Comment Re:Dogma! (Score 1) 601
People treat religion now days like a flavor or a preference. Then the idea of intolerance comes up because someone likes a flavor that is ludicrous to you. They want you to choose their flavor, so you, believing they are intolerant, you then dont tolerate them. Then to counter that, the false propraganda today is "pick one right for you, and lets all be happy."
Though some may argue that science is a religion, I like to argue religion is a science. Just like science, it wants to answer the same questions of our universe. It's about finding the truth, not finding the idea that best suits you. You dont just pick one scientific theory and say "this one is right for me." Its about evaluating each theory to see which one is most credible, if it can't be completely proven. How can religion be scientific you ask? Historical data, current events, logical deductions, and etc. Though none may provide concrete evidence, it may conjecture the possibility, even credibility, that one or more religion holds the whole truth or part of the truths. I would say most religions have some interesting credibility, but I do believe some of them or one of them do have more credibility than others. Just like evolution in science, you take what you know, and determine the most probable truth. And like science, it has a lot of unanswered questions in that the truth may never be fully revealed. Not to take science (evolution and etc.) and religion as two fields, but as one field. Those who believe evolution has overwhelming truth about our origin and existence, think again. Most are just theories and none are laws, just like the theories presented in each faith. I think it should be a responsibility of society to research each their own "theories" or other "theories". In that, we should be tolerant.
And for every faith or scientific explantion, it has consequences for choosing the wrong truth. Consequences in how you live your life, and in the afterlife if there is one. So that's why this question is not one of those "well, that's fine and dandy, but lets move on." This question is one of where we each must answer to the best of our abilities. Sadly, the default answers by many is, "I pick the one my parents chose" or "I'll pick the in-crowd one, the one easiest to handle."
So if religions are not preferences, but are credible ideas, then "intolerance" is really not intolerance of preferences, but is intolerance of possible truths. Should you be tolerant or intolerant of other ideas when they could be true? Should you be tolerant or intolerant of other ideas when you believe they are false or misleading? Not all intoleration is bad, likewise not all toleration is good. I lose tolerance when people who dont know the facts on both sides and yet have already start condemning one side, at least on issues in which the truth is not yet known. And to condemn does not mean to refute an idea, its mean to disrespect it. We should all be open-minded, and work to not let ignorance grow, which is by suppressing/condemning other ideas we dont like. At the same time, dont mistake refuting false ideas to be the same thing as intolerance/condemning. Respect all ideas and religions, at least until you get a further understanding of their claims.
Of course what makes this question so hard is even with all the historical, observable, and logical powers in your hand, it still takes faith to believe what you believe. You have to find one which reveals the most truth, and then take that leap of faith. It's not so much of a religion or non-religion. It's your paradigm of the world, with all of its rewards and consequences. So by faith, maybe that is what you meant by one being "right for you." But lets not mistake "right for you" as what "makes you feel good", but what do you have convictions of after contemplation and evaluation.
Though some may argue that science is a religion, I like to argue religion is a science. Just like science, it wants to answer the same questions of our universe. It's about finding the truth, not finding the idea that best suits you. You dont just pick one scientific theory and say "this one is right for me." Its about evaluating each theory to see which one is most credible, if it can't be completely proven. How can religion be scientific you ask? Historical data, current events, logical deductions, and etc. Though none may provide concrete evidence, it may conjecture the possibility, even credibility, that one or more religion holds the whole truth or part of the truths. I would say most religions have some interesting credibility, but I do believe some of them or one of them do have more credibility than others. Just like evolution in science, you take what you know, and determine the most probable truth. And like science, it has a lot of unanswered questions in that the truth may never be fully revealed. Not to take science (evolution and etc.) and religion as two fields, but as one field. Those who believe evolution has overwhelming truth about our origin and existence, think again. Most are just theories and none are laws, just like the theories presented in each faith. I think it should be a responsibility of society to research each their own "theories" or other "theories". In that, we should be tolerant.
And for every faith or scientific explantion, it has consequences for choosing the wrong truth. Consequences in how you live your life, and in the afterlife if there is one. So that's why this question is not one of those "well, that's fine and dandy, but lets move on." This question is one of where we each must answer to the best of our abilities. Sadly, the default answers by many is, "I pick the one my parents chose" or "I'll pick the in-crowd one, the one easiest to handle."
So if religions are not preferences, but are credible ideas, then "intolerance" is really not intolerance of preferences, but is intolerance of possible truths. Should you be tolerant or intolerant of other ideas when they could be true? Should you be tolerant or intolerant of other ideas when you believe they are false or misleading? Not all intoleration is bad, likewise not all toleration is good. I lose tolerance when people who dont know the facts on both sides and yet have already start condemning one side, at least on issues in which the truth is not yet known. And to condemn does not mean to refute an idea, its mean to disrespect it. We should all be open-minded, and work to not let ignorance grow, which is by suppressing/condemning other ideas we dont like. At the same time, dont mistake refuting false ideas to be the same thing as intolerance/condemning. Respect all ideas and religions, at least until you get a further understanding of their claims.
Of course what makes this question so hard is even with all the historical, observable, and logical powers in your hand, it still takes faith to believe what you believe. You have to find one which reveals the most truth, and then take that leap of faith. It's not so much of a religion or non-religion. It's your paradigm of the world, with all of its rewards and consequences. So by faith, maybe that is what you meant by one being "right for you." But lets not mistake "right for you" as what "makes you feel good", but what do you have convictions of after contemplation and evaluation.
