Tolerence?

[JacobEvans]

I am just wondering what everyone's opinions are when it comes to how much they tolerate religion/faith/spirituality?

I personally am considered pretty militant, though being militant atheist is like being a moderate believer IMO (I'm not going to hurt anyone physically).

I often joke about religion with people who get offended very easily by it (this is partly out of the douchey pleasure I get, as well as out of my contempt for all things 'faith'.), and I like to preach evolution and the Big Bang (not so much preach though, more like explain the real version, not the Lammarkist/giant space kablooie versions they hear at church ) .
However I do try to refrain from involving my family who are Catholics, as I don't get that douchey satisfaction, only that feeling of just being a douche :lol:


But how about you guys/gals?

 

[BipolarBomber]

I rarely discuss religion with the religious. There is seriously no real point, if you bring it up you cement in their minds the stereotype that already exists. That "atheists" are evil people who hate god. I use the word "atheist" carefully because these days it seems like anyone who isn't religious is automatically atheistic by association.

However I will talk to them, and bring up, social issues when relevant. If they initiate a conversation about religion (which they usually do, and in the form of "witnessing" no less) then and only then do I actually hammer into them. Especially if they're witnessing to me, I see no reason not to poke fun at their god if they're going to try to convert me.

But in general I try to always stay on friendly terms. There are Christian stereotypes against the nonreligious for a reason.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I tolerate religion/faith/spirituality/stupidity very poorly.

I'm not a big fan of tolerance in general, because in practical usage the word has been twisted to mean "I'm going to say and do whatever I want, and you can't criticize me no matter how ugly or intolerant I'm being." For instance, racists and homophobic "people" will attack their critics by calling them "intolerant."

In any case, no one wants "tolerance," so why even bother with the word? Religious people, especially religious bigots, don't want "tolerance" of their views, they want a free pass from any criticism, responsibility or negative outcomes for themselves based on their views. On the other hand, homosexuals don't want "tolerance" either... they want equality and protection under the law. Atheists don't want to be "tolerated," they want the government to quit endorsing religion, and for religious bigots to stop lying about us. "Tolerance" isn't worth a damn, is it?

 

[Zylstra]

I tolerate them until they speak and bullshit flows forth

 

[rulezdaworld0]

I tolerate until they shove it in my face... and try to change law/make new law with religion....

Then I become very intolerant. And have to point out some of the failings like human rights violations *ban on gay marriage etc...)

 

[Personal SinR]

I can be very harsh towards all kinds of stupidity (religion included). Call it social conditioning if you will. Person A does something stupid. Person B calls them on it. Person A learns not to be a moron or undergo further criticism.

 

[e2iPi]

I can be very harsh towards all kinds of stupidity (religion included). Call it social conditioning if you will. Person A does something stupid. Person B calls them on it. Person A learns not to be a moron or undergo further criticism.

Unless, of course, person A is religious. At which point person A run to their church and relays the story.
Person A is then showered with praise for defending the faith against the evil atheist. Since person A's most important social group approves, the stupidity is reinforced so the next time someone calls him on his stupidity, he will be even more vehement in its "defense."

It's a viscous cycle. It is positive reinforcement cycles like this that make things like alcohol and drugs so addictive.

e2iPi

 

[WolfAU]

Interesting question.

I am a secularist at heart, which means I have great contempt for anyone who tries to dictate how I should lead my life (or how anyone else should) or try to change things like government policy based purely on their religious beliefs. If you believe crazy shit in a quiet little place at home or in your mind, go for it.

That said, external to my atheism, secularism, and various other -ism's, I have something resembling a moral code or code of honour, that I have done my best to stick to. In that code I have added that it is important for individuals to not be too quick to judge, to try to understand others points of view, understand their arguments, empathise with their position etc.

As such I don't see it as some kind of social mandate for us to tiptoe around religion, especially when I have generally seen little in the way of theists being respectful of naturalism or other religions, however none the less I do try to despite of this because to me it is the right thing to do, though its a moral belief I am prepared to compromise on when necessary (ie to protect various social values important to me, such as peace, addressing world poverty and human suffering, global cooperation, social education/reasoning etc).

