Agree or disagree - Religious Tolerance is an worthwhile individual value

[el_bryanto]

By that I mean individual religious tolerance, not political tolerance; i don't think anybody here is advocating imposing legal or political sanctions on religious or non-religious belief.

Also I recognize that Christianity has a pretty bad record on this, as do many other religions. I'm talking about the ideal not reality.

Bryant

7 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Totally Agree
	3 (43%)
	Somewhat Agree
	0 (0%)
	Sometimes / not sure
	0 (0%)
	Somewhat Disagree
	0 (0%)
	Totally Disagree
	1 (14%)
	One thing we can all agree on is that these bullshit polls have to stop!
	2 (29%)
	I like to vote!
	1 (14%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[okasha]

1. It's a worthwhile cultural and social value, too.

For the record, I'm not talking about cases where a religious practice crosses a legal line--human sacrifice, child rape disguised as "marriage," etc.. I'm talking about a force that fosters interpersonal respect and social cohesion beneficial to everyone.

[cbayer]

2. I think it's more than just worthwhile. I think it's critical.

Particularly when it comes to progressive/liberal democrats.

It is a wedge that can be used to divide and conquer us.

We have so much more in common than we have differences, and those that pursue a war against the religious, or another religion or the non-religious do nothing positive to help advance our shared goals.

Intolerance can be seen among the religious and the non-religious, but it's just as bad wherever you find it.

But high levels of tolerance, respect and a willingness to understand can be seen as well.

Promote the good, push back against the bad and ignore those who refuse to even consider change in any way.

I am hopeful that we are seeing positive changes in this area.

Thanks for asking.

[Gothmog]

102. I know a number of good/liberal democrats who are also people of faith

I found a faith that I am comfortable with and I see nothing wrong with faith.

[cbayer]

103. I grew up surrounded by it and have an abiding respect for people of faith

who practice what they preach in terms of social justice, civil liberties and caring for the neediest among us.

All of those things can be practiced without faith, of course, but faith plays an important role in it for many.

I am glad you found what suited you.

[Gothmog]

104. I did some searching

I was born a christian but converted to Judaism a long time ago. I found a place where I am comfortable. What has really pleased me is to see my children thrive in this community of faith.

[cbayer]

105. Did you convert because of a relationship or because it spoke to you?

I'm so glad that you see the benefit to your kids.

Although I am not religious, I am thankful for having been raised in a religious environment. I think it was a critical part of making me who I am in very positive ways.

[Gothmog]

106. Because it spoke to me

It is a long and complicated story but both my ex-wife and I converted at the same time. The Rabbi who taught our conversion/basic Judaism class was a Talmudic scholar (even though she is Reformed) and there was just a fit. For me, Judaism is a very comfortable place from an intellectual point of view.

[cbayer]

107. That's wonderful.

I tried it on, but it didn't fit me.

[bowens43]

3. we should not tolerate the belief in invisible magical Omnipotent beings.

should we pass laws against religion ? No, but we should discourage it.

[cbayer]

5. Discourage it?

How would you propose that be done?

Proselytizing? Evangelizing? Missionaries?

[xfundy]

8. Best way to create an atheist

is to have them actually read the bible.

[cbayer]

10. Do you have any evidence, other than anecdotal, to support that premise.

As I've been told many times just today, unsupported assertions are worthless.

[trotsky]

36. If you think you're allowed to make them,

it would appear to be hypocritical to say the least to then turn around and harass someone else for doing so.

[pinto]

4. I think tolerance is a value to be supported in all our interactions.

[Warpy]

6. Tolerance of the Hindu next door and the Methodist across the street

is a whole different animal from tolerance of the religiously ingrained sexual violence toward little girls in the Warren Jeffs branch of the FLDS.

I might think any person's religion is a bunch of hooey but I will tolerate his or her right to believe it as long as it isn't being used to hurt people.

[el_bryanto]

12. I think in that case are talking more about political tolerance

I don't know that anybody thinks that religious belief should be a valid excuse for breaking the law?

Bryant

[trotsky]

21. Lots of people think that.

LDS polygamists, for instance. Peyote users. Abortion clinic assassins. Suicide bombers. And so on.

Is there a limit to tolerance? Where is the line drawn?

[el_bryanto]

23. I am sorry for my lack of clarity

I meant posters who post here.

