Philotic Web

fetus, I could say something, and I would mean it, but I would not like myself very much if I said it.

Anyhow, your rampant hate of all things Christian is a bit wearing. Learn a new song.

Rampant hate of all things Christian!? I wouldn't say that. Even if you accept that it's rampant hate (which it isn't in my book) I'd say it applies to anything monotheistic and/or dogmatic.

Don't feed the bezoar, guys. Geeze.

All this intolerance in a thread about tolerance.

Kinda funny.

Ummm. The title is "Fundies" This stands for fundamentalists who are intolerant. Therefore, I'd say that the thread is about intolerance, not tolerance, but that would be nit-picking :p

Ah, but nit-picking and not knowing when you're not required to press that little submit button is how we've come to know and love you, eriador.

Well it's how we've come to know you.

Seriously, I am a strong Christian, please tolerate me. I accept your different views on God.

One of those clauses is a lie.

I don't see how those 2 statements are even contradictory. The 1st statement just means I believe strongly that God exists and that Jesus is his Son.

The 2nd statement just means I do not force or expect other people to believe what I believe. You chose to be atheist, I tolerate and accept that. I won't even try to change your mind.

**Eriador, I'm not offended that you thought I lied. EL is the moderator and he took offense where there was none, but rules are rules so next time I "lie" just call it a contradiction.
I have not read all your posts but from what I've seen, you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

**Eriador, I'm not offended that you thought I lied. EL is the moderator and he took offense where there was none, but rules are rules so next time I "lie" just call it a contradiction.
I have not read all your posts but from what I've seen, you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

I'm endlessly amused that everyone always assumes EL is male

Isn't he? I thought Linus was a guys' name..

Seriously, I am a strong Christian, please tolerate me. I accept your different views on God.

One of those clauses is a lie.

I don't see how those 2 statements are even contradictory. The 1st statement just means I believe strongly that God exists and that Jesus is his Son.

The 2nd statement just means I do not force or expect other people to believe what I believe. You chose to be atheist, I tolerate and accept that. I won't even try to change your mind.

**Eriador, I'm not offended that you thought I lied. EL is the moderator and he took offense where there was none, but rules are rules so next time I "lie" just call it a contradiction.
I have not read all your posts but from what I've seen, you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

Scott, thank you. I guess I do see a contradiction because I interpret the word "accept" differently. I believe that what you are saying is that you accept the fact that I believe what I believe. You don't accept those beliefs themselves. That's why I believe that tolerate is a better word.

**Eriador, I'm not offended that you thought I lied. EL is the moderator and he took offense where there was none, but rules are rules so next time I "lie" just call it a contradiction.
I have not read all your posts but from what I've seen, you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

I'm endlessly amused that everyone always assumes EL is male

Noli confundere populos, Magge.

**Eriador, I'm not offended that you thought I lied. EL is the moderator and he took offense where there was none, but rules are rules so next time I "lie" just call it a contradiction.
I have not read all your posts but from what I've seen, you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

I'm endlessly amused that everyone always assumes EL is male

Noli confundere populos, Magge.

4favor, English. Some of us haven't gone to Latin class.

**Eriador, I'm not offended that you thought I lied. EL is the moderator and he took offense where there was none, but rules are rules so next time I "lie" just call it a contradiction.
I have not read all your posts but from what I've seen, you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

I'm endlessly amused that everyone always assumes EL is male

Noli confundere populos, Magge.

4favor, English. Some of us haven't gone to Latin class.

Well that's evident, cause it's spanish not latin, and he's saying he wants some tacos.

Even mods are allowed to use irony.

*bump*

Seriously, I am a strong Christian, please tolerate me. I accept your different views on God.

One of those clauses is a lie.

I don't see how those 2 statements are even contradictory. The 1st statement just means I believe strongly that God exists and that Jesus is his Son.

The 2nd statement just means I do not force or expect other people to believe what I believe. You chose to be atheist, I tolerate and accept that. I won't even try to change your mind.

**Eriador, I'm not offended that you thought I lied. EL is the moderator and he took offense where there was none, but rules are rules so next time I "lie" just call it a contradiction.
I have not read all your posts but from what I've seen, you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

Scott, thank you. I guess I do see a contradiction because I interpret the word "accept" differently. I believe that what you are saying is that you accept the fact that I believe what I believe. You don't accept those beliefs themselves. That's why I believe that tolerate is a better word.

There is a difference between accepting a belief as valid--or even as reasonable--and believing it yourself. Acceptance is not agreement.

And Scott, don't worry--you'll learn the truth about eriador soon enough.

