful. I don't tolerate people with different beliefs, I accept them as the beautiful human beings that they are.
I think a lot of people are really missing the OP's point. It was not to assert that Christians are correct, or that atheists are correct. It was merely to point out that at least n-1 groups are wrong. "Religious tolerance" is nothing more than tolerance of ignorance. It's one thing if I state, "my favorite color is red." Even if you prefer blue, those preferences are inherently subjective, so tolerance is perfectly reasonable. In this context though, we aren't making subjective statements. "God exists," is either correct or incorrect. Similarly, if someone were to state that, "two plus two equals five," would we tolerate that? Of course not, or at least we shouldn't.
I agree with Cyan that Christians have a strong obligation to evangelize. Similarly, atheists have an obligation to defend their position. Granted, we live in the real world and this single conversation can't take up 100% of our lives. But when it's not, I wouldn't call that "tolerance". Perhaps "co-existing" is a better word. And perhaps everything I've said boils down to a pointless semantic argument, however, if the opposite of "intolerant" is "intellectual dishonesty" then I'm the most intolerant person ever.
I agree with Cyan that Christians have a strong obligation to evangelize. Similarly, atheists have an obligation to defend their position.
I would disagree that atheists have an obligation to defend themselves. Many are "closeted" and don't feel comfortable making the claim of being so in a public setting or conversation. Yes, both sides have their shouty crackpots, but I think most atheists are very happy letting people believe what they believe providing they don't try to push their group's agenda on unwilling participants.
Can we just accept that religious zealotry and atheist zealotry both lead to horrible, genocidal leaders and events.
The Crusades, the biblical extermination of the offspring of Cain, the actions of Mao and stalin all have one thing in common:
The use the masses zeal in a religious belief (read: view on god or opinion of god's existence, not view that there is a god) to accomplish atrocities. Zealotry in any form is generally bad.
I guess OP wants it to be 'keyworded' like "dies" was. What word would you replace ETB with though?
When Aegis Angel is born?
When Huntmaster of the Fells arrives?
When Kitchen Sphinx lands?
When Faerie Imposter busts in?
When Dread Cacodemon pops in?
When Malfegor shows up?
I really object to people who are all 'tolerant' of other people's beliefs. It's like they've decided "hey, it doesn't even remotely matter what the truth is, the only thing that matters is that we respect all opinions equally." They've invented this moral high ground where there isn't any, based on not taking a side (or at least, not voicing it).
You don't get what "religious tolerance" means, do you?
It's NOT that it doesn't remotely matter what the truth is. That's the whole point. If we didn't care one way or the other, then it wouldn't be an issue of tolerance.
Religious tolerance is understanding that there are people who will disagree with you religiously and accepting them as people regardless of this disagreement.
I would disagree that atheists have an obligation to defend themselves. Many are "closeted" and don't feel comfortable making the claim of being so in a public setting or conversation. Yes, both sides have their shouty crackpots, but I think most atheists are very happy letting people believe what they believe providing they don't try to push their group's agenda on unwilling participants.
That's the hilariously unfortunate thing though...When theists aren't pushing their beliefs, they're doing it wrong. Not to worry though, because they're pushing pretty hard. Granted, it isn't always a literal in your face dialogue, however, they are fighting pretty hard to suppress science and civil rights.
So yes, I agree that atheists are acting perfectly reasonable by letting people believe what they want assuming the other side isn't pushing either. That isn't reality though.
Religious tolerance is understanding that there are people who will disagree with you religiously and accepting them as people regardless of this disagreement.
Accepting them as people? What does that mean? Do we acknowledge them as human beings? Well obviously. Do we coexist with them in society? Not sure what choice we have. Do we sit by allowing their misinformed beliefs to continue to cause harm to people? I'm baffled by anyone who would answer yes to that.
Can we just accept that religious zealotry and atheist zealotry both lead to horrible, genocidal leaders and events.
No, I can not agree with that. You are going to have to show me where atheism has lead to horrible, genocidal acts. As detailed above, communist doesn't count, as it was not driven by atheistic non-belief in a deity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
No, I can not agree with that. You are going to have to show me where atheism has lead to horrible, genocidal acts. As detailed above, communist doesn't count, as it was not driven by atheistic non-belief in a deity.
No true Scotsman. Communist persecution against religion can easily be traced to its state-sponsored atheist agenda.
No true Scotsman. Communist persecution against religion can easily be traced to its state-sponsored atheist agenda.
"No true Scotsman" as nothing to do with this. Assuming it does shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Russian Communism mandated atheism. I say this because I'm more than willing to accept that Stalin and many others in Russia were atheists in the true sense of the word.
