When It Comes to Religious Belief, Disagreement Is NOT Intolerance.

[MineralMan]

Religion is based on belief or faith, rather than facts. No two people believe exactly the same. In a broader sample, people believe a very wide rage of things if they are religious. Even within religions, differences exist in exactly what is believed. The vast number of denominations of Christianity demonstrates that.

For those who are not religious, such beliefs are thought to be incorrect and to be mere emotional responses to unanswerable questions. It is never intolerant to say, "I do not believe as you do." It is not intolerant to say, "I do not believe that any supernatural entities exist." That is merely disagreement.

What is intolerant is an expressed opinion that a person should be treated differently based on belief or nonbelief of some religious dogma. The nonbeliever is not a lesser person for that lack of belief, nor is the believer diminished in importance based on belief. Both should be treated equally. To treat a person as less than an equal is intolerance. Mere disagreement is not intolerance.

In most situations, discussion of religious belief is a waste of time. Here, in the Religion Group on DU, that sort of discussion is the order of the day, however. It is not intolerant here to either claim that a belief is true nor to claim that it has no merit. It is merely discussion where people do not agree with each other.

What is intolerant in religious discussions is making accusations of intolerance when only a disagreement occurs.

[guillaumeb]

1. When it comes to intolerance,

there are some who choose to frame some examples of it as disagreement.

[MineralMan]

2. Oh, Poo, Guy!

Your one-line replies just don't get it done. Try using more words. They're free here. Try a little more effort, too. Your reply is not responsive to my post.

[guillaumeb]

3. I gave your post all of the response that it merited.

I understand your need to deflect from Russell and his longstanding record of intolerance. I understand how you identify with his position on theism, and your own replies to theists here reflect that you are indeed a disciple of Russell.

[MineralMan]

4. Actually, you don't understand at all.

I may know more about what Russell has written than you do, but I'm no acolyte of the man. We share some positions regarding theism, of course, because they are common. As for his "intolerance," he was not an intolerant person. He spoke and wrote his own thinking. He disagreed with theism. I do not believe he ever insisted that everyone must agree with him, though.

As for your personal insult, I'm used to those.

[guillaumeb]

5. You are amazing.

And your reply was all that I expected it to be.

As to insulting replies, we can all actually read how you reply to theists here, so no further comment is needed.

[MineralMan]

6. Thanks!

[guillaumeb]

7. Happy to say it!! eom

[Major Nikon]

15. Bullshit

MM is one of the most respectful posters here. If you feel butthurt about getting insulted, it’s probably reciprocal for your own half-fast insults.

[guillaumeb]

18. What an interesting defense.

And typical.

[Major Nikon]

20. Most people learned in primary school to not dish it out if you can't take it

Obviously YMMV.

[guillaumeb]

24. And other than insults,

what is on your menu?

[Major Nikon]

29. The same as yours

So please don’t act so butthurt about it as it comes across as hypocritical.

[Major Nikon]

14. Bullshit

Nobody else is calling Russell intolerant and your insistence that he was with zero coherent argument just makes you look foolish.

[guillaumeb]

17. By "nobody else", do you mean none of the other responders?

If so, I agree with you.

[Major Nikon]

21. I mean nobody north of a room temperature IQ

[guillaumeb]

25. This reminds me of a certain politician.

[Major Nikon]

28. This reminds me that nobody of note agrees with you about Russell

Very revealing that.

[guillaumeb]

37. An attempt at humor?

Stay with your gif(t).

[Major Nikon]

39. More like laughing at unintentional humor

[guillaumeb]

41. Have you ever read Russell's many early quotes about race?

Very interesting.

[Major Nikon]

44. Sure, why don't you also remind us how Robert Byrd was a KKK member

You know, just like the wingnuts always do.

That would go a long ways towards changing the subject about why you can’t even begin to support the assertion that Russell was “extremely intolerant”

[guillaumeb]

45. I can only assume that you have not read them.

They are a textbook example of racial intolerance.

[Major Nikon]

46. Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups

I suppose if I wanted to venture down the same road I could assume you have no clue about how he disavowed that position and did more for racial tolerance than you could ever manage in a dozen lifetimes.