If you accept that an opinion is valid you cannot hold a contradictory opinion, because they can't BOTH be valid. You can accept that I believe x, but you can't accept x if you believe in a contradictory y.

**Eriador... you are very intelligent and back up your thoughts quite well with just a touch of arrogance.**

LURK MOAR!

There is a difference between accepting a belief as valid--or even as reasonable--and believing it yourself. Acceptance is not agreement.

And Scott, don't worry--you'll learn the truth about eriador soon enough.

Since my words started this semantic argument, I will attempt to end it.
Eriador is locked in on only one meaning of the word 'accept' - "to regard as true".

Eriador, try some other meaning of the word accept - "To perceive or recognize the meaning of"
or "To understand as having a specific meaning"

Seriously, I am a strong Christian, please tolerate me. I accept your different views on God.

I do tolerate you. I do accept that you believe differently from me. I do accept that you have a basis for believing what you believe. I do not accept your beliefs in and of themselves.

If you accept that an opinion is valid you cannot hold a contradictory opinion, because they can't BOTH be valid. You can accept that I believe x, but you can't accept x if you believe in a contradictory y.

Um. Sure. Except for all the parts where that's totally not the case. You need to look up the word valid in the dictionary, I think. Valid doesn't mean correct. It means believable, or justifiable. Accepting that other beliefs are justifiable is not agreeing with those other beliefs. It is accepting that the belief itself can be supported with some evidence.

However, that goes against the idea in most religions that they represent "the one absolute truth." A self-described "strong Christian" should subscribe to this (based on the "strong" and "weak" beliefs outlined in this forum), which means the statements are still contradictory.

One can believe in a Truth and also believe that other people have good and rational reasons for believing something else.

Yeah that one.

One can believe in a Truth and also believe that other people have good and rational reasons for believing something else.

Then they're simply being arbitrarily illogical, which is a much greater sin than being contradictory.

It is more arbitrarily illogical to refuse to even consider that anyone else might ever be right than it is to accept that it is possible, even if you personally feel that what you believe is Truth. That is one of my issues with militant atheism, or militant anything, really: it has chosen one belief (fair enough) and it refuses to even consider that anybody else could ever possibly be right because it's obvious that they are foolish people. That, to me, is by far more arbitrarily illogical than the simple acceptance that it is possible my beliefs are not Truth and someone else's are.

No. They're not.

Have a nice day.

Aaaah, an angry teenager! Quick, someone throw him some porn magazines to distract him!

Sometimes I think that the level of tolerance accepted varies on popular government ideals. Fascism on one side having no tolerance (cut away the cancer attitude), and Socialism on the other where it seems taboo to censor.

I am more moderate. I believe in being agreeable as much as possible, and at the same time, I can't tolerate some attitudes and behaviors.

There's no need to attack a person for stating opinions. However, when a person states their opinions, they put their opinions up for debate, simple as that. If you can't defend your opinion, then you really shouldn't have them.

There's no need to attack a person for stating opinions. However, when a person states their opinions, they put their opinions up for debate, simple as that. If you can't defend your opinion, then you really shouldn't have them.

Unless, of course, your opinion is for/against God. Or, rather, subjects in general where there can not be no clear cut winner because there is no proof or defining reasoning for or against either side. Agnosticism for the win!

I don't think there's any subjects with clear cut winners when it comes to "debates" on the computertubes.

Unless, of course, your opinion is for/against God. Or, rather, subjects in general where there can not be no clear cut winner because there is no proof or defining reasoning for or against either side. Agnosticism for the win!

N.B. The following is not a rant directed primarily at you, Wil, but you happened to say the wrong thing at the wrong time.

The study and theory of religion isn't just "what I believe." It's a complicated, interdisciplinary field involving philosophy, anthropology, linguistics, history, political science, literature, art, and a whole lot more. It has rules and guidelines and conventions just like any other field. You have to study and read and learn just like any other field. We don't just shoot from the hip like so many ignorant chickens, as so many people seem to think it's okay to do.

There's far more to the topic of religion that the average idiot on the street thinks, but for some reason only the loud, ignorant idiot on the street gets to talk. And somehow they think their opinion should count as much as someone who has poured years of their life into the field, because after all, "it's what I believe and you can't say anything against it!!!" Excuse me, but I don't walk into a psych class and assume that because I have a brain too I get to claim equal weight as the prof.

It's not just a free-for-all, and statements like you made, Wil, really get my goat. I find them academically offensive (not to be confused with personally offensive). No, there can't be a "winner." But opinions can be attacked or defended, because there ARE norms to the debate. And people who have studied and poured the time and effort into the field have the right to demand those norms be held to.

But then, most of the people I find worth talking to on the subject aren't interested in winning in the first place.