Is intolerance of beliefs, views, opinions that do not affect you a symptom of emotional immaturity?

[Revoltingest]

Acting out of Intolerance to beliefs which do not cause suffering is actively practising close mindedness and emotional immaturity. I can agree with that.

"Intolerance" isn't well defined.
So I'll separate a meaning by saying that intolerance with civility is OK.
As Buckaroo says, "We don't have to be mean.".

 

[Revoltingest]

I must say you are one of the rare atheist types that can not believe things I do without the emotional vehemence.

A maturity frubal for you!!

Thanx, but I find many atheists who can disagree without rancor (& many better than I).
We just tend to notice the jerks.
Some atheists would make me cringe if I thought they represented me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will basically answer that question with a 'Yes' (and we probably almost all do it to some extent).

For example, I receive negative emotional vehemence every time I bring up examples of my paranormal beliefs. Why is that warranted? But then I probably project back vehemently to the atheist-materialist crowd.

My views don't hurt them and their views don't hurt me as we really don't disagree on how we should treat each other.

Even if believing in, say, your version of the Mandela Effect or alien abductions isn't directly harmful in and of itself, it serves as a useful example to use to explore questions like "how do we know what we know?" and "how can we figure out whether a claim is justified?"

These lessons can help people in all sorts of ways, such as helping them identify scams, bad medical advice, and unjustified scientific claims. This in turn helps keep them safe and allows them to be better, more involved citizens.

 

[The magical volleyball]

We as a society have the moral obligation to be intolerant of all beliefs and faiths that cuts a person off from learning new information. The danger to the rest of the public does not come from one person believing unicorns are real. It is when that one person seeks to make everyone else believe unicorns are real and threatens them with eternal suffering for not believing. This is how one man's crazy can spread like a disease until has consumed the whole world cause 1 person believing in unicorns is crazy 1 billion people believing in unicorns is religion. Just like cancer you have to remove this crazy from every part as soon as possible or it will come back stronger and deadlier than ever.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is intolerance of beliefs, views, opinions that do not affect you a symptom of emotional immaturity?

I'm not talking here of intolerance of beliefs, etc that affect you. If someone believes you should be murdered, it's reasonable to be intolerant of their views. Instead, I'm talking about beliefs, etc. that do not affect you. If someone believes in unicorns, what's it to you?

Also, I'm not talking intolerance of intolerance. If someone is a bigot, their bigotry degrades to one extent or another the society you live in. It's pathologically decadent to cave into things like bigotry.

I'm pretty intolerant of the belief that drunk driving is okay, even when it's held by people in countries I'll never visit myself. Personally, I think this is rooted more in empathy and regard for the well-being of others than in emotional immaturity.

 

[George-ananda]

Even if believing in, say, your version of the Mandela Effect or alien abductions isn't directly harmful in and of itself, it serves as a useful example to use to explore questions like "how do we know what we know?" and "how can we figure out whether a claim is justified?"

These lessons can help people in all sorts of ways, such as helping them identify scams, bad medical advice, and unjustified scientific claims. This in turn helps keep them safe and allows them to be better, more involved citizens.

For a rare event I agree with your post. (Unless there was meant the implied point that MY analysis is the one that fails critical reasoning)

 

[The magical volleyball]

I would like to argue that the biggest sign of emotional immaturity is the ability to have absolute beliefs, or believing 100% something is true and no evidence however strong it is could ever change your belief. The second you accept any absolute you become arrogant, and combative against anyone who disagrees with you. You cut off any chance of real debate because no matter what your mind is already made up. At least scientist are smart enough to never say something is 100%. They always leave open the possibility of being wrong. They want to be proven wrong because it opens up a new world of possibilities when they are.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I would like to argue that the biggest sign of emotional immaturity is the ability to have absolute beliefs, or believing 100% something is true and no evidence however strong it is could ever change your belief. The second you accept any absolute you become arrogant, and combative against anyone who disagrees with you. You cut off any chance of real debate because no matter what your mind is already made up. At least scientist are smart enough to never say something is 100%. They always leave open the possibility of being wrong. They want to be proven wrong because it opens up a new world of possibilities when they are.

So you are calling religious faith, emotional immaturity. You know what I think is emotional immaturity? People who beat around the bush and don't just come out and say what they mean.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For a rare event I agree with your post. (Unless there was meant the implied point that MY analysis is the one that fails critical reasoning)

Yes, of course.

 

[The magical volleyball]

Yes religious faith is emotional immaturity. What would you call someone who still believed in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy as an adult and refused any and all evidence to the contrary.

 

[George-ananda]

For a rare event I agree with your post. (Unless there was meant the implied point that MY analysis is the one that fails critical reasoning)

Yes, of course.

I should have known. Then I retract my post in its entirety.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I should have known. Then I retract my post in its entirety.

Teaching someone about standards of evidence when it comes to, say, a baseless claim about continents being in different places when we were kids helps to inoculate them to unsupported claims that could directly harm them, like false medical claims or financial scams.

To put it another way: someone who will fall for something like that will fall for all sorts of other things. When you convince other people to adopt your way of thinking, you create new victims. That's where the harm is.

 

[George-ananda]

Teaching someone about standards of evidence when it comes to, say, a baseless claim about continents being in different places when we were kids helps to inoculate them to unsupported claims that could directly harm them, like false medical claims or financial scams.

To put it another way: someone who will fall for something like that will fall for all sorts of other things. When you convince other people to adopt your way of thinking, you create new victims. That's where the harm is.

That is not what the Mandela Effect or I am really saying. So you use the trick of misrepresenting something and then attacking the misrepresentation. A critical thinker can catch those deceptions. Detecting misrepresentations for the purpose of debunking is a critical thinking tool people need to learn in this age of examining new ideas.

 

[Revoltingest]

Teaching someone about standards of evidence when it comes to, say, a baseless claim about continents being in different places when we were kids helps to inoculate them to unsupported claims that could directly harm them, like false medical claims or financial scams.

To put it another way: someone who will fall for something like that will fall for all sorts of other things. When you convince other people to adopt your way of thinking, you create new victims. That's where the harm is.

That seems to be making everything too black & white, ie, that dysfunctional thinking
in one area leads to it in others. It's not such a deterministic relationship.
I look at some atheists who are quite rational in disbelieving in gods, yet love the idea of
communism, despite no evidence that any country can employ it without oppression &
economic failure. But many believers are very capable capitalists, & understand this complex
process. So if someone believes in something which isn't disprovable, eg, intelligent design,
I don't see any significant harm in advocating for their beliefs.