I
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Does toleration imply not challenging such beliefs when they spill out of someone's personal space and into discourse? If we have debate about gay marriage, for example, I don't think it's necessary to "tolerate" someone else's intolerance, just because that is based on their religious conviction.
Some things can only be resolved by choosing a secular or religiously based solution, and not compromising between the two. Issues like abortion, the aforementioned gay marriage, prayer in public institutions, and others cannot be reconciled between those who believe morality directly proceeds from books, traditions, or gods, and those who do not. Conflict will happen and it is incumbent upon those who favour irreligion to keep the secular ascendant, despite this being an affront to those who would wish otherwise.
|
2 totally different points we're talking about
1) Challenging beliefs when they imply social issues is totally reasonable and essential. Also, ensuring a secular arena for our citizens lives is essential. I would even say questioning friends beliefs when brought up is fine, even good. Explaining why you believe a God does not exist is not necessarily the same as trying to convince someone else, but it could be argued that's the point. Spreading atheism
is a goal of many atheists. The original post I responded to suggested that no atheists wanted religion gone. That's absurd.
2) the intolerance I'm talking about is on the responses from posters like T@T. Look back on his posts on the subject and you'll see what I'm talking about. Ie anyone who believes in a supernatural being you can't prove exists is stupid
Edit: stupid predictive text autocorrect