Religion How tolerant are you of other religions?

[No-name]

It seems that there are a minority who view religion as something to be outlawed and its practioners as liars and child abusers. That sentiment goes against what I think are basic modern principals of freedom. What do you think?

 

[Mycernius]

Believe it or not I am actually quite tolerant towards people of different faiths. The only thing I ask for is don't try to push it on me. I will willing engage in discussion with someone who is willing to discuss their faith and debate on the existance or non-existance of God. Try to push it on me I will become nasty and I will deride anyone who does this to me, as many a JW and Mormon has found out. Most people who try to push their faith on you, especially Christians, do not really know much beyond the Bible they use. Ask a JW where the apocrapha is in their Bible. That throws them, after all their Bible is supposed to be a direct translation of the original.

 

[Revenant]

Persistent prosyletizers unwelcome. Otherwise, I think religions are fascinating, and I am most interested in finding out more about the different paradigms of wisdom that have been incorporated into the various religions.

I am not so interested in campaigning for or against any particular religion, and find that people at either end of the spectrum can be a bit over the top.

I enjoy the more objective scholars, those that neither support nor attempt to debunk a particular religious tradition.

 

[RockLee]

Believe it or not I am actually quite tolerant towards people of different faiths. The only thing I ask for is don't try to push it on me. I will willing engage in discussion with someone who is willing to discuss their faith and debate on the existance or non-existance of God. Try to push it on me I will become nasty and I will deride anyone who does this to me, as many a JW and Mormon has found out. Most people who try to push their faith on you, especially Christians, do not really know much beyond the Bible they use. Ask a JW where the apocrapha is in their Bible. That throws them, after all their Bible is supposed to be a direct translation of the original.

Same goes for me Mike, I can't stand people who try to push their believes on you.

 

[RockLee]

Persistent prosylitizers unwelcome. Otherwise, I think religions are fascinating, and I am most interested in finding out more about the different paradigms of wisdom that have been incorporated into he various religions.
I am not so interested in campaigning for or against any particular religion, and find that people at either end of the spectrum can be a bit over the top.
I enjoy the more objective scholars, those that neither support nor attempt to debunk a particular religious tradition.

Religion is fascinating, a lot of our culture is based around religion, but the dark side to it is something that ticks me off.

 

[No-name]

I didn't think this was such a great topic, but it did get some initial action. Do you gentlemen think that religious tolerance is an important value?
I believe that tolerance of other beliefs is an important value for many reasons. I have been disturbed by some of the sentiment that has been voiced on this forum and I was wondering how important this value really is.
You guys don't think that people who raise their kids in the religion of their choice are guilty of "brainwashing" or "intellectual rape" or that teaching religion should be outlawed? (I would label statements to that effect as intolerant of religion.)

I think a class in comparative religions would help people become more tolerant.

 

[Sensuikan San]

I didn't think this was such a great topic, but it did get some initial action. Do you gentlemen think that religious tolerance is an important value?

It is a great topic. And very pertinent.
Personally - I can say very little other than to agree with Revenant, totally.

I believe that tolerance of other beliefs is an important value for many reasons. I have been disturbed by some of the sentiment that has been voiced on this forum and I was wondering how important this value really is.

I agree with that sentiment, and totally understand your concerns. I feel that the value you refer to is of extreme importance, and totally relevant to many of the problems existing today.

You guys don't think that people who raise their kids in the religion of their choice are guilty of "brainwashing" or "intellectual rape" or that teaching religion should be outlawed? (I would label statements to that effect as intolerant of religion.)

Here ... I purse my lips (just) a little ... especially with your "bracketed" comment. It made your question somewhat "loaded".
I did not raise my son an atheist. I did not desire to influence him in any way in that regard. I did not see the necessity. Do you think I should have done so, because that is my belief? Or should I have encouraged him to follow Christianity? ... or Buddhism?