In case you are wondering I am probably ok with Peyote use, but opposed to Assassins and Suicide Bombers, and mixed feelings about polygamist laws in general, but generally think those practicing polygamy in that situation are pretty abusive to the women involved.

Bryant

[okasha]

28. The law limits peyote use

to members of the Native American Church. There are three licensed dealers, all in South Texas.

[xfundy]

7. I respect religion until it tries to step on my right to live my life.

Which is just about every day lately.

"Religious tolerance" seems to be a one-way street for many "christians," IE, "you must respect me and my beliefs even as I preach and screech about how God hates you and you deserve to burn in our loving god's hellfire and your life should be hell on earth till then."

[edhopper]

9. tolerance of people

Or ideas?

[skepticscott]

11. Define "religious tolerance"

and be very, very specific. Then and only then can your question be answered. Many religionistas here have a very warped concept of "tolerance". For them, anything that gets their knickers in a wad qualifies as "intolerance", so your precise definition matters.

[rug]

13. It looks like your knickers are already in a wad from a single question.

Why don't you define this

Many religionistas here have a very warped concept of "tolerance".

and be very, very specific

[hrmjustin]

17. .

[el_bryanto]

14. I suppose i mean social tolerance and mutual respect

For example I might disagree with some of the beliefs of a Muslim or a Confucian or Rastafarian, but I wouldn't mock their beliefs.

Bryant

[edhopper]

15. Some beliefs

deserve to be mocked.

[el_bryanto]

16. And you feel it best not to be tolerant of those beliefs? nt

[edhopper]

18. yes

I don't tolerate allowing young girls to die in a fire because someone's God tells them no men can touch them to rescue them. I don't tolerate people whose religion tells them to oppose the rights of Gay people. I don't tolerate people who want to teach creationism in public schools. Should I go on?

[rug]

33. And how exactly do you propose to not tolerate those people?

You've moved very rapidly from mocking beliefs to not tolerating the people themselves.

[edhopper]

41. I was responding to each post

and my language reflected that. There are religious ideas that deserve to be mocked, creationism. And others I don't tolerate, anti-women and anti-Gay attitudes.

[rug]

49. But you did say something abount not tolerating people.

People are not ideas, beliefs or opinions.

[edhopper]

54. There are certainly people I don't tolerate because of their behavior

and there are ideas I don't tolerate.

[rug]

55. And again, how exactly do you not tolerate those people?

[edhopper]

57. I am lost

I don't know what your asking?

I don't tolerate people talking at a movie, I tell them to shut up. How's that?

[rug]

58. How do you not tolerate people at a pro-life march?

Tell them to shut up?

[edhopper]

62. Did I say I don't tolerate them.

I don't accept their belief, but they have the right to march. I vote for politicians that will not pass their agenda.

[rug]

64. Yes.

I don't tolerate people whose religion tells them to oppose the rights of Gay people. I don't tolerate people who want to teach creationism in public schools. Should I go on?

[edhopper]

69. I guess where back to

what is meant by tolerance. There are certainly people who support those things i have no tolerance for. And what one sees as not showing tolerance. I don't think we should tolerate some behavior. Marching is okay, bombing clinics isn't. to give two extremes.

To the larger point, "Religious Tolerance is an worthwhile individual value"

My answer is, it depends.

[Dorian Gray]

77. Those beliefs

that you pointed out here don't deserve to be mocked. They deserve to be fought, vigilantly.

Mocking doesn't do anything but make the mocker feel like he is of superior intellect. And if someone needs to feel superior? Yeah... they're probably not.

Actually fighting harmful indoctrinated religious beliefs, including anything that leads to the abuse of anybody, is important and right.

[edhopper]

78. Those, no, you are right.

others do deserve to be mocked.
As I said John Stewart has shown us that mocking is sometimes the appropriate response.

Do I feel intellectually superior to creationist, young earthers and biblical literalist? yeah I probably am.

[Dorian Gray]

93. I probably do as well

but if I were to speak to someone directly who believes those things, I'd probably listen to why they felt as they do and discuss. I really don't enjoy making others feel bad because of how I speak to them. Though I'm sure I'm guilty at times of being rude and hurtful.

[edhopper]

95. Depends,

speaking to someone who is interested in hear a counter point of view yes. Seeing idiots proclaim some inane religious crap about how bad Gay people are or how science doesn't have any answers or who's going to hell, mocking them may be appropriate.
For people who tell me I am closed minded because I'm pretty certain Bigfoot or alien created crop circles don't exist, mocking isn't out of line.

