Is tolerance intolerant?

[Amarok]

@!OP q

Nope.

Nope nope nope.

Thus the paradox of tolerance.  



I'm absolutely -not- tolerant of this shit.

Wonderfully to the point

---

No it's not it a falsehood . You can't turn it into a religious belief . Again none's aren't a thing . Those journals are bullshit their reasoning is nonsense . You can't make ideology out of atheism nor religion you litterly can't do it .

That has happened to all ideologies.  It turns into something else.  Just because you adhere to one aspect of it doesn't define the whole.  When there are certain legalities attached to it, like government benefits and exemptions, then that's the definition we go by.  If you have some independent definition for yourself, that's your choice and I'm certainly not knocking you for it.  Regardless, what you're experiencing is exactly what has happened to every other major religion/ideology in the world.  Welcome to the party.

It was never ideology to start with so it can't turn into anything let alone another ideology . I don't adhere to anything because there is nothing to adhere too and yes what I'm stating is the whole wholly apart from myself . Legally being protected to not accept a proposition means nothing . It's not independent definition it's THEY DEFINITION and again it has nothing to do with me . It has nothing to do experience and again it's not a religion thus this comparison is false and there is no party . 

I don't know how I must repeat this atheism is the lack of non belief god that's it nothing else . Anything else has nothing to do with atheism not even legal protections from  religion .

[Rev. Rye]

Rev. Rye, I completely agree and added that to my list of reading. Seems spot on topic. I would add though that "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force;" should be tempered by Justice and Law and not more subjective emotional reactions, otherwise the pendulum continues.

Good point, although I would personally also add immediate self-defense as another factor in addition to Justice and Law. Then again, I'm pretty sure immediate self-defense is included in Justice and Law. Personally, the "Martial Pacifist" ideal seems to be the best way of putting it into practice.

After all, when Popper wrote his work about the Paradox of Tolerance, as much as he talked about it through the lens of Socrates and Plato, the fact that he was Jewish and writing this in the early 1940s points to his being concerned with the #1 biggest example of why it can be necessary to protect tolerance in a less-than-tolerant way.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

@!OP q

Nope.

Nope nope nope.

Thus the paradox of tolerance.  



I'm absolutely -not- tolerant of this shit.

Wonderfully to the point

---

That has happened to all ideologies.  It turns into something else.  Just because you adhere to one aspect of it doesn't define the whole.  When there are certain legalities attached to it, like government benefits and exemptions, then that's the definition we go by.  If you have some independent definition for yourself, that's your choice and I'm certainly not knocking you for it.  Regardless, what you're experiencing is exactly what has happened to every other major religion/ideology in the world.  Welcome to the party.

It was never ideology to start with so it can't turn into anything let alone another ideology . I don't adhere to anything because there is nothing to adhere too and yes what I'm stating is the whole wholly apart from myself . Legally being protected to not accept a proposition means nothing . It's not independent definition it's THEY DEFINITION and again it has nothing to do with me . It has nothing to do experience and again it's not a religion thus this comparison is false and there is no party . 

I don't know how I must repeat this atheism is the lack of non belief god that's it nothing else . Anything else has nothing to do with atheism not even legal protections from  religion .

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Atheism 2b - : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

[Amarok]

Wonderfully to the point

---

It was never ideology to start with so it can't turn into anything let alone another ideology . I don't adhere to anything because there is nothing to adhere too and yes what I'm stating is the whole wholly apart from myself . Legally being protected to not accept a proposition means nothing . It's not independent definition it's THEY DEFINITION and again it has nothing to do with me . It has nothing to do experience and again it's not a religion thus this comparison is false and there is no party . 

I don't know how I must repeat this atheism is the lack of non belief god that's it nothing else . Anything else has nothing to do with atheism not even legal protections from  religion .

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Atheism 2b - : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

a·the·ism

/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
   

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical in God or spiritual beings.


And by the way your definition does not actually state that atheism is a religion or a philosophy which is good as it would make no sense

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Merriam Webster Dictionary

Atheism 2b - : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

a·the·ism

/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
   

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical in God or spiritual beings.


And by the way your definition does not actually state that atheism is a religion or a philosophy which is good as it would make no sense

Why am I not surprised you didn't post the whole bit they had up on atheism?

Anyway, here's a fuller explanation of atheism, especially in regard to the origination of the term.  This is from encyclopedia.com

Early modern Christian writers often failed to distinguish between non-belief in "the true God" and non-belief in a supreme being per se, and atheism usually meant the assertion of the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Strictly speaking, however, atheism is the denial of the existence of a divinity. As such, it is different from agnosticism (a suspension of belief on the question of God's existence) or simple theological heterodoxy. In the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, however, the term atheist was used without great precision, even carelessly. The epithet was applied to religious dissidents, political enemies, and debauched libertines, usually with little concern for a person's real beliefs on the question of God's existence. Thus, when the sixteenth-century French cleric and writer François Rabelais (c. 1494–1553) was accused of being an atheist because of the fun had at religion's expense in his comic novels Gargantua and Pantagruel, he lost no time in returning the charge at his sectarian opponents. Agnostics and religious skeptics; rationalists, deists, pantheists, materialists, members of dissenting religious sects, or those belonging to no recognized confessional religion; moral, religious, and political subversives; and general non-conformists as well as true unbelievers were all called atheists. In this respect, the early modern period was no different from earlier historical eras. As Socrates himself had discovered, "atheist" was a convenient label for any person who did not believe what everyone else believed and who showed independent, critical, and iconoclastic tendencies.

