Should religion be tolerated?

[BaronVonKaiser]

Provide an example of ANYTHING that non-religious offers that could not have been provided by religion?

You can't.
This is my point.

Your argument equally applies to the non-religious.

I think I might have something, how about the freedom of unbiased thought? The ability to accept new information without requiring it to confirm to misguided preconceptions. No religion can offer that, however there are no such handicaps in an agnostic mind.

 

[Storm]

I think I might have something, how about the freedom of unbiased thought? The ability to accept new information without requiring it to confirm to misguided preconceptions. No religion can offer that, however there are no such handicaps in an agnostic mind.

What utter bull****.

I ask again: assuming the answer to the OP is "no," what strategies to you propose for eliminating religion?

 

[McBell]

I think I might have something, how about the freedom of unbiased thought? The ability to accept new information without requiring it to confirm to misguided preconceptions. No religion can offer that, however there are no such handicaps in an agnostic mind.

No religion can offer unbiased thought?
Perhaps you needs brush up on your religions....

Here is a good place to START:
ReligiousTolerance.org by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

 

[jacobweymouth]

I believe that my faith is the one true faith -I'll proselyte, but won't force you. That would violate my belief in the concept of Free Will, which is grounded in the Bible. There are radicals who will kill, vandelize, etc. -those are criminals

Of course all religions should be tolerated. Up to and including peaceful proselyting and animal sacrfices.

 

[Storm]

I believe that my faith is the one true faith -I'll proselyte, but won't force you. That would violate my belief in the concept of Free Will, which is grounded in the Bible. There are radicals who will kill, vandelize, etc. -those are criminals

Of course all religions should be tolerated. Up to and including peaceful proselyting and animal sacrfices.

1) You do realize that proselytization is against forum rules, right? I don't want you to get in trouble.

2) I've recently become aware that somepeople use the word differently. What do you mean by it?

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

What utter bull****.

I ask again: assuming the answer to the OP is "no," what strategies to you propose for eliminating religion?

I'm not suggesting some massive attmept to eliminate religion, I put up this topic to explore this issue for myself personally, because I feel a little bit torn when I hear that someone I know... like my little brother for instance, takes up a religion. If I say to him, "Thats nice, whatever makes you happy" I feel that I'm indirectly encouraging something that is negative. But if I say, "What are you nuts? Why would you believe in something so silly?" Then I feel as though I'm breaking some rule that says I should be be accepting of his chosen beliefs. So I wanted to hear some arguments for and against so that I can work out within myself what an appropriate response should be.

That all being said, was there something inparticular about my comment you feel is misguided?

 

[jacobweymouth]

1) You do realize that proselytization is against forum rules, right? I don't want you to get in trouble.

Of course it is here on the boards (what about Private messages?). I was referring to elsewhere.

2) I've recently become aware that somepeople use the word differently. What do you mean by it?

Mine doesn't involved killing or forced conversion. I street preached with my father, I knock on doors, and out tracts, etc.

 

[Storm]

I'm not suggesting some massive attmept to eliminate religion, I put up this topic to explore this issue for myself personally, because I feel a little bit torn when I hear that someone I know... like my little brother for instance, takes up a religion. If I say to him, "Thats nice, whatever makes you happy" I feel that I'm indirectly encouraging something that is negative. But if I say, "What are you nuts? Why would you believe in something so silly?" Then I feel as though I'm breaking some rule that says I should be be accepting of his chosen beliefs. So I wanted to hear some arguments for and against so that I can work out within myself what an appropriate response should be.

That all being said, was there something inparticular about my comment you feel is misguided?

Ah, I see. Tolerance doesn't mean meek acceptance, just peaceful coexistance.

As for the dilemma you propose, any action will have consequences. Take the time to understand what they believe before you make up your mind about it. It's been my experience that the irreligious, out of simple ignorance, have some pretty silly stereotypes about believers. Make sure you don't fall prey to that. The, if you disapprove, be honest but tactful. Who knows, maybe you'll find a thoroughly enjoyable debate partner.

 

[Storm]

That all being said, was there something inparticular about my comment you feel is misguided?

I think I just answered the wrong question.

I think I might have something, how about the freedom of unbiased thought? The ability to accept new information without requiring it to confirm to misguided preconceptions. No religion can offer that, however there are no such handicaps in an agnostic mind.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those silly stereotypes I was referring to. The religious are no more or less biased than the irreligious. They have no more or less difficulty assimilating new knowledge. And your last sentence just highlights that fact. Agnostics have no advantage in this regard.