Meanwhile your blatant attempt at diversion is noted. I suppose if I wanted to use your subliterate definition for whataboutism I could call it that, but I don’t.

[guillaumeb]

47. You certainly like ad hominem arguments.

My debate professor said that an ad hominem argument was a certain sign that the person using it was losing the argument.

[Major Nikon]

48. A shame you didn't pay better attention

[guillaumeb]

49. More evidence, if any were needed.

[Major Nikon]

50. More evidence you didn't pay attention

Which is simply annoying, but I suspect that’s the point.

[Bradshaw3]

51. Off topic but Ewell is cool

Although why was he so lean in Better Call Saul and heavy in Breaking Bad? And older looking too.

[Major Nikon]

53. His weight loss makes him look younger

It’s a bit of a shame he isn’t given more speaking parts, but his facial expressions alone are brilliant.

[marylandblue]

10. I don't agree with Russell's attitude towards religion, but he isn't intolerant

He doesn't advocate that believers be silenced or persecuted in any way. He does offer some sharp criticism. He thinks people should stop believing. But to call that "intolerance" is a slap in the face to the many people who have been persecuted for their beliefs, including both theists and atheists.

[guillaumeb]

11. He called theists contemptible.

And weak, and ignorant. Numerous times, in fact.

No, he never called for reeducation camps, but his progressive positions cannot excuse his rudeness and intolerance for theists.

[marylandblue]

12. Rudeness is not intolerance. Please don't confabulate the two.

[MineralMan]

13. Do you feel insulted by his comments?

Why? What is he to you? He stated his opinion. You disagree. His opinion has no effect on you whatsoever.

I would not call all theists contemptible. I would, however, call some theists contemptible, because they behave in a contemptible way, based on their particular beliefs. In fact, they are contemptible to anyone who is a progressive thinker.

However, they are not affected by what I call them. Am I intolerant to such people? Yes. But that intolerance is based on their behavior, not their religious beliefs. I see no reason to tolerate people who do intolerable things. Do you?

Tolerance is not a given, as far as I am concerned. It is dependent on behavior, and that alone.

[guillaumeb]

16. I feel sad for him that he was so openly contemptuous to theists.

Showing the limits of his progressivism and his intelligence.

[MineralMan]

19. You feel sad for Bertrand Russell?

Comme c'est drôle.

[Major Nikon]

34. "Showing the limits of his progressivism and his intelligence."

[MineralMan]

35. I feel sad for him that he is so openly contemptuous to atheists.

Showing the limits of his progressivism and his intelligence.

Reciprocity bites with sharp, pointy teeth!

[Major Nikon]

36. It must really suck to go through life harboring such extreme intolerance.

[Major Nikon]

22. Bullshit

You should go read it again because you obviously didn't understand it. What he called contemptible(actually "a little contemptible&quot was the behavior of those who prop themselves up with myths. That's not even within a cab ride of what you're suggesting.

Meanwhile even if he HAD called theists contemptible(and he didn't), that still wouldn't be an example of intolerance, at least within the realm of the fully literate. I realize you got your feelings hurt by the painful reality he imparted on you, but your insistence that up is really down does not make it so.

[guillaumeb]

26. The actual quote:

There is something feeble, and a little contemptible, about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought, and he therefore cannot carry his own reflection to any logical conclusion.

Bertrand Russell

Perhaps you should read it again, because your "explanation" here is totally unsupported by the actual quote.

. Interesting too how you apparently feel that name calling is actual dialogue, and evidence of intelligence.

[Major Nikon]

30. Thanks for once again proving you have absolutely no clue what Russell is saying

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2018, 10:24 PM - Edit history (1)

It really wasn't necessary, but it does provide evidence you are unwilling to accept anything that doesn't fit your prescribed attitude towards atheists.

It's actually quite revealing how you pretend Russell is resorting to name calling, while Einstein uses the exact same alleged name calling and you think he's a shining example of tolerance. Very telling how you have a very different standard for atheists. I suppose by your own half-fast name calling that makes you intolerant by your own standard. Just sayin'.

