The Tenets of Tolerism™

[Seth]

The Tenets of Tolerism™
By Seth Richardson

1. We choose to be tolerant of the peaceable expressions of religious faith or secular philosophy that are in turn tolerant of the peaceable beliefs and expressions of others.
2. We do not presume to judge others and their need for the comfort and solace of faith, so long as they do not seek to impose their faith upon others by force or coercion.
3. We believe that it is immoral to deny people the succor and peace of their faith, or to seek to disparage, harm, or destroy those peaceable beliefs or practices that gives them hope and allows them to face adversity, evil, and death in peace and with dignity.
4. We tolerate diverse hypotheses regarding the existence of God, realizing that our current understanding of the universe is incomplete.
5. We hold that when our knowledge of the universe is perfect, then we will know with certainty whether or not God exists. Until then, we believe that knowledge is always to be honestly sought until perfection of knowledge is attained, and that no knowledge should be suppressed or disparaged because of its source or its claims.
6. We hold that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that wisdom and knowledge may be found in unlikely places. Therefore we strive to keep our minds open to new information.
7. We support that which seeks to advance what is good about humanity and our common interests as human beings.
8. We hold that peaceable civilized conduct requires opinions that allow for nuance and leave room for compromise and mutual respect where compromise is sought and respect offered.
9. We hold that it is our obligation to seek a clear understanding of the true intent and purpose of others in all things, and to accept and return with good will and mutual respect that which is peaceably given with good will and mutual respect.
10. We hold that reason, logic, and clarity of thought are necessary to avoid misunderstandings and disharmony and to achieve greater knowledge and understanding of all things, even that with which we do not agree.
11. We hold that dissimulation and dishonesty are morally wrong, and we strive to express ourselves honestly and respectfully, with forethought, precision, and careful consideration of the consequences.
12. We strive to speak the truth as we know it, and remain open to diversity of opinion and correction and advancement of our own understanding.
13. We do not shrink from vigorous debate, and we offer our intellectual and philosophical opponents equal respect and dignity where it is likewise offered to us.
14. We are willing to discuss and learn about the beliefs, practices, desires, and needs of others with an attitude of mutual respect and interest, because knowledge is power, and peace is obtained through knowledge and understanding, not through intolerance, ignorance, or bigotry.
15. We hold that when faced with uncertainty about another's motives, meanings or intentions, we strive when possible to seek more information and use reason, logic and compassion to determine the truth, as best as we are able.
16. We are not required to be paralyzed by doubt or indecision, and we hold that it is acceptable to act upon the information presented or known to us, so long as it is reasoned and rational action taken with due regard for the rights and dignity of others.
17. We strive to respect and give careful consideration to the opinions and beliefs of others before we act, even if we disagree. However, we are not required to accept, facilitate, cooperate with or defer to others if our conscience and reason tell us not to. Nor are we compelled to avoid acting if it is in our or another’s rational best interests.
18. We are bound only to tolerate that which is peaceable. We are free to intervene, object and defend against that which is not peaceable. There are no constraints other than conscience and reason when physical action is required to protect ourselves or others against predation or attack. When faced with intractable unreason, anger, hatred or bigotry, we may choose to rise to defend the innocent and defenseless, using whatever force is reasonably required.
19. When faced with physical conflict or aggression, we seek to first defuse and resolve conflict where it is rationally possible, but we recognize and accept that force can be justifiable and rational, and that force may be required from time to time in defense of the rights of ourselves or others.
20. We hold that a right is a personal freedom of action that requires nothing of others beyond benign tolerance.
21. We hold that the rights of human beings are natural and necessary, and are not granted by any human authority or power, but are inherent characteristics of our humanity, accruing equally to each person by virtue of their existence.
22. We hold that human rights are unalienable, and that defense of individual rights is the highest duty of every person.
23. We hold that each person is entitled to the peaceable exercise of unalienable rights, and that they are fully responsible for all of the consequences of their actions.
24. We hold that society has a right to demand that the exercise of one person’s rights will not harm, disparage or infringe upon the exercise of the equal rights of others, and that all members of a society have a duty to respect the equal rights of others.
25. We hold that society has the authority to adjudicate conflicts that may arise during the exercise of rights in the interests of peaceable co-existence.
26. We hold that each person is equal in dignity and social position to every other, as a member of the human species, and that none are inferior, none superior, and that all are entitled to respect, dignity and peaceable relations, so long as they act peaceably and respect others as well.
27. We hold that all just and legitimate political power and authority originates in and flows from the unalienable natural rights of individuals, and that such power and authority may be expressed or granted by the People to provide only so much government as is reasonably and minimally necessary to serve and protect the rights of every individual.
28. We recognize the need for governance, and that without structure, society cannot function, but we reject and oppose all forms of totalitarianism and tyranny, and all political ideologies that subjugate the rights of the individual to the needs of the State or of the collective.

