Fundamentalist Faith is Intolerance

[Adstar]

From a conversation with Jenyar in another thread, I just stumbled across that thought. Perhaps it's obvious.

Once you assume your faith to be correct above all others (which is basically what I think of as "fundamentalist") you inherently exclude all other views. As such, they are offensive... an attack on your faith. With that in mind, how can there be tolerance? How can you consider the perspective of a non-believer, or remotely consider their thoughts/actions valid if you've already assumed they are NOT?

This is a recipe for war and death.

Perhaps it's an evolutionary development to cull the herd?

Thoughts?

In no way is it a recipe for war and death if your faith tells you to love your enemies and kill no one We do listen to the views of others not to consider their views as correct but to consider what information we could give to them to overcome their false views.

All praise The Ancient of Days

 

[wesmorris]

The larger point being that, while I agree with the topic point noted at the outset, I would extend it well beyond a "merely" religious aspect.

Actually I agree. I put it in religion because of faith and I thought taking the argument to a broader extent might get overwhelming. I almost dropped it into general philo, but thought it might not fit there either.

Regardless, you're right and I was thinking of that which is why I worded the title as it is.

Perhaps faith is really part of the mind's hueristics. The actual solutions sets to our curiosities, interests or problems is far more complex than can be considered explicitely. Faith is practical. Take a huge assumption (faith) and you slice your solution set down to a manageable side. Make yourself a couple of principles and boom, you're a hueristic problem solving machine. Make the principles common to your tribe, and boom... you're a solvent force... as long as the errors are abstract (no impact on actual reality, so no impact on physical survival), your tribe will bond through those principles... thus becoming a stronger unit and dramatically increasing the liklihood of survival in the wild.

It's interesting though that as we domesticate ourselves... do these notions antiquate themselves? Hmm.. no I suppose not, they just evolve. Faith must change to compensate for the abstract parts of life that become necessary for survival in the new paradigms. It's when faith stagnates and refuses this adaptation that it becomes a peril to its followers or those who've adapted.

 

[okinrus]

In my experience most believe because they learned to believe, basically because they are brainwashed their entire lives. Everyone they care about deeply has told them what they come to knows as truth, so they believe it. In a way that's beautiful and extremely honest. It's indicative of the strength of the relationships we have with the important people in our lives. I really do repect that for the intensity and reality of the emotions involved... but that doesn't mean it's rational.

Just being outside reason does not make something irrational. Although there is not always a purpose, the way we choose premises for our arguments are not illogical. Quite to the contrary, we choose premises that are likely to derive a satisfactory outcome, that are likely to correspond to our world. But it's very much our choice; satisfaction could be philosphical or emotional, physical or spirtual.

How it formed is irrelevant. Do you notice that you projected your shit onto that? What is "moral behavior"? By putting that as you did, you reveal your own fundamentalism. You think "moral behavior" is as your clan prescribes.

In context, I meant the values that fundamentalists hold dear.

Okay uhm... you're doing it again. You get to say what is proper? Oh, I mean your religion? Okay, "respectable religions"? What is proper has to be discussed. Oh and you JUST SAID that someone's beliefs has little to do with their level of tolerance, so why then should teaching proper virtues help out? You're teaching them what to believe if virtuous... no?

Doctrine and morals are two separate things. The line does, however, become somewhat blurry. Take, for example, the statement "God wants you to care for the sick." It's both a moral and doctrine statement. On the other hand, a general statement such as "you ought to take care of the sick" is only a moral statement.

 

[davewhite04]

Preacher:

but it is'nt blind faith, take a look at the thread faith defined, and read some of the posts.

if your strong, your an atheist, and will say, God does not exist.

So are you telling me that if someone says "there is no God" an element of blind faith isn't involved? As far as I know there is no evidence that denies the existance of God, it might be handy to know that lack of evidence is not evidence.

Joseph Stalin whilst he was learning about marxism and socialism he was attending Tiflis Theological Seminary, on scholarship, his mother was deeply religious, and she got him a place there, that is how he was brought up and where he got his intolerances.
and a man who idolises stalin and has no tolerance is saddam hussain.
and did torquemada have an tolerence.
the question was fundamentist faith, but atheist cant be fundamentlist.
so the question, only pertains to religion, does it not.

I don't know much about Stalin so can't comment whether religion played a part in his madness. Atheists always seem to try their hardest to label every fruitcake under the sun as being religious or having religious connections, what we have to remember is that we're all human beings and everyone whether theist or atheist has the potential to be the next Hitler. Would you agree?

