Tolerance: where's the line

[Raticiel]

alteregoivy

As far as truth... The thing about science that I think makes it critically different from religion is that it changes over time. Unlike dogma, which stubbornly resists change centuries at a time, science is changing every day.

You've got a point in there. But science can actually play the role of religion to people of current generation (and it was happening in past). And, because science will never give them any answers about the meaning of their life or any other deeper stuff, the role of the "church" will be taken over by the government and mass culture, which will show (actually, it's already happening) these people the way to live their lives. Thankfully my generation was pretty free of brainwashing mrgreen  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

Truth, can we know it?

Well, I think the following is a pretty decent summary of my view:

Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy

In addition, there is yet a set of different philosophers — those who question the possibility of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition, of the world. To them, among the more modern ones, belong Hume and Kant, and they played a very important role in philosophical development. What is decisive in the refutation of this view has already been said by Hegel, in so far as this was possible from an idealist standpoint. The materialistic additions made by Feuerbach are more ingenious than profound. The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice — namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable “thing-in-itself”. The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained just such “things-in-themselves” until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the “thing-in-itself” became a thing for us — as, for instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For 300 years, the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis with 100, 1,000, 10,000 to 1 chances in its favor, but still always a hypothesis. But then Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when [Johann] Galle really found this planet [Neptune, discovered 1846, at Berlin Observatory], the Copernican system was proved. If, nevertheless, the neo-Kantians are attempting to resurrect the Kantian conception in Germany, and the agnostics that of Hume in England (where in fact it never became extinct), this is, in view of their theoretical and practical refutation accomplished long ago, scientifically a regression and practically merely a shamefaced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.

In short:
We have made nukes and iPods from ******** with the real world.
Appealing to the might of deities has done nothing.

We have an answer.  

[zen traveler]

Each person has their own mind, their own soul, their own beliefs. A human being can believe in whatever he desires, because it is his own decision. If someone wants to be Mormon, Christian, Hindu, so be it. I will respect whatever anyone wants to put their faith in; to each his own.

That, however, doesn't necessarily mean that I 1. agree with their point of view, 2. want them shoving their point of view down my throat. I tolerate anyone with any religion, because that is their choice, and not mine. But the minute that they try to tell me something like "your life can be better if..", "this is happening because..", or "your views are wrong" my tolerance is up. I respect the thought system of everyone else, and like the golden rule, mine should be respected back.

I don't give a ******** that you think my life would be better if I believed in a higher power. I don't give a ******** that you don't think this science fact is right because a book says so. I don't give a ******** that you think I'm a bad person and could use more "direction" in life.

Tolerance is a tight string that can either be strong, or broken.  

[=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=]

What do you think about the truth?

Of course we will never know the complete truth and hey, who knows? Maybe when I die, I do end up being judged and questioned by god and sent to hell. But here's the thing: There's more to religion than just finding out the truth of whether or not god exists. The thing with religion is that, aside from arguing that god exists, religious people also have to enforce "laws" and maintain "order" which, inevitably and unfortunately, have cost many lives before that wouldn't have been taken if they hadn't believed. I am not saying that I alone know the truth about god's existence; I do, however, know the truth about what people who follow him use his name for.

Also, truth can be very arbitrary. To theists and the religious, god is their truth. But not to us, apparently. To a delusional wife thinking that her husband cheated on her, the truth is that her husband cheated on her. But to the husband or other people, not really. Do you see? Sometimes even the word "truth" can be subjective and so it impossible to say who really knows the truth.

What do you think of other religions / philosophical views?

Some religions aren't intrinsically bad, but others... they just sound like madmen trying to mainstream insanity. Philosophy should always be fine with me. Philosophy can be reasoned, argued for or against, and modified and added to so to make it applicable to real life (let me add this back to my above response: Putting aside the question of the truth of god's existence, we have to focus more on the practical and on real life, on solving life's problems. When religion gets into the way of practical and real life, then it becomes a problem).

Do you think there should be tolerance?

There should always be tolerance. I don't think it is wrong for someone to think that they know the truth, since, as I have said, "truth" can be arbitrary. However, if they start thinking that "their truth" should be "our truth" as well, then we have a problem.