[Amarok]

Why am I not surprised you didn't post the whole bit they had up on atheism?

I feel the need too 

Anyway, here's a fuller explanation of atheism, especially in regard to the origination of the term.  This is from encyclopedia.com

Early modern Christian writers often failed to distinguish between non-belief in "the true God" and non-belief in a supreme being per se, and atheism usually meant the assertion of the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Strictly speaking, however, atheism is the denial of the existence of a divinity. As such, it is different from agnosticism (a suspension of belief on the question of God's existence) or simple theological heterodoxy. In the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, however, the term atheist was used without great precision, even carelessly. The epithet was applied to religious dissidents, political enemies, and debauched libertines, usually with little concern for a person's real beliefs on the question of God's existence. Thus, when the sixteenth-century French cleric and writer François Rabelais (c. 1494–1553) was accused of being an atheist because of the fun had at religion's expense in his comic novels Gargantua and Pantagruel, he lost no time in returning the charge at his sectarian opponents. Agnostics and religious skeptics; rationalists, deists, pantheists, materialists, members of dissenting religious sects, or those belonging to no recognized confessional religion; moral, religious, and political subversives; and general non-conformists as well as true unbelievers were all called atheists. In this respect, the early modern period was no different from earlier historical eras. As himself had discovered, "atheist" was a convenient label for any person who did not believe what everyone else believed and who showed independent, critical, and iconoclastic tendencies.

None of this challenges my point nor do I see how think it does .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Why am I not surprised you didn't post the whole bit they had up on atheism?

I feel the need too 

Anyway, here's a fuller explanation of atheism, especially in regard to the origination of the term.  This is from encyclopedia.com

Early modern Christian writers often failed to distinguish between non-belief in "the true God" and non-belief in a supreme being per se, and atheism usually meant the assertion of the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Strictly speaking, however, atheism is the denial of the existence of a divinity. As such, it is different from agnosticism (a suspension of belief on the question of God's existence) or simple theological heterodoxy. In the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, however, the term atheist was used without great precision, even carelessly. The epithet was applied to religious dissidents, political enemies, and debauched libertines, usually with little concern for a person's real beliefs on the question of God's existence. Thus, when the sixteenth-century French cleric and writer François Rabelais (c. 1494–1553) was accused of being an atheist because of the fun had at religion's expense in his comic novels Gargantua and Pantagruel, he lost no time in returning the charge at his sectarian opponents. Agnostics and religious skeptics; rationalists, deists, pantheists, materialists, members of dissenting religious sects, or those belonging to no recognized confessional religion; moral, religious, and political subversives; and general non-conformists as well as true unbelievers were all called atheists. In this respect, the early modern period was no different from earlier historical eras. As himself had discovered, "atheist" was a convenient label for any person who did not believe what everyone else believed and who showed independent, critical, and iconoclastic tendencies.

None of this challenges my point nor do I see how think it does .

It's a loosely used term.  Get it?  You keep saying it has to be something, and it doesn't.  It applies to more things than are even being suggested by me and has been for many years.  You just define it differently to fit whatever it is you want to believe, and it's fine, but your beliefs don't apply to everyone.  There, now you don't have to deny scientific journals and accuse people of being in cults being they were singing.

[Amarok]

It's a loosely used term. 

It's an often misapplied term 

Get it? 

It's an often misapplied term 

You keep saying it has to be something, and it doesn't. 

Yes it does this doesn't refute that 

It applies to more things than are even being suggested by me and has been for many years. 

It's misapplied so again it's not more  

You just define it differently to fit whatever it is you want to believe,

Nope I simply don't misapply  it 

and it's fine, but your beliefs don't apply to everyone. 

Yes it does 

There, now you don't have to deny scientific journals

I do reject i'll conceived journals 

and accuse people of being in cults being they were singing.

They remain a cult 


So again you fail

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It's a loosely used term. 

It's an often misapplied term 

Get it? 

It's an often misapplied term 

You keep saying it has to be something, and it doesn't. 

Yes it does this doesn't refute that 

It applies to more things than are even being suggested by me and has been for many years. 

It's misapplied so again it's not more  

You just define it differently to fit whatever it is you want to believe,

Nope I simply don't misapply  it 

and it's fine, but your beliefs don't apply to everyone. 

Yes it does 

There, now you don't have to deny scientific journals

I do reject i'll conceived journals 

and accuse people of being in cults being they were singing.

They remain a cult 


So again you fail

Right, National Geographic is "ill-conceived" and singing makes someone part of a cult.  I can't buy into your dogma, so no point in continuing this.  bye bye.

[Amarok]

Right, National Geographic is "ill-conceived"

It's article calling atheism a religion is no matter your appeals to authority 

and singing makes someone part of a cult. 

Straw man singing doesn't singing in a way that emulates religion is . 

I can't buy into your dogma,

Too bad it isn't dogma therefore you can't buy into it 

so no point in continuing this.  bye bye.

Yup you will keep repeating same errors