Also, I dont want to defend what Nick has said, but even after you accept tolerance is not a virtue, the implied tolerance of “each other” remains arguably virtuous.

I reply: TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE. Shocked? Consider: If I say that I tolerate child abuse, you would not consider that tolerance a virtue because you find the object of my tolerance (child abuse) intolerable (unless you are a very sick person). Tolerance derives its value ENTIRELY from the objects of its toleration. So, as I say, tolerance considered apart from its objects is NOT a virtue.

If tolerance is not a virtue, then your value system collapses. You must KNOW what is virtuous so that you may “tolerate” it, and you must KNOW what is evil so that you will not “tolerate” it. You must have a secure basis for making such distinctions, and this basis should be universally applicable. Without this you have no right to criticize the actions of others, whether they be Communist, Christian Crusaders, the Armies of Allah, or Scientific Materialist.

While I am not “certain” (to use your word) that my worldview is entirely correct, decades of examination and comparison with other worldviews has given me a high degree of confidence that mine is essentially correct. So I reject your conclusion that the world needs less “certainty” or “belief.” People need to arrive at greater confidence through careful examination of evidence and reason.

I’m sure you all know who said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

I think the point of the debate is whether there is a God in the general “divine being who created and rules everything” sense.

I could believe my shoe has an inner soul (lame pun)which created the universe and worship it. I could believe it gave me rules to live by and techniques for obtaining wisdom. They might even work for me, but it wouldnt make the shoe thing any truer.

I agree that the Testimonies can look like doctrine, but they’re not. They might best be described as categories into which a Quaker fits the leadings he or she gets from God. For me, at least, God speaks in specifics (don’t buy sweat shop clothing, for instance), and then one fits that into a Testimony (the Testimony of Equality, or Community, perhaps) as a way of linking it to one’s whole web of meaning.

The interesting thing, at least from the standpoint of readers of this blog, is that there are actually non-Theist Quakers. We have some in our meeting. I don’t understand how that works, but at least a couple of them are what we call “weighty Friends,” so I don’t doubt their sincerity.

Quakers are not as different from other religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends#The_Bible for example.

Not always. The example that falsifies that statement is the Quakers–at least, the liberal and conservative branches of the Society. And there are branches of Buddhism that don’t fit that description, either.

There are many ways to have structure and tradition…

Personally, I find it easier to just think they are all deluded 🙂