It is a common view that -- especially when it comes to religious issues -- we have to have 'tolerance'. I'm not entirely against this, but the usual subsequent definition of tolerance is rather suspect.
To be 'tolerant', people say, one must accept that we all have our beliefs, and they all seem justified one way or another, but really, there's no way of telling who is right. If you do not accept this then you are intolerant, fundamentalist even. I must respectfully disagree.
Such 'tolerance' is impossible. It does not 'tolerate' the belief that we can discover some sort of truth about the issue. Of course, no-one is really advocating universal tolerance (almost nobody thinks that we should tolerate a religion that advocates ritual murder of unbelievers), but I think that those who advocate the kind of 'tolerance' outlined above are actually being less tolerant than they might be.
Tolerance does not imply the lack of an opinion, it merely implies allowing others to disagree. One can allow others to disagree without subscribing to the notion that all people are equally right. If you think there is no real evidence one way or the other for the existence of God, and that the appropriate reaction is to conclude that people can believe what they like, well, I'm willing to tolerate that belief. That is to say, I'm willing to allow you to hold it, and will not badger you about it outside of an argument on that particular subject. When I do hold arguments with you, I will endeavour to be civil. I will not claim that your viewpoint is evil purely because I disagree with it.
I will, however, continue to argue for my own position. And I still think you're wrong.
Can you tolerate that?