[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah but see their really is no difference in not tolerating and idea or the individual. It's still an intolerance to an individual bases on some criteria. Which means that while one may rail against intolerance that others do....yet display it them-self. How is that different? In both cases there is a lack of tolerance. And it's ironic to find someone calling out others for intolerance while displaying it themselves....no?

LJS9502_basic

You are assuming that one judges a person by what beliefs they hold. And while yes, this may be true on a subconsious level, it is certainly not the basis of my argument. I call them out because of their intolerance, not because of the person that they are (if that makes sense). If I were to accept what you are saying, then I am intolerant because they are, not for any other reason. I show intoleracne to them because they do the same to anotehr group of people. (this is of course assuming that I agree that I am intolerant of the person themselves and not just of their opinion).

Yes I am intolerant of their opinion. They, on the other hand, are intolerant of people themselves. They are intolerant because of something thatsaid people cannot control and that is an inherent part of their way of life, while I am intolerant of this opinion, and opinions are changeable andare not aspects of a person; they are intangible and independent.You cannot deny that these are way different "forms of intolerance". Anyway, this debate is getting nowhere.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah but see their really is no difference in not tolerating and idea or the individual. It's still an intolerance to an individual bases on some criteria. Which means that while one may rail against intolerance that others do....yet display it them-self. How is that different? In both cases there is a lack of tolerance. And it's ironic to find someone calling out others for intolerance while displaying it themselves....no?

LJS9502_basic

You just stated the difference.

In one case, one is not tolerating an individual.

In another case, one is not tolerating an idea.

Everybody is not tolerant of certain ideas.

So then everyone is guilty of intolerance, so it is not a uniquely bad thing. Once again you reduce a word to being almost meaningless.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Being against someone's ideology is basically being intolerant of said ideology and by extension the individual. As for the second..that is covered by the bolded. My statement was in general and thus included both group and beliefs....hence the /.

LJS9502_basic

I don't think that you need to tolerate a person's opinion to tolerate the person themselves...

You are assuming that one judges a person by what beliefs they hold. And while yes, this may be true on a subconsious level, it is certainly not the basis of my argument. I call them out because of their intolerance, not because of the person that they are (if that makes sense). If I were to accept what you are saying, then I am intolerant because they are, not for any other reason. I show intoleracne to them because they do the same to anotehr group of people. (this is of course assuming that I agree that I am intolerant of the person themselves and not just of their opinion).

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] First of all, learn what science and how it has nothing to do with religion, then learn how theories are the most well supported claims in the scientific world. Now back to the topic at hand, I am a very scientific person, both of my parents are scientists, and I am studying zoology. Now, I believe in God because 1. The universe had a beginning before the Big Bang (theories include a multiverse and vacuum fluctations, both of which cannot be tested therefore cannot be proven) 2. Jesus Christ came to Earth and that is a fact, He also had thousands upon thousands of witnesses to share the Good Word 3. An afterlife to me is the most plausible since I don't believe that consciences are an illusion nor temporary but of the soul 4. It makes the most sense because how could something come from nothing in the restrictions of our current universal restrictions? 5. Many more that I will not bore you in listing.ChampionoChumps

I can respect that. I merely don't believe that God exists based upon what I've seen in the world. One question though, if you say that something cannot come from nothing, but then what created God? In other words, that specific argument is a paradox.

To take that as fact you need to first beleive in the bible, which of course atheists do not, so you can't use that argurment to sway them. In any case, the existance of these said dimensions can't be proven.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Basically you are against an ideology that some people have.....which means you are intolerant of them/their beliefs. Just as someone that is against any group you could name is intolerant of said group/beliefs of said group.

LJS9502_basic

As I have stated countless times I am not against they themselves, only their ideology. intolerance of beleifs does not correlate to intolerance of those who have said beleifs. And homophobes are not intolerant of homosexuals' beliefs (since when has sexual orientation been a belief?)

I don't think that you need to tolerate a person's opinion to tolerate the person themselves...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tocool340"] Wait, what?...:?ChampionoChumps

It was actually because someone used religion to justify it (name was like wilfon or wilfred or something)

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="alexside1"] In his defense, some of the atheist I seen so far assert that there is no god simply, because it hasn't been proven.ChampionoChumps

Well that and it is unlikely. Sure, scientific theories havn't been proven, but they are very likely correct based upon what we know of the world. The existance of supernatural beings? well, not likely if you put stock in scientific evidence. I'm not saying that he does not exist, he very well could- but I find other explanations more likely.

I can respect that. I merely don't believe that God exists based upon what I've seen in the world. One question though, if you say that something cannot come from nothing, but then what created God? In other words, that specific argument is a paradox.

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And if a group of people who hold the opinion one is intolerant of...then one is, in fact, intolerant of a group of people.LJS9502_basic

I don't see the connection.

As I have stated countless times I am not against they themselves, only their ideology. intolerance of beleifs does not correlate to intolerance of those who have said beleifs. And homophobes are not intolerant of homosexuals' beliefs (since when has sexual orientation been a belief?)

[QUOTE="Tokugawa77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] That's intolerance of opinion is it not?LJS9502_basic

I never said it wasn't.

But intolerance of an opinion is much different than intolerance of a group of people.

I don't see the connection.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] ...and no one has been able to disprove His existence either. Supernatural beings exist outside of the realm of science and are therefore not falsifiable nor testable. alexside1

If some one is saying that god exists, it's their job to prove it... Not any one else's to disprove it.

Well that and it is unlikely. Sure, scientific theories havn't been proven, but they are very likely correct based upon what we know of the world. The existance of supernatural beings? well, not likely if you put stock in scientific evidence. I'm not saying that he does not exist, he very well could- but I find other explanations more likely.