Dave

 

[Jenyar]

I cannot prove outright that having sex with a child is bad. I can line up all sorts of reasons, but it is only as a result of this society's priorities that those described effects would be quantified as "bad". In the meantime, if anything makes me fundamentalist at all, one thing that will not be on the list is my insistence that a pedophile is not teaching a positive love to a child in having sex with a six year-old, and neither am I going to willingly allow my child to be a test subject; nor am I going to acquire someone else's child in order to test the assertion.

It's a point of faith.

I'm glad you brought this up in a discussion about intolerance. Because what if the magnitude of intolerance was aimed at this particular point of faith. Would the world be divided into a few rising spontaneously to hold onto it "against all reason"? How exactly does one go about defending something that is indefensible by the standards of the opposing side? As you all but admitted, it is a fundamentalist stance: you are "inherently excluding other views".

There is very little common ground there and very little attempt to pay attention to what is being said. Despite the claims that "we believe in the same god" it is all about trying to disprove the other guy, we all do it to some degree that is what the forum is for, but I notice how much greater importance it takes when your life and faith hangs in the balance.

What he describes here as "we all believe in the same god" is actually "we all want the same thing", whether in a religious or a social context. Unfortunately, looking at the world this is obviouly not the case in practice, which is why practice must be scrutinized for flaws in thinking. Views that the only flaws are to be found in religion is flatly unproductive, narrow-minded and in my opinion equally "fundamentalist" thinking.

Life and faith does hang in the balance - some opinions are just more remotely related than others. "All issues are important." That's the antidote to fundamentalist thinking. Petty bickering about their degree of importance only sidesteps the issue. Actually, it fuels the fundamentalist fire: Everyone shouts from his personal throne, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others!".

I almost want to say: think greater thoughts! The burden of proof, MacM is easily put on another's shoulders, but with the freedom of choice comes the burden of decision. I find myself in a world where nobody is allowed to make decisions, or come to conclusions about things. We're being subconsciously indoctrinated to fear conclusions: too little scepticism and too much faith involved. "Scientists and mathematicians have conclusively proven that no conclusions can be reached beyond the scope of science and mathematics", Amen.

Science indeed carries a burden much too heavy if it has become the crutch for all decision-making. Of course, nobody ever goes as far as saying "all" - no, that would be too fundamentalist.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

NO Dave in my mind, and I am sure the preachers the same, to be an atheist is to be truly enlightened.( knowing yourself, in the structure of things, knowing you are the controller of your own destiny, knowing that you are the only person,( no god/gods are going to do it or have every done it) that can make the lives of people around you better.)

it is possible I cant deny that, but not very probable.(life is far to sacred, to ever want to, deny anyone the right to have a life.) as we know there is only one chance at life, so you have to make it the best you can, for you and everyone around you.

to be mad means you cant be in full use of your reason, sense, and intellect,
therefore not atheist.
delusional goes with religion, as you have the fantasy figures.

 

[Jenyar]

to be mad means you cant be in full use of your reason, sense, and intellect, therefore not atheist.
delusional goes with religion, as you have the fantasy figures.

I rest my case.

NO Dave in my mind, and I am sure the preachers the same, to be an atheist is to be truly enlightened.( knowing yourself, in the structure of things, knowing you are the controller of your own destiny, knowing that you are the only person,( no god/gods are going to do it or have every done it) that can make the lives of people around you better.)

it is possible I cant deny that, but not very probable.(life is far to sacred, to ever want to, deny anyone the right to have a life.) as we know there is only one chance at life, so you have to make it the best you can, for you and everyone around you.

"Life is far too sacred..." How I wish people had more than faith that it's true! But even though it's a conclusion we can agree on, for some reason this atheist lays claim to it. Nevermind whether it can be confirmed in a lab or on a blackboard, or why it should be so sacred. Practice what you preach, and do it! Live as if you'd bet your life on the truth of that.

The right to have life is fine in theory, but how much of that faith is visible in practice? It's useless if that's the only right you'll grant anyone. Clinging to that right too tightly might prevent you from sharing it.

 

[mis-t-highs]

I rest my case

I was under the impression you were religious jenyar, I am quite surprised you agree with that statement.

Life is far too sacred..." How I wish people had more than faith that it's true! But even though it's a conclusion we can agree on, for some reason this atheist lays claim to it. Nevermind whether it can be confirmed in a lab or on a blackboard, or why it should be so sacred. Practice what you preach, and do it! Live as if you'd bet your life on the truth of that.

