Toleration leads to utility so you probably wouldn't have this point of view if your not a utilitarian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utility is lame. You can't quantize pleasure, and utility doesn't account for unforeseen circumstances - you've got to pretty much predict the future with every moral choice you make. It also doesn't account for intentions - if you try and murder your brother but somehow you fail and make $20 out of it, hey, that's a good action!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about slavery? Let's say my family of four has one slave. The slave benefits four of us, in many different ways. He is but one slave, and is being inconvenienced but one way! Utility is being reached here my friend, slavery must be right!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't need to be a mindless robot while using utilitarian ethics. Just because you want to achieve utility dosen't mean you can take away common sense. If you make $20 with an attempt to kill someone, you have to weigh up before hand - what is best? The death of someone or gaining $20? But if the outcome of $20 is not expected, you must weigh up what is best? One alive and one dead or two alive? As for the slave example, what is best? Four free people and one slave or five free people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You needn't complicate it.

 

 

There is a difference, toleration is good

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, it's "good"? What universal standard of morality says that? Last time I checked, an atheist doesn't have a universal standard of morality, so you telling me toleration is good is forcing your beliefs down my throat (the exact opposite of toleration). You're showing yourself to be a hypocrite more and more with every post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said it was universal. I said my beleif is not to tolerate religions that don't tolerate others. I never said my beleifs where universal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What your post then says is that you don't tolerate religions that don't have the same belief as you - since it is only your belief that tolerance is good. Therefore, you are intolerant of beliefs that are different than yours. You ONLY tolerate beliefs which are the same as yours about tolerance, hence insane saying it is a useless stance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does it accomplish to only tolerate beliefs that you agree with? Even intolerant religions tolerate the beliefs they agree with, so how is your intolerance towards intolerance any different IF tolerance is not an absolute good?

Forgive others and then teach..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For if you forgive last (or love last).. all your words fall on deaf ears.(the void of love fills with hate and manifests ignorance).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are all the same in what they desire. Everyone desires love/acceptance. If you think this is not true.. then teens wouldn't have peer pressure problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That kid of yours wouldn't join gangs only because its the only place he feels he's truely at "home".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is things in life that are so commonly true, I am suprised people ignore them and focus on being "correct".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To anger another to be politically correct is selfishness when persisting on the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if everyone in the world loved you.. wouldn't the world be a good place to live?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if everyone in the world hated you.. well.. you wouldn't think twice about sucide.. if your not dead already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So its really not a matter of what religion.. but the actions you make towards other people. Are they loving or hateful?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People will remember you by your actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The good news is God forgives and forgets.. the bad news is people aren't so easily willing to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationships are wonderful.. but can you bare the fall of another? Will you accept and forget their falls because you fall yourself?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What goes around comes around.. lets hope you chose the right thing to come back around to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

What your post then says is that you don't tolerate religions that don't have the same belief as you - since it is only your belief that tolerance is good. Therefore, you are intolerant of beliefs that are different than yours. You ONLY tolerate beliefs which are the same as yours about tolerance, hence insane saying it is a useless stance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does it accomplish to only tolerate beliefs that you agree with? Even intolerant religions tolerate the beliefs they agree with, so how is your intolerance towards intolerance any different IF tolerance is not an absolute good?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, my beleif does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate other peoples beleifs. Intolerant religions are exclusivley intolerant. I am intolerant only to intolerant religions e.g. extremists.

 

What your post then says is that you don't tolerate religions that don't have the same belief as you - since it is only your belief that tolerance is good. Therefore, you are intolerant of beliefs that are different than yours. You ONLY tolerate beliefs which are the same as yours about tolerance, hence insane saying it is a useless stance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does it accomplish to only tolerate beliefs that you agree with? Even intolerant religions tolerate the beliefs they agree with, so how is your intolerance towards intolerance any different IF tolerance is not an absolute good?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, my beleif does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate other peoples beleifs. Intolerant religions are exclusivley intolerant. I am intolerant only to intolerant religions e.g. extremists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless, you are still choosing what to be intolerant of, and what to be tolerant of. Once again, by saying "my belief does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate others" you are implying that tolerating many is intrinsically good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To use your words, you are also "exclusively intolerant." You are intolerant to everyone who does not share the same belief you do about tolerance, just as intolerant religions are intolerant towards people who don't share their religious beliefs. Both you and intolerant religions are being intolerant towards people who believe something different because they believe something different. However, you are attempting to assume that intolerance towards intolerance is intrinsically better than another kind of intolerance, yet at the same time you want to say that "tolerance" is not an absolute good. If tolerance is not an absolute good, then your intolerance is just as bad, and just as exclusive towards beliefs that you don't agree with.