Stalin's atheism is not what drove him to be a totalitarian dictator, and there is no atheistic dogma that uniformly calls for such actions. He either had to embrace and control religion, or he had to eliminate it as a competitor for his "supreme rule". He chose the latter.
What you call "state-sponsored atheist agenda" is a "state enforcement of atheism as required by this form of a totalitarian dictatorship".
I don't think it's possible for "atheist zealotry" to exists. Zealotry requires a belief foundation, and atheism is the LACK of belief. Atheists have a variety of belief structures, but they can NOT be described as "atheistic" outside of the belief that there is no god. For example, I'm a humanist, and I share many moral beliefs that are common among humanists. Humanism is not inherently tied to atheism.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Assuming it does shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Russian Communism mandated atheism.
It's not Russian Communism, it's Communism. In North Korea, in China, in the Soviet Union, etc. Communism in all forms involves state-mandated atheism. Persecution against religious organizations is therefore commonplace. Saying, "Well this isn't REALLY an atheist matter" is No True Scotsman.
Stalin's atheism is not what drove him to be a totalitarian dictator, and there is no atheistic dogma that uniformly calls for such actions.
Again, No True Scotsman. "True atheism doesn't persecute." "These atheists persecute for an atheistic agenda." "But atheism doesn't tell them to, therefore they're not REALLY acting out of atheism."
Doesn't fly here.
Stalin's atheism is not what drove him to be a totalitarian dictator, and there is no atheistic dogma that uniformly calls for such actions. He either had to embrace and control religion, or he had to eliminate it as a competitor for his "supreme rule". He chose the latter.
What you call "state-sponsored atheist agenda" is a "state enforcement of atheism as required by this form of a totalitarian dictatorship".
Which would make sense if Marxism had nothing to do with atheism, as opposed to being an atheistic philosophy that was against religion.
As it stands? Your argument is bull.
I don't think it's possible for "atheist zealotry" to exists.
The truth is that it doesn't really matter if someone happens to believe some particular thing, the universe will go one either way, that's why it's better to be tolerant and not waste your time.
Religious tolerance is perfectly acceptable within a general liberal framework. That is, all beliefs can (and should) be tolerated provided that they do not encourage discrimination based on gender, race, class, or sexuality (any maybe one or two others). Anything that falls outside of that should be roundly rejected, as it does not make sense to tolerate intolerance.
This doesn't mean you have to accept or like these things. Just tolerate them.
You could start by Googling/Wikipedia the Crusades
claiming that the crusades were caused by religion is an incredibly simplistic viewpoint that's completely ignorant of the historical context of the time. it doesn't really speak well for your argument that it's your strongest piece of evidence
Again, No True Scotsman. "True atheism doesn't persecute." "These atheists persecute for an atheistic agenda." "But atheism doesn't tell them to, therefore they're not REALLY acting out of atheism."
It's not that they weren't atheists, it's that you cannot get from a lack of belief in something to any action. Actions people take are informed by what they do believe, not what they don't believe.
For instance, what action have you taken because of your lack of belief in unicorns?
It's not that they weren't atheists, it's that you cannot get from a lack of belief in something to any action.
Yes you can. You simply don't want to accept that you can because it's embarrassing.
But that's the price of intellectual honesty, so suck it up.
For instance, what action have you taken because of your lack of belief in unicorns?
I've not taken any. However, if a group of people get together and start oppressing those who believe in unicorns, I'm not going to argue that this does not stem from their lack of belief in unicorns, because that'd be a blatantly false argument, now wouldn't it?
I'll try one more time to see if I can explain in a way you'll understand.
In order for an action to fall under the premise of "atheistic zealotry" you need to show that said action is being preformed because the people preforming it are atheists, and only because they are atheists. Otherwise you are assuming correlation equals causality.
Can you show me that the persecution of the religion in a communist nation occurred because of atheism an not because of communist dogma? Even if every single communist was an atheists, you would still need to show this.
Which would make sense if Marxism had nothing to do with atheism, as opposed to being an atheistic philosophy that was against religion.
As it stands? Your argument is bull.
You are going to have to do more than that before you say my argument is bull. What you have said is that Marxism and Communism are anti-religion. That does not tie atheism to either idea, because atheism is not inherently anti-religion, or persecutor toward religion. You haven't shown me enough evidence to make the claim.
I think are still assuming atheism is something it isn't.
Yes you can. You simply don't want to accept that you can because it's embarrassing.
Show me, very clearly in words, as I have done.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I can't believe we're still on this Oldaughd. This is disappointing.