I practice what I preach, I try to live my life, in the pursuit of the betterment of others.
as I am sure most others do.

because it's the only one anybody has.

 

[Jenyar]

Re: "Life is far too sacred... it's a conclusion we can agree on"
Maybe you're surprised that your opinion of religion doesn't allow me to agree. Fahrenheit's prejudices certainly don't. But I didn't wish life sacred, reason it sacred or prove it sacred, and neither did Fahrenheit. Why doesn't someone ask him to prove it? Isn't the burden of proof on him?

I'm not religious, I'm a Christian. That makes me delusional. What madness, indeed, to call life sacred and of eternal worth, and offense against it of eternal consequence. Will you also be surprised if I agreed the life you have is the only one you'll ever have?

Oh, PS: If you look at my previous post, you'll see that my case doesn't rest on Fahreneit's conclusion. All but. You edited your post while I was typing...

 

[path]

What he describes here as "we all believe in the same god" is actually "we all want the same thing", whether in a religious or a social context. Unfortunately, looking at the world this is obviouly not the case in practice, which is why practice must be scrutinized for flaws in thinking. Views that the only flaws are to be found in religion is flatly unproductive, narrow-minded and in my opinion equally "fundamentalist" thinking.

I agree that theist and non-theist must continually scrutinize their beliefs to sort out any inconsistencies. If you read my post through I did include non-theists in the fundamental category. BTW though I am not theistic I do enjoy your thought process and methodology Jenyar

 

[surenderer]

I have been following several threads where Jenyar has been replying to numerous posts by one of our muslim posters with interest. It is a prime example of this, it's the "trinity" thread. There is very little common ground there and very little attempt to pay attention to what is being said. Despite the claims that "we believe in the same god" it is all about trying to disprove the other guy, we all do it to some degree that is what the forum is for, but I notice how much greater importance it takes when your life and faith hangs in the balance. Also lots of plagerizing from answering christianity going on I wonder how much is actually just insecurity manifesting itself. I mean if they are actually worshipping the same deity why isn't that enough.
I agree with Tiassa and dave on this to a degree too we all have our constructs for living what we believe to be the best life. I myself however am exempt from all this foolishness however as I am an agnostic I know there is something more than we see I just have a faint friggin idea what exactly it is, though I know what it isn't.

I do agree with you Path...I was the one who started the "trinity" thread but I only did that in terms of trying to understand why Christians believed in that theory... Now it seems that that thread has become "hijacked" into a "my religion is better than yours" thread. Notice when I posted in that thread (even though i started it) I didnt say "well Islam says this or Islam says that" because I was trying to understand a Christian perspective not debate it. I do think that the problem with religion today is IGNORANCE. For example there are several verses(surahs) in the Koran which states animosity towards Jews and Christians now if someone just read that without knowing when those verses were reveled(during wars with those tribes) then they would disrespect those religions today. It seems that Bad people sometimes do Bad things using religion as an easy excuse(muslims and otherwise)......peace

 

[path]

I do agree with you Path...I was the one who started the "trinity" thread but I only did that in terms of trying to understand why Christians believed in that theory... Now it seems that that thread has become "hijacked" into a "my religion is better than yours" thread. Notice when I posted in that thread (even though i started it) I didnt say "well Islam says this or Islam says that" because I was trying to understand a Christian perspective not debate it. I do think that the problem with religion today is IGNORANCE. For example there are several verses(surahs) in the Koran which states animosity towards Jews and Christians now if someone just read that without knowing when those verses were reveled(during wars with those tribes) then they would disrespect those religions today. It seems that Bad people sometimes do Bad things using religion as an easy excuse(muslims and otherwise)......peace

I noticed you are wise enough to get out of the car when you see the wall coming I think it does have alot to do with how secure a person feels in what they believe.

 

[MacM]

Preacher:So are you telling me that if someone says "there is no God" an element of blind faith isn't involved? As far as I know there is no evidence that denies the existance of God, it might be handy to know that lack of evidence is not evidence.

You are mistaken. Evidence in the form of scientific understanding of processes undermines the concepts advocated by blind faith. Accepting scientific data and reasoning is not blind faith. Quite the opposite it is not blind it is enlightening. To advocate a concept in absence of evidence is blind faith.

