Can you conclusively prove that principle with scientific evidence? :)
>sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do
There's evidence that some consider compelling and others do not. But, my bigger point is regarding the need to ridicule. Why is that? If you don't believe it, then just don't believe it.
>I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs.
Tolerance is not just "allowing" people to believe something, then thinking them insane or idiots and treating them as such.
>taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
But, you can't prove that they are not equally valid or even that religious beliefs are inconsistent with scientific evidence in many cases.
EDIT: You may find this interesting:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingl...
/EDIT
>Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it. Are these the same too?
Philosophically? Maybe. But, that's not what we're talking about.
"Treating them as such", maybe not; it certainly can include thinking that certain beliefs are insane. I'd say, in its best forms, it doesn't include dismissing out-of-hand everything from followers of a particular belief system because you believe some elements of that belief system are insane, though.
Well, I think, practically speaking, it would be exceedingly difficult to think someone an idiot or outright insane, yet not have that impact the way we treat them.
And, it would be hard to separate a belief to which someone adheres his/her life from that person; and instead just judge that belief insane without judging the person the same.
More specifically, I think the degree to which we can separate the two are based on people's apparent adherence to their beliefs. So, the more they veil their beliefs, the more acceptable they are in the eyes of others who don't share them and would otherwise think them insane.
So, again, I don't think this is true tolerance.
And I agree that in many cases it is appropriate to go beyond tolerance to acceptance, but tolerance is more broadly warranted, even in some cases where acceptance is not.
And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"? It brings to mind the difference between granting certain rights vs. recognizing that they are truly inalienable and exist naturally.
With that in mind, I can't think of a case wherein acceptance is not "warranted", unless it involves harm to others or infringement on their rights. So, I'm not sure that acceptance is the right term, though, to your point, there may yet be one better than "true tolerance".
Of course, everyone is free to not accept or be tolerant or whatever we want to call it. I'm just arguing that is healthier to truly coexist and that there are implications to our choices that, at least in part, serve to define the world in which we live.
Its more something one individual bestows on other individuals. That a group can be said to be doing it or not is simply an aggregate description of the actions of individuals in the group.
> And, I think, "why does this have to be conferred vs. being the default state"?
Whether acceptance, tolerance, or intolerance or the default state, there is still utility in all three distinct terms to describe states that exist in the world.
Heard of the anthropic principle?
>> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little.
That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do, you've taken the same knowledge base (actually usually less) and built a tissue of wishful thinking and fantasy upon it.
I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Respecting their right to have them is fine, but taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.
>> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.
Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it.
Are these the same too?