[devogue]

Needs more drama.

[Atheist-Lite]

Needs more drama.

It needs shortening. People live by three rules and the first is to ignore the other two.

[laklak]

Needs more drama.

It needs shortening. People live by three rules and the first is to ignore the other two.

I only have two:

1) Mrs. Lak is always right
2) Ignore this rule.

[MrJonno]

Hmm the word tolerism has been around for a bit in a different political sense, its usually used negatively to describe societies that are too tolerate to things that will destroy them which can apply to the left or right


Statements 1-19 are all a bit wooly (like the US constitution) but nothing particuarly wrong with them but can be interpreted just about anyway you want depending on your political views (like the US constitution)

Statements 20 onward start going on about natural rights which obviously don't exist, change them to something like history/experience has taught us that people are generally happier if they are able to x or y and we should try to maximise this where possible but anything alongs the line of a person can always do X or always has a right to Y because nature said so it just wishful thinking/wrong

[hadespussercats]

5. We hold that when our knowledge of the universe is perfect, then we will know with certainty whether or not God exists. Until then, we believe that knowledge is always to be honestly sought until perfection of knowledge is attained, and that no knowledge should be suppressed or disparaged because of its source or its claims.

This is one point I can't support. There are disreputable sources and there are ridiculous claims. I agree that it's good to allow for a free exchange of information, but people should be free to disparage the disreputable and the ridiculous, whenever appropriate.

Judging by many of your posts, Seth, it seems you agree with me-- at least in practice.

[Seth]

5. We hold that when our knowledge of the universe is perfect, then we will know with certainty whether or not God exists. Until then, we believe that knowledge is always to be honestly sought until perfection of knowledge is attained, and that no knowledge should be suppressed or disparaged because of its source or its claims.

This is one point I can't support. There are disreputable sources and there are ridiculous claims. I agree that it's good to allow for a free exchange of information, but people should be free to disparage the disreputable and the ridiculous, whenever appropriate.

Judging by many of your posts, Seth, it seems you agree with me-- at least in practice.

Why is it necessary to disparage? Why is tolerance not preferable? Tolerance requires neither assent nor validation nor acknowledgment of a false claim of knowledge. Tolerance does not preclude rational criticism or debunking of false claims. It only requires tolerance, reason and goodwill, rather than suppression of speech or ideas and disparagement, which leads to bigotry and prejudice. Tolerism™ maintains that more knowledge is always preferable to less knowledge, even if the information is false or flatly delusional. This is because the evil of suppression of knowledge militates against such suppression, and support for freedom of thought and inquiry will provide ample refutation of false claims all on its own, without the need to be pejorative or suppressive.

[hadespussercats]

5. We hold that when our knowledge of the universe is perfect, then we will know with certainty whether or not God exists. Until then, we believe that knowledge is always to be honestly sought until perfection of knowledge is attained, and that no knowledge should be suppressed or disparaged because of its source or its claims.

This is one point I can't support. There are disreputable sources and there are ridiculous claims. I agree that it's good to allow for a free exchange of information, but people should be free to disparage the disreputable and the ridiculous, whenever appropriate.

Judging by many of your posts, Seth, it seems you agree with me-- at least in practice.

Why is it necessary to disparage? Why is tolerance not preferable? Tolerance requires neither assent nor validation nor acknowledgment of a false claim of knowledge. Tolerance does not preclude rational criticism or debunking of false claims. It only requires tolerance, reason and goodwill, rather than suppression of speech or ideas and disparagement, which leads to bigotry and prejudice. Tolerism™ maintains that more knowledge is always preferable to less knowledge, even if the information is false or flatly delusional. This is because the evil of suppression of knowledge militates against such suppression, and support for freedom of thought and inquiry will provide ample refutation of false claims all on its own, without the need to be pejorative or suppressive.

I don't support suppression of knowledge-- I indicated as much. But when someone unwittingly reveals his own hypocrisy, I feel fully entitled to disparage him. Seth.

[Seth]

5. We hold that when our knowledge of the universe is perfect, then we will know with certainty whether or not God exists. Until then, we believe that knowledge is always to be honestly sought until perfection of knowledge is attained, and that no knowledge should be suppressed or disparaged because of its source or its claims.

This is one point I can't support. There are disreputable sources and there are ridiculous claims. I agree that it's good to allow for a free exchange of information, but people should be free to disparage the disreputable and the ridiculous, whenever appropriate.

Judging by many of your posts, Seth, it seems you agree with me-- at least in practice.