Quote from Oldaughd »
I don't think it's possible for "atheist zealotry" to exists.
Of course it does. It's like any other form of zealotry. Have a person who believes something (in this case, that God, gods, or theistic beings of any kind do not exist), and let this belief drive him to unusual levels of passion. You now have a zealot.
Let this person commit violence against the people who believe in viewpoints contrary to his, you now have persecution.
There, that was easy, wasn't it? Almost too easy, as though anyone with the minutest amount of imagination, who wasn't pretending to be dense, would easily be able to conceive of such a thing.
Can you show me that the persecution of the religion in a communist nation occurred because of atheism an not because of communist dogma?
Except Communism is an atheistic philosophy. You're creating a separation that does not exist.
You are going to have to do more than that before you say my argument is bull. What you have said is that Marxism and Communism are anti-religion. That does not tie atheism to either idea,
Marxism espouses atheism. It is the religious stance of Marxism.
To say that Communist persecution against religions somehow does not count as atheist persecution against religions is therefore invalid.
It would be like saying that Islamist extremists did not commit terrorist attacks because they are Islamist. Yes, it is very clearly because they are Islamists that they committed such acts.
Now, does Islam say, "You must send planes into the Twin Towers?" No.
Are there many Islamists that disagreed with the above Islamists' actions? Of course.
But does that mean somehow that the above people aren't Islamists, or were not motivated by their actions because they were Islamists? Of course not.
The connection is obvious. You don't want to accept it because it would be embarrassing to admit that your religious stance is just as prone to people being dicks as every other. To which I say suck it up.
That seems to be ignoring justification of actions. While an islamist or a crusader would justify they were doing 'God's' work, a communist would kill intellectuals, religious folk and such because they are threats to the communist state. Atheism was never a justification nor a motivating factor. It was just the only case where the communists could get the fervour they needed would be to have the state be the absolute higher power, with Gods/whatever being rivals for this power, just as they would remove/kill opposing political movements. The dictatorship/absolute tyrannical power is the justification/motivation, everything else is done to maintain that.
Religious tolerance is perfectly acceptable within a general liberal framework. That is, all beliefs can (and should) be tolerated provided that they do not encourage discrimination based on gender, race, class, or sexuality (any maybe one or two others).
Almost any belief can be opposed on the grounds that it's discriminatory towards another belief (believing any religion is correct can be construed as discriminating against other religions)
Quote from "Tony_H" »
Anything that falls outside of that should be roundly rejected, as it does not make sense to tolerate intolerance.
Just as the idea of fighting intolerance with intolerance is highly ironic and hypocritical.
Quote from "Tony_H" »
This doesn't mean you have to accept or like these things. Just tolerate them.
What's the difference between accepting and tolerating something?
Quote from "mikeg542" »
That seems to be ignoring justification of actions. While an islamist or a crusader would justify they were doing 'God's' work, a communist would kill intellectuals, religious folk and such because they are threats to the communist state. Atheism was never a justification nor a motivating factor. It was just the only case where the communists could get the fervour they needed would be to have the state be the absolute higher power, with Gods/whatever being rivals for this power, just as they would remove/kill opposing political movements. The dictatorship/absolute tyrannical power is the justification/motivation, everything else is done to maintain that.
That's honestly no different for religiously motivated atrocities. Belief one is seen as a threat to belief two, and thus belief two attempts to eradicate the belief one. The thing is, atheism and religion of choice can be put for either belief one or two without contradiction.
Yes you can. You simply don't want to accept that you can because it's embarrassing.
But that's the price of intellectual honesty, so suck it up.
I've not taken any. However, if a group of people get together and start oppressing those who believe in unicorns, I'm not going to argue that this does not stem from their lack of belief in unicorns, because that'd be a blatantly false argument, now wouldn't it?
No, it would be the same issue. Their lack of belief in unicorns isn't what is causing them to take action. Maybe it is their belief that unicorn worship is dangerous or the fact that they don't like unicorn worshipers, but there has to be something because you can't act on a belief you don't have.
That seems to be ignoring justification of actions. While an islamist or a crusader would justify they were doing 'God's' work, a communist would kill intellectuals, religious folk and such because they are threats to the communist state.
And why are they threats to the Communist state? Ideological differences motivated by differences in religious viewpoint, right? So what am I ignoring exactly?
No, it would be the same issue. Their lack of belief in unicorns isn't what is causing them to take action. Maybe it is their belief that unicorn worship is dangerous or the fact that they don't like unicorn worshipers, but there has to be something because you can't act on a belief you don't have.
