Religious tolerance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is interesting because the evangelical christians I know are very INTOLERANT of other's faiths-or lack there of. My parents are evangelical Christians and they are the most bigoted people I know, though they don't think they are. I'm not saying all evangelicals are like that, but most are. Maybe you are an exception.

See, this sort of generalization is unhelpful. Your parents and the evangelicals in their church are not the same thing as "all evangelicals." Are you the ranter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(BTW, I'm not sure if I'm "ranting atheist" here. I certainly don't feel like I'm ranting. Actually, I'm drinking a cup of coffee and kind of chuckling at you guys' hyper-sensitivity.)

That's because faith in God isn't important to you. For some people, it's easy to enjoy a cup of coffee or other favorite beverage and chuckle over internet postings as a sort of entertainment. I'm guessing that if the topic were of particular importance to you, you might have a different perception or feeling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm the PP you're responding to. When passions run high about something, talking it over face to face provides a natural restraint on behavior. Plus in real life you can avoid the trolls and the ranters, whereas online you can't get away from them.

Which is why I don't get involved in the DCUM political forum, either. Being a lefty, I just don't want to deal with that one crazy right-winger.

Thanks, because leaning more towards the right, I don't want to deal with that one crazy left-winger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is interesting because the evangelical christians I know are very INTOLERANT of other's faiths-or lack there of. My parents are evangelical Christians and they are the most bigoted people I know, though they don't think they are. I'm not saying all evangelicals are like that, but most are. Maybe you are an exception.

See, this sort of generalization is unhelpful. Your parents and the evangelicals in their church are not the same thing as "all evangelicals." Are you the ranter?

Where do you see "all evangelicals" in my post?? It says "NOT all evangelicals". My point is, from MY experience, evangelicals are intolerant but truly believe that they aren't. Maybe you really ARE tolerant but you may also think you are when really, you are not. I couldn't say either way because I don't personally know you. If I did get to know you, then, and only then would I know how tolerant or intolerant you are of my views. I don't assume one way or the other, I'm just speaking from my personal experience with my parents, their Church and their extended Church organization which extends across the whole Northwest of the U.S. So it's not just a small sampling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand atheism, I think agnosticism is a more logical position. Dawkins himself says he's agnostic, because we can't know for sure. Anybody care to weigh in?

OP here. Atheism probably means different things to different people. To me, it means that with the current information available, there is enough to say that the likeliest explanation is that there are no gods. I can't prove there aren't any gods, just as no one can prove that they are there. It like believing in a scientific theory. I know it's a theory and, as of yet, can't be proven one way or another, but I know enough to draw a conclusion. I imagine deists come to their conclusion in a similar weighing of available process. The last step of conclusion requires faith, just as all conclusions require faith in what we know or feel.

[Anonymous]

OP again. I'm not sure why people assume Dawkins is the voice of atheists. He's not, IMO. It's kind of silly, really. Most atheists I know consider themselves free thinkers and don't need direction on how or what to think.

[Anonymous]

If faith is strong, wouldn't that make you more immune to criticism? my gut reaction when religious people get upset is that their faith is shaky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm the PP you're responding to. When passions run high about something, talking it over face to face provides a natural restraint on behavior. Plus in real life you can avoid the trolls and the ranters, whereas online you can't get away from them.

Which is why I don't get involved in the DCUM political forum, either. Being a lefty, I just don't want to deal with that one crazy right-winger.

Thanks, because leaning more towards the right, I don't want to deal with that one crazy left-winger.

Curious, are you libertarian?

[Anonymous]

You know what is a big turn-off to me about this thread? There has been one mildly questionable post from someone who has been repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly labeled by the OP the "ranting atheist." OP, you seem to be on a witch hunt. Could you just let the thread flow, and if and when -- if and when, if and when -- things get out of hand, perhaps let Jeff Steele handle it? So far there have been about 4 substantive posts, and the rest is you tongue-lashing this supposed threat to your thread. This is ridiculous.

I don't know you, and I don't know this supposed "ranting Atheist," but this thread reads like a lead balloon.

Bye-bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If faith is strong, wouldn't that make you more immune to criticism? my gut reaction when religious people get upset is that their faith is shaky.

But it's not criticism, it's blanket insults, and that's the problem. Most of what comes from the ranting atheist is gross generalizations about "all believers" and "all doctrine." That isn't thoughtful criticism at all, in fact it really does start to look more like bigotry. And there's an impulse to correct it, or at least to call out the ranting atheist on her sleazy arguments.

