I don't want to correct everything in this thread, but, lordjedi, Benjamin Franklin was not an atheist. He entertained atheistic ideas at parts of his life, but he also entertained Christian ideas. On the whole I'd say he mostly embraced deism.

zombie84 said:

Tiptup said:

You don't see that act as making yet another code?.

Not really. If you can't see the difference between a "live and let live" philosophy and the examples I provided then theres no point in discussing it.

Clearly my argument went right over your head. Sorry about that.

A "live and let live" philosophy has absolutely no value unless you directly specify the degree to which you tolerate things (and in what ways) and then preferably offer rational arguments to support where you draw those lines. If you believe the evils of religious intolerance are so obviously evil in comparison to your form of intolerance that you actually see "no point in discussing it," then you are certainly free to do so. But, first, that's not what you were arguing before (you inanely said that "inherent codification" is bad) and, second, I believe that there is always a point in people using clear, rational thinking in ethics.

Yes, the examples you listed are in conflict with your overly simplistic, "live and let live" philosophy. (Did I ever say otherwise?) However, what I was trying to point out (and apparently failed) was how your personal judgments against other people in this world are also in conflict your philosophy. In fact, your philosophy is so illogical that it must even condemn itself. (To support "live and let live" you must condemn what supports the opposite.)

If you're going to lift "live and let live" to the level of an ethical principle, in and of itself, as a way to argue against intolerant actions in this world, then there would be absolutely nothing left that that would not break this principle. The logic behind that is so idiotic and stupid that I see no reason why I should even have to waste my time discussing it with you. If you can't see the mistake you're making, then, while it's still worth discussing, my high opinion of your intellect will certainly have to be lowered.

Also, I actually find it offensive that you have such a low opinion of religious people to the point where you'll arbitrarily accuse them of not having their own "live and let live" philosophy. (You're apparently more intolerant than I am. Hehe.) The true problem is that we all disagree about what to tolerate and what not to tolerate. These disagreements cannot be argued by saying the other person isn't a "live and let live" person since that's already more than painfully obvious. (Nobody is live and let live with everything! That's a meaningless statement!)

The quality of being tolerant of some things and intolerant of other things is a universal trait for everyone. There is absolutely no virtue found in following a "live and let live" philosophy per se. While there is certainly virtue to be found in having that philosophy with respect to specific things in life, that philosophy is not something that is adding any ethical weight in that instance. (The philosophy has no virtue by itself. It merely describes what you're doing and not why you should do it. I could follow a "eat and let eat" philosophy.)

Nowhere did I say that it was good to see "a family ostasizing a member" or to see "the world constantly tearing itself apart." Your examples were irrelevant to what I was communicating to you. Terrible things happen in this world all the time, and yet I believe that they are sometimes justified. Should the United States have not fought against the Nazis in WW2? These are tough questions that are always worth analyzing. Appealing to your personal feelings and the other, arbitrary judgments of you and your fellow "live and let live" people have no direct bearing on an ethical inquiry.

Lastly, do you actually believe that religion is more intolerant than other human ideologies? If so, then that would be pure folly in light of the "crimes against humanity" perpetrated by fascism, communism, and other political ideologies in the last century alone—since they easily dwarf the scale of religious atrocities from the beginning of recorded history. (I can even argue that atheism has been behind millions of deaths.) No human ideology is blameless when it comes to being intolerant, and I don't think they even should be (in every sense). I have far more respect for someone who respects truth and logic enough to fight for its growth, and have them be wrong, than someone who merely approaches the world through hypocritical emotions, and yet happens to be correct on a few things.

::sigh::

I really shouldn't let the stupidity of the general groupthink in my society bother me this much, but smart people should really know better. Reason is more important than casual expressions designed to simply make us feel good. Nothing represents groupthink to me more than blanket condemnations of things like "violence," "discrimination," and other neutral behaviors like "intolerance" as if those things aren't simultaneously good in other perspectives and other contexts.

Oh well, sorry to waste your time, Zombie. Go back to your little thoughts and pretend I never said anything worth "discussing." We wouldn't want to test your view of the world too much, now would we?