How do you identify the difference? Why can you say that religious zealots are killing you for disbelief, but atheists were killing because they see you as a threat. Why wouldn't you assume that religious zealots are killing you because they see you as a threat
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
How do you identify the difference? Why can you say that religious zealots are killing you for disbelief, but atheists were killing because they see you as a threat. Why wouldn't you assume that religious zealots are killing you because they see you as a threat
I've not taken any. However, if a group of people get together and start oppressing those who believe in unicorns, I'm not going to argue that this does not stem from their lack of belief in unicorns, because that'd be a blatantly false argument, now wouldn't it?
Of course it wouldn't be a false argument. In order for the oppressors to oppress those who believe differently, they must have some additional belief warranting the oppression.
"I don't believe in unicorns and that guy does" is not enough by itself to motivate any action. You need an additional belief -- something like "believing differently from me is wrong; wrong enough to merit the use of violence or oppression" -- in order to get from mere disagreement to the gulags, inquisitions, and killing fields.
It's this latter belief that creates the danger, whether it is held by an atheist or otherwise.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It seems the more religious a person is, the more intolerant they are of those who believe differently.
That's one nice thing about not being religious; I can accept people of any belief system with ease - I won't necessarily adopt their beliefs, but I have no problems accepting them. In fact I don't 'tolerate' people who believe differently. If you 'tolerate' something you are enduring the existence of something distasteful. I don't tolerate people with different beliefs, I accept them as the beautiful human beings that they are.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
I agree with Cyan that Christians have a strong obligation to evangelize. Similarly, atheists have an obligation to defend their position. Granted, we live in the real world and this single conversation can't take up 100% of our lives. But when it's not, I wouldn't call that "tolerance". Perhaps "co-existing" is a better word. And perhaps everything I've said boils down to a pointless semantic argument, however, if the opposite of "intolerant" is "intellectual dishonesty" then I'm the most intolerant person ever.
I would disagree that atheists have an obligation to defend themselves. Many are "closeted" and don't feel comfortable making the claim of being so in a public setting or conversation. Yes, both sides have their shouty crackpots, but I think most atheists are very happy letting people believe what they believe providing they don't try to push their group's agenda on unwilling participants.
The Crusades, the biblical extermination of the offspring of Cain, the actions of Mao and stalin all have one thing in common:
The use the masses zeal in a religious belief (read: view on god or opinion of god's existence, not view that there is a god) to accomplish atrocities. Zealotry in any form is generally bad.
[joke]just look at starcraft[/joke]
You don't get what "religious tolerance" means, do you?
It's NOT that it doesn't remotely matter what the truth is. That's the whole point. If we didn't care one way or the other, then it wouldn't be an issue of tolerance.
Religious tolerance is understanding that there are people who will disagree with you religiously and accepting them as people regardless of this disagreement.
That's the hilariously unfortunate thing though...When theists aren't pushing their beliefs, they're doing it wrong. Not to worry though, because they're pushing pretty hard. Granted, it isn't always a literal in your face dialogue, however, they are fighting pretty hard to suppress science and civil rights.
So yes, I agree that atheists are acting perfectly reasonable by letting people believe what they want assuming the other side isn't pushing either. That isn't reality though.
Accepting them as people? What does that mean? Do we acknowledge them as human beings? Well obviously. Do we coexist with them in society? Not sure what choice we have. Do we sit by allowing their misinformed beliefs to continue to cause harm to people? I'm baffled by anyone who would answer yes to that.
What then do you consider "tolerance"?
"Not you" would be a good place to start.
No, I can not agree with that. You are going to have to show me where atheism has lead to horrible, genocidal acts. As detailed above, communist doesn't count, as it was not driven by atheistic non-belief in a deity.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
No true Scotsman. Communist persecution against religion can easily be traced to its state-sponsored atheist agenda.
"No true Scotsman" as nothing to do with this. Assuming it does shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why Russian Communism mandated atheism. I say this because I'm more than willing to accept that Stalin and many others in Russia were atheists in the true sense of the word.
Stalin's atheism is not what drove him to be a totalitarian dictator, and there is no atheistic dogma that uniformly calls for such actions. He either had to embrace and control religion, or he had to eliminate it as a competitor for his "supreme rule". He chose the latter.
What you call "state-sponsored atheist agenda" is a "state enforcement of atheism as required by this form of a totalitarian dictatorship".
I don't think it's possible for "atheist zealotry" to exists. Zealotry requires a belief foundation, and atheism is the LACK of belief. Atheists have a variety of belief structures, but they can NOT be described as "atheistic" outside of the belief that there is no god. For example, I'm a humanist, and I share many moral beliefs that are common among humanists. Humanism is not inherently tied to atheism.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
It's not Russian Communism, it's Communism. In North Korea, in China, in the Soviet Union, etc. Communism in all forms involves state-mandated atheism. Persecution against religious organizations is therefore commonplace. Saying, "Well this isn't REALLY an atheist matter" is No True Scotsman.
