Who is the least tolerant?

[mikkel_the_dane]

To broad to answer.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I too can't answer this poll, since the question is too black and white, but given the numbers (of believers as opposed to not) it would seem to follow that it is amongst the religious (of whatever faith, with some being a lot less tolerant than others) where intolerance lies. Unless one was to believe that all the non-believers are an intolerant lot, which is not how I recognise such - since they are not necessarily influenced/controlled by some particular teaching or doctrine which might be the producer of intolerance.

 

[Piculet]

For example, this is the symbol of my local interfaith group

Total hypocrisy

 

[eik]

Are religious people more tolerant of human diversity, or are the non-religious more likely to be so?

What you mean by "human diversity" is your very own intolerant brand of nature religion that condemns all bible believers who disagree with your nature religion as bigots and nasty people.

Obviously the people of God were always intolerant of nature religion after coming out of Egypt, because nature religion is itself highly intolerant of Abrahimic religion.

It is only to be regreted that approximately 3000 years after Canaanite nature religion was wiped out in Israel, there are now so many votaries of it, even in the formerly Christian (or may be only deist?) USA.

 

[Piculet]

The people who truly make difference are special people.



Shyness and fear do more harm than some idiot saying something mean. I spent most of my life not very intolerant yet not very friendly, not reaching out. That is the real source of intolerance. Its not the stupid people saying hurtful things but the inactive people. Its the shy people who mean no harm but don't do anything. Its also the people who are afraid.

Religious people ought to know better. Often we do not, and that is shameful and a failure. The whole point of religion is to improve is it not? It is in particular hopefully making young people wise before their time.

I would rather a person were obnoxious than shy, but neither is desirable. Let there be light.

Bashing people based on their personality, really? In Islam shyness is a virtue.

 

[epronovost]

Bashing people based on their personality, really? In Islam shyness is a virtue.

Wouldn't humility be the more correct term for the islamic virtue more than shyness? Shyness is usually defined as a timidity and nervousness in company of others or in social settings. Humility is an almost universal virtue to pretty much every single system of ethics be it religious or not. It's a good pro-social trait to have and makes you easier to live with.

 

[Secret Chief]

We all have our intolerances. However some religious people have a claimed inerrant basis in their books to justify their intolerances, a luxury not afforded to those without religion. I'm intolerant of that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We all have our intolerances. However some religious people have a claimed inerrant basis in their books to justify their intolerances, a luxury not afforded to those without religion. I'm intolerant of that.

Not true. The most standard example of it is Ayn Rand Objectivism. Objectivism is inerrant as a belief system.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not true. The most standard example of it is Ayn Rand Objectivism. Objectivism is inerrant as a belief system.

I'm voting on a binary poll. In my experience, I most often come across intolerance as I opined. The only times I come across references to Rand's philosophy is on internet forums, usually from Americans that are big into libertarian politics, so that's a bit of a niche. Is it generally accepted to be the most standard example of inerrancy then?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm voting on a binary poll. In my experience, I most often come across intolerance as I opined. The only times I come across references to Rand's philosophy is on internet forums, usually from Americans that are big into libertarian politics, so that's a bit of a niche. Is it generally accepted to be the most standard example of inerrancy then?

Well, here is another example:

... Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds. ...
Our Vision | American Atheists

That ends in the same place.
So here is how I view it. Because there are more religious than non-religious humans, there are more religious human who claim in the end "objectvism" as how they arrive at the truth. But that is a human behavior, which you can also observe in non-religious humans.

 

[Secret Chief]

Well, here is another example:


That ends in the same place.
So here is how I view it. Because there are more religious than non-religious humans, there are more religious human who claim in the end "objectvism" as how they arrive at the truth. But that is a human behavior, which you can also observe in non-religious humans.

Thanks, that's a better comparison. I still stick by my original point though, in which I referred to books. There is no Atheist "Bible."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thanks, that's a better comparison. I still stick by my original point though, in which I referred to books. There is no Atheist "Bible."

Thanks.
No, non-religious belief in "objectivism" is more diverse than just one book. But is out there in in part books and writings. Now if you look for it, it is a combination of claims: Rationality as in the end strong coherence with logic, objectivity, empiricism/correspondence to objective things as the only real and objective reality, evidence as falsifiable/verification through science and philosophical naturalism and its variants.
So there is no just one book, there are several books, writings and authors.

 

[Secret Chief]

Thanks.
No, non-religious belief in "objectivism" is more diverse than just one book. But is out there in in part books and writings. Now if you look for it, it is a combination of claims: Rationality as in the end strong coherence with logic, objectivity, empiricism/correspondence to objective things as the only real and objective reality, evidence as falsifiable/verification through science and philosophical naturalism and its variants.
So there is no just one book, there are several books, writings and authors.

Atheism may promote objectivity, but is that the same as Rand's Objectivism (Rand described Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being") ?
I accept the former (lower case) but certainly reject the latter libertarian philosophy. An atheist is not the equivalent of a Rand proponent.

 

[DKH]

Are religious people more tolerant of human diversity, or are the non-religious more likely to be so?

It seems that from the poll results that religious people are! But, I reject the concept…Not with the results, but with the idea that a devout religious person can accept the concepts of religious or non-religious groups that are contrary to what that person accepts and believes. It is my opinion that there is only one true religion. Hence, it would be irresponsible of me to accept or consider that the beliefs of others can also be valid alongside mine…So, I am not tolerant in my mindset. Yet, I am also unwilling to take any active action, such as proselytizing. However, this position would seem to allow for me to give my opinion on such matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheism may promote objectivity, but is that the same as Rand's Objectivism (Rand described Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being") ?
I accept the former (lower case) but certainly reject the latter libertarian philosophy. An atheist is not the equivalent of a Rand proponent.

Correct, Ayn Rand Objectivism is a narrow specific example. But e.g. objectivism is better that subjectivism, is in some variants problematic because better is subjective. Indeed at its core objectivity in humans is a specific subset of subjectivity.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It seems that from the poll results that religious people are! But, I reject the concept…Not with the results, but with the idea that a devout religious person can accept the concepts of religious or non-religious groups that are contrary to what that person accepts and believes. It is my opinion that there is only one true religion. Hence, it would be irresponsible of me to accept or consider that the beliefs of others can also be valid alongside mine…So, I am not tolerant in my mindset. Yet, I am also unwilling to take any active action, such as proselytizing. However, this position would seem to allow for me to give my opinion on such matters.

Isn't intolerance in one's thinking likely to lead to intolerance in behaviour though?

 

[epronovost]

But e.g. objectivism is better that subjectivism, is in some variants problematic because better is subjective.

It depends on the criteria used to defined "better" in that specific instance. You often use the term "subjective" in several different fashion without making any distinction in your philosophical arguments. That can be problematic to understand your point of view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Isn't intolerance in one's thinking likely to lead to intolerance in behaviour though?

Well, I will start with dogmatic beliefs. In practice I have those, but because I accept as subjective and not universal, I am in one sense intolerant as unwilling to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own as my own, but I accept that other humans have other beliefs.
Intolerance in practice comes at 2 levels. One's own beliefs versus the willingness to assume that they are universal for all humans.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends on the criteria used to defined "better" in that specific instance. You often use the term "subjective" in several different fashion without making any distinction in your philosophical arguments. That can be problematic to understand your point of view.

Yeah, I know. Here is objective as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. Now if you can, I am will to hear how you can make better objective in the strong sense as for the definition used.

 

[Piculet]

Wouldn't humility be the more correct term for the islamic virtue more than shyness?

No. Both are virtues though.