But that type of intolerance is much favored by those who share it.

He simply shared his opinion of things. And well-reasoned opinions they were, too.

...during a time when few other intellectuals were doing so. While religionists not only originated such laws to begin with, but still are almost exclusively responsible for championing them to this day.

Very telling how someone calls Russell “intolerant” while simultaneously acting as a cheerleader for the pope who describes homosexuality as the work of the devil.

I share that with him. Clearly our fellow DUer did not read the quotes in the OP for understanding.

Believing otherwise demonstrates subliteracy of the term.

I am intolerant of many things, I admit. Racism, misogyny, homophobia, ableism, and many others. I make no apology for that. Intolerance for things that harm others is right thinking.

One can simultaneously be intolerant of religious ideas while being tolerant of religionists. When one feels the need to continually pretend those two things are mutually inclusive, it simply demonstrates they have no idea what they are talking about and suggests they are a bit too emotionally attached to their mythology to entertain criticism of it.

Given how your own opinions reflect his.

The one that you apparently misunderstood.

Do you think Einstein is intolerant?

Your predictable non-answer here will be even more revealing.

You're just playing the "proof-texting" game here. Both Russell and Einstein have enormous bodies of work. Extracting a single quote that you think illustrates who they are is very, very weak sauce. In fact, your sauce has no flavor at all, due to its extreme dilution.

Have you abandoned whataboutism?

note"discovered " one.

This has to be the most hilarious thing you've done here.

I probably made them up, anyhow...that's how it works.

guillaumeb is only interested in quotes that align with his opinion. Anything else is irrelevant, apparently.

Please do keep repeating it for all those who have yet to fully realize the depths of such intellectual bankruptcy.

at any given moment.

The cure is the ability to learn based on new information. Sadly such critical thinking skills are often indoctrinated against at an early age.

understanding early, and can go no farther, I think. A pity.

And everyone can learn.

Were you?

Feel free to not answer if you are embarrassed about it.

You were indoctrinated by your family, your schools, the society around you.

Perhaps you prefer the word "socialized".

Indoctrination requires doctrine, and specifically teaching someone to accept a specific doctrine unquestioningly.

Along those lines, repeating this nonsense isn't indoctrination. It's just your usual argle-bargle.

It is a description.

When you use the same lame excuse a hundred times or more at some point most folks are going to start to wonder why they are so often misunderstood and will start to look inward. If you really are serious, then really the best that can be said is you are unintentionally hilarious.

to become atheists.

You keep repeating nonsense as if it’s going to become something else. Ironically this tactic can be found within various doctrines of propaganda which is actually what the Chinese are doing.

Are you suggesting I was indoctrinated into atheism?

when someone (correctly) uses the word "indoctrination" to refer to the process of teaching religion to children.

So the motivation is obvious, albeit childish in method.

It is possible to teach religion to children without indoctrination, but that would defeat the point.

describe much the same process.

why then do you object to the correct use of the word indoctrination?

From age 6, I was subjected to a standard Presbyterian Sunday School education. It made every attempt to indoctrinate me into the religious beliefs of that denomination of Christianity, including predestination, one of the hallmarks of Presbyterianism. For almost 12 years, I absorbed that indoctrination.

Eventually, though, I began questioning it. As I learned more about things from other sources, including school and my own voracious reading, it became more and more difficult to integrate the myths of Christianity with what I was learning elsewhere. Being a curious sort of young person, I sought more and more information to help me work out the conflicts between mythology and the real world that was being described elsewhere.

Integration was eventually clearly impossible A choice had to be made. Either the mythology was correct or the information about reality was correct. It was a simple decision, really. I did rise above that indoctrination, and by the time I was 19, I was an atheist, and put aside all of that indoctrination.

Now that I am 73 years old, I have continued my education, both formally and as the autodidact that I turned out to be. Nothing has ever led me toward returning to the mythology I learned so well as a child. Indeed, everything I have learned has led me in the other direction.

So, you are correct. It is possible to learn one's way out of myth and indoctrination. I highly recommend doing so. It clarifies everything.

and to understand what you read.

And to understand the limits of your own ability to arrive at a correct conclusion.

You have no idea what my education consists of, nor what I have read, nor how I selected what to read. Your assumptions are incorrect because of your lack of knowledge of me.

I gave a summary of my early indoctrination and of how I escaped from that into a more enlightened state. I provided no reading lists or other information. Just a summary. From that, you draw false conclusions.

Not you mention your most recent train wreck of thinking Bertrand Russell was "extremely intolerant".

I find it quite telling you frequently accuse others of not understanding you. It's not as if that condition isn't recognizable. Amazing what you reveal about yourself without even trying, eh?

“it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that's all.”

I had forgotten the reference.

I bet you won't, though.

Out of an enormous body of work. It might well be the only quotation he has to work with. It meets his preconceptions, though, so he uses it to illustrate those misconceptions of the man.

Others have presented other statements of Russell's, as well as other statements by Einstein, who he fallaciously compares with Russell, again with a single often-used quotation. He was not aware of the other things Einstein said, which were similar to Russell's statement. The two men were familiar with each other and had high regard for each other.

They even collaborated on a manifesto against warfare and the use of nuclear weapons. I referenced that in another post. But, guillaumeb has one quotation from each of them to offer, and no more.

That's it??

It takes a remarkable persecution complex to imagine that's "intolerance." Did he bother looking up the meaning of the word, or just hastily craft his own custom definition as usual?

In reality, Russell was a person who promoted tolerance. However, he opined about religion and those who followed it. He looked at religious belief from a logical perspective and found it wanting. Many of us feel the same way.

He wrote about such things, and spoke about them. He was a philosopher. That's what they do. Intolerance requires some sort of action that affects others. I doubt anyone will find any evidence that Bertrand Russell ever displayed actual intolerance. Why? Because intolerance is no more logical than religious belief. Indeed, religious belief often leads to intolerance. Of that there is ample evidence throughout history.

It's always amusing when the dominant religion in a particular society cries out that it is being persecuted. Amusing, because it is almost always that dominant religion that is doing the persecuting. Common sense dictates that one not poke at a bear with a stick. It's unsafe to do so. The dominant philosophy or religion of a culture is dominant for a reason. They are not going to be the persecuted, but rather the persecutor.

It would be funny if it were not so sad and frightening, really.

He doubled down on his half-fast allegation of "extreme intolerance" by claiming "Russel's(sic) intolerance for theists is well known.". When asked for anyone else who thought so, his response was predictably <crickets>.

As he doesn't seem to be capable of much original thought, I suspect some mindless fanatic said so and he's simply regurgitating the ignorance.

deep dives are ill-advised, i think.

from "Why I am not a Christian":

“Religion is based primarily upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly as the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.”

Interesting reading.