14
   

CAN YOU BE TOLERANT IN THE “RELIGION” AREA?

 
 
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 03:40 pm
I’ve been thinking about whether or not “tolerance” is possible in the discussion of religion...and if it is, to what degree.

I do not mean toleration between religions (denominations and sects of which are sometimes seriously at odds with one another), but between those with more substantial differences than nuances of religious belief.

Can there be tolerance between those who “believe” there are gods that dictate what is moral and immoral and those who “believe” there are no gods whatever? Can there be tolerance between either of those two poles with people who are somewhere else on that general spectrum?

A question I have been asking myself is: Are there moral imperatives that would prevent a person who “believes” there is a personal GOD that dictates what is moral and immoral for humans—from being “tolerant” of the position of someone who suggests that most likely there are no gods…and who “believes” that believing in gods ultimately presents an unacceptable negative for society?

Obviously that question could be reversed and asked: Are there moral imperatives that would prevent a person who “believes” that belief in a GOD presents an unacceptable negative for society, from being “tolerant” of individuals who “believe” there are those kinds of gods?

For those willing to be involved in this discussion, a couple of things to consider:

Is there a difference in your mind between toleration of the ideas and the differences…and toleration of the individual expressing the ideas?

Is the toleration negated in any way by proponents of one side or the other attempting to “change the mind” of those on the other side?

Lastly, “toleration” it should be obvious, comes in many flavors and varieties…so if you decide you can, and are willing, to respond on this issue, let us know what degree of toleration you think can be afforded—and where a line must be drawn beyond which toleration has to be withheld.

I suspect there is no “correct” answer…I am looking for individual takes on how individuals here in A2K feels about the issue.


 
failures art
 
  5  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 04:13 pm
I have the most tolerance for what a person imposes on themselves due to their religious beliefs.

I have the least tolerance for what a person imposes on another due to their religious beliefs.

Somewhere in the middle, I have tolerance for how a person chooses to raise their child based on their religious beliefs.

I have no absolute tolerance, though. Even in the case of a person harming themselves, I have the intolerance to at minimum say something.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 04:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
It is naive to try to separate "belief" from the social functions of religion. Tolerance is a matter of social expediency which generally overrides intellectual distaste. The problem areas tend to involve the indoctrination of children and the subjugation of women. IMO there is definitely a case for keeping religion out of the state education system, as in the USA.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 04:49 pm
No . . . i kill the sons-of-bitches whenever i think i can get away with it.
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 04:54 pm
@Setanta,
Jeez. And to think I sat next to this guy at dinner.
Good thing we were using chopsticks.
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 04:58 pm
@George,
Those things are weapons, G.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  6  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 09:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I have, finally, no tolerance for this dallytwaddle.
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 09:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Jesus Loves me, but you're gonna fry.



I have no problem with anyone who practices what may be the only common tenet of all faits--threat others as you would be treated.

Rap
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 11:07 pm
@ossobuco,
I agree, Osso. I'm finally starting to lose my tolerance for the proliferation of all these threads dealing, more or less, with the same silly aquestions over and over and over and . . .
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 May, 2012 11:47 pm
In my daily normal life I have found there is tolerance in the area of religion.
Worldwide there are areas where tolerance does not excists and one of those areas is a2k.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:48 am
@saab,
saab wrote:

In my daily normal life I have found there is tolerance in the area of religion.
Worldwide there are areas where tolerance does not excists and one of those areas is a2k.


I'll agree however; there shouldn't be any tolerance for religion. Religion doesn't have a clean record and time and time again breeds the ability to take advantage of people. We should be promoting the ability for people to investigate and scrutinize religious claims before they accept or follow them.

So yes, we should not be tolerant of something that can be used to abuse people.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:25 am
@George,
That's so silly . . . there were all those waiters standing around . . . i would never have gotten away with it.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:48 am
@Krumple,
So you think only religion does not have a clean record - what an utterly intolerance and also ignorance about what different denominations have done of helping.
Atheists don´t have a clean record either all the time, nor do politicians, nor do philosophers, nor do science nor do the medias - the list is endless.
Nothing is just black or white - there are plenty of grey shades in between.




















































Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 03:18 am
@saab,
saab wrote:

So you think only religion does not have a clean record - what an utterly intolerance and also ignorance about what different denominations have done of helping.


