Towards Religious Tolerance (1 Viewer)

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Lol this thread is just a personal, patronising joke for you. The size of it is that 'secular humanists' should 'tolerate' religion as they tolerate stupid little perpetual toddlers.
Youre trying to rise above the God debate and it's so not working - nay it cant!
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
3,492
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Lol this thread is just a personal, patronising joke for you. The size of it is that 'secular humanists' should 'tolerate' religion as they tolerate stupid little perpetual toddlers.
Youre trying to rise above the God debate and it's so not working - nay it cant!
Isn't it always patronising when someone tells you that you're wrong? Aren't you patronising secular humanists right now?
 

zazzy1234

Banned
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
900
Location
lebo land
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
i believe in ma religon, whether people want to tolarate it, critisize it or anything i don't care coz i don't think it is to any1 business as to whether countries should tolarate religons i believe it's a personal belief and that it's wronfg to judge someone r something due to the religon.

that's allllllllllll. i know that this doesn't make sense. but i know wat i mean.



sori if this doesn't relate but just expressing ma opinion. =p
 

John Galt

New Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
21
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
Make negative individual freedom the defining characteristic of the state
That is a logical impossibility. A state defined by negative individual freedom would legislate against its own existence.
 

Cookie182

Individui Superiore
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
Global
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Lol this thread is just a personal, patronising joke for you. The size of it is that 'secular humanists' should 'tolerate' religion as they tolerate stupid little perpetual toddlers.
Youre trying to rise above the God debate and it's so not working - nay it cant!
Your of course entitled to draw conclusions about my intentions.

But I am actually deadly serious on "trying" to be tolerant- I just got to a point where instantly feeling the need to clash with someone on theology becomes frivolous and depressing. It generally just leads to bitter, upset people and me feeling like a deuschebag. We all believe what we believe, personally I think that I can almost logic away any of the 'truth' in revealed religions but remain philosophically agnostic on the "does god exist" question. In a proper academic realm, this is a needed and skilful debate. Engaging with friends at uni and people on the street, it would only be ego bedding to try and shove it down people's throats. I very much think the same for the theists (problems arise for people though who’s beliefs require evangelism, i.e. the Jehovah’s Witness. Should they expect any tolerance when they are at your door attempting to impose their belief set on you?)

So yes, it's not about "respecting" people's belief, that is impossible if you think they are wrong (respect connotes positivism) but tolerance is at the very minimum seeing something positive about their right to belief and draw any conclusions they want about the nature of reality and enjoying the plurality, which if we lacked would lead to an ideologically stagnant society.
 

ad infinitum

Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
312
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
What we need is a conversational intolerance. People can believe whatever they want, however they should be made to express their beliefs (i.e in a job interview). No one ever 'disproved' the existence of Zeus; it simply became to embarrassing for those to hold this belief in public; I.e if you at a job interview you said "I am a witch, or I believe in Zeus" you have a conversational pressure to justify your beliefs, or otherwise risk not getting the job.

Take 'Uncle' for example; it's not illegal for him to profess his devotion to Hitler and Nazism, however when he did so (by plastering swastikas and hate speak over the forums) the community applied a pressure to him to either justify or remove these images, and he then did so remove those foul images.
 

SashatheMan

StudyforEver
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
5,656
Location
Queensland
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The best model for a religiously tolerent society is a secular society. Isn't that why the fathers of the American constitution put in separation of shurch and state into their document? The first Americans were fleeing the persecution by the Catholic church, and wanted freedom to worship the way they wanted.
When ever someone tells me that the country should adopt more Christian laws to make it a better society, i feel like asking which Christian laws? The ones that the Catholics adhere to, or the ones that the protestants do, or JW's? A secular society protects all faiths and lack there of.
 

Sprangler

Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
494
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
In a harmonious world, humans don't exist.
Well yes sir, the only real solution to solve any sort of conflict is to nuke fucking everything, but we have to work with what we have. Religions are here to stay so we as humans have to work as hard as we can to get people with different beliefs living together.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Well yes sir, the only real solution to solve any sort of conflict is to nuke fucking everything, but we have to work with what we have. Religions are here to stay so we as humans have to work as hard as we can to get people with different beliefs living together.
Exactly.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Well yes sir, the only real solution to solve any sort of conflict is to nuke fucking everything, but we have to work with what we have. Religions are here to stay so we as humans have to work as hard as we can to get people with different beliefs living together.
Um...you evidently ignored the remainder of the post.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Not entirely, complete peace is ideological, however, I still think it is something we should strive towards as much as we can.
 

Iheartgays

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
50
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Not entirely, complete peace is ideological, however, I still think it is something we should strive towards as much as we can.
Some of the greatest advancements in society have been made during wartime. A state of peace would bring stagnation. Not to mention the overpopulation issues.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top