[Dorian Gray]

96. I hear you.

I don't think we're all that different. I actually don't really know anybody in my personal life who ascribe to the things you've mentioned. At least not vocally. (Who knows what are in people's innermost thoughts?) And if I did, I'd probably reply sarcastically.

[edhopper]

97. I don't have friends like that

but I have encountered them.

[rug]

31. Why?

[edhopper]

42. Because they are ridiculous

this would include new age magical beliefs like The Secret.

[rug]

48. And what exactly do you gain from that?

[edhopper]

52. Mocking?

Sometimes a sharp humorous barb can deflate inane nonsense better than treating it to a serious counter argument.

John Stewart is quite good at this, and his mocking of Fox News for instance, hits deeper than simply showing where all their "facts' are wrong.

[rug]

53. I know Jon Stewart. Jon Stewart I would like to be a friend of mine.

No one having even a passing resemblance to Jon Stewart posts here.

What remains is juvenilia.

[skepticscott]

19. That's not a definition

Try again. If you can't even define specifically what you mean by "religious tolerance", how can you hope for a meaningful answer to your question?

[el_bryanto]

20. Dictionary definition?

willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.

Of course then you have to define accept.

a : to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions>
b : to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable <the idea is widely accepted>
c : to recognize as true : believe <refused to accept the explanation>

Obviously b & c are no goes - but a, perhaps?

Bryant

[trotsky]

22. As edhopper noted above,

I don't think I could ever accept the point of view that girls should die in a fire because unrelated men shouldn't touch them.

Or that a woman who is raped should be put to death.

Can you accept those things?

[el_bryanto]

26. Part of me wants to ask why you are asking this question -

Do you really think I'm such an evil dick that I would accept those things?

But no, I can't accept either of those things; I'm not keen on the United States invading Muslim Countries to "fix" them, but I don't think those are acceptable practices on any level.

Bryant

[trotsky]

27. I'm asked the question because your OP is meaningless.

In fact, it's obvious you're still on your tirade against atheists who might have something bad to say about religion.

Yet you are also intolerant of religious beliefs. Go figure. Now, think about how different people see things differently, and understand that maybe they see harm where you do not. And vice-versa. Why, one's own religious beliefs often help determine whether someone views an act as harmful. The abortion doctor assassins truly believe that babies are being murdered, and that their actions are justified to save lives.

You don't tolerate their beliefs, just like they don't tolerate yours. Gets a little messy when you try to go from a passive-aggressive shaming poll into the real world, doesn't it?

[el_bryanto]

29. I asked a question; if you don't like the discussion that ensues

I'm not sure that's my fault.

Your technique does often consist to pointing to something awful like Fred Phelps or the way Women are treated in parts of the Muslim World and getting a DU religious person to admit they don't approve of that. And from there to suggest its somehow hypocritical to disapprove of the way that Atheists might talk about belief, when we don't accept each and every belief.

Bryant

[trotsky]

30. Congratulations, that is exactly the point.

There are beliefs I'm tolerant of, and beliefs I'm not.

Same as you.

[el_bryanto]

32. How narrow are the boundaries of your tolerance though?

Certainly there are those, like someone up above, who believe that belief in a deity at all shouldn't be tolerated. There are those who believe that teaching your child your religion is a form of child abuse.

Consider cultural tolerance - one person might be generally accepting and interested in other cultures, but still object to, for example, the way women are treated in many traditional societies. Another person might get offended at seeing any other cultural signifiers in public, because "they should just act American if they are going to live here." Both of those people are making a judgement call as to what they feel can and can't be tolerated, but I would consider one more tolerant than the other.

Bryant

[trotsky]

35. Who knows?

No one has a problem tolerating the things they like. That's easy.

It gets tricky when making blanket statements about tolerance, doesn't it? Or in trying to shame others for not being tolerant enough (in your opinion) when you also are intolerant?

For instance, several people who like me even less than you do, actually agreed that teaching certain religious beliefs, like about hell being a place of eternal torture, is child abuse. That is, of course, what Dawkins was specifically referring to. Did you know that? Or did you just assume that old intolerant monster Dawkins said that all teaching of religion is child abuse?