So when I see somebody say "Don't call all believers intolerant creationists," I don't see sensitivity, I see a believer trying to correct the record, and call her out. In some lights, you could even argue that calling the ranter a bigot was intended as an attempt to shake her into realizing what she's doing, or simply as a statement of fact. For me, I've given up on her because I know she doesn't listen. But in any case, when somebody says "all believers are intolerant," it's unfair to argue that any type of response shows over-sensitivity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know what is a big turn-off to me about this thread? There has been one mildly questionable post from someone who has been repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly labeled by the OP the "ranting atheist." OP, you seem to be on a witch hunt. Could you just let the thread flow, and if and when -- if and when, if and when -- things get out of hand, perhaps let Jeff Steele handle it? So far there have been about 4 substantive posts, and the rest is you tongue-lashing this supposed threat to your thread. This is ridiculous.

I don't know you, and I don't know this supposed "ranting Atheist," but this thread reads like a lead balloon.

Bye-bye.

He he. Good morning, RA.

Actually, I appreciate OP's attempts to keep this a serious discussion, by keeping you in line. And no, your post wasn't "mildly questionable" and there was more than one like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my view, tolerance means I'm not going to discriminate against you. If you come live in my neighborhood, so what? If your kids and my kids are friends, great. If you want to work in the same company as me? Super. I have zero problem with anyone practicing whatever religion they want to practice as long as .... and here's the distinction ... you don't cram it down my throat. You don't create laws that are directly related to your religious beliefs that I am now forced to abide by. And it's different if a law comes about that I simply don't agree with. For example, I think it's absurd that people have to wait until they're 21 to drink but can serve in the military at 18. I don't agree with that, but that didn't come about because someone's "faith" dictated that it be so. When someone's religion crosses into my personal life, I don't think it's intolerance of the religion for me to be pissed off about that.

Yes, yes, yes. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If faith is strong, wouldn't that make you more immune to criticism? my gut reaction when religious people get upset is that their faith is shaky.

But it's not criticism, it's blanket insults, and that's the problem. Most of what comes from the ranting atheist is gross generalizations about "all believers" and "all doctrine." That isn't thoughtful criticism at all, in fact it really does start to look more like bigotry. And there's an impulse to correct it, or at least to call out the ranting atheist on her sleazy arguments.

So when I see somebody say "Don't call all believers intolerant creationists," I don't see sensitivity, I see a believer trying to correct the record, and call her out. In some lights, you could even argue that calling the ranter a bigot was intended as an attempt to shake her into realizing what she's doing, or simply as a statement of fact. For me, I've given up on her because I know she doesn't listen. But in any case, when somebody says "all believers are intolerant," it's unfair to argue that any type of response shows over-sensitivity.

Actually, I think you are obsessed with her, thus this thread.

Haven't read the RA myself but so what, she's an ass (from what you describe). Move along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I'm the PP you're responding to. When passions run high about something, talking it over face to face provides a natural restraint on behavior. Plus in real life you can avoid the trolls and the ranters, whereas online you can't get away from them.

Which is why I don't get involved in the DCUM political forum, either. Being a lefty, I just don't want to deal with that one crazy right-winger.

Thanks, because leaning more towards the right, I don't want to deal with that one crazy left-winger.

Curious, are you libertarian?

Interesting that you asked. I've never thought of myself that way. I'm liberal when it comes to social causes/issues, especially those involving children, the homeless, substance abuse, and mental health issues; and I do a lot of volunteer work involving those groups. I'm Christian (one of the mainline denominations). I'm in favor of a strong defense. I think the federal budget is bloated. I believe in helping people get jobs, so they can support their families. I oppose abortion on demand but think it's needed for situations involving rape, incest, health of mother. I admire Hillary Clinton and agree with many of the ideas of Herman Cain. I don't hate George Bush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If faith is strong, wouldn't that make you more immune to criticism? my gut reaction when religious people get upset is that their faith is shaky.

But it's not criticism, it's blanket insults, and that's the problem. Most of what comes from the ranting atheist is gross generalizations about "all believers" and "all doctrine." That isn't thoughtful criticism at all, in fact it really does start to look more like bigotry. And there's an impulse to correct it, or at least to call out the ranting atheist on her sleazy arguments.

So when I see somebody say "Don't call all believers intolerant creationists," I don't see sensitivity, I see a believer trying to correct the record, and call her out. In some lights, you could even argue that calling the ranter a bigot was intended as an attempt to shake her into realizing what she's doing, or simply as a statement of fact. For me, I've given up on her because I know she doesn't listen. But in any case, when somebody says "all believers are intolerant," it's unfair to argue that any type of response shows over-sensitivity.

Actually, I think you are obsessed with her, thus this thread.

Haven't read the RA myself but so what, she's an ass (from what you describe). Move along.

Op here. I'm not the PP you're responding to. I made my intentions for this thread clear in the original post and follow up posts. I'm sorry if you can't understand it. But, thanks for trying to derail it. Feel free to do some research on the RA poster before making more assumptions about me.