Towards Religious Tolerance (1 Viewer)

[Cookie182]

I am sir!

Documents exist proving this to be the case

Good sir,

Thou shall not bear false witness!

 

[Iron]

Lol this thread is just a personal, patronising joke for you. The size of it is that 'secular humanists' should 'tolerate' religion as they tolerate stupid little perpetual toddlers.
Youre trying to rise above the God debate and it's so not working - nay it cant!

 

[Silver Persian]

Lol this thread is just a personal, patronising joke for you. The size of it is that 'secular humanists' should 'tolerate' religion as they tolerate stupid little perpetual toddlers.
Youre trying to rise above the God debate and it's so not working - nay it cant!

Isn't it always patronising when someone tells you that you're wrong? Aren't you patronising secular humanists right now?

 

[zazzy1234]

i believe in ma religon, whether people want to tolarate it, critisize it or anything i don't care coz i don't think it is to any1 business as to whether countries should tolarate religons i believe it's a personal belief and that it's wronfg to judge someone r something due to the religon.

that's allllllllllll. i know that this doesn't make sense. but i know wat i mean.



sori if this doesn't relate but just expressing ma opinion. =p

 

[John Galt]

Make negative individual freedom the defining characteristic of the state

That is a logical impossibility. A state defined by negative individual freedom would legislate against its own existence.

 

[John Galt]

How?

That's my point.

 

[Iron]

Isn't it always patronising when someone tells you that you're wrong? Aren't you patronising secular humanists right now?

Only a little

 

[Cookie182]

Lol this thread is just a personal, patronising joke for you. The size of it is that 'secular humanists' should 'tolerate' religion as they tolerate stupid little perpetual toddlers.
Youre trying to rise above the God debate and it's so not working - nay it cant!

Your of course entitled to draw conclusions about my intentions.

But I am actually deadly serious on "trying" to be tolerant- I just got to a point where instantly feeling the need to clash with someone on theology becomes frivolous and depressing. It generally just leads to bitter, upset people and me feeling like a deuschebag. We all believe what we believe, personally I think that I can almost logic away any of the 'truth' in revealed religions but remain philosophically agnostic on the "does god exist" question. In a proper academic realm, this is a needed and skilful debate. Engaging with friends at uni and people on the street, it would only be ego bedding to try and shove it down people's throats. I very much think the same for the theists (problems arise for people though who’s beliefs require evangelism, i.e. the Jehovah’s Witness. Should they expect any tolerance when they are at your door attempting to impose their belief set on you?)

So yes, it's not about "respecting" people's belief, that is impossible if you think they are wrong (respect connotes positivism) but tolerance is at the very minimum seeing something positive about their right to belief and draw any conclusions they want about the nature of reality and enjoying the plurality, which if we lacked would lead to an ideologically stagnant society.

 

[ad infinitum]

What we need is a conversational intolerance. People can believe whatever they want, however they should be made to express their beliefs (i.e in a job interview). No one ever 'disproved' the existence of Zeus; it simply became to embarrassing for those to hold this belief in public; I.e if you at a job interview you said "I am a witch, or I believe in Zeus" you have a conversational pressure to justify your beliefs, or otherwise risk not getting the job.

Take 'Uncle' for example; it's not illegal for him to profess his devotion to Hitler and Nazism, however when he did so (by plastering swastikas and hate speak over the forums) the community applied a pressure to him to either justify or remove these images, and he then did so remove those foul images.

 

[SashatheMan]

The best model for a religiously tolerent society is a secular society. Isn't that why the fathers of the American constitution put in separation of shurch and state into their document? The first Americans were fleeing the persecution by the Catholic church, and wanted freedom to worship the way they wanted.
When ever someone tells me that the country should adopt more Christian laws to make it a better society, i feel like asking which Christian laws? The ones that the Catholics adhere to, or the ones that the protestants do, or JW's? A secular society protects all faiths and lack there of.

 

[MetroMattums]

In a harmonious world, humans don't exist.

 

[Sprangler]

In a harmonious world, humans don't exist.

Well yes sir, the only real solution to solve any sort of conflict is to nuke fucking everything, but we have to work with what we have. Religions are here to stay so we as humans have to work as hard as we can to get people with different beliefs living together.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Well yes sir, the only real solution to solve any sort of conflict is to nuke fucking everything, but we have to work with what we have. Religions are here to stay so we as humans have to work as hard as we can to get people with different beliefs living together.

Exactly.

 

[Iheartgays]

Exactly.

You claim to be propeace yet you advocate 'nuke fucking everything.' I won't even bother pointing out the obvious flaws in your ideology.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Well yes sir, the only real solution to solve any sort of conflict is to nuke fucking everything, but we have to work with what we have. Religions are here to stay so we as humans have to work as hard as we can to get people with different beliefs living together.

Um...you evidently ignored the remainder of the post.

 

[epic man]

Exactly.

What happened to equality for all?

 

[Iheartgays]

Um...you evidently ignored the remainder of the post.

Your fault for not specifying. Do you think its possible for people with different beliefs (as there are in Australia) to live together peacefully?

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Not entirely, complete peace is ideological, however, I still think it is something we should strive towards as much as we can.

 

[Iheartgays]

Not entirely, complete peace is ideological, however, I still think it is something we should strive towards as much as we can.

Some of the greatest advancements in society have been made during wartime. A state of peace would bring stagnation. Not to mention the overpopulation issues.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Which advancements?