This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is "tolerance" of the religious and the secularists good or is it disrespectful?

#1UnfairRepresentPosted 2/10/2013 10:27:47 PM
I thought this video was interesting, at least the second half of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM

Interested in everyone;s take before I unleash my own
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#2C_MatPosted 2/10/2013 10:41:49 PM
Tolerance can mean different things to different people. In the way he described it in the video, yes, it can be condescending.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#3Moorish_IdolPosted 2/10/2013 11:40:33 PM
UnfairRepresent posted...
Interested in everyone;s take before I unleash my own

Going by your posts here over the past week, let me take a quick guess of what you'll 'unleash':

"There is no such thing as tolerance that is not disrespectful, because tolerance is disrespectful due to all the disrespect that is inherent in tolerance. Therefore, tolerance is disrespectful. And stupid."
#4Julian_CaesarPosted 2/11/2013 12:57:23 AM
As troll-ish as your other topics have been, at least you wrote out your own viewpoints in those instead of linking to a video. Yeesh.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#5FlashOfLightPosted 2/11/2013 4:52:00 AM
Nice piece here by Penn Jilette, an atheist who I've always respected. When he says that he believes in a physical reality where his perception does not change - that is one of the arguments that I always try to emphasize in defending the Bible, that unlike Eastern Mysticism, which deals with hypothetical conjectures about reality, leaving some to wonder if they are really existing or not - at its most extreme levels, the Bible instead deals with everyday life from a physical reality that can not be changed and that has to be dealt with: work, judgment, punishment, powers in authority, famine, illness, persecution, slavery, struggles of wealth, death.

Those are things that don't deal with a hypothesized - can be, or "if" world, but a consistent one which all generations, whether rich or poor have to deal with. Now, when he says that those who believe in a matrix argument can't be refuted, I have to disagree and say that it can be most convincingly refuted.

Good argument about the ones who say that they can just "feel" it too, I've always said that feeling something is not a concrete foundation to establish beliefs.

As per what he says at the end, much of the struggles with the Disciples early on with their own nation, ended up in either violence or death by their fellow Jews who had no tolerance for any expositions to contrary ideas, it is one thing to hear a person on their beliefs, and leave the deciding process up to them ultimately as to what they will be convinced of, but it is another to disregard their beliefs altogether simply because they have no way of defending them, and would rather want to exterminate someone else's own ideas by either imprisoning them, threatening to murder them, or by denying their rights and working outside of law.

It is human nature to turn to violence on the most minute of things, even if it's about just a petty argument about whether or not a certain referee called a play well, and I often say that the same display of untolerable hatred that rival sports teams have against each other when they end up rioting because of an unfavorable call, is the same mentality at work with what people call the "fanaticism" of religion, when that turns violent as well.
---
Hi, do you have an unused or unwanted sig? Don't delay, we can help, write to Better Sig Now, P.O. Box 917, for an affordable, quality sig - Today!
#6UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/11/2013 6:52:06 AM
Moorish_Idol posted...
UnfairRepresent posted...
Interested in everyone;s take before I unleash my own

Going by your posts here over the past week, let me take a quick guess of what you'll 'unleash':

"There is no such thing as tolerance that is not disrespectful, because tolerance is disrespectful due to all the disrespect that is inherent in tolerance. Therefore, tolerance is disrespectful. And stupid."


Nope. Wrong as usual
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#7GBALoserPosted 2/11/2013 7:57:02 AM
Moorish_Idol posted...
UnfairRepresent posted...
Interested in everyone;s take before I unleash my own

Going by your posts here over the past week, let me take a quick guess of what you'll 'unleash':

"There is no such thing as tolerance that is not disrespectful, because tolerance is disrespectful due to all the disrespect that is inherent in tolerance. Therefore, tolerance is disrespectful. And stupid."


I lol'd
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#8cyclonekrusePosted 2/11/2013 9:10:03 AM
Sounds like Penn finds confrontation to be respectful and non-confrontation to be condescending. That's what I got out of the end of the video. I don't see why being non-confrontational is how one "talks to a child," or however he put it.

I mean, I can see how tolerance can be condescending. "Oh, you believe the world is floating on the back of a giant turtle? How quaint." But I don't see why it's necessarily condescending. Maybe I truly feel like it's okay for you to have your beliefs and me to have mine (as long as we aren't hurting anyone and aren't forcing those beliefs on others).

One other thing I noticed in the video was that Penn went directly from "I believe in objective reality even though I can't prove it" (he says the BIV argument is airtight, after all) to "If you believe something you can't prove, you have to allow Charles Manson his crazy beliefs too and that's bad." I don't think he realized what he said there. Or maybe he is using "prove" in a less stringent way. Even still, it was an odd juxtaposition.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"
#9UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 2/11/2013 3:52:47 PM
cyclonekruse posted...
Sounds like Penn finds confrontation to be respectful and non-confrontation to be condescending. That's what I got out of the end of the video. I don't see why being non-confrontational is how one "talks to a child," or however he put it.

I mean, I can see how tolerance can be condescending. "Oh, you believe the world is floating on the back of a giant turtle? How quaint." But I don't see why it's necessarily condescending. Maybe I truly feel like it's okay for you to have your beliefs and me to have mine (as long as we aren't hurting anyone and aren't forcing those beliefs on others).

One other thing I noticed in the video was that Penn went directly from "I believe in objective reality even though I can't prove it" (he says the BIV argument is airtight, after all) to "If you believe something you can't prove, you have to allow Charles Manson his crazy beliefs too and that's bad." I don't think he realized what he said there. Or maybe he is using "prove" in a less stringent way. Even still, it was an odd juxtaposition.


I don't think he thinks non-confrontation is condescending, I think he thinks patronizating is condescending.

And how is he wrong on the second point? Why is it fair to say you believe in "feelings" and these are true and powerful through faith,... But no one else can?
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
http://i.imgur.com/45yVrRr.jpg
#10cyclonekrusePosted 2/11/2013 4:28:48 PM
UnfairRepresent posted...
I don't think he thinks non-confrontation is condescending, I think he thinks patronizating is condescending.

That might be true. But the example that he gave of finding fundamentalist Christians to be more respectful because they're open in declaring that he's wrong doesn't speak to such a viewpoint.

And how is he wrong on the second point? Why is it fair to say you believe in "feelings" and these are true and powerful through faith,... But no one else can?

You'll have to show me where I said that because as far as I can tell I didn't.

What I actually expressed was the sentiment that you ought to believe what you feel is best and I'll believe what I feel is best. So long as those beliefs only affect us individually, go nuts. I honestly don't care what you believe. You're free to believe whatever you want based on your "feelings." However, if those beliefs start affecting others (especially in an adverse way), that's when we have a problem.
---
Locke: "Why do you find it so hard to believe?" || Jack "Why do you find it so easy?!" ||
Locke: "It's never been easy!"