[el_bryanto]

44. It only gets tricky if you assume that I am suggesting that Religious Tolerance

be the only value. I'm not. Religious tolerance is one value among many. Other values would include empathy or justice or honesty, I believe that justice should trump religious tolerance. Which is why I opposed to killing in the name of religion - any religion.

I wasn't referring to the Dawkins quote; I don't believe in Hell myself, so the situation doesn't really arise for me. I was referring to people who argue that teaching any religion is child abuse. If Dawkins isn't among them, than that's good.

I do think asking you what religious beliefs you do tolerate is a good question.

Bryant

[trotsky]

65. Then your poll is meaningless.

Without context and the other values that you now say should be considered as well, "religious tolerance" is meaningless in and of itself.

[rug]

34. What religious beliefs do you tolerate?

Go on, it shouldn't be hard.

[hrmjustin]

37. lol.

[edhopper]

43. Well the OP amended his post

to say he meant here on DU.
I would say I try to stay civil in most of my discussions here. If tolerate means not to challenge others religious beliefs, than I am rarely tolerant. Your mileage may vary.

On the other hand I have no tolerance for pro-smoking posts.

[rug]

47. Thank you, trotsky.

[edhopper]

50. So you only want an answer from him?

I thought this was an open forum.

So what is your take on my answer?

[rug]

51. Yeah, he made a vers specific comment about what he will or will not tolerate.

[skepticscott]

24. Perhaps? You "suppose"?

Sheesh, YOU asked the question, and made it the title of an OP:

Agree or disagree - Religious Tolerance is an worthwhile individual value

I don't give a fuck what you google out of the dictionary. What did YOU mean by "religious tolerance" when you posted that question? Do you not even know?

If you can't even answer that, then your question is useless, meaningless and a waste of time trying to answer.

[el_bryanto]

25. I've answered the question twice now

Either of those definitions is more or less what I was thinking when I posted it.

Bryant

[skepticscott]

83. No, you replied twice

Not all replies are answers.

When asked to define what you meant, you keep using words like "I suppose" or "perhaps" and now "more or less". You offered two different definitions, which were not the same, which amounts to giving no definition at all.

If you seriously wanted to have a productive discussion on this, you would have clearly defined what you meant the first time out.

[el_bryanto]

86. I don't anticipate having a productive discussion with you at all.

Fortunately you aren't the only participant on this board.

Bryant

[gcomeau]

71. Then my answer to your poll question is no.

Some beliefs warrant derision.

There should be religious tolerance in the sense that it is recognized that people have the right to believe as they wish. Not in the sense that nobody should ever be pointing out that what a lot of people believe is stupid and flies in the face of basic reality.

[LostOne4Ever]

89. Might I ask how you feel about religious satire in literature?

How about books like Mark Twain's Letters from the Earth that satirizes many of the stories from the bible if not outright damns them? Or Comedians who use religion in their acts?

Does not tolerance also include tolerating criticism including criticism that feels that something is absurd or that something is laughably absurd?

Andrew Jackson thought the Earth was flat. If a modern politician came out and made such a claim based upon certain passages from a holy book would any Late Show Comedian who mocked him be guilty of intolerance? What about the Norse who believed that the world was made by a cow licking a block of ice?

I know that down thread you gave a defintion but I think im going to use the Oxford English Dictionary as the definition you gave included the word accept and in my mind at least, accept and tolerate mean two different things. Anyway, according to the OED Tolerate means


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]

1. allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference:
   
   • a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent
   
   
   • accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance:how was it that she could tolerate such noise?



2. be capable of continued subjection to (a drug, toxin, or environmental condition) without adverse reaction:
   
   • lichens grow in conditions that no other plants tolerate

Technically speaking, I don't see mocking in and of itself as being intolerant. Would you call it intolerant if someone came up to an non-believer and asked them why they disbelieved and they proceeded to mock the section of numbers with the talking Donkey? That is their sincere belief, that the said section is laughably absurd. How does that belief qualify as an adverse reaction?

So long as it does not endanger the life, well being, or civil liberties of others I'm willing to tolerate just about any religion. I believe strongly in pluralism and secularism. But toleration should be a two way street. If a nonbeliever tolerates the beliefs of a believer, does that not mean that believer should tolerate her belief that some of the believers beliefs are "laughably" absurd?

