- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,439
That's just an "argument."
Are they actually showing intolerance?
Perhaps, but not a logical fallacy.
That's just an "argument."Some might argue that disbelief of anything in the Bible is intolerant.
Perhaps, but not a logical fallacy.It's a fallacious assumption
That's just an "argument."
Are they actually showing intolerance?
It's a debate about what it means to be a bigot, rather than being about "beliefs."Ask Richard Dawkins.
Anyway I have no desire to enter into a religious debate, I don't care much for theology and while I respect the right of people to peacefully practise their religion I oppose religious institutions exerting power over individuals.
It's a debate about what it means to be a bigot, rather than being about "beliefs."
That's a complete nonsense.And even if it is, "bigotry" is just a word, but it's a pejorative used to deflect meaningful debate about the evidence for beliefs because the people who call others bigots have no evidence to back up their claims.
Hmm, that may be so.That's a complete nonsense.
Do you actually understand the concept of "tolerance?"
You need to go and study some epistemology and come to grips with how knowledge and belief are treated as distinct domains.
That's a complete nonsense.
Do you actually understand the concept of "tolerance?"
You need to go and study some epistemology and come to grips with how knowledge and belief are treated as distinct domains.
Little wonder you say strange things as you have real difficulties with what words means in the context they are used.People can believe anything they want as far as I care but unless they can back it up with some solid evidence I have a right to remain intolerant to them and tell them to go away and not bother me with their unfounded beliefs.
Probably sheer ignorance.Hmm, that may be so.
But to choose something topical, if I were to poo-hoo the concept of 100 genders, is that from a point of knowledge, or belief?
Little wonder you say strange things as you have real difficulties with what words means in the context they are used.
As I said, go and read up on epistemology as you are confusing concepts.
Religion is about "faith" which is a conviction personally held and requires no evidence.
Agreed.Religion is about "faith" which is a conviction personally held and requires no evidence.
The problem is that concepts such as tolerance, bigotry, freedom of speech and others are often things which are "subject to you agreeing with me".Do you actually understand the concept of "tolerance?"
Opinions are not equal.Agreed.
An issue of relevance though is that almost certainly rather a lot of those who voice their opinion on all sorts of matters are doing it in a religious manner in practice. That is, they have a conviction that the issue is real and serious but have personally seen no evidence that this is so.
That's not to say they are wrong as such but there does seem to be a lot of "jump on the bandwagon" sort of stuff going on without real knowledge on the part of those involved.
Exceptions of course as with anything.
While concepts are nuanced, words and actions over time draw their boundary lines.The problem is that concepts such as tolerance, bigotry, freedom of speech and others are often things which are "subject to you agreeing with me".
It's dead easy to find people who will say they are absolutely tolerant, they support freedom of speech and they most certainly are not a bigot.
Then watch what happens when they discover that what you're going to say is the exact opposite of their own personal views on whatever subject.
Some will grit their teeth and hand you the microphone or whatever but reality is many don't actually support freedom of speech or tolerance at all. What they support is your right to agree with them.
Facts speak for themselves, whereas your opinions may be baseless or ill founded.What you call facts i can call opinion.
No better example than the co2 hysteria on global warming: our latest religion, but same on islam or veganism
There are facts
And there is presentations of facts
A Muslim decapitates 3 people in the street with a kitchen knife
One fact (that you can choose or not to reveal)
Then 2 opinions
-He has mental history
Or
-He is applying his religion to the letter
Not that easy clear cut
And being a Mullah or a NZ PM does not qualify you better to decide
My 2c only
I bypass the CO2 science as indeed there are greenhouse gases co2 ch4Facts speak for themselves, whereas your opinions may be baseless or ill founded.
CO2 hysteria is an "opinion" however the role of CO2 in climate science is based on principles of physics.
WRT to your decapitation example, if the evidence shows a history of mental issues then it ceases to be an "opinion" and if the event was premeditated with clear evidence of rationale then that too ceases to be "opinion".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?