30 Jun '16 00:10>2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdYou are advocating tolerance while Fetchmyjunk is advocating intolerance. The answer to your closing question:
My “patchwork” thoughts on the matter—
A fact is whatever is the case. Something is either a fact or it is not. A true statement (a truth) is one that corresponds to the facts—e.g., “It is the case that A.” To add the qualifier of “absoluteness”—i.e., “It is absolutely the case that A”—adds nothing to the truth or falsity of the statement, thoug ...[text shortened]... nnot imagine A never being the case (nothing else considered)”—not be seen as sufficient?
Why would just that response—i.e., “I cannot imagine A never being the case (nothing else considered)”—not be seen as sufficient?[/b]
is this - because there is an agenda behind the [spurious] notion of absolute truth, which is set out for us in the link kindly supplied by Fetchmyjunk a few posts back. I will pick out the key passage:
What about religious pluralism? This line of thought maintains that all religions are equally valid ways to God. In the name of 'tolerance' it says, for example, "your way through Jesus is true", and "my way through meditation is true". Is this true? As they stand, these two statements are not contradictory and so do not violate the law of non-contradiction. Pluralism seems to avoid conflict with this law simply because it has nothing of substance to say re the way to God. It has no confidence in the concept of truth. But the statement "all religions are equally valid ways to God" can be proved false if we can establish that 'absolute' truth exists and that this truth contradicts the statement. This follows since two contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time.
So to be absolutely clear and explicit, this religious source argues against religious tolerance. The conflict between religious bigotry and secular tolerance is emphasised in a later passage from his source (which he says sets out his opinions - it is not my choice but his)
It could be argued that the Christian should then obey the law and "be in subjection to the authorities" (Romans 13.1). He or she should not say or write anything which could be construed as insulting. To obey the law of the land is absolutely correct and true. But Jesus called His followers to be salt and light in society and to go into all the nations and preach the gospel (Matthew 28.19). For a Christian this is also absolutely true and correct. This is another example where man has to choose between two truths. When placed in an identical situation the response of the followers of Jesus was to choose the higher truth:
"We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5.29)
Think of priests and child abuse before commenting on that last passage.
By and large, however, the examples in his source display a confusion about what sort of statement can even have the property of being true or false. Because the terms are used in a peculiar way they actually have no real connection with epistemology [ the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion] at all, and much of our debate is at complete cross purposes. Wittgenstein - eat your heart out.
This does not mean that we must simply tolerate their use of language in a religious context that is different to that in a secular context, because that deal is not reciprocal. They are distorting the meaning of language in order to confuse and deceive and that has to be challenged. I do not see why I have to tolerate intolerance!