14
   

CAN YOU BE TOLERANT IN THE “RELIGION” AREA?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 09:27 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?
Because there's a difference between being tolerant of a person's "right" to believe whatever they want, and being tolerant of the their "belief" itself.

I'm also not advocating that you have to try to change someone's belief just because you don't agree with it. But you don't have to sit back and pretend it might be reasonable just because you want to be tolerant of their right to believe it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 09:31 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
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.


I find that "oh really?" works quite nicely as a response in both of those situations.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 09:40 am
@saab,
saab wrote:
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?

If someone told you they could read your mind, would you just believe them? If they told you they could see the future, or move objects without touching them? Would you just accept it. Of course not.

If someone at a party says they saw a ghost everyone laughs and half the people try to beat it with stories of their own. But if your surgeon says he's decided to remove your kidney along with your appendix because the ghost of his dead mother told him to do it, you stop him cold, without hesitation.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 09:40 am
@Krumple,
You don´t seem to know much about what is going on in theological circles in the different denominations in Christianity.
They from leader to lay people constantly are critical to all kinds of things within the church. Some think they have found the truth and this has been going on for about 2000 years.
There are around 10 000 religions in the world. One of these is Christianity with its over 30 000 denominations.
There you can see how people have been talking, discussing, fighting over ther centuries.

then you even seriously think that religious people object testing their religion. If they objected there would not be such an amount of denominations.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 09:43 am
@saab,
saab wrote:

You don´t seem to know much about what is going on in theological circles in the different denominations in Christianity.
They from leader to lay people constantly are critical to all kinds of things within the church. Some think they have found the truth and this has been going on for about 2000 years.
There are around 10 000 religions in the world. One of these is Christianity with its over 30 000 denominations.
There you can see how people have been talking, discussing, fighting over ther centuries.

then you even seriously think that religious people object testing their religion. If they objected there would not be such an amount of denominations.


They arn't being very objective then. One turd replaced with a polished turd is still a turd. The fact that it has taken 2000 years to come to the same conclusions without much progress is rather saddening.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 10:00 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
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?

Technically speaking, when someone who believes in god(s) discusses the subject with someone who doesn't, they're not talking about religion, they're talking about what they believe. On the other hand, I don't know what people talk about when they talk about what they "believe."
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 10:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
I'm not sure what you mean by "tolerance". If you mean abstinence from coercion in matters of the conscience, then yes, of course it's possible. But if you mean something that goes beyond that, it gets difficult. Believers tend to interpret it as an attack when perfectly gentle-mannered atheist state perfectly well-argued opinions such as "the God of the Old Testament must be the most unpleasant character in all fiction." Richard Dawkins frequently gets written off as shrill, strident, and intolerant for that. Under such an expansive concept of intolerance, religious tolerance may well not be feasible.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 10:51 am
@joefromchicago,
If two sides with good to very good knowledge of theology discuss religion it probably turns out to be very interesting and also you will learn a lot.
If two sides both just religiously convinced they are right about God it turns out to be very onesided rather stupid discussion based on beliefs more than certain amount of knowledge. Especially enoying
when people who don´t know anything about theology start to tell people who know about theology some ideas they have.
This counts for atheists as well as religious people.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:05 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "tolerance". If you mean abstinence from coercion in matters of the conscience, then yes, of course it's possible. But if you mean something that goes beyond that, it gets difficult. Believers tend to interpret it as an attack when perfectly gentle-mannered atheist state perfectly well-argued opinions such as "the God of the Old Testament must be the most unpleasant character in all fiction." Richard Dawkins frequently gets written off as shrill, strident, and intolerant for that. Under such an expansive concept of intolerance, religious tolerance may well not be feasible.


This bore repeating. More than what you have said, many militant "true believers" cannot accept any questioning. There is a member at the site right now who becomes angry if one questions that member's claims or statements. If one persists in questioning that member, the member becomes abusive. I do not consider that to be exemplary of theists. In fact, if one considers that the odds are pretty good that the majority of regularly participating members are probably theists, it speaks well for them that they avoid the controversy.

I am no longer very tolerant of the door to door proselytizers. As soon as they tell me they want to talk about Jesus, i tell them i'm not interested, wish them a good day, and then close the door. Tolerance does not oblige me to suffer their importunities.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 11:53 am
@saab,
I have no doubt that a discussion between a theist and an atheist would be entertaining, and perhaps even enlightening. But it is almost certain that they won't be discussing religion. One of them might, but both of them won't. It's like a discussion between a biologist and a creationist. One of them will be discussing science, but the other one definitely won't.
saab
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:06 pm
@joefromchicago,
I said discuss theology, which is for me not the same as religion.
A person can be very religious and not know a thing about theology, only about his/her belief.
You can be a theologian without being religious.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:06 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:
If two sides with good to very good knowledge of theology discuss religion it probably turns out to be very interesting and also you will learn a lot.

If atheists are in fact right and there exist no gods, there is nothing for theologians to be knowledgeable of. (At least there isn't by virtue of their being theologians.) So how would the atheist's good knowledge of theology contribute to making his side of the discussion interesting?

That being said, there has been a discussion earlier this year between Richard Dawkins and Rowen Williams, the archbishop of Cantebury. It's published on YouTube, and I do find it interesting.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 12:20 pm
@rosborne979,
Rosborne,
explain following to me in a scientific way.
A and B are friends. Both have lost their mothers and they did not know one another ´s mother. Over a few months they did not have any contact except a short hello now and then.
Person A dreams about B´s mother who tells A that B has a big problem and please contact her, she needs help.
A calls B and she has exactly the problem the mother had mentioned and this problem started within the last few weeks.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 01:56 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
If atheists are in fact right and there exist no gods...


I'm just sitting back and listening right now, Thomas, but I noticed this comment and I thought I'd ask you if you stand by it...and its implications...or if you would like to amend it slightly in some way or another?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:03 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Any particular revision you have in mind?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:24 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Any particular revision you have in mind?


Nope.

Are you saying you stand pat?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Sure, why not?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:30 pm
@Thomas,
No problem--in fact I am happy. I can use it in another discussion I am having elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 02:38 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:

Rosborne,
explain following to me in a scientific way.
A and B are friends. Both have lost their mothers and they did not know one another ´s mother. Over a few months they did not have any contact except a short hello now and then.
Person A dreams about B´s mother who tells A that B has a big problem and please contact her, she needs help.
A calls B and she has exactly the problem the mother had mentioned and this problem started within the last few weeks.

(you mean assuming it isn't just a made up story which never happened, or that it's just someone's distorted memory based on wishful thinking, or that information hasn't passed subconsciously to "A" through general contact with "B", then... )

Well let's see, there are two possibilities: Coincidence or Magic.

Since I don't believe in magic that one gets ruled out and the answer becomes obvious and simple: It's a coincidence.

Do you believe in magic? Or do you redefine "magic" to mean "some type of natural but un-identified something for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence, which allows people to know something they have no way of knowing"?

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 May, 2012 05:06 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:

I said discuss theology, which is for me not the same as religion.

Really?

saab previously wrote:
If two sides with good to very good knowledge of theology discuss religion it probably turns out to be very interesting and also you will learn a lot.

I took the time to read your post. I suggest you do the same.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/29/2024 at 03:15:31