I am just as wiling to tolerate the person who thinks the world is a 6000 year old flat circular disk with foundations, pillars, and a domed sky as I am the most vocal of anti-theist so long as they hold to the bolded conditions in the above paragraph and neither tries to force their views on me or others. Those are the limits of my toleration.

I think what you are describing sounds more like civility. I am a big believer in civility. Not only does it make conversations more pleasant, people more inclined to listen, but it also allows for a place for mockery without insult. However, it is important to note that just because someone is not civil does not mean that they might not have a point or that they might not be right.

Sorry for all the dictionary links but given the semantic nature this thread has already taken I figure it would be a good way to avoid miscommunication as much as possible.

[trotsky]

94. Great post.

When it comes to tolerating religious beliefs, it seems that many believers are of the mindset that tolerance means "you can't disparage my beliefs."

[hrmjustin]

38. I am a rather tolerant person.

[pinto]

39. Tolerance and civility, like so many things, start at home. We can all be role models.

Even in a small sliver of public discourse. Or a small piece of the larger public sphere. If not you, then whom? If not now, then when? We can all, each and every one of us, take a stand for mutual understanding.

Sounds kind of "touchy, feely" I know. Yet I mean that in simple day to day terms. No big deal, just simple things. We all get it.

[Inkfreak]

40. I was going to push agree.

But I have a proven track record of always hitting the 'I like to vote' option.

It's just what I do.

[LeftishBrit]

45. I put 'somewhat agree'...

because I consider that religious tolerance is very important, but that in cases where religious rights and human rights come into conflict, human rights should come first.

[cbayer]

46. Are religious rights not human rights?

I am not sure how one would make the distinction.

Can you think of an example?

[LeftishBrit]

66. An example...

is the case, well known in the UK, where the owners of a guest house refused to let a gay couple book a double room, and were taken to court. They lost their case.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/27/guest-house-owners-who-turned-away-gay-couple-lose-court-battle-4205030/

This has been treated by some campaigners as denying the guest house owners their 'freedom of religion'; but I think (as do many in this country) that non-discrimination against gays comes first.

Another example is the 'right' of pro-life campaigners to harass women who are visiting doctors for termination of pregnancy. Note: I think that pro-lifers should have the right to demonstrate and march and lobby for their views, just like any other political group; but when it reaches the point of harassing patients, it should not be acceptable.

An even nastier example is when certain groups in America have demanded that anti-bullying laws and policies should carry religious exemptions, basically so that their children should be able to bully gay classmates without being punished.


I think that the freedom of worship should not be abridged; nor should people be segregated or denied jobs because of their religion; but some people consider that freedom of religion is more than freedom of worship, but also includes the right to impose religious rules on non-religious people, and if this is prevented, they are subject to a 'dictatorship of secularism'.

Note: I think that people have a perfect right to refuse to host a gay couple as guests in their home, or to refuse to be friends with people who have had, or support, abortions. I think that they are foolish, disagreeable and petty if they act in this way; but there is no law against being foolish, disagreeable, or petty. But when it crosses the line from private into public life, or from passive avoidance to active bullying, then I think that human rights trump people's freedom to impose their religious beliefs.

[cbayer]

68. Good examples.

The line seems to be when a person's religious beliefs impinge on the rights of others. That's a very bright line, imo, and I agree.

[mike_c]

56. only to the same extent that other forms of mental illness are "tolerated...."

I mean, we "tolerate," but don't really enjoy the delusional folks that have animated conversations with themselves on street corners and harangue the lamp posts, but usually we think something like "Gee, I wish there was something we could do to help that poor guy." Delusional thinking is delusional thinking, whether the result of organic mishap or conscious choice. We have to tolerate it as long as we can't fix it.

[cbayer]

59. Are you seriously calling the religious mentally ill?

You do know that there is absolutely no scientific basis for doing this, don't you?

So I would assume this is just your belief, based on your own view of the world and not consistent with anything "rational".

Religious beliefs do not fit the well researched definition of delusion.

However, if one has a fixed and strong belief for which there is clear evidence to the contrary, such as is exhibited in this post, that might actually fit the definition of delusional.

[mike_c]

60. read my sig line....

eom

[cbayer]

63. That's an opinion, but it has no basis in fact.

Basically it's just a slur you agree with and want to promote.

Suit yourself.

[el_bryanto]

61. 2 questions

1 - should there be attempts to cure those afflicted with religious beliefs?