 

[bobhikes]

Its is not only religions that cause all the disasters in the world. Followers follow, Leaders, lead. We need people to take a stand for themselves.

If we eliminated all the religions of the world a lot of good work would be lost and the Followers would follow more unscrupolus leader's not bound to a higher calling.

Thinking of it this way all religions have some rules that a morally acceptable. If we eliminated them would the new leaders have the same morals.


Bob

 

[Storm]

Of course it is here on the boards (what about Private messages?). I was referring to elsewhere.

Hmm. I'm not sure, but I think PMs are off-limits, too. You might ask a mod.

Mine doesn't involved killing or forced conversion.

LOL! Never entered my mind!

I street preached with my father, I knock on doors, and out tracts, etc.

We don't disagree on the definition, then. Good to know.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

I'm sorry, but this is one of those silly stereotypes I was referring to. The religious are no more or less biased than the irreligious. They have no more or less difficulty assimilating new knowledge. And your last sentence just highlights that fact. Agnostics have no advantage in this regard.

I suppose this depends on your definition of a religious, but I believe it is generally accepted that any religion requires faith, and by definition that means faith in something that you don't have facts to back up. That is, I feel, the root of the problem, how can you whole heartedly believe in something for which you have no facts, and still consider a piece of information that conflicts with your faith without a bias. Just as an example that I discussed with someone the other day, there were a great many people that put up a lot of resistance to the idea that the world was round, they believed word for word the bible, whose account of creation sort of made the world seem much more flat. Naturally their faith forced them to look at this new information in a hostile way. This tiny example of differing interpretations is one of absolutely countless times that religion has impeded the advancement of knowledge.

 

[Storm]

I suppose this depends on your definition of a religious, but I believe it is generally accepted that any religion requires faith, and by definition that means faith in something that you don't have facts to back up.

Ask 5 people what "faith" means, and you'll get 50 answers. I'm not saying this one is invalid, but it's not representative.

Now, it is true that no religion has concrete proof. That's true of every worldview. That's because worldviews aren't about the facts, they're about interpretation of the facts. Atheism and agnosticism included.

It's also true that every worldview I'm familiar with can present evidence to support itself. Of course, such evidence will never actually convince anyone of an opposing worldview, because they have an alien interpretation.

That is, I feel, the root of the problem, how can you whole heartedly believe in something for which you have no facts, and still consider a piece of information that conflicts with your faith without a bias.

Much of this, I've already addressed. My point is that every worldview has this problem.

Now, the more dogmatic one becomes, the more this issue crops up. I will grant that religion lends itself to dogmatism with depressing readiness, but dogmatism is neither exclusive to nor universal in religion.

Just as an example that I discussed with someone the other day, there were a great many people that put up a lot of resistance to the idea that the world was round, they believed word for word the bible, whose account of creation sort of made the world seem much more flat. Naturally their faith forced them to look at this new information in a hostile way. This tiny example of differing interpretations is one of absolutely countless times that religion has impeded the advancement of knowledge.

*sigh* That's not religion, that's simple observation. Look around you, it's obvious that the world is flat. What is obvious is not always true.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

An analogy I like for this is that you can take a song and play it for 10 different people, and they may well all come away with completely different opinions about the meaning of the song. It's how you view the song, and not just the lyrics themselves, that create a sense of meaning.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Baron,

The whole question of this thread is silly because it is posed as though your own secular, agnostic/atheistic and presumably humanist world view is not itself the product of certain historical conditions and representing its own unique point along the history of ideas and values.

You might feel that religion attempts in certain ways to enforce a "divine will", but the only other option you can give is the enforcement of other "human wills". You can offer no system for society that is not ultimately streaked with taints of ideology and which does not have the potency to go horribly awry.

 

[jacobweymouth]

I might add that we are tolerating you (non-religious). It's only because of our beliefs that the United States isn't a Christian version of Iran

 

[Father Heathen]

It's only because of our beliefs that the United States isn't a Christian version of Iran

Then why do so many of you want to turn it into one?

 

[jacobweymouth]

To whom are you referring?

 

[Father Heathen]

To whom are you referring?

The "we" and "our" in your previous post.

 

[jacobweymouth]

The "we" and "our" in your previous post.

That's a myth.

There are those who advocate a conservative way of thinking, and recognition of this nation's Judeo-Christian background -that's nothing like Iran is (taking into account the different religions, of course).