Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

The Intolerance of Tolerance

JayLewis
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 1:53:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"These days, though, tolerance means that you accept the other person's views as being true or legitimate. If you claim that someone is wrong, you can get accused of being intolerant--even though, ironically, the person making the charge of intolerance isn't being accepting of your beliefs." - Paul Copan

"This shift from "accepting the existence of different views" to "acceptance of different views," from recognizing other people's right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people, is subtle in form, but massive in substance. To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another's position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid." - D.A. Carson

The classic definition of tolerance is an acknowledgement of other faith positions and a recognition of their right to exist amongst the other religions of the world; insofar as they do not violently oppose or infringe upon the rights of other religions.

The new definition of tolerance is a forced acceptance of all faith positions as equally valid. This new "tolerance" is ironically intolerant because it forces all people of faith to reject the exclusivity of their own religion and admit that all the truth claims in the religions of the world are somehow equally valid. Somehow, anyone who disagrees with this new tolerance is branded as "intolerant"; which makes the new "tolerance" totally intolerant against exclusive truth claims. But, the religions of the world are founded on exclusive truth claims (that's why we have so many).

This new tolerance is illogical.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 2:07:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 1:53:21 PM, JayLewis wrote:
"These days, though, tolerance means that you accept the other person's views as being true or legitimate. If you claim that someone is wrong, you can get accused of being intolerant--even though, ironically, the person making the charge of intolerance isn't being accepting of your beliefs." - Paul Copan

"This shift from "accepting the existence of different views" to "acceptance of different views," from recognizing other people's right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people, is subtle in form, but massive in substance. To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another's position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid." - D.A. Carson

The classic definition of tolerance is an acknowledgement of other faith positions and a recognition of their right to exist amongst the other religions of the world; insofar as they do not violently oppose or infringe upon the rights of other religions.

The new definition of tolerance is a forced acceptance of all faith positions as equally valid. This new "tolerance" is ironically intolerant because it forces all people of faith to reject the exclusivity of their own religion and admit that all the truth claims in the religions of the world are somehow equally valid. Somehow, anyone who disagrees with this new tolerance is branded as "intolerant"; which makes the new "tolerance" totally intolerant against exclusive truth claims. But, the religions of the world are founded on exclusive truth claims (that's why we have so many).

This new tolerance is illogical.

Welcome to the world of the unbeliever... I find it funny that the only view implicitly excluded from your defense is that of no belief, at all. Please try to remember that freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion. Those that have preached "tolerance" have ALWAYS been intolerant. The "tolerance" they preach is for that of their own beliefs, and you don't hear them preaching it, once they have a political voice.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
JayLewis
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 2:57:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 2:07:53 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Welcome to the world of the unbeliever... I find it funny that the only view implicitly excluded from your defense is that of no belief, at all. Please try to remember that freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion. Those that have preached "tolerance" have ALWAYS been intolerant. The "tolerance" they preach is for that of their own beliefs, and you don't hear them preaching it, once they have a political voice.

Actually, non-belief (or atheism) should implicitly be included in my previous statement. Like all ideologies, atheism is a faith position.
Here is an example of how tolerance should work: A christian should respect the rights of atheists to believe their own ideologies, but should not have to accept that the tenets of atheism are valid. This example should work both ways, an atheist should respect the rights of Christians, but do not have to accept their beliefs as equally valid.

But, the new tolerance states that both positions (Christianity and atheism) must state that all truth claims are equally valid. This new tolerance has no substantive foundation.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 5:52:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 2:57:46 PM, JayLewis wrote:
At 11/8/2014 2:07:53 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Welcome to the world of the unbeliever... I find it funny that the only view implicitly excluded from your defense is that of no belief, at all. Please try to remember that freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion. Those that have preached "tolerance" have ALWAYS been intolerant. The "tolerance" they preach is for that of their own beliefs, and you don't hear them preaching it, once they have a political voice.

Actually, non-belief (or atheism) should implicitly be included in my previous statement. Like all ideologies, atheism is a faith position.
Here is an example of how tolerance should work: A christian should respect the rights of atheists to believe their own ideologies, but should not have to accept that the tenets of atheism are valid. This example should work both ways, an atheist should respect the rights of Christians, but do not have to accept their beliefs as equally valid.

But, the new tolerance states that both positions (Christianity and atheism) must state that all truth claims are equally valid. This new tolerance has no substantive foundation.

http://atheism.about.com...

Atheism is Not an Ideology:

An ideology is any "body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." There are two key elements necessary for an ideology: it must be a group of ideas or beliefs and this group must provide guidance. Neither is true of atheism. First, atheism is by itself just the absence of belief in gods; it's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Second, atheism by itself offers no guidance on moral, social, or political matters. Atheism, like theism, can be part of an ideology, but neither can be an ideology by themselves.


Atheism is Not a Faith Position:

A belief system is a "faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society." This is simpler than an ideology or philosophy because it's just a group of beliefs; they don't have to be interconnected and they don't have to provide guidance. This still doesn't describe atheism; even if we narrowed atheism to denying the existence of gods, that's still just one belief and a single belief is not a set of beliefs. Theism is also a single belief that is not a belief system. Both theism and atheism are part of belief systems, though.


Atheism does not have Tenets

No refutation necessary. If you think atheism has tenets, please list them.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2014 6:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/8/2014 2:57:46 PM, JayLewis wrote:
At 11/8/2014 2:07:53 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Welcome to the world of the unbeliever... I find it funny that the only view implicitly excluded from your defense is that of no belief, at all. Please try to remember that freedom OF religion also includes freedom FROM religion. Those that have preached "tolerance" have ALWAYS been intolerant. The "tolerance" they preach is for that of their own beliefs, and you don't hear them preaching it, once they have a political voice.

Actually, non-belief (or atheism) should implicitly be included in my previous statement. Like all ideologies, atheism is a faith position.
Here is an example of how tolerance should work: A christian should respect the rights of atheists to believe their own ideologies, but should not have to accept that the tenets of atheism are valid. This example should work both ways, an atheist should respect the rights of Christians, but do not have to accept their beliefs as equally valid.

But, the new tolerance states that both positions (Christianity and atheism) must state that all truth claims are equally valid. This new tolerance has no substantive foundation.

No, neither atheism nor agnosticism (my position) is a "faith position." It is the answer we give to one, single, solitary question: Is there a deity? I don't know that I agree with your assessment of "tolerance," but we have been experiencing INtolerance from the theistic community for centuries. The "politically correct" community has been irritating most rational people for a long time, now. I think, they're funny, myself.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein