Hi, we all Probably know what TOLERANCE is, we all Know it's a Way we should follow if Humanity is ever getting a Chance to Unify and see itself not as Black, Asian or White, but as Human and a Individual with a Right to Speak his Mind as a Equal part of the Society.
We all live in a World that has reached a New Dawn, the 21st Century, a Era of Tolerance, Information and Technology. But let that not Blind you, just because something has reached a Global Scale, it doesn't mean it's Over. Being Human, means to Hate, Love, Kill, Help, Respect, Disrespect, Discriminate and Tolerate.
Homosexuals are being Prosecuted (in some Countries) and Hated by Homophobic People including Christians (Not Generally).
Atheists are Probably the most hated Group in the World, 'cause Considering how we are Opposing God, they don't see it that way, they see it as a Rejection to Him, something that they Clearly mistake because Skepticism and Rejection are quite different, thus born Hate (It's quite Clear, just like a Blind Date, if you're Rejected, you feel Sad but also Angry, thus the Christian (the Blind Date Person) taking the place of God). - Look up the Video "The Real God - a Epiphany", you'll understand.
Even, Religious People are being Hated by other Religious People (Some Christians hate Muslims and So on the other Side, as Hate Impacts both Sides)
That's where I put a Stand for TOLERANCE.
If one has no Will to Listen to the Other and be CONSIDERATE, what makes him HUMAN, what makes him Smarter than a Bird?
Humanity advanced because of Consideration, i.e Galileo Galilei - This Man, stood against the Church when he brought Proof that Opposed the Idea of The Sun circulating around Earth - If People had no Consideration, wouldn't Earth still be Seen as the Center of the Galaxy instead of the Sun?
We Atheists still carry on Disputes with Christians regarding "God" - We say He doesn't exist, but we can't Prove it; They say He exists, but they can't Prove it.
Isn't it More Rational, to Approve that he doesn't Exist? Considering that Christians, don't Know Him, haven't seen Him, haven't talked to Him and how He was Born from a Man named Christ, who is just a Mortal and from a Book named the Bible, written by Mortal Hands. By People who knew next to nothing about Science, but only "Miracles" that never Happened.
If God was so True, shouldn't he come in Person? If He was so Kind and Gracious, why doesn't he show up on Earth to end all Dispute and Wars and Finally Claim Peace in "One Kingdom"? If he is so Wise, why doesn't he Know that if he doesn't show up, Hate such as this won't End?
Then comes only One Conclusion, that God doesn't Exist, he is Shapeless even in the Eyes of Christians. Not long ago Science crushed the Imagery of Christ's Looks from the Bible as a "Long-Haired Man, White Skin, Brown Eyes, Beard" and Generated something that would Fit the Looks of a Man from Eastern Lands.
Remember, I'm not saying He Doesn't Exist, I'm saying isn't it more Rational that he doesn't, considering how not Magical Angels have ever been Seen on Earth expect Faked Videos with amazingly Poor Effects which people are being fooled by?
Christians must look again to the Roots of their Faith, because, is it even a Faith, or just some Tool for Influence? You need to WAKE UP, stop Dreaming of Beautiful Lies.
Humanity is both Good and Evil. Humanity is both Split but still Linked with Dystopia And Utopia, they both make up for Humanity and it won't go Away that Easily. Humanity is always under the Temptation from Corruption and Greed, but it also keeps Balance from Kindness and Philanthropy.
So People, Wake Up, there aren't Only Good People and Only Bad People, there is only Humanity, With thousands of Branches split Two-Sides.
But One Word to End this, there is Always HOPE. If Someone says that there is No Hope, He needs to look within Himself, as HOPE only Ends with Death.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Knowledge is my pursuit. To me, nothing else matters more. But, religion poses a potential threat to said pursuit. Therefore, in my mind, tolerance is not applicable to religion. To any religion.
Your ambition in this never ceases to amaze me. Though I think that your insistance on not taking a break from the venture may not be entirely conducive. But i digress. However, this person's fanciful notion on the idea of "Hope" are odd to me. I've always held a very specific policy on the subject: Hope is nothing more than a promise of betrayal. Not by the person or thing in which you placed your hope, but by the hope itself. If you hope, and only hope, then your hope will be betrayed by the failure of what you had put your hope into. Either that, or, regardless of your "hope", someone else actually got up and did something to get it done/accomplished while you " hoped". I find "Hoping" and "Praying" fall into about the same category in my mind.
Correct, but Hope for me will always be a Short-Timed thing. Because I don't intend it to Remain that Way, I intend to Mold that Hope into a DEED.
I don't intend to let anything stop me, I will not crush or cut my way through the Future, I will dive and flow with it. If the Future changes wind, I will bend it to my pathway.
Other than a Politician, I would like to become a Atheist Innovator and Activist.
It is a New Era, Mr.Xavier and I intend to carve a Path for Humanity, not by some Angelical force, not by some God, but by my own Hands as a Individual.
My friend and, if he will allow me to call him such, protégé, has similar thoughts. Except his fall more along the lines of transhumanist thinking, which is not something I'm entirely sure will get him far. But, I feel his ambition in pursuing such progress may be what carries him far....
Unless someone clarifies exactly what god(s) it is they think exists it isn't possible to say it (or "He") can't be disproved. Many religionists agree that all Abrahamic god(s) plus all deities and pantheons listed at godchecker.com are as disproved as fairies and witches. They are certainly no more proven to exist as many 'people of faith' concede.
Whether a god(s) can be disproven is beside the point. The question is: define what is meant by 'god(s)' and what proof is there that it exists? The point all should accept is that it isn't a matter of 'disproving god' any more than one should have to disprove fairies, ghosts or witches exist.
The other points Skydiver makes seem reasonable but not very relevant to why people believe in god(s) in the first place. Religions aren't always about mystical beliefs. So there are two issues: One is justification for belief in a non-existent deity or pantheon. Two, is organized religion.
(By the way: German is a more logical language, but in English/USAmerican, a sentence always starts with a capital letter and ends with a full stop)
XavierDF wrote: "I've always held a very specific policy on the subject: Hope is nothing more than a promise of betrayal. Not by the person or thing in which you placed your hope, but by the hope itself. If you hope, and only hope, then your hope will be betrayed by the failure of what you had put your hope into. Either that, or, regardless of your "hope", someone else actually got up and did something to get it done/accomplished while you " hoped". I find "Hoping" and "Praying" fall into about the same category in my mind." Unquote.
I don't think there's much disagreement on this thread. Perhaps it is more a matter of determining the best form of expression. There's nothing inherently wrong in hope. One shouldn't be personally over-invested in anything, (including hope). That's the way I choose to phrase it.
"There's nothing inherently wrong in hope. One shouldn't be personally over-invested in anything, (including hope). That's the way I choose to phrase it."
A very interesting perspective on the matter, and one I find a bit more......how to say it.....fresh, than the normal responses I get to that.
"We Atheists still carry on Disputes with Christians regarding "God" - We say He doesn't exist, but we can't Prove it; They say He exists, but they can't Prove it. Isn't it More Rational, to Approve that he doesn't Exist? "
Look at the general form of the argument, and insert anything else in the place of god. If you say neon blue vampire flamingos don't exist but can't prove it, and I say they do exist but can't prove it, why would anyone's default position be that they exist? Since you cannot prove a negative, a person cannot prove that something doesn't exist. Thus you can only prove that something does exist. Until that is accomplished, it should be assumed that that thing does not exist.
Atheism, as a discourse, finds no common ground outside itself. I find no purpose in discussing the topic outside of its own adherents, nor does my curiosity seek the explanation for atheism versus theism, though I suspect hope is the common theme, or even meme, of the theism of the so-called common man. The other theism, that of the narcissistic and power mongering few, can be reduced to a better word: profiteering.
Hope is the intrinsic reward for the common theist in lieu of revelation. Tolerance is the humane sanctuary offered by common peace-loving atheists. Perseverance is the theist's burden from the haranguing militant anti-theists who stand to garner nothing by their attacks that isn't egocentric in nature.
I have no problem with theism as a meme complex. I'm not affected by it. Cultures that are negatively affecting those in their midst are suffering their own slow demise. Young people with the intellectual power to make lucid assessments of their world(s) are growing in number with each succeeding generation. Mine alone is rich with a mix of both theists and atheists. Belief systems are not only fading, their system of support memes are in a constant state of battle with the world's internet population taking charge of its own voice and sensibilities to not only question the virtues of such systems but to also ask for validation of them.