2 - I think it's a disgrace that atheists in America have a much harder time getting elected to public office - were conditions reversed would you feel the same way? Or would you feel that people who suffer from delusional thinking shouldn't hold public office?

Bryant

[mike_c]

72. those are interesting questions....

I'm not sure I have a satisfying answer for them, but they are certainly thought provoking.

Regarding a "cure," I think it's important to define exactly what I mean by "religious insanity." I think most people would accept that when someone hears voices and sees entities who are not really there, they suffer from delusions. It's important to remember that I'm talking about someone who actually experiences the delusions themselves, i.e. talks to god and god actually talks back or otherwise manifests in ways that are not shared with other people. Flaming shrubbery that talks. Religious visions, for want of a better term.

That's one end of the delusion continuum, the actual barking mad end. Personally, I think they're generally insane, and hope for their recovery if that is possible.

Then there are the people who are entrapped by delusional thinking, but who do not actually share the delusions themselves, i.e. they believe in magic, but haven't actually ever experienced it directly. They believe the same delusions as the truly insane, but don't themselves hear the voices or see the manifestations, except possibly metaphorically.

That end of the continuum is willful delusion. I don't think it's "curable." I'm not even certain whether I think it's pathological, despite being patently irrational. But I think that is where your question lies, and I don't have a good answer. To what extent do we want to tolerate irrational thinking and behaviour that its adherents want to cling to, even when it has a demonstrated history of causing great pain and suffering? I don't k now, but I agree with you that it's a question we need to address.

For your second question, I can only offer my personal opinion. I am distrustful of political leaders who publicly proclaim themselves willfully delusional thinkers. Should they be banned from office? I hope for a world that is rational enough that delusional thinkers would face sufficient opposition simply by benefit of their display of magical thinking and superstition.

[el_bryanto]

74. I think you might be misunderstanding my situation

While I haven't seen visions, I've prayed and felt that God answered my prayers and that I've been led by his spirit on occasion.

I think your answer to the question is pretty straightforward, though. You don't think society should tolerate the religious delusion - while you might well be opposed to laws curtailing religious belief and behavior you would rather society chose to condemn the religious and brought social pressure on them to change their ways. Or am I misreading you?

Bryant

[mike_c]

75. are you familiar with Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons?"

Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2014, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

It deals mostly with environmental issues and population growth, but begins by stating a universal truth about human nature that informs the rest of Hardin's thesis. That premise is that when one person cheats by adding additional burden to common resources, the benefits of cheating accrue to the individual while the costs are paid by everyone else. Hardin makes that point in a completely different context than the one we're discussing, but it occurs to me that it is relevant nonetheless.

I think you've described essentially the same phenomenon. When I criticize religious thinking, my focus is largely upon the broad social impacts of religious doctrine. Religious violence, hatred, prejudice, exclusiveness and exclusion, devaluing genders or social classes, imposed morality, ethnic cleansing-- those sorts of things. But when I talk about these things with individuals, they focus on the personal benefits they think they've perceived-- god's love, forgiveness, salvation, enlightenment, being rewarded, and so on (forgive the christian centric examples, but I'm sure you get the point).

So like the tragedy of the commons, religious thinking seems to have both individual and social impacts. But likewise, it also follows the general rule that the benefits accrue mainly to individuals while the costs in human suffering and violence affect everyone else.

Personally, I also reject the individual irrationality of belief in mythical beings and superstitions-- if god does not exist, then he/she/it most certainly did not "answer your prayers" no matter how much you'd like to believe that's the case. But here's the thing-- neither your belief in god nor my rejection of that notion as irrationality can make either worldview correct. One is simply true and the other isn't. God either exists and answers your prayers or doesn't, in which case either you or I are misinterpreting reality. One or the other must be false.

I see no objective evidence for the existence of deities-- only the pronouncements of people whose rationality I question. I hear their arguments, and listen to their metaphorical projections, but there is not one whit of objective evidence in support of them, even after thousands of years of human endeavor. And conflict over who's delusions are the most real. I just cannot accept that as rational behavior.

[el_bryanto]

76. The Commons argument is an interesting one, but I don't believe it works

In your formulation of it, you seem to ascribe it predominately or exclusively negative traits. I don't agree. Some of the things you mention (like hatred, prejudice, exclusiveness and exclusion) seem to be human nature as they certainly occur outside of a religious setting as well as within it. Some of the others are real problems for religion, but they aren't it's only features. Many religions also teach basic morality, and many of them talk about taking care of other people. So I disagree that religion spreads only or even mostly negative things into the commons.

