[AdventureMike]

I partly think you're trolling, but at the risk of making myself look unlulzy - The attitude you're displaying is what is actually wrong with the world, and it's an attitude that pervades all races, nationalities, and spiritual affiliations (or lack of). There is no specific demographic that is the problem, it's people like you who think they have life figured out at the expense of extending even the most basic respect to their fellow humans who happen to pitch their tent elsewhere. You sound like an idiot and a tool.

That would be a good portion of the internet I'm afraid. Trolling or not trolling, that attitude is responsible for a large portion of arguments I see on here.

[coldfoot]

I partly think you're trolling, but at the risk of making myself look unlulzy - The attitude you're displaying is what is actually wrong with the world, and it's an attitude that pervades all races, nationalities, and spiritual affiliations (or lack of). There is no specific demographic that is the problem, it's people like you who think they have life figured out at the expense of extending even the most basic respect to their fellow humans who happen to pitch their tent elsewhere. You sound like an idiot and a tool.

Religion has been a negative influence throughout history and we'd all be better for it if it didn't exist. I'll refer you to the Hitchens/Fry debate against the Catholic Church if you object. I'm sure their arguments against Catholics can be applied to all religions.
Just like driving while drunk, voting while religious is also very dangerous. Religion prevents reason and logic, which are responsible for where we are today able to message each other on the internet. The next step of human society evolution is marginalization of religion, but unfortunately it's going very slowly.

[Pollux]

I see nothing wrong with forcing people to believe as I do. If given the opportunity of a complete global mind-wipe, I would. It would be my moral responsibility to do so. FYI OP, "tolerance" and "acceptance" are two different things. You can tolerate something and still have a general distaste for it, whether you voice that distaste or not. So long as you're not out infringing people's civil liberties, you're being tolerant in my book.

Hypothetically, in the near future scientists are able to identify handful of biological factors that were what made someone a homosexual. Believing it is their moral responsibility, the scientists discover ways to "turn off" or "correct" these biological factors, thus creating a "cure for homosexuality". Also believing it was their responsibility politicians around the world pushed through legislation mandating that all homosexuals be given this "treatment", and at birth all children would be screened for these biological factors and if found, were given the "treatment". Would you be for that course of action or against it?

[Osietra]

People aren't tolerant of racism, bigotry, political incorrectness, misogyny and other things deemed "no-nos" in society.

Lulz.

[Deified Data]

Hypothetically, in the near future scientists are able to identify handful of biological factors that were what made someone a homosexual. Believing it is their moral responsibility, the scientists discover ways to "turn off" or "correct" these biological factors, thus creating a "cure for homosexuality". Also believing it was their responsibility politicians around the world pushed through legislation mandating that all homosexuals be given this "treatment", and at birth all children would be screened for these biological factors and if found, were given the "treatment". Would you be for that course of action or against it?

Against it, of course, as I have no qualms with homosexuality. My musing was entirely subjective and hypothetical, but no less honest for that.

If a similar instance occured in in which scientists discovered a "bigotry" gene or a "psychopath" gene or an "unrepentant douche" gene then I would be for it, 100% I wouldn't hold my beliefs if I didn't think they were the right ones. I think most people feel that way, but perhaps not to the extent that they feel everyone should share them, by force if necessary.

[Pollux]

Against it, of course, as I have no qualms with homosexuality. My musing was entirely subjective and hypothetical, but no less honest for that. If a similar instance occured in in which scientists discovered a "bigotry" gene or a "psychopath" gene or an "unrepentant douche" gene then I would be for it, 100% I wouldn't hold my beliefs if I didn't think they were the right ones. I think most people feel that way, but perhaps not to the extent that they feel everyone should share them, by force if necessary.

You have no qualms with homosexuality, but there are people that do...how is their goal to force everyone to feel as they do any different than your goal? There really is no difference, just a different belief system.

And I wouldn't even advocate the change of "bigotry"/"psychopath"/etc. genes b/c that could lead to a very slippery slope.

[coldfoot]

Hypothetically, in the near future scientists are able to identify handful of biological factors that were what made someone a homosexual. Believing it is their moral responsibility, the scientists discover ways to "turn off" or "correct" these biological factors, thus creating a "cure for homosexuality". Also believing it was their responsibility politicians around the world pushed through legislation mandating that all homosexuals be given this "treatment", and at birth all children would be screened for these biological factors and if found, were given the "treatment". Would you be for that course of action or against it?

Not for homosexuality, but I'd be for eliminating the genes that make people more likely to accept dogma without questioning it.

[Deified Data]

You have no qualms with homosexuality, but there are people that do...how is their goal to force everyone to feel as they do any different than your goal? There really is no difference, just a different belief system. And I wouldn't even advocate the change of "bigotry"/"psychopath"/etc. genes b/c that could lead to a very slippery slope.

If you want to be objective about it, sure, my beliefs are no more valid than anyone else's. That said, we can't afford to be objective about everything. If I could change the world to accept my beliefs, to make the world a little more tolerant, open-minded, thoughtful, then I'd do it in a heartbeat. To refuse a call like that, to let every evil in the world continue on unchecked, would make we worse than Hitler on a cosmic scale.

