But it seems impossible to eliminate.

Intolerance is Fear so it is impossible to eliminate.

It is a survival mechanism.

I just want to be sure, since it mentions neither, yet I saw a similar question in response to another OP that mentioned neither, and it turned out that that thread was about intolerance of theists.

Considering that both groups, at least on this planet, are composed of humans.

Is this the anthropology group? Because that would be the right group to study humans being humans.

And any study of human behavior must acknowledge that humans behave as humans no matter their labels.

regarding human behavior that actually contained that particular tautology. In fact I rarely see anyone insist that we must acknowledge tautologies at all. Except in this particular corner of the internet, where it is exceedingly common.

Can you explain why you believe we must acknowledge tautologies here when entire textbooks of human psychology don't mention them at all?

that theists actually behave as do all other humans. As do atheists, for that matter.

Their opinion seems to be that there is something about religion that may, at times, cause more intolerance than there otherwise might be. But we don't seem to talk about that as much as we talk about anthropological tautologies, even though this is the religion group, not the tautology group or anthropology group.

I believe some people find this lack of discussion frustrating. Some may even find it intolerant, which makes it quite tragic, because since we are all human, we are all intolerant. So there is nothing to do about it. Except to repeatedly notice it.

So a referral to aspects of any science which deals with humans is acceptable.

Should we expect theists to behave better than non-theists? Or the reverse?

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2019, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

So lets just dispense with that whole fiction now. As far as I know, such a science doesn't exist. If you think there is one, please provide a reference to a book or journal article that either explicitly makes that assumption, or performs a study to prove that it is true.

You think some people here are surprised that humans act like humans. I think that is unlikely. I've never met a person surprised by that fact, and I imagine that if you took survey, 100% of participants would agree that humans act like human. I do know a lot people who find tautological arguments either frustrating or boring. I am one of those people, so I assume tautologies should be avoided.

Should we expect theists to act better than non-theists? Good question. Many theists think they do. That has a lot of implications.

Many atheists think theist act worse than other humans. That has a lot of implications too.

But we can never get to any of those implications, if both our starting point and ending point is "humans act like humans." Do you see why this is so, or do I need to explain it to you?

My view is that most humans probably feel that they behave better than average.

That does say something about the self-perception of people.

But you do seem unusually non-receptive to the simple idea that "humans act like humans" is not the answer to everything. Why does that seem so strange to you?

So I don't know what to say now. I just see a big disconnect.

A question you did not answer. I will explain it to you. Your argument is a tautology. It ends with the same conclusion it started with as its initial premise.

Apparently, you do not see that as a problem in your argument, despite it being a fatal logic error.

There was no sarcasm. Just a sad, sad question that should not have needed to be asked.

I am going to guess that you might have, but in case the concept is unfamiliar:

Probably not, because I just made it up. But that's when someone asks you a legitimate question, someone else understands the question but you don't, and then you prove you don't understanding by offering a condescending explanation to the person who does understand.

Or maybe you understood everything all along and just don't want to own up to it, because that might actually mean something. I understand.

SMH

Or he would not even have asked.

He said:

A question you did not answer. I will explain it to you. Your argument is a tautology. It ends with the same conclusion it started with as its initial premise.

I asked if you understood why gets us nowhere, or if I needed to explain that to you. So you ignored the entire explanation and dismissed it as sarcasm, which it wasn't. But you didn't answer the question, you dismissed my post and you dismissed his post and now you are effectively arguing with me about what I meant by my own post. Which is a really weird thing to do.

was a bit at the end. Very typical for G-man.

He doesn't argue in good faith. It's always like what he did here, you make a long and well thought out post and he hyperfixates on one aspect that's not even real.

Truly laughable.

The double standard here is blatant.

And that might be why so many theists post a very few times here and then abandon the group.

I think they don't like that whenever they try to post here, a bunch of atheists say religion is all bullshit. It's not a double standard, but it is a pretty harsh welcome.

in any sense of the word other than ironic.

Right now, atheists dominate this group, but that wasn't always the case. A number of theists used to post here regularly. They weren't driven away, they were banned. So if atheists seem a little prickly to odd newcomer, that is why.

My evidence is right here in this post, in this subthread even.

There was a long, thought out post, with questions and interest, and you focused on one minor perceived slight at the end and completely derailed it.

Maybe theists abandon it because they don't want to be associated with people who give them a bad name?

And there are countless examples here proving my point for any who care to research them.

You've given him ONE post that he can spin as supporting him, so now it will be endlessly cited as proof that he's right.

Stop distracting and reframing.

It's part of evolution and protecting the DNA of the family/tribe.

It is a survival characteristic, and that must be recognized.

Generally, historically, the intolerance has been directed against the other.

I believe that completely exhausts this subject.

And when discussing human behavior, why do some act surprised that all humans generally act and react in the same ways?

especially chimps.

Perhaps also the other, now extinct, hominids as well.

of being intolerant, it seems like they would first harbor suspicion, superstition, fear, and ignorance.

All part of dividing people into the tribe and the other.

As a previous poster noted, it is a survival mechanism.

Why don't you want people to talk about religion's role in intolerance?

What gene codes for "intolerance"?

if there was a loving God who cared about people, one would think that religions based on his teachings would be less intolerant than other groups, or humanity in general.
Religions being equally intolerant is as if there is nothing divine or good behind them at all.