It was actually quite difficult. My answer was to resolve to discuss theology with him as he grew older. He was free to form his own opinion.
And believe it or not ... he's not an atheist!

Actually, he tends towards Odinism - but that's his affair! Make of it what you will, but it's his affair. Whatever one might say, I can be quite clear in stating that he is much better informed on matters of theology than I, and better able than many on this forum in discussing the matter!

But that doesn't concern him. It's a private matter.

I think a class in comparative religions would help people become more tolerant.

Depends upon the outlook of the attendees. Generally though, I think you would be preaching to the unconvertable. The concept has merit however.

?W????

 

[No-name]

Thank you Sensuikan San.

I appologize for the loaded part of my question, but I think any objective person will see why I am offended by such claims. I am stunned that few have voiced opposition to such blanket statements that seek to paint all people of faith with that same negative broad brush.

I agree with all of what you said. Parents need to raise children in the best way they see fit, with the values, ethics and beliefs of their choosing... (and I would hope that tolerance would be among the values) not what the state determines is the truth and not with someone else's version of reality. Give them the tools necessary to view the world and make decision for themselves- a love of learning, deep abiding respect for the diversity of others and the ability to think critically.

 

[No-name]

My question is this: Does it seem that the longer you are an atheist, the more superiority toward Christians in general you start to feel? Lately, I have been starting to feel animosity based

Many have this problem resulting in animosity or intolerance. Others have it show in the form of compassion or tolerance. Thomas Paine said tolerance is no improvement over intolerance: Tolerance says, "We will allow you hold your views"; whereas, intolerance says "We will not allow you to hold your views."

Often this is just a phase, and we can grow out of it if we apply ourselves.

I have found a dose of good old-fashioned John Stuart Mill mind-your-own-business libertarianism to be a solid cure. The "Forum" section of Playboy Magazine is a wonderful source for this wonderful attitude.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe

 

[Maciamo]

First, what do you define as religion ? Is it "officially recognised organised religion" or "any religious beliefs held by at least 1 person" ?

 

[No-name]

I am not picky. I would define a religion as a set of beliefs that is formalized. There probably has to be more than one person holding the beliefs for it to be a religion.

Wiki gives us this:
Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

[Maciamo]

If we take this part : "In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe".

Then, even atheism is a religion.

 

[No-name]

Then you must understand that many people are simply unsatisfied with the messages and interpretive meaning of life given to them by science. That the inquiries into intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships as well as the meaning and purpose of life are questions not best answered by dialectic materialism.

 

[Maciamo]

Then you must understand that many people are simply unsatisfied with the messages and interpretive meaning of life given to them by science. That the inquiries into intrapersonal and interpersonal relationships as well as the meaning and purpose of life are questions not best answered by dialectic materialism.

Not sure I follow you. What message does science give regarding the meaning of life ? Never heard about that before.

 

[No-name]

That would be my point. Science is not really equiped to give any message regarding the meaning of life. In this area it is a poor substitute for faith.

 

[Minty]

I don't have problems with the many religions existed, except some weird cult that make people do very weird things. Religions are ok as long as people don't try to enforce their notions on me.

 

[Elizabeth]

That would be my point. Science is not really equiped to give any message regarding the meaning of life. In this area it is a poor substitute for faith.

I also don't have a problem with the idea that various religions and denominations can coexist either as long as they are deeply held and seriously accepted as the ultimate truth of the universe.

What I don't like is illogical reasoning like "I believe events in the Bible actually happened because religion gives my life meaning and helps me deal better with tough life situations" or "there must be truth in religion because it has survived for thousands of years while other belief systems have fallen by the wayside." That to me is frankly pathetic, completely intellectual dishonest and cheapens what is otherwise a quite wonderous and fascinating area of life. Either have the courage to say you believe because the central tenants of my faith are accepted as having truth in and of themselves or start thinking more sincerely about the role of religion in your life.

 

[Sensuikan San]

That would be my point. Science is not really equiped to give any message regarding the meaning of life. In this area it is a poor substitute for faith.