 

 

What your post then says is that you don't tolerate religions that don't have the same belief as you - since it is only your belief that tolerance is good. Therefore, you are intolerant of beliefs that are different than yours. You ONLY tolerate beliefs which are the same as yours about tolerance, hence insane saying it is a useless stance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does it accomplish to only tolerate beliefs that you agree with? Even intolerant religions tolerate the beliefs they agree with, so how is your intolerance towards intolerance any different IF tolerance is not an absolute good?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, my beleif does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate other peoples beleifs. Intolerant religions are exclusivley intolerant. I am intolerant only to intolerant religions e.g. extremists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless, you are still choosing what to be intolerant of, and what to be tolerant of. Once again, by saying "my belief does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate others" you are implying that tolerating many is intrinsically good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To use your words, you are also "exclusively intolerant." You are intolerant to everyone who does not share the same belief you do about tolerance, just as intolerant religions are intolerant towards people who don't share their religious beliefs. Both you and intolerant religions are being intolerant towards people who believe something different because they believe something different. However, you are attempting to assume that intolerance towards intolerance is intrinsically better than another kind of intolerance, yet at the same time you want to say that "tolerance" is not an absolute good. If tolerance is not an absolute good, then your intolerance is just as bad, and just as exclusive towards beliefs that you don't agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude..... :ohnoes:

 

i dont really find any interesting maybe christianity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but i wish they would stop trying to force it on us

 

 

 

wen i went to primary school every thursday sum lady would come and tell us about god and jesus, i think i can make my mind up myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but lets just say hindu is real and christianity is false, eveything was a lie

 

 

 

then y did (whoever it was) make it all up and ruin many peoples lives, like preiests and bishops and that. everything they believe in isnt true :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my honest opinion i think the bible was created by the authority at the time as a form of control. If you think about it, all the bible does is tell you if you break any rule, your going to hell. Scare tactic much?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bible allows a sinner to have a forgiveness regardless of the past wrongs. What more do u need? Go to heaven and do all the sins u want?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defender2516, u got my respect man =D> .

 

 

 

Regardless, you are still choosing what to be intolerant of, and what to be tolerant of. Once again, by saying "my belief does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate others" you are implying that tolerating many is intrinsically good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I imply and what i mean can be two different things. I don't beleive tolerance to be intrinsically good, i beleive it to generate the greatest hapiness for the majority of people if they tolerate a number of religions in my view. Religions who do not tolerate others in my opinion do not deserve my toleration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To use your words, you are also "exclusively intolerant." You are intolerant to everyone who does not share the same belief you do about tolerance, just as intolerant religions are intolerant towards people who don't share their religious beliefs. Both you and intolerant religions are being intolerant towards people who believe something different because they believe something different. However, you are attempting to assume that intolerance towards intolerance is intrinsically better than another kind of intolerance, yet at the same time you want to say that "tolerance" is not an absolute good. If tolerance is not an absolute good, then your intolerance is just as bad, and just as exclusive towards beliefs that you don't agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My beleif that intolerance is bad is just my beleif. Yes I am slightly hypocritical by then not tolerating intolerant religions, but in the bigger picture I am not exclusivley intolerant. I am being intolerant to one type of beleif which is that intolerance is bad. I am tolerating other beleifs which do not neccessarily have to agree, just to tolerate my beleif. Intolerant religions tolerate only their set of beleifs. Therefore this extreme fraction of a religion will not tolerate any other beleifs at all. Whereas i tolerate a number of religions who may not neccessarily beleive tolerance is good but that tolerate other beleifs anyway.

 

 

i dont really find any interesting maybe christianity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but i wish they would stop trying to force it on us

 

 

 

wen i went to primary school every thursday sum lady would come and tell us about god and jesus, i think i can make my mind up myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but lets just say hindu is real and christianity is false, eveything was a lie

 

 

 

then y did (whoever it was) make it all up and ruin many peoples lives, like preiests and bishops and that. everything they believe in isnt true :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my honest opinion i think the bible was created by the authority at the time as a form of control. If you think about it, all the bible does is tell you if you break any rule, your going to hell. Scare tactic much?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bible allows a sinner to have a forgiveness regardless of the past wrongs. What more do u need? Go to heaven and do all the sins u want?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defender2516, u got my respect man =D> .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so true man, jesus is the way the truth and the light. just ask and he will provide.

