What about the right to be intolerant of intolerance?

[Procrustes Stretched]

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law

Preaching? Are you getting close to the part where you disparage organized religion as intolerant?

edit: never mind, just saw your last post.

btw, would somebody like you consider all criticism to be disparagement?

 

[Treeshepherd]

Organized religion needs to defend itself.

defend itself against what? Intolerance?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We tolerate intolerance by avoiding conflict and association with intolerance.

And that usually leads to a societal disaster of some kind

For example?

the easiest: the avoidance of conflict and association with the enemy within, be it fascism, authoritarianism or any other ism that appeals to mankind's basest instincts

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Organized religion needs to defend itself.

defend itself against what? Intolerance?

against accusations and evidence of intolerance that seeks to quell science, truth, and more?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Many people are intolerant of my intolerance of the government. They have that right, just as I have the right to be intolerant of the government. They can't, or wont, accept my view because they say it's unpatriotic or anti-America. So, they are intolerant to my intolerance. And, they have every right to be. Not only do they disagree with me, but they can't tolerate my views and opinions. This can be said concerning anyone's strong dislike for something. I am intolerant to drug addicts and alcoholics. I can't stand being around them, listening to them, or even being in the same room with them. So, not only do I dislike them, I can't tolerate them either.

We could go on and on with tolerance and intolerance. I'm sure that many have issues that irk them to the point of being intolerant. If someone doesn't like intolerant people, or disagrees with intolerance for anything, then yes, they have an intolerance for intolerance. But, again, yes, we do have the right to be intolerant, or to be intolerant to intolerance.

 

[Sonny Clark]

We tolerate intolerance by avoiding conflict and association with intolerance.

And that usually leads to a societal disaster of some kind

For example?

the easiest: the avoidance of conflict and association with the enemy within, be it fascism, authoritarianism or any other ism that appeals to mankind's basest instincts

That's like saying that there's never a cause to go to war. Wars are fought on the grounds of intolerance.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Organized religion needs to defend itself.

defend itself against what? Intolerance?

against accusations and evidence of intolerance that seeks to quell science, truth, and more?

I push back against unbalanced accusations of intolerance in organized religion. For example, many atheists like to say such and such a religion is racially intolerant. Yet, if you go to a Catholic Mass, or go on the Hajj, or even go to a mega-church in the South you find some of the greatest examples of social mixing between races.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We tolerate intolerance by avoiding conflict and association with intolerance.

And that usually leads to a societal disaster of some kind

For example?

the easiest: the avoidance of conflict and association with the enemy within, be it fascism, authoritarianism or any other ism that appeals to mankind's basest instincts

That's like saying that there's never a cause to go to war. Wars are fought on the grounds of intolerance.

"We tolerate intolerance by avoiding conflict and association with intolerance."

"And that usually leads to a societal disaster of some kind"

"For example?"

"the easiest: the avoidance of conflict and association with the enemy within, be it fascism, authoritarianism or any other ism that appeals to mankind's basest instincts"

"That's like saying that there's never a cause to go to war. Wars are fought on the grounds of intolerance."​

l think you may have confused things.........................

 

[Treeshepherd]

against accusations and evidence of intolerance that seeks to quell science, truth, and more?

Name a branch of science and you'll find a religious person among the pioneers. Pascal invented computing. Copernicus was a priest. Mendel fathered genetics. The accusations that religion is inherently intolerant of science are bogus. Were the Egyptians intolerant of learning about agriculture, astronomy, medicine and architecture? No.

 

[ClosedCaption]

What about intolerance of intolerant intolerance?

 

[ClosedCaption]

What about the love of loving love?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Organized religion needs to defend itself.

defend itself against what? Intolerance?

against accusations and evidence of intolerance that seeks to quell science, truth, and more?

I push back against unbalanced accusations of intolerance in organized religion. For example, many atheists like to say such and such a religion is racially intolerant. Yet, if you go to a Catholic Mass, or go on the Hajj, or even go to a mega-church in the South you find some of the greatest examples of social mixing between races.

You're wasting your time. Atheists as an organized group are by nature and design, hostile to religion.

What Atheists have said "religion is racially intolerant"???????

as far as how wonderful many religions are: The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992-95 Of course the Pope was against what Catholics were doing to those who practice other faiths, but his words almost always fall on deaf ears because most Catholics are not living christ-like lives nor do they care too when their basest instincts are appealed to.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Criticism of Criticism of Criticism

 

[Ringel05]

Hey I'm still working on being indolent and now ya want me to work on becoming intolerant? Is there homework included with this? I hope not, that would run counter to my indolent aspirations.........

