4 ms·
> 'It's not intolerant to state that you do not believe in somebody else's religion.' Stating that you are, quote, "seeking its demise", is the very definition
by guidance 7y ago
> 'It's not intolerant to state that you do not believe in somebody else's religion.'
Stating that you are, quote, "seeking its demise", is the very definition of intolerance.
> 'Nothing above is even "disparaging", even that fairy tale remark. It's not disparaging to state that, without good evidence, you believe fantastic stories from thousands of years ago to be fairy tails.'
This is the very definition of disparagement.
If I were to refer to your atheistic beliefs as 'the ignorance of children, raised by a wicked society that is under the influence of psychopathic demons', would you view that as disparaging? Of course you would.
The difference between that way of viewing things and your way of viewing things is simply a matter of perspective. The difference is, one viewpoint is based on knowledge, whereas the other is based in ignorance.
Source: I used to be an atheist also. As a teenager. In the Bible Belt.
- catalogia 7y ago> Stating that you are, quote, "seeking its demise", is the very definition of intolerance. Evangelizing atheism is no more intolerant than evangelizing your religion. Personally I have no particular interest in doing either, but if you get bent out of shape over somebody doing it, that's on you. If you don't like somebody disagreeing with your beliefs then move to a theocracy where such things are forbidden. The "intolerance" you describe is in fact an expression of the bedrock of liberal society.
- guidance 7y ago> 'Evangelizing atheism is no more intolerant than evangelizing your religion.' Once again: calling for the destruction of something is exactly the same as intolerance of that thing. > 'liberal' This word doesn't mean what you think it means. You don't get to redefine the English language to suit your own personal whims.