Do you think Einstein is just as "intolerant" as Russell yet? Or are you going to still go with your different standard for atheists? You haven't answered this question yet and I don't expect you to ever do so, but your non-answers are getting louder all the time.

Let's not also forget your half-fast allegation that "Russel's(sic) intolerance for theists is well known." yet you can't manage to provide even one example of anyone else who thinks so. Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

38. I almost hate to point this out, but Einstein was an atheist.

So, on the subject of having no idea what is being said, perhaps you should abandon your crusade.

[Major Nikon]

40. You also just proved you have no clue what Einstein was saying

“I’m not an atheist”
— Albert Einstein

Yet another instance of your unintentional humor which is the gift that just keeps on giving.

[guillaumeb]

42. The friendly atheist, among others, disagrees with you.

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2015/06/14/did-albert-einstein-believe-in-god-or-not/

[Major Nikon]

43. "I'm not an atheist" -- Albert Einstein

Guess who disagrees with you?

Kinda funny how you think you know more about what a no-shit genius believes than they do, especially coming from a self-avowed deist who thinks he’s also a theist.

[MineralMan]

31. That's not a statement of intolerance. It is merely a statement of opinion.

Nowhere does he suggest that such people be ostracized, shunned, avoided, fired or punished for their beliefs. Intolerance requires some suggestion of how one should treat the subjects of the opinion.

Russell is making an observation, based on his experience. It's not a pleasant observation if you are one of the people he is describing, to be sure, but it does not display intolerance. You have failed to demonstrate any intolerance at all, just someone's opinion.

[Major Nikon]

32. This is obvious to most

I guess some are just to emotionally involved to make rational judgements about it.

[MineralMan]

33. A hit dog will holler.

Or so the saying goes.

[Iggo]

8. I've been tolerating them all day every day for fifty-seven fucking years.

Atheists are the most tolerant motherfuckers they've ever seen.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, indeed.

I don't see atheists calling for churches to be shut down. I don't hear them standing outside of churches with bullhorns, telling people that there is no God. In fact, I rarely see an identifiable atheist doing anything at all in opposition to religion. We tolerate religionists just fine, really. Most of them, anyhow. I don't have any liking for fundamentalist Christians, though, since they are forever trying to run everyone's lives the way they think we should live.

Other than that, religionists are welcome to whatever they are able to believe.

[Major Nikon]

23. Meanwhile almost without exception, western organized religion is actually intolerant

You have the pope and virtually every other major organized religion actively working to deny basic human rights to entire classes of people for thousands of years up to and including murdering them.

Kinda funny how we have some who fuck up while trying to lecture others on what tolerance is while simultaneously acting as cheerleader for some of the most no-shit intolerant motherfuckers on earth.

[luvallpeeps]

27. People with the very same religion can't even agree on scripture interpretation

let alone people with different ones. All I can say about this is (from my dear old Dad) "your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose". If you go looking through that Holy Book, you can end up awfully confused. I will say that within my own home, a fake Christian is officially called a "Huckabee".

[zipplewrath]

52. Unfortuinately

Your participation usually includes a fair amount of derision not to mention a blatant lack of knowledge of what you post.

[MineralMan]

54. I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of your reply to

this post. I'm at a loss to know how to respond to your insult, really.

[zipplewrath]

55. Explain

Take anyone of your critical posts of people of faith and explain where the respect or tolerance is.

[Mariana]

56. Criticism is not intolerance.

Disagreement is not intolerance. Ridicule is not intolerance. Disrespect is not intolerance. Etc.

[MineralMan]

57. I think I'll just let my posts stand on their own.

I'm not going to engage in a general discussion with you about unspecified posts.

You're welcome to raise relevant questions in any thread, though, about any post of mine in that thread.

This opening post was about disagreement not being equivalent to intolerance. It is in the Religion Group, which is a group where all aspects of religion can be discussed by anyone, regardless of belief or non-belief.

Your reply had nothing to do with the subject of the thread, and ended with an insult. Why would I engage with you about that?