Science does not prove God doesn't exist but it does show that for there to be a God would be superflous. If something can occur by understood natural physical causes, it occurance ascribed to a God simply means God was not required. God adds nothing to the understanding but actually detracts from the understanding.

 

[MacM]

I almost want to say: think greater thoughts! The burden of proof, MacM is easily put on another's shoulders, but with the freedom of choice comes the burden of decision. I find myself in a world where nobody is allowed to make decisions, or come to conclusions about things. We're being subconsciously indoctrinated to fear conclusions: too little scepticism and too much faith involved. "Scientists and mathematicians have conclusively proven that no conclusions can be reached beyond the scope of science and mathematics", Amen.

Science indeed carries a burden much too heavy if it has become the crutch for all decision-making. Of course, nobody ever goes as far as saying "all" - no, that would be too fundamentalist.

This is really unbelievable. Believing in our hands on understanding and test data carries a burden? Believing in the unsupported claims of the Bible, Koran and all other religious documents of antiquity from the days of scientific ignorance is the burden. Particularily when such dogma is clearly in opposition to logic and modern understanding.

 

[MacM]

NO Dave in my mind, and I am sure the preachers the same, to be an atheist is to be truly enlightened.( knowing yourself, in the structure of things, knowing you are the controller of your own destiny, knowing that you are the only person,( no god/gods are going to do it or have every done it) that can make the lives of people around you better.)

it is possible I cant deny that, but not very probable.(life is far to sacred, to ever want to, deny anyone the right to have a life.) as we know there is only one chance at life, so you have to make it the best you can, for you and everyone around you.

to be mad means you cant be in full use of your reason, sense, and intellect,
therefore not atheist.
delusional goes with religion, as you have the fantasy figures.

Excellent.

 

[MacM]

I rest my case.

"Life is far too sacred..." How I wish people had more than faith that it's true! But even though it's a conclusion we can agree on, for some reason this atheist lays claim to it. Nevermind whether it can be confirmed in a lab or on a blackboard, or why it should be so sacred. Practice what you preach, and do it! Live as if you'd bet your life on the truth of that.

The right to have life is fine in theory, but how much of that faith is visible in practice? It's useless if that's the only right you'll grant anyone. Clinging to that right too tightly might prevent you from sharing it.

How is it that you seem to believe that only the religiously indoctrinated can hold rightous views and descern good from evil? These are human civilized qualities having nothing what-so-ever to do with religion.

Believing in God does not make you good. Denying the existance of Gods does not make you evil. That is religious dogma nonsense.

 

[Jenyar]

Look at yourself:

This is really unbelievable. Believing in our hands on understanding and test data carries a burden? Believing in the unsupported claims of the Bible, Koran and all other religious documents of antiquity from the days of scientific ignorance is the burden. Particularily when such dogma is clearly in opposition to logic and modern understanding.

vs.

How is it that you seem to believe that only the religiously indoctrinated can hold rightous views and descern good from evil? These are human civilized qualities having nothing what-so-ever to do with religion.

(I don't). Are you sure these are human civilized qualities? Can you prove it? Why aren't you also "agnostic" about these qualities?

What's the difference between your latter unsupported claim as written down in sciforums Fundamentalist Faith is Intolerance 2 verse 2, and the same affirmation made in the Bible. Agreement is only excluded by prejudice arising out of unbelief.

 

[Jenyar]

PS.

Believing in God does not make you good. Denying the existance of Gods does not make you evil. That is religious dogma nonsense.

I agree.

 

[Jenyar]

PPS.

This is really unbelievable. Believing in our hands on understanding and test data carries a burden?

Answer this: Have you personally verified and checked every datum with your own bare hands?. Whose "hands on understanding" are you believing in? You are assuming much.

History isn't an experiment you can repeat, you know.

 

[davewhite04]

to be an atheist is to be truly enlightened.

Well I'm pleased you feel that you're an enlightened being... tell me does this mean there is no chance of changing you're stance in this context? Also, you sound like a decent person so do you get the urge to tell people about this truly enlightening way of thinking?

( knowing yourself, in the structure of things, knowing you are the controller of your own destiny, knowing that you are the only person,( no god/gods are going to do it or have every done it) that can make the lives of people around you better.)

Ever heard of an accident?

to be mad means you cant be in full use of your reason, sense, and intellect,
therefore not atheist.
delusional goes with religion, as you have the fantasy figures.

Stating that there are no mad atheists is a pretty BIG claim, can you back it up?

Dave