Sabro, my friend (I hope!)

Surely, science is not equipped to deal with the "meaning of life" because that is not part of its mandate?

Is there a meaning to life? Or is that merely a subjective desire of humanity? Is there a meaning to life?

If so what is it?

Does it matter?

After all - we all get to be here (no choice!) and we all get to leave (no choice again!)

So ..... what is it?

?W????

 

[Maciamo]

That would be my point. Science is not really equiped to give any message regarding the meaning of life. In this area it is a poor substitute for faith.

I am amazed that after so many months on the Religion & Philosophy forum you still do not understand that science has so little to do with Atheism. Science certainly does not contradicts, and even supports Atheism, but that's a tiny little part of what makes an Atheist... (and it is not even the standard physics and chemistry or the scientific medthods that matter for Atheism, but rather psychology and neurosciences, evolutionary biology and genetics).

The basis of Atheism is something quite different from sciences, and a much more powerful tool indeed : Philosophy (of which sciences and maths are only lower servants).

Even mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam need philosophy. It is usually reserved to the specialists of their respective religion : theologians. Theologians are (for me) people desperately trying to reconcile sciences, philosophy and society with the dogmas of religion. They are blinded by their biased approach, which is to prove religion right. Some end up losing their religious faith (like quite a few popes and cardinals in the past), but other keep their faith intact in the hope that one day they will understand God's message.

Anyway, Philosophy is divided in many branches, the most important of which are epistemology ("what do we know and how" => link to psychology and neurosciences), ethics (comparing moral codes of various religions and societies, and determine what really matters), logic (what makes an argument right or wrong) and metaphysics (what is the nature of the universe, does god exist, etc.).

In philosophy, you can't just study one field, you must know everything -- including the basics in all sciences, and a good knowledge of major religions and their history. You can't hope to do metaphysics if you have no knowledge of epistemology, and to be a good epistemologist you should know how the human brain works, its capacities, its limits, how we acquire knowledge, how we process information, etc.

Once you have learned about all that (if you are a fast learner with a good memory, better than average understanding skills, and a lot of dedication, allow for a few years), you can start tackling metaphysics, the most difficult part of philosophy. It is also the most controversial, because it brings the human mind to its limits in the understanding of the universe, the infinite and life, and this is where giftedness makes the difference in opinions (not everybody can become a philosopher, but few philosophers manage to become good metaphysicians).

Naturally, the more advanced our knowledge of (brain) sciences and the better our final understanding of life and the universe will be.

Ethics is a more independent part of philosophy. It doesn't require in itself a good knowledge of other branches, but it is only natural that changes in knowledge in other fields will affect one's view of Ethics.

Let's not confuse Ethics (the study of moral and value systems) with Morals (one's own moral code). Morals is strictly personal, while Ethics is as impersonal as it gets (it usually ends up with "everything is relative and there is no absolute moral, not even about killing"). But you can't live just by understanding that all morals are subjective; people need a moral code to live in society. This is where religion comes in. Independent-minded and strong-willed people can usually make up their own moral code, but others need a ready-made one. They usually find it in religions, sometimes picking and choosing what they like in various religions (they are called Universalists).

This is the good part of religions. Some religions are little more than codes of conducts (e.g. some branches of Buddhism).

What I dislike is powerful organised religions that want to control people, make money, wield political power, and impose their beliefs on others. Any other religion that doesn't do that is fine by me. I just don't think they are equipped to give answers about metaphysics (e.g. life after death, how the universe was created...) or about the nature of life itself (best left to sciences and philosophy).

 

[Maciamo]

Btw, there is no meaning to life in the absolute, if you are still wondering. From a life being's point of view though, it would be to survive (which sometimes requires evolution to adapt to a changing environment), procreate (for life itself to survive) and live happily (for oneself ).

But as intelligent beings, humans can of course give any meaning they want to their own life.