My beleif that intolerance is bad is just my beleif.

 

 

 

I am being intolerant to one type of beleif which is that intolerance is bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am tolerating other beleifs which do not neccessarily have to agree, just to tolerate my beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intolerant religions tolerate only their set of beleifs. Therefore this extreme fraction of a religion will not tolerate any other beleifs at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's say Religion A believes in Seven Holy Doctrines. They hold these Seven Doctrines to generate the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people when followed, and believe that disobeying these Doctrines leads to strife and unhappiness. Because they regard these Doctrines so highly, they do not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now let's take Santeza. He believes in Tolerance above all else. Tolerance will generate the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers of people; Intolerance will lead to strife and unhappiness. Because he regards Tolerance as so important, he does not tolerate those who practice Intolerance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both are equally intolerant of beliefs that go against their own. It does not matter whether there is one belief, or seven beliefs, or one hundred beliefs. Either way, the person who ascribes to the belief(s) is exclusively intolerant of anything that goes against that belief.

 

 

i dont really find any interesting maybe christianity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but i wish they would stop trying to force it on us

 

 

 

wen i went to primary school every thursday sum lady would come and tell us about god and jesus, i think i can make my mind up myself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but lets just say hindu is real and christianity is false, eveything was a lie

 

 

 

then y did (whoever it was) make it all up and ruin many peoples lives, like preiests and bishops and that. everything they believe in isnt true :-k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my honest opinion i think the bible was created by the authority at the time as a form of control. If you think about it, all the bible does is tell you if you break any rule, your going to hell. Scare tactic much?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bible allows a sinner to have a forgiveness regardless of the past wrongs. What more do u need? Go to heaven and do all the sins u want?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defender2516, u got my respect man =D> .

 

 

 

Heaven serves the same purpose as Hell, except that it's not a scare tactic to get people to do what you want, but a reward to get people to do what you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not denying the existence of a Heaven or Hell. I'm just saying that they were, and are, useful devices to control people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so true man, jesus is the way the truth and the light. just ask and he will provide.

 

 

 

I respect your belief in Jesus, but (if you don't already know this) don't depend too much on the bolded part. I.e., don't interpret it as God's going to give you every material thing you want just because you believe in him and Jesus. Just want to make sure you understand that.

I don't agree, tolerating a number of beleifs is not the same as tolerating one beleif. I don't beleive in tolerance above all else, i beleive it to be the best way to progress society. If you use this argument it can be applied to almost any religion and they would prove to be intolerant, which is obviously not the case.

I don't agree, tolerating a number of beleifs is not the same as tolerating one beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Show me one difference between the two besides numbers. If I eat one apple, and you eat four apples, aren't we both still eating apples?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't beleive in tolerance above all else, i beleive it to be the best way to progress society. If you use this argument it can be applied to almost any religion and they would prove to be intolerant, which is obviously not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why can it not be the case that all beliefs and religions are intolerant? Is their a logical reason for this, or do you simply refuse to accept the possibility? Perhaps the answer lies in your definition of tolerance, so how exactly would you define tolerance?

I don't agree, tolerating a number of beleifs is not the same as tolerating one beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You only tolerate the one belief that tolerance towards other religions is better than intolerance towards other religions. They tolerate the one belief that intolerance towards other religions is better than tolerance towards other religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you use this argument it can be applied to almost any religion and they would prove to be intolerant, which is obviously not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, that's my point. The very notion of a belief, especially a religious one, screams intolerance. If I believe that one thing is right, and one thing is wrong, why should I tolerate the wrong? You yourself follow this path. You believe that intolerance is wrong, and therefore, like you initially said, you do not tolerate the intolerant.

In this context as respecting other peoples beleifs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which is why i do not beleive all religions are intolerant.

Define "respecting other people's beliefs." What is it? How does one do it? What does it look like when one does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you not respect the belief that intolerance of other religions is a good thing?