Imperfect humans.

Some humans are demonstrably intolerant. Others are not. Still others fall somewhere in the middle of that range of behaviors between tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance varies over time, as well, in both individuals and in human societies.

Is murderousness a human characteristic? A capacity for it is, certainly.

As with most human characteristics, one needs to look at the individual or the group of individuals to see if they exhibit either murderousness or intolerance. And then, there's the problem of determining whether it is the group that causes such behaviors or if the behaviors of individuals influences the group.

A broad brush uses up paint quickly, but cannot create fine details. That's why artists tend to use smaller brushes than barn painters.

We shouldn't tolerate murder, rape, theft, or any other kind of needless aggression.

What the topic of discussion should be is, what kinds of intolerance are bad, and what philosophies encourage those kinds?

And since we're here in the Religion forum, the topic should be what religious ideas encourage intolerance, and how can we fight back against them?

But no, any time the topic is breached, we have an individual launch into whataboutism so that no discussion can occur.

It is about words like "tolerance," which are poorly defined in these discussions.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218308981

Followup question: If the answer is yes, is that just part of our human nature?

Every time someone tries to paint a detailed portrait of religion, someone else paints it over with a barn brush.

It turns out that religion is just a bunch of identical red barns. Even worse, there are identical red houses next to the barns, so we can't even find the horses.

If everything is a big red barn, the landscape is pretty boring.

done anything to counter this intolerance, or does religion and God reinforce it?

That seems a more pertinent question for this group.

where intolerance of "others" lead to orders from the deity to slay them all, leaving nobody alive. Alternatively, it have orders to slay all those "who pisseth against the wall," and keep the women for themselves.

It's difficult to find passages, particularly in the Old Testament, where tolerance was advocated by the local deity. Of course, that reflected the culture of the nomadic Bronze-age goatherds who invented the stories in the first place.

Intolerance is sort of built into most religions, given that those who do not follow that religion are doomed to extinction and, perhaps, an eternity of punishment.

the Christian Church has been as intolerant as any other institution over the centuries.

So to say religion is intolerant as anything else human, points to religion being JUST human and has nothing to do with any divine presence.

One could quite reasonably argue the opposite. For example, Jesus clearly instructed his followers to reject their families if they believed differently. That's hardly an example of tolerance. And look how he reacted to the money changers. He was completely intolerant of the practice of exchanging currency for foreigners, and of selling them the animals they needed in order to obey God's commands. He constructed a weapon, attacked the people and the animals, and vandalized the place. No wonder the population turned against him.

And of course Christians love to use the Old Testament when they really want to be intolerant.

Basically that institutional churches are no better than any other institution, they all screw it up sooner or later. That a Christian practices love and tolerance regardless of what everyone else is doing, or what is done to them. Perhaps needless to say, this sort of Christian can drive institutional churches crazy.

is why does God allow all this in his/her name?

if good people are harmed by evil done in the name of God.

considering how many theological answers they do have.

than theology.

thanks for clarifying.

You tried to call out some secular group for intolerance, got told that the people they were being intolerant to was a religious group protecting their right to be intolerant, and you had to come here, reframe and play the victim because any negative thing associated with any religious group is merely human nature.

And perhaps yet again.

I was spot on

the article train wreck.

"Here's another brutal, oppressive, intolerant atheist government"

"Well, what was the point of contention that the church was claiming they were being intolerant about... Oh, the article says gay marriage"

"Well, intolerance is really a human charistic"

Though you don't earn that many points, it wasn't a difficult guess.

That something is a "human characteristic" does not in any way demonstrate that any particular human or group of humans is likely to exhibit that characteristic. The statement is not a generally true statement. Red hair on the head and body is also a "human characteristic." However, only a small percentage of humans exhibit that characteristic.

What did you mean your point to be?

..."Is intolerance a universal human characteristic?", because...you like ambiguous questions?

is simply that intolerance is a universal human behavior unrelated to ideology or other belief systems.

disagree. There have been societys down through history that are very tolerant but mostly are not. this has less to do with an inherent trait and more to do with time and place.

where the group is small enough that there are no real differences. but in most cases, we have nations, tribes, societies that ci-exist in proximity to other groupings.

My argument is that intolerance for the other is related to tribalism, and serves as a survival mechanism.

major factor in survival? Recently it was found that many hominids across the russian plain did just that. the lesser hominids went extinct simply bc they were lesser.

I am not saying that it cannot be overcome, but that it is a strong instinct.

narrative. ppls curiosity of other is consistent through history but the leaders squash it for control. there is nothing instinctual about it. imo.

Fear of the other seems to be the foundation of modern GOP philosophy.

I confess to not being that familiar with many aspects of US history.

relative harmony until the plantation owners convinced ppl otherwise.

So, the plantation owners used race to divide working people?

But, crucially, the white workers were not slaves.

The context is this thread where he posted an article about the RCC accusing the Cuban government of being intolerant of their religion. Post 17 revealed that the bone of contention was that the intolerance was the declaration of marriage being between two people, instead of a man and a woman.

From there the goalposts were moved so far and so fast that we wound up here.

the framing of your question. All are called and few are chosen.. We - all humans - have the ability to rise above ignorance, however few do. Also, I do not believe that most people recognize that original sin is the ego, which gives rise to intolerance, me is better than you.