tolerance for it's own sake without consideration to it's effects is ridiculous. tolerance is only usually allowed whereas opposing factions are considered and the effects or noneffects upon them.
Theism vs. Atheism
- Thread starter SolusCado
- Start date
tolerance for it's own sake without consideration to it's effects is ridiculous. tolerance is only usually allowed whereas opposing factions are considered and the effects or noneffects upon them.
It's about the "fight for survival". This fight takes place not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological / mental one.
It cannot be any other way on planet Earth.
I draw the line with infringing upon the will of another person. THAT is tolerance. So, clearly sacrificing virgins (unless the virgins want to be sacrificed) would be crossing the line. You are free to engage those you disagree with to try to convince them of another train of thought; to force it upon them is intolerance.
To that extent, I would argue that condescension, hate, etc. are all forms of attempted force - through "emotional torture" if you will rather than physical force. (After all, how can you physically force an idea?)
well, people have a right to believe what they want. why it's potentially actively intolerant is because christianity's precepts are that the christian god is the only true god. there is much indication that many christians believe that others are heathens and so can be oppressed or in some cases even annhilated because they are not of 'god'. which is interesting to say the least, since this god claims it created everything and everyone.predatorial and defensive are two different issues, it's when religion is used predatorially that it's going to be met with more resistance. but christianity is not the only religion that has these type of value systems. but that's another issue.
Ok, so do we want the winning ideologies of our planet to be based on overpowering the losers with hate (as we have done for centuries) or with logic? Should the "fight for survival" be one of enlightened growth, or psychological warfare?
... or simply and act of using (pseudo-)philosophy and (pseudo-)science for political reasons. It happens all the time.
I think it takes some maturity to see through someone's use of Schopenhauer's stratagems ...
Because educated theists have some superior tenets to fall back on and hang on to.
There is not much choice here. The one you want to overpower sets the terms for being overpowered.
Logic and enlightened growth are useless against savages ...
Hmm - I would like to think that mankind has reached the point where we CAN choose. But perhaps I overestimate mankind.
Oh, and Schopenhauer's Strategems? Care to enlighten me?
I like how the very last section is "38.Become Personal, Insulting, Rude"... Kind of sums things up nicely, doesn't it?This reflects intolerance in people, not the religion - since the Christian Scriptures do not advocate such a position. This is a good part of what I was referring to in my OP.
and what exactly are these?
also, solscado made the assumption that educated atheists are less tolerant than educated theists when there are educated theists that are also intolerant. education has little to nothing to do with tolerance anyways.
obviously, both theists and atheists have made up thier mind in their 'beliefs'.
a fairer analogy would be a comparison to agnostics.
the old testament is rife with them as well as numerous scriptures strewn throughout the bible. this is the same circle that happens when usually conversing with theists is either denial or ignorance or somehow it's up to 'interpretation'.
To be fair, I didn't make an assumption so much as I proposed an observation.
I did at one point say that I did assume that tolerance resulted from education, or at least intelligence. If not that, then from what does tolerance arise?
I think that, by definition that is precisely what they have done.To what initial analogy are you referring? I have actually found agnostics to by and large be extremely tolerant of other ideas.
by which you were pitting theists vs atheists as if atheists are less tolerant. i disagree, educated or not. one believes that god exists, the other believes it doesn't. even so, most atheists are from the position that the concept of god is moot because their is no proof whereas theists are in a position that is even less credible because it requires no proof.
an agnostic is neutral because they acknowledge there is no proof but perhaps a god or gods may exist among other things.
The Old Testament is (for the most part) Judaic Scripture. Christianity is in fact defined by the New Testament, which does not contain such advocations, and in fact calls out such Judaic attitudes as "wrong".
Agreed, but you put quotes around "interpretation" as though that somehow invalidates their position - what is a religion if not its interpretations of beliefs?
These statements do not address the issues I brought up in my OP, where I noted that "educated" atheists respond with more derision than "educated" theists, for the most part. (Or so it would seem to me.)
Also, I would disagree that theists' position is less credible - but that is a conversation for another thread.
well, then you are the first theist to say such that i know of. then why does both the old and new testament comprise the bible and why do christians believe both are the word of god? it seems as though you are just making this up or is this your personal belief but not necessarily of christianity?
Um, incorrect because some of those scriptures are blatant and are not up to interpretation. anyone can say it's up to interpretation even when it's not or it's clearly very biased.
I think you need to be clear about what you are defending and make a stand where you agree or disagree with aspects of christianity or some sects. obviously, there are going to be christians who do disagree with you and also may agree. that is why there are already so many different sects of christianity already. christianity can evolve and change just like anything else but it can't if it's not clear to others as to what exactly a religion or sect is based on.
also, there are different types of atheists as well. there are those who have issue with the concept of god itself and those who have issues with the religious interpretation of it even more. usually, it's the latter that is questioned more even by many agnostics. what happens that becomes dangerous is people make god in their own image and that's their own interpretation. that itself is not necessarily wrong but it can be narrow-minded when it's used to gauge others that don't fit into another's belief system or paradigm.
Last edited:
Well, the body of "christianity" as a whole is notoriously difficult to nail down to any particular set of beliefs (see my comment below), but even within the traditionally accepted body of writings comprising the Bible, the entire crucifixion of Jesus arose from continued disputes between his teachings and that of the Pharisees, who were the reigning Judaic authority of the time. The Old testament provides a context for the New Testament, which is its primary purpose in inclusion in the Bible. As to why [most] christians believe both are the "word of God," that is primarily in reference to a couple statements made by Church leaders in the early years of the "Christ movement". That said, belief that the entire Bible is the "word of God" would necessarily apply the teachings of Christ to the misinterpretations of the Old Testament. It wouldn't change the words; just our understanding of them.
No, it simply establishes a new religion. Or a branch off the original. The first definition from dictionary.com establishes "religion" as meaning the following:
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"
So, if those sets of beliefs deviate from others' due to a different interpretation, then they are in fact a different set of beliefs and represent a different religion.
ALL of this is a significant deviation from the OP; I would be happy to continue this conversation, but believe it would be better suited in another thread, so please start one if you wish to continue this particular line of discussion.
maybe, but that is not yet manifested. there are no changes lately taking place to the bible and that is the guidebook for christianity so far.
as for me personally, i have more issue with religion than the concept of a creator of which i have only speculation at most.