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

against accusations and evidence of intolerance that seeks to quell science, truth, and more?

Name a branch of science and you'll find a religious person among the pioneers. Pascal invented computing. Copernicus was a priest. Mendel fathered genetics. The accusations that religion is inherently intolerant of science are bogus. Were the Egyptians intolerant of learning about agriculture, astronomy, medicine and architecture? No.

You're either being disingenuous or worse...

The RCC has apologized for being intolerant of the science some Christians sought to explore in the past. What is amazing is how it is still fighting science. Having scientists that practice religious faith does NOT negate the premise and truth that -- organized religion has been intolerant of science and in the Spanish tradition it has put people to death who have sought to follow science, against the express wishes and dictates of mother Church

 

[Treeshepherd]

organized religion has been intolerant of science and in the Spanish tradition it has put people to death who have sought to follow science, against the express wishes and dictates of mother Church

The Spanish Inquisition was established by Ferdinand and Isabella (temporal monarchs) with the political motive of maintaining political order in their kingdom.

I've had this argument time and time again. You're here to say that religion is the motive behind war, and that religion is antagonistic toward science.

I say that war is always a struggle over territory, resources and political power. War is expensive, and always self-defeating when no material profit is to be gained.

The fact of the matter is that cosmology/mythology is crucial to cultural identity and cohesiveness. The Illiad and the Odyssey defined what it meant to be Greek. Roman mythology defined what it meant to be Roman. The synthesis of the Greek thinker, the Roman builder and the Christian saint defined what it meant to be European. That's been the impetus for the development of Western culture.

Is it time for a new synthesis? Perhaps. But, society goes nowhere based on a self-negating philosophy of intolerance to intolerance.

 

[pinqy]

You're wasting your time. Atheists as an organized group are by nature and design, hostile to religion. .

ummmm no. I know plenty of atheists who are neither members of any group based on atheism and who are not hostile to religion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

organized religion has been intolerant of science and in the Spanish tradition it has put people to death who have sought to follow science, against the express wishes and dictates of mother Church

The Spanish Inquisition was established by Ferdinand and Isabella (temporal monarchs) with the political motive of maintaining political order in their kingdom.

I've had this argument time and time again. You're here to say that religion is the motive behind war, and that religion is antagonistic toward science.

I say that war is always a struggle over territory, resources and political power. War is expensive, and always self-defeating when no material profit is to be gained.

The fact of the matter is that cosmology/mythology is crucial to cultural identity and cohesiveness. The Illiad and the Odyssey defined what it meant to be Greek. Roman mythology defined what it meant to be Roman. The synthesis of the Greek thinker, the Roman builder and the Christian saint defined what it meant to be European. That's been the impetus for the development of Western culture.

Is it time for a new synthesis? Perhaps. But, society goes nowhere based on a self-negating philosophy of intolerance to intolerance.

Leaders commit atrocities in the name of their religion.

If one judges the organized religions by what they do and not what some of the flock says?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're wasting your time. Atheists as an organized group are by nature and design, hostile to religion. .

ummmm no. I know plenty of atheists who are neither members of any group based on atheism and who are not hostile to religion.

which is why I wrote "Atheists as an organized group are by nature and design, hostile to religion."

I left out how crazed some lone wolf Atheists are. Saying so does not negate there are some like you describe, so what was your point?

what is your point? You did NOT refute what I said. All you did was point away to atheists who are not as a group, organized. I also "know" some "atheists who are neither members of any group based on atheism and who are not hostile to religion." How does that refute my earlier comment?

 

[pinqy]

You're wasting your time. Atheists as an organized group are by nature and design, hostile to religion. .

ummmm no. I know plenty of atheists who are neither members of any group based on atheism and who are not hostile to religion.

which is why I wrote "Atheists as an organized group are by nature and design, hostile to religion."

I left out how crazed some lone wolf Atheists are. Saying so does not negate there are some like you describe, so what was your point?

My point is that to characterize atheists as an organized group hostile to religion is misleading and dishonest. Atheists are generally NOT an organized group.

what is your point? You did NOT refute what I said. All you did was point away to atheists who are not as a group, organized. I also "know" some "atheists who are neither members of any group based on atheism and who are not hostile to religion." How does that refute my earlier comment?

While it may not have been your intent, your post read to me as though you believed that atheists as a whole are an organized group hostile to religion. Most atheists are not organized or in a group, and most are not hostile to religion itself, though a significant number are hostile to religious people who seek supremacy for religion.