Locke

You always seem to be very offensive when you post. Are you suggesting that when you give a speech, you would not be very insulting to the people you normally insult? That would be very fake of you. It seems that you are suggesting that you would have no qualms speaking in front of people as long as you are allowed to pretend to be something you are not.

Too bad that's impossible. :wink:

If only there were a biological explanation for a sense of morality. Less damage to one another means more strength and the strongest get the best chance at reproduction. Through this, the systems of morality may have wittled away at the void beforehand. No, I understand how morality can be seen as an effective evolutionary tool. My point was that there is no biological evidence that shows where a sense of morality comes from.

A parallel is a way of saying there is a link between them. It is not saying there is a "line between them." If there is a parallel between intelligence and the ability to speak, that means there is a positive correlation between the two. 1. There are plenty of people who can speak very well despite low intelligence. Owen Wilson is paid millions of dollars to speak well in front of a camera and he couldn't pass 12th grade after taking it twice. 2. Once again, I would suggest you drop by a very advanced physics class at a university. You will find that many people with very high intelligence cannot communicate very well. 3. You are making an assumption that there is a correlation between the ability to communicate, and intelligence, and that just isn't so. There is no study that consistently links the two together. Sure, there are brilliant people who are also very effective orators, but the two characteristics are not linked. You're right. But just because you think there is a correlation between someone's ability to communicate and their intelligence, does not mean it is so. There is no evidence to suggest so.

If only there were a biological explanation for a sense of morality.

The point we are trying to make is ones ability to communicate is not a reflection on one's intelligence. You keep persisting in drawing a parallel between the ability to articulate ideas clearly, and intelligence, and there is no link. And yes, people can get so nervous they mispronounce words and mumble through a speech that is written for them. Just because you don't does not mean it does not happen.

More people cite public speaking as their number one fear than cite death. The nerves of speaking in front of the entire world get to some people. I would strongly recommend you take some high level classes (especially science class) at the University level. You will find some of the most brilliant minds of our age cannot speak clearly in public at all. Is it a reflection of their intelligence? Of course not.

I ponder... If God didn't exist, would humans be intelligent enough to write?

I understand what you're saying. I don't believe that guessing someone's race due to their skin color is racism. Racism is when you assume that they are a certain way because of their race. Simply guessing their race isn't racism because you aren't associated any type of character trait or stereotype with them.

I don't see how thinking someone is another race because of skin color is racism. Are you making negative assumptions, or assumptions (negative or positive) about their character or personality by believing they are a race they aren't?

I would argue, and I think most people would agree with me, that all forms of racism and prejudice are manifested from some form of ignorance. But to submit that it as an excuse is preposterous.

Most "godly" encounters I hear about are described as a feeling of security and a presence that is felt. I rarely hear about people seeing bright lights unless they are talking about a near death situation.

I do this for two reasons; 1) The repeatedly stated ineffeciency of seinding people to their rooms in this thread. I do not advocate physical pain as a deterent but most of the people who did argued that sending them to their rooms, time-out's and whatnot, were ineffectual. That's understandable given the specific purpose you had. Here's an interesting personal story I have. I have a friend who is quite possibly, the only "perfect child" to ever exist. His mother is a family psychologist who for almost her entire life has strongly believed that it is unnecessary in parenting to spank, or even yell at a child. For a very long time, she was able to give personal testimony to the fact that she herself had raised a child with these limitations on her parenting and done a fabulous job. She had a second kid way down the road. Her first child is in high school and her second child is only 5 (or 6...I'm not exactly sure). Her second child is much different than her first. She has found herself yelling at him and has even had to spank him. Remember, this woman has her doctorate in family psychology and has been a strong advocate against spanking, and even just raising your voice when disciplining a child. My point is this. The burden of proof lies on you in this situation. I, along with many other people, were raised by getting spankings in very appropriate and controlled ways. If you are going to argue that this type of parenting method is ineffective, you need to prove that it is ineffective. Even this family psychologist, with all of her knowledge, needed some personal experience before she understood that not all kids are the same - and physical deterrence is in fact necessary at some points. I personally remember as a child being much more afraid of getting a spanking for breaking a rule than I would have been for losing privileges or going to my room. If I can personally testify that physical deterrence was more effective at a younger age then how can you say it is not? Hey, I'm not putting a four year old into a situation where he has to chose whether to eat meat for lunch, even though the meat arguably as a mother who arguably misses her child and the child is definitely - without argument - dead so that little Tommy could have a steak. Nor do I believe most spankings involve failure to comprehened the moral and ethical standards of capital punishment. It is the ethical dilemma's on the scale of "Don't wake your little brother" or "Don't walk into traffic". Both of which you should, as a parent, be quite able to provide your child with an at least sketchy idea of why they are to be avoided. Though the latter might provide some difficulty if you've parked your child infront of the wrong cartoons one time too many. Getting them to understand why they should be avoided does not mean children are not going to break rules. I point once again to my example of my friend the family psychologist. It is my firm belief that you yourself don't know the necessary effectiveness of spanking because you yourself have never been in a situation that would require it. That's like asking when the exact time someone should be potty trained. The intellectual maturity of children varies and a good parent who is delivering spankings in a controlled and effective manner should have enough insight in their child's intellectual maturity to know when it's time to quit spanking.

