Topically, God can't exist in a world where Angelina Jolie has to cut off her her breasts due to a genetic defect so she can stay alive long enough to raise her kids.
__________________
onetwo and threefour... Together no more. The end of an era. Let's rebuild...
Atheism's really become an oversimplified buzzword in most contexts. People espouse that "atheism has become a religion of its own" when really, atheism is entirely devoid of content. Sure, there are banner-carriers out there who've undertaken to challenge organized religion at every turn -and this is something I view to be positive- but that's about where it ends. I find that a lot of the prominent atheists in the public sphere try to sort of steer clear of the term due to this stigma (which demonstrates a contrast, as Christians and Muslims wear their tags as a primary and necessary source of pride).
I mean, a Muslim believes that much of what a Christian or Jew has to say is bull####, and vice versa, and are in effect "atheists" toward all other belief systems...an atheist just goes that one step further and contends that it's all bull####.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
I hear you, but you have to tolerate a religious belief if you claim to impose the charter of rights and freedoms in our society.
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.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
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
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 05-16-2013 at 04:04 PM.
I hear you, but you have to tolerate a religious belief if you claim to impose the charter of rights and freedoms in our society.
Why
Quote:
The intolerance I'm speaking of is when personal attacks get leveled. Calling somebody stupid because they have faith in something that defies logic is not stupid.
If my belief is that demons posses my child and that I should kill my child, is that stupid? Can I call Tom Cruize an idiot for his beliefs? What about John Edwards who says he is talking to the dead, on my behalf.. I can't call him stupid?
It may be human nature, naivete, or done other driving force, but rarely is it a lack of knowledge or understanding.
Quote:
However, to suggest that atheists aren't also intolerant at all is ludicrous
Atheists are a very wide group, of many number of identifiable groups... I'm sorry but you've gone from calling it intolerance to call out what is wrong with religion to now suggesting atheists don't think of themselves as intolerant...
Sorry but you seem to be apologetic, looking for reasons to excuse the dominance of religion over the world and calling the tiny number of us speaking out as intolerant and rude... Which is the weak argument of those who have had the privilege of ruling the earth for 2000 + yrs..
My religion tells me that I shouldn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others. At least not on an empty stomach. I should eat and THEN go after the b*stards.
However, it's hard going after these hateful ideas when they come from religious teachings.
Why do you believe that women are subservient to men?
Because my book tells me they are!
Why do you believe that homosexuals are evil?
Because my book tells me they are!
Why do you believe people of other religions are lesser people than you?
Because my book tells me they are!
It's not so much that I am intolerant of religion. I'm intolerant of religions that teach hatred of others.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
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
I agree that it's not right to call religious people stupid for being religious. I don't think that tactic is very effective as an argument, either; all you're doing is confirming your opponent's judgment that you are a nasty, immoral person.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
North Miami mayoral candidate gets an endorsement from JC. If only he were allowed to vote in her district.
To be fair, I don't see anything in her platform that Jesus would be against. I find it much more annoying when gun-toting "freedom-loving" xenophobic nutjobs invoke Jesus, as if he was some kind of redneck good ol' boy messiah who'd be all for armed home defence and keeping the ragheads out of the country.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