I will concede of course that most individuals will talk about the benefits of their religion to themselves, particularly the ones you are likely to talk to. That's most likely because they believe in religious tolerance and accept a society in which people of good hearts practice many different faiths or no faith at all. Dominionists and fundamentalists are more likely to talk about "wouldn't it be great if we could just make everybody join our faith, or, failing that, at least ensure that people of our faith stay in positions of power.

I do see what you are saying there in your last paragraph -and that coincides with my opinion of Atheism as well. While religious tolerance, I believe, should be a value of the believers, it doesn't really work for the Atheist. Consider the story of the blind men who went to see the elephant. The first touched the side of the elephant and realized that an elephant was like a wall. The second grasped its trunk and realized an elephant was like a thick fire hose. A third grabbed a tusk and felt it was like a bamboo pole, a fourth grabbed the ear and thought it was like paper, a fifth grabbed the tail and thought it was like rope. To me that's the positive benefit of religious tolerance - God if he exists is a very big thing - each of us can only understand him in part, but as we communicate respectfully we can come to understand him better.

But for an atheist - there is no elephant, and trying to compare impressions of something that doesn't exist is at best a waste of time, and at worst leads to the sectarian violence you mention above. While it's easy to understand why an atheist would be in favor of political religious tolerance, as far as social religious tolerance, I'm not sure I see why they would favor that.

Bryant

[LeftishBrit]

67. I think there is a danger in treating a belief system, with which one disagrees, as mental illness

I am not religious; but treating religious (or other different) beliefs as an illness can easily be misused. I assume that you are speaking somewhat metaphorically here; but let us remember that the Soviet Union confined many dissidents to mental institutions; that in early 20th-century Britain - and probably elsewhere - a young woman who had a baby out of wedlock could sometimes end up confined to an institution for the rest of her life; and that many governments and private organizations would like to take any opportunity to treat social nonconformists as 'sick'.

[mike_c]

73. perhaps you misunderstand me....

My agreement is irrelevant, I think. We cannot agree that the Earth is flat, for example, or even if we do, our agreement does not make it so. Likewise, religious thinking is based upon circumstances and events, usually described in various (and wildly divergent) "sacred texts" or other customs, which are either true or they're not. Agreement, or belief, no matter how widespread, has nothing to do with that.

I don't "disagree" with religious thinking and superstition. I question its rationality. People with unassailable adherence to irrational thinking and behavior, despite ample evidence to the contrary-- indeed, people who willfully ignore such evidence when perceived reality conflicts with their irrational thinking-- certainly can't be described as rational individuals, can they?

I did soften my comments about religious insanity in #72, just above, but the problem remains. How do we describe people who share delusions, who fight violently and kill on a global scale in support of their delusions, who deny their neighbors basic human rights because their delusions dictate it, even though they themselves (mostly) don't experience the actual delusions except possibly metaphorically? Is that how we define sane behavior?

[Prophet 451]

70. Agree but...

The right of an individual to believe whatever they want and worship however they want is the right of that one individual. It is not the right to impose those beliefs on anyone else nor to enact laws based on those beliefs.

And I'm a believer, if it matters.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. I don't respect beliefs, nor do I tolerate them, I respect the rights of people to their beliefs...

and to expressing their beliefs as long as that expression doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else.

Why do the religious demand so much more than this?

[cbayer]

80. And when you call someone a bigot as an expression of your "belief", that's ok?

Should that be respected and tolerated?

[Humanist_Activist]

81. No, do you think us "anti-theists" are hypocrites by definition?

My belief in you being a bigot should neither be respected or tolerated, but I certainly have the right to my belief and opinion, do I not?

After all, that is EXACTLY what I stated in my first post in this thread, am I correct, or do you wish to deflect and not admit that your response is foolish?

[cbayer]

82. You accused me of being bigoted against atheists. I asked you what you based that on,

but you just left the ad hominen hanging.

I don't think anti-theists are hypocrites by definition. I think they harm the causes I support.

Certainly you have the right to your belief and opinion, just as everyone else does. You base it on your own subjective experience and frame of reference, just like everyone else does.