My assumption then, is that you support any military action that stops a race of people from having mass genocide being committed against them purely because of their ethnicity? I support any militay action that stops any genocide for any reason. No race deserves to be wiped off the face of the Earth.. I ask, because the thing I have noticed most often is that those who strongly support action in Darfur, strongly opposed kicking Saddam out of Iraq. Saddam had hundreds of rape rooms, mass grounds under his soil, and killed the Kurds purely out of hate for their ethnicity. I just find it interesting that Saddam created the same cruel situation for people in Iraq, but those who oppose the War there, support military action in Darfur. Why is that?

My assumption then, is that you support any military action that stops a race of people from having mass genocide being committed against them purely because of their ethnicity?

Simple. It's not your goverment's job to keep their gorverment doing theirs. Exactly. It's the same reason many people voice their opinion that the United States should stop acting like the World Police.

Although I agree that a large percent of people claiming to be Christians don't practice their religion very devoutly, I am absolutely certain you don't know what qualifies as being a Christian when someone is polling the entire world. If someone answered a survey and said "Yes, I believe in God" they could be a multitude of religions, including being a Muslim. Do you honestly think a pollster who is important enough to release a statistic like that isn't going to make sure that someone who believes in God isn't perhaps, another religion that believes in God? You're right about a large group of Christians not practicing their faith, but it seems to me that you're just making up facts about when people are polled about their faith.

I hate this, flame wars are personally attacking a peron. Not once did that occur here, it was a debate that attacked ideas and reasons for beleiving in them. Which is debating. Agreed. Even if I or Astralinre thought you were an idiot (or vice versa) we wouldn't say it because it would hurt the integrity of the debate. Debates != flame wars.

I don't know what society you are from, but where I am, religions, especially Christianity, is questioned almost nonstop in the public arena.

That brings us back here...

According to your own post, which sparked this entire discussion about your "useless" stance, you are. Page 3: Page 5: You are defining tolerance as not forcing them to change their belief. Therefore, intolerance would be the opposite, forcing them to change their beliefs. If you are intolerant of people who believe in intolerance, you are trying to force people to change their beliefs and be tolerant. If you are intolerant, which you admit you are, you are no different than those you speak of in the above statement. This is why insane initially said it is a useless stance to only tolerate beliefs on tolerance that you agree with.

But you yourself said you are intolerant of intolerant belief systems. If you are intolerant of intolerant belief systems, then you are, by your definition, trying to force others in anyway to change their belief systems. If you are NOT doing that, then you ARE tolerant of intolerance. So which is it? Are you intolerant of intolerance, or are you tolerant of intolerance?

But if you only tolerate tolerance, how do you tolerate yourself? Or are you going to correct your initial statement to say that you only tolerate belief systems which have as much tolerance in their beliefs as you deem necessary?

You don't know how many religions out there are tolerant compared to how many are intolerant so you cannot claim that your belief is more tolerant than another because it tolerates more religions. Your belief is still intolerant no matter how you attempt to spin it. Whether or not you are intolerant towards one, or one hundred systems of belief, you are still intolerant towards intolerance. Since it is your belief that only tolerance should be tolerated, you are forced to believe that YOUR intolerance should not be tolerated. By your own belief, you have to be intolerant towards yourself, because you are intolerance towards people who don't share your beliefs about tolerance.

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. Actually, that's my point. The very notion of a belief, especially a religious one, screams intolerance. If I believe that one thing is right, and one thing is wrong, why should I tolerate the wrong? You yourself follow this path. You believe that intolerance is wrong, and therefore, like you initially said, you do not tolerate the intolerant.