Religious Tolerance
- Thread starter T'ai Chi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- religious tolerance
I like that site, I've referenced it a few times.
Their message boards are crap, but I'm glad to see that those people there have a sense of humor.
Read this post for a chuckle or two.
Their message boards are crap, but I'm glad to see that those people there have a sense of humor.
Read this post for a chuckle or two.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
I used to think religious tolerance was a good thing. However the more evil I see commited in the name of religion and the more history I study the less tolerant of religion (in general, not any particular one) I become.
Nobody does anything in the name of money: the word you were looking for was "greed." However, your stupid little sillygism would be revealed for how stupid it is if you replaced the word money with the word greed.LuxFerum said:
Do you normally say things this stupid? If so, why aren't you on my ignore list?
Yes, because the price of intolerance is far greater.Tony said:
Of course, it depends on what you mean by tolerate. I don't think we can ever make religion illegal (and I am sure both you and N agree). On the other hand, challenging religious claims whenever they are brought up could be considered intolerant, and I agree that we should do that.
Religion should be allowed, but it should not be given a free pass. Homosexuality, on the other hand, should be given a free pass - somebody who says they are gay should recieve no special comment. That's often described as tolerating homosexuality, so, in that sense of the word tolerate, I agree that relgion should not be tolerated. If three people are having a conversation, and one of them says, "I am gay," and another one of them says, "I am delusional," the one who should get an argument is the delusional one.
Tony said:
Read the site.
I'd personally say because of the informal 'Golden Rule'. If you don't tolerate others, they won't tolerate you.
If you start a war, others will respond accordingly.
If you want atheism to be tolerated, you must yourself be tolerant of religions.
komencanto
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 168
T'ai Chi said:
I doubt that will work. I don´t think we should force people not to be religious, but hell, we shouldn´t just let them be. I guess I´m semi-tolerant. I think we should allow it becuase the cost of not allowing it is just a huge fight. Hopefully the march of education will help stem religion in the future.
Personally, I think it´s very important that we reserve the right of individuals to be stupid in their own home. However, our children have to be protected from it, thats one reason that religion and school should be kept seperate.
As long as facts have no place in religion, religion has no place in schools =D
It's a good site, but when I saw how hands-off they are on the controversies surrounding Scientology, claiming there seems to be evidence for both sides, I lost a little respect. Wonder what other destructive cults they might sugar coat in the name of tollerance?
still, very usefull to answer some questions.
still, very usefull to answer some questions.
I guess there is some room between "I don't have to slaughter all Christians" and "We are all partly right" (that is, between tolerance and relativism). I try to tolerate religious people, but I nevertheless think they have wrong theories, and occasionally, I tell them so.
Being gay, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be some sort of theory. So I don't see why I should (or could) argue with any gay people how their sexual flavour is wrong.
Being gay, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be some sort of theory. So I don't see why I should (or could) argue with any gay people how their sexual flavour is wrong.
Do you realize you make no sense at all? Perhaps you should double-check your medication schedule.LuxFerum said:however, if you hate something for some crimes, you should hate other things that have some crimes too.
Like sexual crimes, does anyone here hate sex?
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Yahzi said:
I will agree that no one should make it illegal, for a variety of reasons both practical and philosphical. However I can see it being relegated to the category of being nothing more than some quaint custom that people used to beleive in but do not put any stock in anymore. I don't think I will see it in my lifetime, but it is a goal to work toward nonetheless.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Richard Dawkins is far more eloquent than I am and sums up my feelings on "Religious Tolerance" far more beautifully than I could ever hope to do.
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.htm
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.htm
That is what you do when some arguments make you unconfortable? Ignore it and try to ridiculize me instead of my argument?That remind me some religious discussion that I used to have.Yahzi said:
If it is so stupid, you could show me where the flaw is, because I'm still not able to spot it.
And if you still don't get it, I'm not a religious dude, it is just the argument "A exist, someone that belongs to A made some crimes, therefore A is completely bad and evil" that botters me.
What the hell you mean with that?
"ignore him, he is stupid"
Dawkins said this, which I agree with:
(I bolded)
ie, it is about politics, not religion itself.
Yet he writes articles about Religion's Misguided Missles, etc.
So are people justified in killing if no religion is involved in any way?
He said that humans have a tendency to fashion labels on people. Yes, but that applies to non-religious terms equally as well (Bright, fascist, feminist, vegetarian, Communist, woo-woo, etc.), showing that religion isn't to blame but to agressive human nature and mainly politics. Everyone, including 'rational' atheists/brights/freethinkers/whatever want to get their way, and labels (the meme thing, remember?) can help do that.
Of course, in most of Dawkins writings, I feel he completely passes over the good religion does and the good the religious have done, which presents an incredibly one-sided subjective view.
I do enjoy his more scientific writings a lot though.
(I bolded)
ie, it is about politics, not religion itself.
Yet he writes articles about Religion's Misguided Missles, etc.
So are people justified in killing if no religion is involved in any way?
He said that humans have a tendency to fashion labels on people. Yes, but that applies to non-religious terms equally as well (Bright, fascist, feminist, vegetarian, Communist, woo-woo, etc.), showing that religion isn't to blame but to agressive human nature and mainly politics. Everyone, including 'rational' atheists/brights/freethinkers/whatever want to get their way, and labels (the meme thing, remember?) can help do that.
Of course, in most of Dawkins writings, I feel he completely passes over the good religion does and the good the religious have done, which presents an incredibly one-sided subjective view.
I do enjoy his more scientific writings a lot though.
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
T'ai Chi said:Dawkins said this, which I agree with:
(I bolded)
ie, it is about politics, not religion itself.
Yet he writes articles about Religion's Misguided Missles, etc.
So are people justified in killing if no religion is involved in any way?
He said that humans have a tendency to fashion labels on people. Yes, but that applies to non-religious terms equally as well (Bright, fascist, feminist, vegetarian, Communist, woo-woo, etc.), showing that religion isn't to blame but to agressive human nature and mainly politics. Everyone, including 'rational' atheists/brights/freethinkers/whatever want to get their way, and labels (the meme thing, remember?) can help do that.
Of course, in most of Dawkins writings, I feel he completely passes over the good religion does and the good the religious have done, which presents an incredibly one-sided subjective view.
I do enjoy his more scientific writings a lot though.
His point, which I very much agree with, is that religion is a very powerful tool for encouraging people to commit horrible things. The misguided missles comment, for example refers to another essay in which he points out that without a belief in an afterlife, it would be very difficult to get people to fly jetliners into skyscrapers.
Sure, religion may have done some good, that is one of the many reasons I would never advocate banning it. However I don't think that it is worth the cost in human suffering and I would like to do everything in my power to make people see that fact and give up religion on their own.
