Satenza

On the homosexuality point Astra says the bible teaches us we are all sinners and we should repent. Which is true, although can this promote sins as we always will sin and the degree to which we sin doesn't come into anything. So as long as we repent we can be homosexual, murderers and rapists as we always will sin no matter if we arn't homosexual, murderers or rapists? I don't mean to postivley commit sin. But if we do, then why worry about the afterlife if we repent as we will always be sinners no matter what. Which isn't much of a deterent.

Did i just see Sarah say that you shouldn't hit a child? :o

Yes i have.

Would you accept degree's of intolerance? :|

I'm not activley trying to force anyone to beleive in tolerance. I am saying that in my opinion they arn't helping us to progress society.

Not as I deem neccessary, but as much tolerance as needed to not discriminate against others or force others in anyway to change their beleif systems. A little like Mill's harm principle.

I have already admitted i am intolerant to intolerant religions. I am attempting to spin how I am more tolerant than intolerant religions. Not that they may be true, but allowing them to have that beleif without attempting to force them to change. As i said, they can reason with them, question them ect however they can't force or discriminate against them because of it. On one issue, that creates utility. They are not the same religion, they are different. It's like all religions agree there is a higher being. Yet there ideas of that are different.

As i said up there an example would be a Christian who accepts that a Jewish persons beleives that Jesus is not the son of God, they do not beleive this. They can reason with them but not force them to change their beleif. And because my view is that society can't progress with intolerant religions.

You only tolerate the one belief that tolerance towards other religions is better than intolerance towards other religions. They tolerate the one belief that intolerance towards other religions is better than tolerance towards other religions. This is where i don't agree. Religion A tolerates Religion B, C, D and E. Whereas Religion F tolerates no other religion. Which is more tolerant? They beleive only one thing, however they tolerate many other beleifs. Such as a most Chrsitians tolerate Jewish people who beleive Jesus is not the son of God. They don't have to neccessarily beleive to tolerate.

In this context as respecting other peoples beleifs. Which is why i do not beleive all religions are intolerant.

True. But these days we have laws in place to punish those who do wrong. However, I see where you're coming from. Some people don't commit crimes soley because they want to go to Heaven. That depends on your opinion on human nature. The world could be chaos, and it may not be. People already don't beleive in a God. 1.1B atheists and so why arn't we in chaos? Poltics and Government is more important to keep us inline.

Everything in the bible is opinion. It says to love your fellow man. Thats opinion only that opinion benefits society. What benefits society will change and change too, so nothing in there could possibly be always relevant to what is best.

I don't agree, tolerating a number of beleifs is not the same as tolerating one beleif. I don't beleive in tolerance above all else, i beleive it to be the best way to progress society. If you use this argument it can be applied to almost any religion and they would prove to be intolerant, which is obviously not the case.

Christians arn't persecuted really. All religions are questioned by people and they should praise that questioning. Without it they wouldn't question anything and their religion would become a dead dogma. Why people beleive is much more important on this earth that what they beleive to me.

What I imply and what i mean can be two different things. I don't beleive tolerance to be intrinsically good, i beleive it to generate the greatest hapiness for the majority of people if they tolerate a number of religions in my view. Religions who do not tolerate others in my opinion do not deserve my toleration. My beleif that intolerance is bad is just my beleif. Yes I am slightly hypocritical by then not tolerating intolerant religions, but in the bigger picture I am not exclusivley intolerant. I am being intolerant to one type of beleif which is that intolerance is bad. I am tolerating other beleifs which do not neccessarily have to agree, just to tolerate my beleif. Intolerant religions tolerate only their set of beleifs. Therefore this extreme fraction of a religion will not tolerate any other beleifs at all. Whereas i tolerate a number of religions who may not neccessarily beleive tolerance is good but that tolerate other beleifs anyway.

Can't moderators be given the power to make the persons posts so that they have to be approved by them before they are posted. Until an admin comes to ban them or whatever.

He did pretty good, I guess this role was a little bit harder than The Departed, maybe that's why they chose this one instead of that one. He was pretty good, although I've got to admitt that his accent wasn't that good. DiCaprio's acting in The Departed felt like a DeNiro in Mean Streets kind of vibe. Except not as good as DeNiro. He should have been nominated for that as the Blood Diamond is probably only being nominated to get a little poltical coverage to the real situation over there.

However, my beleif does tolerate many religions as long as they tolerate other peoples beleifs. Intolerant religions are exclusivley intolerant. I am intolerant only to intolerant religions e.g. extremists.

Your retired? I thought I saw you on yesterday...If not, it was sometime this week but I know I did. Yes i come online every week or two weeks to check no one has hacked my bank. Why reopened?

Oh, it's "good"? What universal standard of morality says that? Last time I checked, an atheist doesn't have a universal standard of morality, so you telling me toleration is good is forcing your beliefs down my throat (the exact opposite of toleration). You're showing yourself to be a hypocrite more and more with every post. I never said it was universal. I said my beleif is not to tolerate religions that don't tolerate others. I never said my beleifs where universal. They tolerate only their beleifs which is no way to progress society. I can see their beleifs, read up on them that doesn't mean i have to tolerate them. What would society be like if no one tolerated anyone else's beleifs. I tolerate a number of peoples religions and beleifs if they tolerate mine. Religions who tolerate no one else's beleifs are exclusivley intolerant. I'm afraid not. You could apply negative utility and say that the brothers intentions wouldn't have brought about the greatest hapiness. You can weigh up pleasure vs suffering. The slaves suffering outweighs the familys overall pleasure. Also, if you look at rights based interests you would see that if this was universal this would not lead to the greatest hapiness. Yes, human rights don't exist however rights based interests do. Does evertone has a right to be tolerated for the greatest hapiness? Yes.

Not neccessarily.

Hey Jude!! :shock:

I agree with Locke, you need to look at the reality of it. Looking respectable for a black person is the same as looking respectable for a white person. Because their culture is different it doesn't mean they have to dress as thugs and swear every second word. Thats not black culture thats a disgrace to black culture. You think Martin Luther King would be looking up to these people? And judging Locke (the person) for his veiws on slavery when he lived in a time of slavery is absurd. Just like it is for judging Rousseau's stance on women.

I don't understand why DiCaprio was nominated for best actor in Blood Diamond.

Useless in that they are no different than you. So I guess hypocritical would have been a better term to use. You have a belief that tolerance is good - they have a belief that their religion is good. You are intolerant to those that don't subscribe to your belief, just like those people you mention are intolerant to those that don't subscribe to their belief. No difference. There is a difference, toleration is good however religions that can't see this don't deserve toleration. Yes, I am being intolerant to intolerant religions. Whats the problem? Toleration leads to utility so you probably wouldn't have this point of view if your not a utilitarian.