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Religion I tolerate well. I actually kind of like it. Religious people, on the other hand...well, I address them differently. Pushy people in general, be they religious or non-religious, I have a very low tolerance for.

 

[monitoradiation]

My metric for tolerance is pretty easy.

If they keep their mouths shut, I'll keep mine shut (figuratively speaking; applicable to actions in general).

 

[Dumbfounded]

It's a viscous cycle.

Yeah, I hate them, they are really hard to pedal.

John Stuart Mill described tolerance as "Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling them to live as seems good to the rest."

In that view, tolerance becomes not imposing your will or values on another. They can live as they want as long as it harms no-one else. This creates what A. C. Grayling called "the paradox of liberalism." If everyone is tolerated, then so are the intolerant, so the position fosters its own opposition, and tolerance is frequently quietly eroded to a token freedom. Grayling's solution was to discard universal tolerance, and instead adopt the view that we should tolerate everything but intolerance. Basically, tolerance is allowed to defend itself, or is protected from attack, so that the only permissible form of coercion (other than to prevent harm) is argument.

I think a second problem with Millsian tolerance is that it leaves room for a tyranny of the majority. "Do as you will, but do no harm," will depend a lot, in practice, on your definition of harm. Do we tolerate all speech, or proscribe "hate-speech" for supposed harm? Is any manner of sex permitted, or are some too destructive - even if only self-destructive - to be allowed? Is religion to be tolerated, or outlawed as an abuse of children?

While it is obviously a continuum fallacy to claim that there cannot be things that clearly should or should not be tolerated, there is a massive grey area where individual or group opinion comes into play.

 

[e2iPi]

Yeah, I hate them, they are really hard to pedal.

Proofread!
http://www.viciouscycleinc.com

e2iPi

 

[Jotto999]

If they keep their mouths shut, I'll keep mine shut (figuratively speaking; applicable to actions in general).

This. If they just didn't mention their religion, I wouldn't care. It's when they open their mouths and spew bullshit everywhere that my tolerance evaporates on the spot.

All religions to me are just different coloured and differently designed magic teapots flying around the sun in that analogy Dawkins mentioned. All of them are equally absurd in my mind, and I have a very hard time tolerating that kind of crap. If I invented some kind of magic teapot flying around the sun and told you about it, you would think I'm a lunatic wouldn't you? Of course.

I feel inescapably compelled to point out to someone that their magic teapot is just a magic teapot.

 

[Ziddari]

I tolerate in the sense that I acknowledge religion and the religious exist, but I refuse to be nice or polite. They have every right to spout forth their non-sense, and I have every right to argue against such. They are allowed their opinions, their faith, but I do not have to respect it, or like it. But I am not going to try to actively stop them from thinking it, or doing it. They're wrong, I'm right, and I am okay with that.

 

[IrBubble]

All religions to me are just different coloured and differently designed magic teapots flying around the sun in that analogy Dawkins mentioned. .

Actually, it's a chinese teapot around Mars.
On topic: I am very tolerant to every religion that does no harm, and by harm I mean both preaching about killing people they don't like as well as physical harm. And if they try to bring forth "evidence" for the existance of god I call them on their bullshit. But as long as they believe out of faith and do good, they are fine in my book.

Edit: Misread.

 

[Epicion]

I am tolerant to the extent of someone professing their beliefs. I am intolerant in terms of them propagating their belief. I am a stout believer in the power of education, as soon as I hear someone say for example "It's been scientifically proven that people can come back to life after 200 years of being buried in the ground" I will very likely and most probably take them on and ridicule them in public along with professing the dangers of blind faith which people don't realise is often double edged.

Tolerance is one thing, but the propagation of false information is unacceptable. When someone is wrong, you correct them on the spot lest they violate the minds of the ignorant with their stupidity. This is the only effective and true way to fight the indoctrination that is caused by religion.

-Epicion

 

[Nightmare060]

I think a persons belifes should only be tollerated depending on their actions.