The only problem with belief systems is their traditional value to a culture. Tradition, in and of itself, is a cult. Every culture follows traditions. They define the cultures and give them uniqueness. They bond them. They give them a certain way to identify with life. These traditions are so inter-weaved into the fabric of each culture that they cannot be readily pointed out as the negative influences (values) that separate whole populations from each other, and have ultimately been the cause of more bloodshed than any other. Religion is one of these traditions and, being held as the highest moral virtue, exponentially compounds the problem of its resolution. Measures to remove it by force of decree and/or open enforcement currently borders on the inhumane. Moreover, this particular meme complex exists in all cultures. To rally against one is to rally against all and that's the work and burden of the anti-theists. I find no resolution in that when I know time alone is needed to bring about its global demise as hope gives way to knowledge.
In the meantime, tolerance of another person's hope is okay by me.
I myself have always had an enmity with the word 'tolerance'. I believe in the equality of people and the value of good discourse, but the idea of tolerating anything for the sake of it makes me uneasy. Take, for example, how you're sitting or lying down right now. Picture doing that for about five more hours without moving. I guarantee some element of how you're resting, even though you are resting, will become...intolerable. At which point you must either harm yourself by continuing to rest uncomfortably, or move slightly and alleviate the burden. Something similar happens with ideas. Some ideas start off very comfortably because they answer questions with all of the ideas we have at the moment. Of course Apollo sets the sun around the Earth, why shouldn't it? I can see it up there clear as day...well, not for very long; Apollo's a bit self-conscious and tends to blind people who do that for very long. Why should you be upset at me for throwing a sharp rock at that woman? She wasn't veiled, after all. You wouldn't want me to go to hell for not doing my civic duty to Allah, would you? The nerve!
There is, I think, a misconstrued notion of what tolerance is. In the US, the term simply means to not denigrate ideas which don't match with your own. To let one culture be so long as they do the same to yours. Very decent, very PC. But what lies beneath is the word's root: tolerate. Not to accept. Not to question. Not to clarify. Tolerate. Let it upset you, but say nothing about it. This line of thinking is unhealthy to society. All bad ideas must be questioned. Think what would happen if less people had simply 'tolerated' the ramblings of desert madmen centuries ago? Tolerance failed humanity then as it does now. While I don't think I have the same definition of tolerance as Diver, my thoughts on tolerance as I define it stand firm.
" Tolerate. Let it upset you, but say nothing about it. This line of thinking is unhealthy to society. All bad ideas must be questioned. "
I agree that this line of thinking is unhealthy to society. The problem that arises though, is who determines what ideas are considered bad ideas, and thus should be questioned? I think a better way to approach it, is under the axiom that all ideas should be questioned, and people should be willing to accept those ideas that withstand said questioning. I think the biggest plaque in our society right now isn't so much the questioning of ideas, I think it is the unwillingness of people in society to give up those ideas that crumble under scrutiny, and accept those that stand strong in the face of opposition.
SkyDiVer,
You make a lot of good points! But why should tolerance, in its best sense, be higher than education? It seems to me that a good education encourages tolerance in its best sense. If you learn a lot about a certain culture, especially if that learning includes personal experience, then you tend to see them as real people deserving of respect. Beyond that, the pursuit of truth, scientific and otherwise, is what bright, curious minds do, that being what makes us human, what sets us apart from most other animals. I see no need to choose between tolerance and education.
The Western heritage, by way of ancient Greeks, is the idea of a mind free of all chains, a mind free to search out truth on all matters, a mind free to express itself in the marketplace of ideas. There are no sacred cows! When ideas fairly compete on level ground, erroneous thinking tends to be exposed and eliminated. That's the ideal although reality is a lot messier. Tolerance must never be defined in a way that undercuts this enlightened ideal.
My thread of Sunday, 8/7/2016 18:47 "Science Gives God The Bump!" was offered as a strong argument against the God hypothesis. Whether it is a "proof" or not would depend on your definition of "proof." I hold that if we weight the evidence properly then "God" has to go, that being the most logical conclusion at the present time. No claim is made for absolute certainty, which cannot hold in proofs about the real world anyway, only that rejecting the God hypothesis is the most rational choice by far.
Tolerance in its good sense is the product of education. When we learn about other people, we begin to see past the things that previously made us hate them. So I don't see how you can say that tolerance is better or higher than education.
In its bad sense, tolerance is the willingness to overlook crimes through fear or political correctness. Everyone should draw a non-negotiable line in the sand. This far and no further. On the other side of my line in the sand are things like the use of force against others except in self-defense, and theft, including the use of religion to extract money from sad and lonely people. I cannot tolerate coercion, especially the coercion of girls and young women into forced marriages. Furthest over my line is the ill-treatment of children, including sexual abuse, and genital mutilation of either sex. I despise any Catholic, Jew or Muslim who practices these things. Sorry about that.