Sure some help, so what? Doesn't mean that what they try to sell has anything to do with truth. Because they go out and give sandwitches to the homeless or poor people, doesn't mean that what they profess is right. Using a bunch of money that their donators gave to them to build a hospital means nothing to the effect that what they try to sell as truth is in any way actually true. So I say, so what?

However; on the other hand they try to use their truth that they are selling to impose it on the world which ends in disasterous ways. Demonizing people, killing and murdering them for either not becomming followers or because they are considered blasphemers or worse. So yes religion should be held accountable for how it can cause damage to society.

saab wrote:

Atheists don´t have a clean record either all the time, nor do politicians, nor do philosophers, nor do science nor do the medias - the list is endless.
Nothing is just black or white - there are plenty of grey shades in between.


Yep and you should hold everyone and every claim to it's actual merit backed by crediable evidence before accepting it. Doesn't matter who or where it comes from. Religion shouldn't be given an off limits stamp of approval like people suggest that it should.

We should be critical of everything. Nothing should be off limits. No matter what it does that is beneficial. Just because a person helps someone doesn't mean that you should buy their miracle cure and not test it for it's validity.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 03:34 am
@Krumple,
you have no comment on politicians and the help they are giving.
Sometimes it is just to get more voters.
Poor you.... you seem to mistrust everybody and everything.
What a sad and miserable attitude to life.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 03:38 am
@saab,
PS
the whole social democratic idea in Scandinavia is buildt on the Christian ideas how to treat your fellow human beings.
I would say that is a bit more than just - serve a sandwich - which you think is all that has been done.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 04:51 am
@saab,
saab wrote:

you have no comment on politicians and the help they are giving.
Sometimes it is just to get more voters.
Poor you.... you seem to mistrust everybody and everything.
What a sad and miserable attitude to life.


As you didn't understand the first time I mentioned it.

It is irrelevant what good they do. Just because someone does something good it doesn't mean if they are trying to sell something that it should immediately be taken as truth.

Just because a politician does something good doesn't mean their belief in some supreme being is any more valid.

So you can say I have a miserable attitude to life but that is just your skewed perspective on it. I guess you would rather live in a world where people are taken advantage of by people claiming they shouldn't be scrutinized. I see a lot of people being taken advantage of and the only way to prevent this is to make everyone who makes claims undergo the same process. To be consistent and fair for everyone. No one should be off limits.

You see that as negative or in some way sad but I see it as making progress and making the world less douchebagy. If doing that is miserable to you then I feel sorry for you.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 07:04 am
@Frank Apisa,
We need to respect other people's right to believe what they want to believe, lest our own freedom to believe be taken away some day. But we also need to ridicule the ridiculous and not give crazy ideas a free pass.

If someone tells us they had lunch with Elvis the other day we dismiss them as crazy. But if someone tells us they believe a 2000 year old story about a man that rose from the dead and did miracles we suddenly "don't know" any more. That's ridiculous.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 08:38 am
@rosborne979,
We should be tolerant and on the same time ridicule the crazy believing in the NT. How is that going to work?
How about parapsyychology, which has nothing to do with religion, but paranormal phenomena, including telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation and apparitional experiences?
Even there one can find some crazy ideas. Should the be tolerated as it has nothing to do with religion?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 08:44 am
@saab,
saab wrote:

We should be tolerant and on the same time ridicule the crazy believing in the NT. How is that going to work?
How about parapsyychology, which has nothing to do with religion, but paranormal phenomena, including telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation and apparitional experiences?
Even there one can find some crazy ideas. Should the be tolerated as it has nothing to do with religion?


Here is the thing. If it is truth, it should not matter if it is being tested or scrutinized.

I would think that religious people would welcome and invite criticism because if it were truth then it would be discovered and these findings would only make their system of belief stronger and more substantual.

I think most people object to testing their religion because deep down they know their religion is probably bullshit and don't want to know if it is or not because it would mean they have some work to do. They would have to find something else. They are happy in their ignorance so leave their belief alone.

If it is truth, then by all means it will hold up to any test. Nothing should be off limits or else we start playing favorites and we open the door for deception.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » CAN YOU BE TOLERANT IN THE “RELIGION” AREA?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2019 at 06:13:30