> You've completely misconstrued the nature of tolerance. I look at tolerance in practical terms. What the religious texts say, or how scholars interpret those

> You've completely misconstrued the nature of tolerance. I look at tolerance in practical terms. What the religious texts say, or how scholars interpret those texts is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is real world actions. If the true believers of a religion have consistently punished people for apostasy, or indulged in forced conversions of conquered peoples, or placed restrictions on the practice of other religions, then I don't consider that religion (or its practitioners) to be tolerant. > you have completely misconstrued what Abrahamic religions believe w.r.t. God. I would rather say that my statement is redundant. But "the first problem is that monotheists are monotheistic" sounds absurd. Still, at least the Quran makes a distinction between the God of the Quran (Allah) and any other god (ilaah) when it claims that "there is no god but Allah." > a lack of faith in God is sure to lead you to hell has nothing to do with intolerance. [...] You seem to be suggesting the absurd idea that it is intolerant to be certain of your beliefs and thus certain that someone else is in error. If this principle limited itself to words and not deeds, I would probably agree. My issue is with the "carrot and the sword" part. That is intolerance manifesting in physical form. And there are hundreds of millions of people who have borne the brunt of this intolerance over the last few thousands years.