JWeinCom said:
And we do not have to spend money on classes, nor do we have to accept any viewpoint not founded on reason and evidence, particularly when such viewpoints often have ideas that are detrimental to peaceful coexistence. For instance, the idea that everyone who does not share your views is hellbound is an idea that is directly opposed to peaceful coexistence. The idea that there is a book that contains absolutely true is directly opposed to reason. There is no reason to accept this. We should use all civil and lawful methods to dissuade people of these beliefs. |
If everyone became tolerant of one another, what problem is there in letting people believe in what they want? The idea that one side of an argument HAS to win at all costs is what produces inefficiency.
Let's say I don't like how the weather is. Is it easier to spend time proving to me that this is the most optimal weather state, or is it easier to just let me think what I want?
You mention religion as a medium through which negative thoughts pertrude minds, but isn't the opposite true? Do you think it would be wrong for a rich person to donate to charity for the sake of their religion? Religion has been known to portray helpful thoughts to the masses. Famous examples include being a "good samaritan" and "turn the other cheek."
As I said, the best way to deal with this issue is to have people respect each other's opinions. A lot more gets done if people stop bickering about what is right and what is wrong. Proper classes put in place to inform others of such viewpoints will also be advantageous. Just like we have classes on foreign cultures, it would be helpful to have classes on foreign religions to open people's mind