But I get what you mean, different people have different ideas of what is evil. But I think you catch my drift.

[Pollux]

If you want to be objective about it, sure, my beliefs are no more valid than anyone else's. That said, we can't afford to be objective about everything. If I could change the world to accept my beliefs, to make the world a little more tolerant, open-minded, thoughtful, then I'd do it in a heartbeat. To refuse a call like that, to let every evil in the world continue on unchecked, would make we worse than Hitler on a cosmic scale. But I get what you mean, different people have different ideas of what is evil. But I think you catch my drift.

I agree, and in theory I agree with you that if we could get rid of certain things like greed, whatever leads to bigotry, etc. then I would be for it. In theory. I just think that if we ever did anything like that in reality it would lead to an extremely slipper slope, since the targeted behavior would theoretically change whenever a different person was in possession of the technology.

But yea, I get what your saying.

[Bombadil]

Religion has been a negative influence throughout history and we'd all be better for it if it didn't exist. I'll refer you to the Hitchens/Fry debate against the Catholic Church if you object. I'm sure their arguments against Catholics can be applied to all religions. Just like driving while drunk, voting while religious is also very dangerous. Religion prevents reason and logic, which are responsible for where we are today able to message each other on the internet. The next step of human society evolution is marginalization of religion, but unfortunately it's going very slowly.

Probably the most terrifying thing I've seen on Neogaf, even worse than spidercat.

[Goya]

The lolicon puppy party known as Tera Online.

lol, nvm then!

Also, concerning tolerance, I guess there's a couple different ideas out there. A lot of people suscribe to the idea that one should be tolerant of all behavior that doesn't harm anybody, e.g. "victimless crimes." Like people dressing up in fur suits to have group sex and stuff. Or adults watching My Little Pony. Who's hurt by that? A natural extension to this idea is that beliefs that can potentially lead to harmful behavior shouldn't be tolerated, like racism.

[rpmurphy]

To be honest, I'm borderline intolerant of religion and religious people. But I keep it to myself. Just wish they didn't have the right to vote.

Religion has been a negative influence throughout history and we'd all be better for it if it didn't exist. I'll refer you to the Hitchens/Fry debate against the Catholic Church if you object. I'm sure their arguments against Catholics can be applied to all religions. Just like driving while drunk, voting while religious is also very dangerous. Religion prevents reason and logic, which are responsible for where we are today able to message each other on the internet. The next step of human society evolution is marginalization of religion, but unfortunately it's going very slowly.

http://www.bahai.org/misc/politics

Bahá'í Involvement in Politics Bahá’u’lláh required that His followers strictly abstain from conflict and contention, which are characteristics of the partisanship practiced in present-day politics. Bahá’ís, in whatever country they reside, are prohibited from holding membership in any political party. At first glance, one might expect to find the members of the Bahá’í community actively engaged in a wide range of political pursuits in furtherance of its universal ideals. The opposite is in fact the case. But Bahá’ís are urged to contribute to the welfare of society, one way being to fulfill their civic responsibilities. Bahá’ís are free, therefore, to vote in a general election for any candidate who, in the privacy of their conscience, they believe would make the most valuable contribution to the society in which they live. Bahá’ís may also accept nonpolitical government appointments. But they may not identify themselves with or campaign for any political party or partisan movement. The reason for this is the basic Bahá’í belief that the fundamental challenge to all people and nations today is the attainment of the unification of humankind. Real social progress, Bahá’u’lláh taught, waits upon attainment of this new level in the development of human civilization: "The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established." Bahá’í teachings hold that political action of a partisan and divisive nature cannot provide the answers to problems that are universal in their very essence. Current political instruments are limited and particular, whether they be national, racial, cultural, or ideological. The Bahá’í principle of noninvolvement in politics does not prevent Bahá’ís from taking public positions on purely social and moral issues. Indeed, over the years Bahá’ís have been at the forefront of action on several social issues such as racial equality and nondiscrimination. The principle of noninvolvement in politics is closely related, both in belief and practice, to the Bahá’í teaching of loyalty to government in power. Bahá’u’lláh called upon His followers to obey the government in power at a given time, and to refrain strictly from any attempts to subvert or undermine it. Should the government of a nation change, the Bahá’í community must, in the same spirit of faithfulness, give its loyalty to the new administration, in every fashion consistent with the principle of nonpolitical involvement.

I don't particularly agree with the part about loyalty to the government in power, but for everything else, if you ever get unbanned, I'd like to hear your thoughts on these religious people.

[coldfoot]

Well, since I was banned for a month without a single post of mine being deleted or edited, I really don't understand what can cause such a thing and therefore don't want to risk it again by responding further in this thread after this last post.

About the last question of Bahai faith or any faith for that matter, it's objectively better to not have any religion than any one of them, because a religion does not provide any objective benefit (unless you're one of those evil people who use religion to manipulate the masses), and it runs the risk of steering you towards a drastically wrong path as seen through history.

Even if such a risk did not exist and people never killed in the name of religion, it would just end up eating up the limited time you have in your life. So why would you pick it over not having any religion? To me, that means you need the psychological comfort that a religion provides and in my view, people who don't need that are stronger, braver, better people. I'm afraid this explanation will have to suffice for this thread and I'm out of here.