 

I don't agree, tolerating a number of beleifs is not the same as tolerating one beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You only tolerate the one belief that tolerance towards other religions is better than intolerance towards other religions. They tolerate the one belief that intolerance towards other religions is better than tolerance towards other religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where i don't agree. Religion A tolerates Religion B, C, D and E. Whereas Religion F tolerates no other religion. Which is more tolerant?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you use this argument it can be applied to almost any religion and they would prove to be intolerant, which is obviously not the case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, that's my point. The very notion of a belief, especially a religious one, screams intolerance. If I believe that one thing is right, and one thing is wrong, why should I tolerate the wrong? You yourself follow this path. You believe that intolerance is wrong, and therefore, like you initially said, you do not tolerate the intolerant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They beleive only one thing, however they tolerate many other beleifs. Such as a most Chrsitians tolerate Jewish people who beleive Jesus is not the son of God. They don't have to neccessarily beleive to tolerate.

Define "respecting other people's beliefs." What is it? How does one do it? What does it look like when one does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you not respect the belief that intolerance of other religions is a good thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As i said up there an example would be a Christian who accepts that a Jewish persons beleives that Jesus is not the son of God, they do not beleive this. They can reason with them but not force them to change their beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And because my view is that society can't progress with intolerant religions.

As i said up there an example would be a Christian who accepts that a Jewish persons beleives that Jesus is not the son of God, they do not beleive this. They can reason with them but not force them to change their beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does "accepting" another person's beliefs include saying that those beliefs may be true? If so, what do you mean by acceptance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And because my view is that society can't progress with intolerant religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you admit that you do not respect the beliefs of those who believe in intolerance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't agree, tolerating a number of beleifs is not the same as tolerating one beleif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where i don't agree. Religion A tolerates Religion B, C, D and E. Whereas Religion F tolerates no other religion. Which is more tolerant?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are equally tolerant, because they both only tolerate the religions that agree with them. Religion A believes in tolerance, so it tolerates only tolerant relgions. Religion F does not believe in tolerance, so it tolerates only those who agree that Religion F is exclusively true. Either way, they are both tolerating only those with whom they agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Show me one difference between the two besides numbers. If I eat one apple, and you eat four apples, aren't we both still eating apples?

This is where i don't agree. Religion A tolerates Religion B, C, D and E. Whereas Religion F tolerates no other religion. Which is more tolerant?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't know how many religions out there are tolerant compared to how many are intolerant so you cannot claim that your belief is more tolerant than another because it tolerates more religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your belief is still intolerant no matter how you attempt to spin it. Whether or not you are intolerant towards one, or one hundred systems of belief, you are still intolerant towards intolerance. Since it is your belief that only tolerance should be tolerated, you are forced to believe that YOUR intolerance should not be tolerated. By your own belief, you have to be intolerant towards yourself, because you are intolerance towards people who don't share your beliefs about tolerance.

I have already admitted i am intolerant to intolerant religions. I am attempting to spin how I am more tolerant than intolerant religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does "accepting" another person's beliefs include saying that those beliefs may be true? If so, what do you mean by acceptance?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that they may be true, but allowing them to have that beleif without attempting to force them to change. As i said, they can reason with them, question them ect however they can't force or discriminate against them because of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are equally tolerant, because they both only tolerate the religions that agree with them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On one issue, that creates utility. They are not the same religion, they are different. It's like all religions agree there is a higher being. Yet there ideas of that are different.

I have already admitted i am intolerant to intolerant religions. I am attempting to spin how I am more tolerant than intolerant religions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if you only tolerate tolerance, how do you tolerate yourself? Or are you going to correct your initial statement to say that you only tolerate belief systems which have as much tolerance in their beliefs as you deem necessary?

Not as I deem neccessary, but as much tolerance as needed to not discriminate against others or force others in anyway to change their beleif systems. A little like Mill's harm principle.

Not as I deem neccessary, but as much tolerance as needed to not discriminate against others or force others in anyway to change their beleif systems. A little like Mill's harm principle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But you yourself said you are intolerant of intolerant belief systems. If you are intolerant of intolerant belief systems, then you are, by your definition, trying to force others in anyway to change their belief systems. If you are NOT doing that, then you ARE tolerant of intolerance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So which is it? Are you intolerant of intolerance, or are you tolerant of intolerance?

I'm not activley trying to force anyone to beleive in tolerance. I am saying that in my opinion they arn't helping us to progress society.