As an atheist, I define religious tolerance as that, merely tolerance. When one tries to assert a religious belief, one that is based only on blind faith (really just personal feelings), then one is behaving provocatively towards others. For example, when a muslim bluntly states "Mohammad is the prophet", can he prove it? Obviously not, but this statement is in the form of a fact. Someone who was not raised as a muslim would be taken aback, wondering why such a statement would be made? And the question "Why?" is always left unsubstantiated, basically a matter of choice in what one thinks about Mohammad. So an agnostic is left looking for reasons as to why Islam is any more factual than Christianity, or Hinduism, or Buddism, or whatever. No reasons are provided. If Islam is truthful, then Christianity must be wrong. If Christianity is truthful, then Islam must be wrong. And what of the diversity of sects within each theology? Which one is correct? They hold some beliefs in common while disagreeing on others.

As an atheist, I define religious tolerance as that, merely tolerance. Because no religion is truthful and religious assertions are totally unsubstantiated, no religion can be allowed to dominate, no religion can be allowed to trump freedom of expression, to trump the truth, should it be discerned from amongst all the lies.