there are some who choose to frame some examples of it as disagreement.

Your one-line replies just don't get it done. Try using more words. They're free here. Try a little more effort, too. Your reply is not responsive to my post.

I understand your need to deflect from Russell and his longstanding record of intolerance. I understand how you identify with his position on theism, and your own replies to theists here reflect that you are indeed a disciple of Russell.

I may know more about what Russell has written than you do, but I'm no acolyte of the man. We share some positions regarding theism, of course, because they are common. As for his "intolerance," he was not an intolerant person. He spoke and wrote his own thinking. He disagreed with theism. I do not believe he ever insisted that everyone must agree with him, though.

As for your personal insult, I'm used to those.

And your reply was all that I expected it to be.

As to insulting replies, we can all actually read how you reply to theists here, so no further comment is needed.

MM is one of the most respectful posters here. If you feel butthurt about getting insulted, it’s probably reciprocal for your own half-fast insults.

And typical.

Obviously YMMV.

what is on your menu?

So please don’t act so butthurt about it as it comes across as hypocritical.

Nobody else is calling Russell intolerant and your insistence that he was with zero coherent argument just makes you look foolish.

If so, I agree with you.

Very revealing that.

Stay with your gif(t).

Very interesting.

You know, just like the wingnuts always do.

That would go a long ways towards changing the subject about why you can’t even begin to support the assertion that Russell was “extremely intolerant”

They are a textbook example of racial intolerance.

I suppose if I wanted to venture down the same road I could assume you have no clue about how he disavowed that position and did more for racial tolerance than you could ever manage in a dozen lifetimes.

Meanwhile your blatant attempt at diversion is noted. I suppose if I wanted to use your subliterate definition for whataboutism I could call it that, but I don’t.

My debate professor said that an ad hominem argument was a certain sign that the person using it was losing the argument.

Which is simply annoying, but I suspect that’s the point.

Although why was he so lean in Better Call Saul and heavy in Breaking Bad? And older looking too.

It’s a bit of a shame he isn’t given more speaking parts, but his facial expressions alone are brilliant.

He doesn't advocate that believers be silenced or persecuted in any way. He does offer some sharp criticism. He thinks people should stop believing. But to call that "intolerance" is a slap in the face to the many people who have been persecuted for their beliefs, including both theists and atheists.

And weak, and ignorant. Numerous times, in fact.

No, he never called for reeducation camps, but his progressive positions cannot excuse his rudeness and intolerance for theists.

Why? What is he to you? He stated his opinion. You disagree. His opinion has no effect on you whatsoever.

I would not call all theists contemptible. I would, however, call some theists contemptible, because they behave in a contemptible way, based on their particular beliefs. In fact, they are contemptible to anyone who is a progressive thinker.

However, they are not affected by what I call them. Am I intolerant to such people? Yes. But that intolerance is based on their behavior, not their religious beliefs. I see no reason to tolerate people who do intolerable things. Do you?

Tolerance is not a given, as far as I am concerned. It is dependent on behavior, and that alone.

Showing the limits of his progressivism and his intelligence.

Showing the limits of his progressivism and his intelligence.

Reciprocity bites with sharp, pointy teeth!

You should go read it again because you obviously didn't understand it. What he called contemptible(actually "a little contemptible&quot was the behavior of those who prop themselves up with myths. That's not even within a cab ride of what you're suggesting.

Meanwhile even if he HAD called theists contemptible(and he didn't), that still wouldn't be an example of intolerance, at least within the realm of the fully literate. I realize you got your feelings hurt by the painful reality he imparted on you, but your insistence that up is really down does not make it so.

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2018, 09:24 PM - Edit history (1)

It really wasn't necessary, but it does provide evidence you are unwilling to accept anything that doesn't fit your prescribed attitude towards atheists.

It's actually quite revealing how you pretend Russell is resorting to name calling, while Einstein uses the exact same alleged name calling and you think he's a shining example of tolerance. Very telling how you have a very different standard for atheists. I suppose by your own half-fast name calling that makes you intolerant by your own standard. Just sayin'.

Do you think Einstein is just as "intolerant" as Russell yet? Or are you going to still go with your different standard for atheists? You haven't answered this question yet and I don't expect you to ever do so, but your non-answers are getting louder all the time.

Let's not also forget your half-fast allegation that "Russel's(sic) intolerance for theists is well known." yet you can't manage to provide even one example of anyone else who thinks so. Very telling that.

So, on the subject of having no idea what is being said, perhaps you should abandon your crusade.

“I’m not an atheist”
— Albert Einstein

Yet another instance of your unintentional humor which is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Guess who disagrees with you?

Kinda funny how you think you know more about what a no-shit genius believes than they do, especially coming from a self-avowed deist who thinks he’s also a theist.

Nowhere does he suggest that such people be ostracized, shunned, avoided, fired or punished for their beliefs. Intolerance requires some suggestion of how one should treat the subjects of the opinion.

Russell is making an observation, based on his experience. It's not a pleasant observation if you are one of the people he is describing, to be sure, but it does not display intolerance. You have failed to demonstrate any intolerance at all, just someone's opinion.

I guess some are just to emotionally involved to make rational judgements about it.

Or so the saying goes.

Atheists are the most tolerant motherfuckers they've ever seen.

I don't see atheists calling for churches to be shut down. I don't hear them standing outside of churches with bullhorns, telling people that there is no God. In fact, I rarely see an identifiable atheist doing anything at all in opposition to religion. We tolerate religionists just fine, really. Most of them, anyhow. I don't have any liking for fundamentalist Christians, though, since they are forever trying to run everyone's lives the way they think we should live.

Other than that, religionists are welcome to whatever they are able to believe.

You have the pope and virtually every other major organized religion actively working to deny basic human rights to entire classes of people for thousands of years up to and including murdering them.

Kinda funny how we have some who fuck up while trying to lecture others on what tolerance is while simultaneously acting as cheerleader for some of the most no-shit intolerant motherfuckers on earth.

let alone people with different ones. All I can say about this is (from my dear old Dad) "your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose". If you go looking through that Holy Book, you can end up awfully confused. I will say that within my own home, a fake Christian is officially called a "Huckabee".

Your participation usually includes a fair amount of derision not to mention a blatant lack of knowledge of what you post.

this post. I'm at a loss to know how to respond to your insult, really.

Take anyone of your critical posts of people of faith and explain where the respect or tolerance is.

Disagreement is not intolerance. Ridicule is not intolerance. Disrespect is not intolerance. Etc.

I'm not going to engage in a general discussion with you about unspecified posts.

You're welcome to raise relevant questions in any thread, though, about any post of mine in that thread.

This opening post was about disagreement not being equivalent to intolerance. It is in the Religion Group, which is a group where all aspects of religion can be discussed by anyone, regardless of belief or non-belief.

Your reply had nothing to do with the subject of the thread, and ended with an insult. Why would I engage with you about that?