And you have the right to deem my responses foolish. Again, this is your belief and opinion, but not an iota more than that.

In light of this, where do you draw the conclusions that the religious demand any more than you do?

[Humanist_Activist]

84. They demand that we respect their beliefs, which is just stupid...

and I'm curious as to what causes those would be?

I'll also be frank and say that its the totality of your posts on this board that lead me to the conclusion that you, at the very least, have a strong dislike of anti-theists and most atheists, except those who accommodate the wanna-be theocrats, and, in addition, you have no problem making assumptions about them, on a personal level, and not able to understand difference between attacking people, and attacking beliefs.

[cbayer]

85. Who demands that?

All believers? Some believers?

And what exactly does "demand we respect" mean in reality? Where do you think the line should be? Is allowing for religious freedom a demand for respect?

I do have a strong dislike of anti-atheism in general and a few specific individuals in particular. That doesn't make me a bigot, let alone a bigot towards atheists in general.

I have no dislike of atheists in general. None. I feel about them the same way I feel about theists, which is fairly neutral unless they are working for things I support or doing things that harm the causes I support. Then I am not neutral.

And how you can accuse me of attacking others instead of attacking their beliefs when you just called me a bigot is hard to understand.

I try not to attack others and to stick with their beliefs. You and I have areas where we strongly disagree, but I don't recall ever attacking you.

On the other hand…..

[skepticscott]

101. So you support making gay marriage illegal?

You support making abortion illegal? You support limiting access to contraception? You support the religiously motivated oppression of women?

Because those are all causes that anti-theism harms.

[rexcat]

87. I tolerate someone...

as much as they tolerate me. As an atheist living in the US there is much bigotry and intolerance from religious people towards atheists. I have been on the personal end of that one too many times to count. I tend to shy away from devoutly religious people because they usually can't handle meeting an atheists, again from personal experiences.

Back to the original question: I don't have to tolerate anyone or their beliefs. I don't like them or their beliefs I have every right to walk away without comment (I emphasize the words "without comment" for the contextually challenged). If they feel the need to ask why an honest reply given in a courteous manner is warranted but it is unlikely that they will take it that way. If someone challenges religion in any fashion all bets are usually off. As another poster in this thread stated: "I respect the rights of people to their beliefs and to expressing their beliefs as long as that expression doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone else."

[Evoman]

88. Religious tolerance? Pffft.

Here is what I do. If religious people are decent, don't hate me for being an atheist, and don't use their religion to judge me, I make friends with them. If religious people are fucking assholes, berate me for being an atheist, or tell me I'm going to hell, I either ignore them or tear them verbally to pieces if they won't get out of my face. I haven't killed any one yet, but the first will be someone who commits violence on me or mine, whether they use religion as a justification or not.

I don't think of myself as hot shit because I'm some kind of kumbaya singing, religion-tolerating atheist. Truth is, I don't give a shit about religion until it has some effect on my life. You can go supplicate to whatever asshole deity you want. I just won't be joining you, thank you very much.

[uriel1972]

90. Ideals can go jump in the lake...

Ideals lead to mass slaughter in the name of perfection. Time and time again the "Ideal" is used to justify the worst atrocities seen in humanity. So hearty FU to ideals and the "Ideal".

As you may have guessed, I am a pragmatist. I focus on what works to make people healthier and happier. It is the idealist who believes the end justifies the means, not I.

Back on track, I tolerate people, barely in some cases, not their religion or other system of idealist thoughts. You can believe what you want, but when your belief makes you act like a fool and hurt someone, I reserve the right to deal with you in an appropriate matter.

[rug]

91. That's aprincipled statement.

How do you feel about principles?

[uriel1972]

92. Principles and standards are of great importance...

But I can't say they will always trump. There may come a time for compromise to help others. As I said pragmatism, not some non-existent perfection.

[Vashta Nerada]

98. Why should people have to tolerate stupid beliefs?

[uriel1972]

99. People will believe what they believe...

You can't really control that, at the most you can direct their behaviour into non-harmful expression. I am not the thought police and I don't want to be.

When you start with the thought police road you get into all sorts of trouble. Not that I am saying you are. I just want to be free to believe what I believe, so in effect I must respect the right of others to do the same.

As long as no-one gets hurt, that is. Once that happens... tolerance level zero.

[el_bryanto]

100. I can see where you are coming from. Very direct response. nt