And where do you see the line for tolerance when you can no longer tolerate someone else?

I'd say, when you come into a guild full of atheists, and you try to convert them, and you say they're stupid, that's pretty intolerable (actually it's more stupid than it is intolerable). Otherwise, I'm pretty much like everyone else: I don't hold my atheism flag and shake it in your face, so I'd expect you to do the same. I would let you know what I am, but that's the most you'd get; if you want to know more, you can ask, if not, you don't ask.

The only time when I start being unable to tolerate someone, is when they try to preach me into their religion, knowing that I don't believe, or they won't stop bugging me about my atheism, or when THEY asked me for more info on atheism, and then bash me when I lay out my beliefs. I especially hate the third one. It's just like -- no, it IS -- them looking for trouble and some a**-whipping themselves.

And one more thing... I believe that most Atheists are tolerant of other religions, we can accept that people believe in different things. But Atheists are becoming anti-theistic as a response to Christians and others trying to push their agenda into the public sphere and push tolerance and secularism out. They push their views and we must push back. What do you think?

It depends on how far these "Atheists" are pushing the anti-theistic limit. If they're just calling the county office to have a "God loves you" sign taken off, then fine, since it's not like theists would enjoy seeing a "God doesn't exist" sign themselves. If they're PEACEFULLY protesting against religious laws implemented into the government, then fine, since the government and religion should be separate anyways. If they're going to the front of a church and holding a sign saying, "Religion is a lie" or "You are deluded", though, then I would have a problem with them.

Basically, my principle is defense okay, offense not okay.  

[Raticiel]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

In short:
We have made nukes and iPods from ******** with the real world.
Appealing to the might of deities has done nothing.

We have an answer.

Back in times when science was born it was supposed to work for something more than nukes and iPods. And did these things make our lives better? Of course I'm using computer right now in order to chat with people all around the world but is that supposed to give me happiness?
If science becomes something that rules the world people will start searching for transcendence again. They will be disappointed.
I don't believe in science. Besides if there wasn't any religion, there wouldn't be science either. sweatdrop  

[StevenStBlaize]

Louis-Auguste Robespierre

Truth, can we know it?

Well, I think the following is a pretty decent summary of my view:

Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy

In addition, there is yet a set of different philosophers — those who question the possibility of any cognition, or at least of an exhaustive cognition, of the world. To them, among the more modern ones, belong Hume and Kant, and they played a very important role in philosophical development. What is decisive in the refutation of this view has already been said by Hegel, in so far as this was possible from an idealist standpoint. The materialistic additions made by Feuerbach are more ingenious than profound. The most telling refutation of this as of all other philosophical crotchets is practice — namely, experiment and industry. If we are able to prove the correctness of our conception of a natural process by making it ourselves, bringing it into being out of its conditions and making it serve our own purposes into the bargain, then there is an end to the Kantian ungraspable “thing-in-itself”. The chemical substances produced in the bodies of plants and animals remained just such “things-in-themselves” until organic chemistry began to produce them one after another, whereupon the “thing-in-itself” became a thing for us — as, for instance, alizarin, the coloring matter of the madder, which we no longer trouble to grow in the madder roots in the field, but produce much more cheaply and simply from coal tar. For 300 years, the Copernican solar system was a hypothesis with 100, 1,000, 10,000 to 1 chances in its favor, but still always a hypothesis. But then Leverrier, by means of the data provided by this system, not only deduced the necessity of the existence of an unknown planet, but also calculated the position in the heavens which this planet must necessarily occupy, and when [Johann] Galle really found this planet [Neptune, discovered 1846, at Berlin Observatory], the Copernican system was proved. If, nevertheless, the neo-Kantians are attempting to resurrect the Kantian conception in Germany, and the agnostics that of Hume in England (where in fact it never became extinct), this is, in view of their theoretical and practical refutation accomplished long ago, scientifically a regression and practically merely a shamefaced way of surreptitiously accepting materialism, while denying it before the world.

In short:
We have made nukes and iPods from ******** with the real world.
Appealing to the might of deities has done nothing.

We have an answer.

Beautifully summarized. Thank you. Hahaha.