Why is it necessary to disparage? Why is tolerance not preferable? Tolerance requires neither assent nor validation nor acknowledgment of a false claim of knowledge. Tolerance does not preclude rational criticism or debunking of false claims. It only requires tolerance, reason and goodwill, rather than suppression of speech or ideas and disparagement, which leads to bigotry and prejudice. Tolerism™ maintains that more knowledge is always preferable to less knowledge, even if the information is false or flatly delusional. This is because the evil of suppression of knowledge militates against such suppression, and support for freedom of thought and inquiry will provide ample refutation of false claims all on its own, without the need to be pejorative or suppressive.

I don't support suppression of knowledge-- I indicated as much. But when someone unwittingly reveals his own hypocrisy, I feel fully entitled to disparage him. Seth.

Is that useful? Is it kind? Does it increase or decrease human happiness? Is not revealing the hypocrisy sufficient? Why is disparagement necessary?

It seems to me that the urge to disparage is born of one's own prejudices and bigotries, and is more a reflection of them than any probative comment on the hypocrisy of another. Are prejudices and bigotry useful? Tolerists™ don't believe that.

[MrJonno]

Not sure the use of the word tolerance is being used in the same way.

Tolerance to me is not valueing or respecting a person views who are different from mind, its not smacking them in the face or locking them up for having them.

I tolerate Islam and Christianity but I don't respect them and in turn I don't require anymore from people who follow these religions

[Seth]

Not sure the use of the word tolerance is being used in the same way.

Tolerance to me is not valueing or respecting a person views who are different from mind, its not smacking them in the face or locking them up for having them.

I tolerate Islam and Christianity but I don't respect them and in turn I don't require anymore from people who follow these religions

Tolerism™ requires little more than tolerance. You do not have to "respect" or "value" the views, just the individual and his right to hold and express those views.

[MrJonno]

Well having a respect for a person is a different matter to having respect for their individual views. But many people especially the religious cannot differentiate between someone attacking their faith and attacking them. For a person to function in western country they need to realise that no matter how sacred something is to them it isnt to anyone else

[Seth]

Well having a respect for a person is a different matter to having respect for their individual views. But many people especially the religious cannot differentiate between someone attacking their faith and attacking them. For a person to function in western country they need to realise that no matter how sacred something is to them it isnt to anyone else

I agree. One is not required to pander to the desires of religious intolerants, one is required to tolerate their peaceable expressions of faith and seek to understand and persuade, not create division and strife, or simply walk away and allow them their peaceable beliefs. But one is not required to subordinate one's own peaceable expressions of religion, or irreligion, to conform to the expectations of others, nor are they compelled to do the same.

[hadespussercats]

5. We hold that when our knowledge of the universe is perfect, then we will know with certainty whether or not God exists. Until then, we believe that knowledge is always to be honestly sought until perfection of knowledge is attained, and that no knowledge should be suppressed or disparaged because of its source or its claims.

This is one point I can't support. There are disreputable sources and there are ridiculous claims. I agree that it's good to allow for a free exchange of information, but people should be free to disparage the disreputable and the ridiculous, whenever appropriate.

Judging by many of your posts, Seth, it seems you agree with me-- at least in practice.

Why is it necessary to disparage? Why is tolerance not preferable? Tolerance requires neither assent nor validation nor acknowledgment of a false claim of knowledge. Tolerance does not preclude rational criticism or debunking of false claims. It only requires tolerance, reason and goodwill, rather than suppression of speech or ideas and disparagement, which leads to bigotry and prejudice. Tolerism™ maintains that more knowledge is always preferable to less knowledge, even if the information is false or flatly delusional. This is because the evil of suppression of knowledge militates against such suppression, and support for freedom of thought and inquiry will provide ample refutation of false claims all on its own, without the need to be pejorative or suppressive.

I don't support suppression of knowledge-- I indicated as much. But when someone unwittingly reveals his own hypocrisy, I feel fully entitled to disparage him. Seth.

Is that useful? Is it kind? Does it increase or decrease human happiness? Is not revealing the hypocrisy sufficient? Why is disparagement necessary?

It seems to me that the urge to disparage is born of one's own prejudices and bigotries, and is more a reflection of them than any probative comment on the hypocrisy of another. Are prejudices and bigotry useful? Tolerists™ don't believe that.

The urge to disparage could be based on evidence. For instance, given many of your comments since joining this forum, contrasted with your statements here, I doubt you're a tolerist.

[MrJonno]

I agree. One is not required to pander to the desires of religious intolerants, one is required to tolerate their peaceable expressions of faith and seek to understand and persuade, not create division and strife, or simply walk away and allow them their peaceable beliefs. But one is not required to subordinate one's own peaceable expressions of religion, or irreligion, to conform to the expectations of others, nor are they compelled to do the same.

Strangely enough don't go up to people in the street and say their believes are bollocks, they do however come up to me and say that to me , which is their right and mne to respond.


I don't care what adults believe or don't believe I don't care until they start using their believes to influence politics then it makes those believes open up to attack.

Religion should be seen as any other (silly) hobby