Again, No True Scotsman. "True atheism doesn't persecute." "These atheists persecute for an atheistic agenda." "But atheism doesn't tell them to, therefore they're not REALLY acting out of atheism."
Doesn't fly here.
Which would make sense if Marxism had nothing to do with atheism, as opposed to being an atheistic philosophy that was against religion.
As it stands? Your argument is bull.
Then you're being intentionally dense.
This doesn't mean you have to accept or like these things. Just tolerate them.
claiming that the crusades were caused by religion is an incredibly simplistic viewpoint that's completely ignorant of the historical context of the time. it doesn't really speak well for your argument that it's your strongest piece of evidence
For instance, what action have you taken because of your lack of belief in unicorns?
Yes you can. You simply don't want to accept that you can because it's embarrassing.
But that's the price of intellectual honesty, so suck it up.
I've not taken any. However, if a group of people get together and start oppressing those who believe in unicorns, I'm not going to argue that this does not stem from their lack of belief in unicorns, because that'd be a blatantly false argument, now wouldn't it?
In order for an action to fall under the premise of "atheistic zealotry" you need to show that said action is being preformed because the people preforming it are atheists, and only because they are atheists. Otherwise you are assuming correlation equals causality.
Can you show me that the persecution of the religion in a communist nation occurred because of atheism an not because of communist dogma? Even if every single communist was an atheists, you would still need to show this.
You are going to have to do more than that before you say my argument is bull. What you have said is that Marxism and Communism are anti-religion. That does not tie atheism to either idea, because atheism is not inherently anti-religion, or persecutor toward religion. You haven't shown me enough evidence to make the claim.
I think are still assuming atheism is something it isn't.
Show me, very clearly in words, as I have done.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Of course it does. It's like any other form of zealotry. Have a person who believes something (in this case, that God, gods, or theistic beings of any kind do not exist), and let this belief drive him to unusual levels of passion. You now have a zealot.
Let this person commit violence against the people who believe in viewpoints contrary to his, you now have persecution.
There, that was easy, wasn't it? Almost too easy, as though anyone with the minutest amount of imagination, who wasn't pretending to be dense, would easily be able to conceive of such a thing.
Except Communism is an atheistic philosophy. You're creating a separation that does not exist.
Marxism espouses atheism. It is the religious stance of Marxism.
To say that Communist persecution against religions somehow does not count as atheist persecution against religions is therefore invalid.
It would be like saying that Islamist extremists did not commit terrorist attacks because they are Islamist. Yes, it is very clearly because they are Islamists that they committed such acts.
Now, does Islam say, "You must send planes into the Twin Towers?" No.
Are there many Islamists that disagreed with the above Islamists' actions? Of course.
But does that mean somehow that the above people aren't Islamists, or were not motivated by their actions because they were Islamists? Of course not.
The connection is obvious. You don't want to accept it because it would be embarrassing to admit that your religious stance is just as prone to people being dicks as every other. To which I say suck it up.
Almost any belief can be opposed on the grounds that it's discriminatory towards another belief (believing any religion is correct can be construed as discriminating against other religions)
Just as the idea of fighting intolerance with intolerance is highly ironic and hypocritical.
What's the difference between accepting and tolerating something?
That's honestly no different for religiously motivated atrocities. Belief one is seen as a threat to belief two, and thus belief two attempts to eradicate the belief one. The thing is, atheism and religion of choice can be put for either belief one or two without contradiction.
And why are they threats to the Communist state? Ideological differences motivated by differences in religious viewpoint, right? So what am I ignoring exactly?
Yes, of course it is.
You act on your atheist beliefs all the time. You're posting here for that very reason.
How do you identify the difference? Why can you say that religious zealots are killing you for disbelief, but atheists were killing because they see you as a threat. Why wouldn't you assume that religious zealots are killing you because they see you as a threat
There is no difference. It's special pleading.
Of course it wouldn't be a false argument. In order for the oppressors to oppress those who believe differently, they must have some additional belief warranting the oppression.
"I don't believe in unicorns and that guy does" is not enough by itself to motivate any action. You need an additional belief -- something like "believing differently from me is wrong; wrong enough to merit the use of violence or oppression" -- in order to get from mere disagreement to the gulags, inquisitions, and killing fields.
It's this latter belief that creates the danger, whether it is held by an atheist or otherwise.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.