....intolerance should be tolerated." ? Who's contradictory now?
2007-10-18 08:50:15 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
They don't say that. Although I have heard many Christians say that about Atheists.
2007-10-18 08:52:24 · answer #1 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Actually, I have said that the only thing I cannot tolerate is intolerance, but I was lying: there are a few other things, actually.
It's not contradictory, it's consistent. If you believe the world should be tolerant, that people generally should use acceptance and GOOD MANNERS as their regular style, then you dislike violations of this principle. But I can be a little tolerant of bigots, in the sense that I will not normally call them out on it. I sometimes feel I'm being cowardly not to, however.
Have you ever seen the movie "Gentleman's Agreement" starring Gregory Peck, which was made in 1947 (the year I was born). The topic is anti-Semitism, but it would apply equally well to other forms of intolerance, especially religious. It's been released on DVD in the 20th Century Fox Studio Classics collection, and I recommend it to you unreservedly.
2007-10-18 09:38:19 · answer #2 · answered by auntb93 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know. I've been an atheist for years and been on the atheist boards all of that time and I've never seen that statement. Moreover it's false. Mideastern monotheism is intolerant, but Buddhism is not, as one example. But "tolerant of what?" is the question as all philosophies and religions find one thing or another worth embracing and worth rejecting, otherwise they wouldn't be philosophies or religions. I am tolerant of some things and not of others as you are. but I'm an atheist and my daughter is a devout Catholic, so I'd say we're both tolerant.
2007-10-18 08:56:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Word games. Tolerance means allowing something you don't approve of to exist. It is not the same thing as approval. Intolerance is an intention to NOT permit the existence of what one does not approve of. The difference is NOT in the approval but in the allowing to exist. Most atheists allow tolerant religions to exist even if the religions do not approve of them. But churches who seek to prohibit people with different opinions from even living are intrinsically anti-human.
2007-10-18 09:20:59 · answer #4 · answered by skepsis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
actually you will find that most athiests get along well with believers of most religions but we despise biggots who think we have no rights. once a month i have two jehovahs witnesses come over for a chat. i regularly visit my local buddist centre, i have been in a sikh temple, went to india to study hinduism and lived for six months in israel in a deeply religious jewish commune. we do not have a problem with religion until it causes wars and suffering. i think also you will find its "christianity" we sometimes cant tolerate, not "religion" at the moment there is a moslem girl on the site who is talking a lot of sense
2007-10-18 09:00:55 · answer #5 · answered by LUCY M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To not tolerate 'intolerance' is the very core of tolerance. Otherwise we would ourselves be promoting intolerance - by tacitly agreeing that it is ok. However, if you are christian and you are intolerant of gays, lesbians, Islam, Other religions, people who deny the divinity of christ, or just people who don't buy christianity, you are intolerant of many things, and I'll bet you tolerate others of your faith who share these intolerances. THAT'S INTOLERANCE. Get it now?
2007-10-18 08:57:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is no better way of bringing an end to intolerance than by bringing it to light. Evil prevails why good people do nothing. Nothing contradictory about it.
But then you're trolling aren't you.
Hypocrite.
2007-10-18 08:55:10 · answer #7 · answered by Shawn B 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I am not sure if many say that, but men like Dawkins are deluded or deceitful when they broad brushes all religions together as oppressive and bloody, while presenting itself as the "reasonable" alternative. For not only is atheism itself a belief system, the major tenet of which they cannot prove, but it's modern historical legacy is far more murderous than the false religions they seek to supplant. Lacking a transcendent, immutable moral authority, anything is possible. Thus fellow atheists Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot murdered their millions as they did what was "reasonable" to them, and we see a like spirit in militant atheists today.
If religion is the opium of the masses then atheism is their poison.
In contrast, none of the atrocities they attribute to religion were done in obedience to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, rather He who gave Himself for our sins stands in clear contrast to what atheism fosters.
2007-10-18 08:56:54 · answer #8 · answered by www.peacebyjesus 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Heh.
We all do tolerate religion. It tends to be the religious who kill and maim others of differing or no beliefs.
When was the last time you heard about an atheist committing suicidal murder in the name of science. That honor belongs to the faithful.
2007-10-18 08:53:58 · answer #9 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I do tolerate religion. I am not trying to shut down churches, discriminate against people, burn their books, censor films or music, execute opponents, etc.
Religious folks, on the other hand...
2007-10-18 08:58:36 · answer #10 · answered by Robin W 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't get the point of this - yes, it's hypocritical but look at everything you believe in and understand you, too, fit the description - that's what happens when you deal with beliefs, you have to LIVE them
2007-10-18 08:53:10 · answer #11 · answered by Corvus 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