One of my closest freinds is a catholic, and she HATES with a burning passion extreamists like those in the Westboro baptist church, has never tried to push her belifes on other people, understands that the bible isn't a history book and that things described in the old testament, such as stoning sinners to death or homosexuality being a sin, are simply what was considerd OK for the time it was writen (as opposed to nessacery law). Normaly I will be the one to bring up religouse descussions, and we both understand that the way she and many other catholics (that she knows of at least), preach a message of love and respect for other people regardless of what their religouse belifes may be (the ones that don't go and try to scewer science, preach hate or blow people up, that is).

I would give the same ammount of respect to inteligant christians such as Djarm and Ken Miller. When I see what they say about their belifes, I just don't see the destructive, scourge of humanity that many anti-theists do.

One thing I want to note though: I do not see respecting religon as making them excempt from critisism. Any action, any idea, any thaught has the right to be critisised. However I would not willingly go to them and preach to them about how their religon is such a terrible thing and that they are stupid for beliving so. Just as they would not do the same for me.

Now at the other end of the scale, I see people like in the Westboro Baptist Church who are brainwashing their children to hate and descriminate those that do not belive in what they do. The things that are shown in Jesus camp, from my perspective, is not only child abuse, it could be considerd Mental Torture! And also the muslims who want to try and enforce blesphamy laws on other countries, threatening people with death if they ever critisize their religon. And not forgeting, everyones favorate numbnuts, the creationists. Filling the minds of those who are uneducated with utter bullshit and psuedo-science. Creating a false dichotamy between science and religon to create more like them. I would not show ANY respect towards them.

One note before I wrap up my (rather leangthy) reply: Regardless of wether I agree with somone or not, I respect their right to freedom of speach. Because to do that to them and allow us to talk would be very hypocticial! But of course, as I said above, that does not mean they cannot be called out on BS. We have the right to argue as much as they have the right to make a claim!

So to sum it all up, I think tollerance should be given depending on how a person uses their religon. I don't think they should instantly be given, or denied respect just because they belive in the supernatural. And quite frankly, I think the world would be a better place if we didn't always have to fight over who's invisible sky man (or men, or women, whichever the case may be) at the real ones!

 

[Deleted member 619]

As it happens, I am very intolerant of religion, but quite tolerant of the religious. I am known to be very vocal in my opposition to religion, and yet I get along very well with most of the religious people I come across, mainly because I restrict my arguments only to their arguments, and try to stay away from attacking the holders of the beliefs.

There is, in fact, a part of me that thinks that 'tolerant' is the wrong word. It implies something to be tolerated, i.e. something unpleasant. Most religious people I know aren't unpleasant, or at least, those who are unpleasant I would not say are unpleasant as a result of their beliefs. People are people, in the end.

 

[GuppyPal]

I'm atheist, but all my family is quite religious and so are many of my friends. It's not a problem. They don't try to force their views on me, so I don't push mine on them. That's pretty much how I operate on anything, whether it be religion or something else. I'm pretty vocal and say what I mean, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tell all the Christians on campus how stupid they are. I try to promote logical thinking and tolerance. If we're not civil to them, how can we expect them to be civil to us? Even when someone of faith talks to you about religion, it's best to keep your cool. No one is going to listen to you, respect you, or admit they're wrong if you're ranting and raving and telling them how much of an idiot they are. Take a lesson from people like Dawkins and Chomsky.

Now all this doesn't mean we should sit back and take a beating. We should be as vocal and active as possible without being pushy. I'm not arguing over whether we should fight the religious or not. I'm just arguing about HOW we should fight them. Feeding the atheist stereotype isn't exactly a productive way to gain respect for our group.

 

[Marcus]

I'm not so much tolerant as I am civil. I have many friends with whom I disagree on a number of things, but that doesn't stop us being friends. Whenever we discuss points of disagreement, we are polite with each other, whether their wrong-headedless lies in thinking that voting Conservative is a good idea, that football is a game worth watching or that a deity exists. I just remember that they're not stupid, they merely have one or two wrong ideas.

The same is true of religious folk I talk to online - regardless of how asinine they are, I keep the moral high ground by treating them as I would someone I'm talking to face to face. Sometimes they go on to show themselves worthy of respect (like StonedCommander in slating VFX), sometimes they act like dicks, in which case I try to call them on their actions, not just call them dicks. Of course, I don't always succeed...