People have not been intolerent of religious people on this thread. People have however challenged the bigotry of Kirkstaller. I have not seen anybody express the notion that religious viewpoints should be banned or restricted in any way in this thread. Challenging another persons bigotry does not make someone a bigot.

You know, I've visited several dictionary sites and none have that definition.
Maybe you English GCSE isn't as good as you thought it was.

Maybe you should look harder. It was on the first website I came across... www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own" Strange post.

Maybe you should look harder. It was on the first website I came across... www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own" Strange post.

Quote ="Ajw71"Maybe you should look harder. It was on the first website I came across... www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own" Strange post.'" Except that is not what they say, is is. Merriam says - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance The other one says - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Asking someone to back up their views with facts and evidence is not bigoted.

Quote ="Ajw71"Maybe you should look harder. It was on the first website I came across... www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own" Strange post.'" Except that is not what they say, is is. Merriam says - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance The other one says - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Asking someone to back up their views with facts and evidence is not bigoted.

And one who has no religion, who regards them all as equally ridiculous, can hardly be said to be 'strongly partial' to their own religion.

I believe that the Concise OED does.

I believe that the Concise OED does.

You will of course be able to provide a link then?

www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race" So I was spot on when I said... "A bigot it someone who is intolerant of other peoples views"

www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race" So I was spot on when I said... "A bigot it someone who is intolerant of other peoples views"

Which is not its common meaning today, although you are a champion at splitting hairs aren't you, are you defending the PO's views?

It's off-site.

And not the Daily Mail.

Whatever your definition of bigot, the vast majority of intolerance on this thread stems from the disgusting homophobic tone set by the op.
I for one am not intolerant of religion, but will not allow some of the reactionary and dangerous beliefs espoused and championed by many religions to go unchallenged.

If my intolerance of gay-bashing makes me a bigot then I plead guilty to bigotry on a grand scale.

It's upstairs.

I am not a bigot, but I do like bigos.

Meanwhile can I remind kirkstaller that he's forgotten (again) to answer any of the questions I put? Just so he doesn't have to go too far back in the thread?

Oh, and love the "bigot" straw man. Fantastic. Sadly though, back on this planet, a bigot is indeed a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own. However, only an utter idiot, or a troll, would extract from that the proposition that unless I am tolerant of EVERY idea other than my own, I am a bigot. That really is bat loony crazy howling barking mad.

So then, would I be a bigot because I was intolerant of Hitler's views on genocide?

I am very intolerant of those who view paedophilia as a desirable activity. Does that make me a bigot?

I really do wonder whether English is the first language of some of these nutters.

FFS.

I'm afraid I'm not going to trawl through ~90 pages of debate to find your questions. I apologise for not addressing them the first time around, although the fact I didn't respond causes me to believe they were the same as questions asked by other posters.

If you really want specific questions answering then I suggest you repeat them here in plain English and I will respond by COP tomorrow.



God doesn't intercede now because he has addressed the problem of sin by sending his son Jesus Christ.



Your unequivocal loyalty to such a razor is your downfall. You will no doubt be well aware of the many times Occam has got things wrong.



This is not intervention. He has not materially changed the world like he did in the OT. I'm surprised that such an 'enlightened' person can't see the difference between world-changing acts such as sending a plague of locusts and flooding the world, and his contribution to a fruitful spiritual relationship with one of his followers.



Can you develop that point please? Why is call someone crazy un-Christian?



It is not intervening because the world has not been materially changed.

Do you realise how much you sound like a child screaming "it's not fair, it's not fair, why didn't God visit [ime[/i???"

If you are open to such a relationship then it will happen.



I don't believe you were a firm believer.

Views on suicide?

And what gives you the right to judge? You really are quite totally arrogant aren't you.

While the rest of us have reason and argument, 'belief' is all you got in your little bubble of existence, insulated from all things empirical, logical or scientific.

If you weren't such a smug self-righteous and downright condescending git I'd feel sorry for you.

other than kirkstaller might want to try it?, so he can meet his god early and be warm and comfy sitting on a cloud playing a harp, I mean, he's surely got to be right up there for membership of the inner circle, having already met the top guy once before?

it's a bit like the mafia, only less tolerant and more violent, the protection racket they've created worlwide has to be marvelled at.

We might have covered this earlier kirkstaller, but just on the flood. You clearly believe that this took place and the whole World was flooded. If this was the case, why is there no physical evidence?

God knows some pretty good cleaners?

No doubt, luckily we have kirkstaller as his conduit to avoid any confusion.

a short hymn - well it is sunday www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

a short hymn - well it is sunday www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0

...and where did all the water go ?

Maybe God spun the earth around really fast like a spin dryer and the water was flung off into outer space to eventually land on other planets and start new life forms there, do those life forms know what created them and who their creator is - could this be the ideal job for Kirkstaller ?