1730 replies to this topic

[Vendel]

I'm feeling especially masochistic today, so out of morbid curiosity I ask all who do believe in god two questions. The only rule is that you must answer both.

1) Why do you believe in god?(or gods, depending on religion)

2) Why don't you believe in faeries and unicorns?

Oh and try to put a bit of detail into your answers, again I'm feeling incredibly masochistic today. So do your worst, or best, whichever you prefer.

[Shampoo]

IDK why, but this post really annoyed me.

When the statement holds true for at least 75% of the people in question, it's not really generalizing, it's more the moral majority. And honestly on the original post you commented on, I think it's closer to 90-95% correct. So, generalizing is definitely tolerable. Just because YOU happen to be a "non-athiest" that can respect others beliefs doesn't mean everyone else is. I have yet to EVER meet a person of religion who can respect anothers right to not believe in god. I've lived all over the USA, spent time in the UK and Canada. It's the same everywhere. Either you believe in god, or you're wrong and need to be converted. There is no respect for the right to choose.

but that's wrong. of the religious people I know (and this is in the deep south), few of them ever discuss their faith publicly unless someone else brings it up. they don't care if you choose to believe something different, and about half of them don't really believe completely in their own religion but stay with it because they enjoy the community aspect. maybe it's just because you are going out of your way to antagonize them for believing in god that they become so aggressive?

[Volition]

but that's wrong. of the religious people I know (and this is in the deep south), few of them ever discuss their faith publicly unless someone else brings it up. they don't care if you choose to believe something different, and about half of them don't really believe completely in their own religion but stay with it because they enjoy the community aspect. maybe it's just because you are going out of your way to antagonize them for believing in god that they become so aggressive?

Then those people really shouldn't be considered religious, keywords are "don't really believe".

[Faerhii]

but that's wrong. of the religious people I know (and this is in the deep south), few of them ever discuss their faith publicly unless someone else brings it up. they don't care if you choose to believe something different, and about half of them don't really believe completely in their own religion but stay with it because they enjoy the community aspect. maybe it's just because you are going out of your way to antagonize them for believing in god that they become so aggressive?

Then those people really shouldn't be considered religious, keywords are "don't really believe".

^this. +rep.

Also, an opinion is never "wrong." That's just rude. You may disagree, but you cannot call it "wrong."

And I currently live in Arkansas. I do not willingly enter conversations about religion, and I do not antagonize, it's rude. I respect the rights of others to waste thier time and money on churches/god, and never talk about my personal beliefs unless asked. Yet the majority of my customers speak of "god" on a daily basis, and ask me of my own beliefs. When they find out I do not believe/go to church they instantly badger me about joining thiers. Either I believe in god and go to church or I'm wrong. No respect.

[Sage]

^this. +rep.

Also, an opinion is never "wrong." That's just rude. You may disagree, but you cannot call it "wrong."

I believe you're wrong there. Sorry, had to do it, but yes, opinions can be flat-out wrong. The opinion that vaccinations cause autism is wrong, for example.

Edited by cuddlydemon, 19 August 2011 - 12:00 PM.

[Faerhii]

I believe you're wrong there. Sorry, had to do it, but yes, opinions can be flat-out wrong. The opinion that vaccinations cause autism is wrong, for example.

They have yet to 100% prove it. I've been following that issue closely.

Stating this does not mean I agree with it though, I think autism is a natural part of human evolution. It either happens or it doesn't, and vaccinations have nothing to do with it. But again, still not 100% proven one way or the other.

And again, an opinion. Not a fact. The autism/vaccination issue is being presented as a fact. An opinion is based on the point of view of the person forming it, and since the point of view is relative it cannot be right nor wrong. A fact holds true always and is not relative. It can be proven/disproven. \

Edit: Changed sentence structure to make the post easier to understand. ;D Edited within 30 or so seconds of posting.

Edited by Faerhii, 19 August 2011 - 12:14 PM.

[Sweeney]

They have yet to 100% prove it. I've been following that issue closely.

Stating this does not mean I agree with it though, I think autism is a natural part of human evolution. It either happens or it doesn't, and vaccinations have nothing to do with it. But again, still not 100% proven one way or the other.

And again, an opinion. Not a fact. The autism/vaccination issue is being presented as a fact. An opinion is based on the point of view of the person forming it, and since the point of view is relative it cannot be right nor wrong. A fact holds true always and is not relative. It can be proven/disproven.

Opinions can be wrong. To take a different example, the opinion that the Earth is flat is wrong.
It is a fact that the Earth is (roughly) an oblate spheroid, but that doesn't stop people from holding a contradictory opinion. These opinions are wrong.

Another, more relevant, example. The opinion that believing in God makes you a good person is fundamentally, objectively wrong.

An opinion -should- be based on facts, but all too frequently, they aren't, and therefore can be wrong.

[Sage]

Opinions can be wrong. To take a different example, the opinion that the Earth is flat is wrong.
It is a fact that the Earth is (roughly) an oblate spheroid, but that doesn't stop people from holding a contradictory opinion. These opinions are wrong.

Another, more relevant, example. The opinion that believing in God makes you a good person is fundamentally, objectively wrong.

An opinion -should- be based on facts, but all too frequently, they aren't, and therefore can be wrong.

Beat me to using either of those, but yes. (Having a job cuts into my online time-wasting time.)

[2NE1]

No.
If there really was a God, then someone's clearly not doing their job.
God is dead. Suck it in.

[Ellipses]

Well, I think the idea of god was created by humans because we had to explain the unknown. It was probably extremely mysterious watching the sun revolve around the earth and other phenomenons. It was pretty normal for ancient civilizations/cultures to believe in a god. But as time went on, we had some people who were able to explain the unknowns - earth revolving around the sun, etc etc in terms of science - and we also see that the role and popularity of religion die down as time went on. Religion was one of the things that explained those phenomenons so we accepted it.

I think we are just extremely curious and we need to have explainations for many things. Our scientific method is a good example of that. "Correlation does not mean causation" - or something like that. We're not just looking for patterns ,but we're looking for the reasons they happen.

All in all, I do believe in a god. But, I don't think its quite the god that any religion depicts or describes. Something must have been the precursors for the laws of physics our universe follows - like what was the beginning of the big bang, and what was the beginning of the beginning of the big bang? Also, the theory of the big bang states that the early universe was a infinitely small point with infinitely great energy. Its story fits well into the current understanding of the universe we have now. However, I find it hard to believe that our universe was just an infinitely small point with infinitely great energy and somehow it just expanded. There are many holes in science and (hopefully) eventually there will be unification laws in physics that will be perfectly consistent with the universe we have. For example, black holes provide contradictions in physics - which implies our understanding is not quite complete. No matter what it's a never ending loop. Like what started this and what started the thing that started this etc etc. The only thing that makes sense to me is that something must have set all that stuff in place.

But, I don't believe in a god that religion depicts. I don't think there was someone who created us in his/her image and they love us unconditionally - or whatever the bible says.

Though, I do go to church and such. Religion is a significant thing to me even though I don't necessary believe it. I think we all need a source of hope to go to. Religion is much more adequate than science in terms of comforting people - when they lose love ones - and providing hope and inspiration to others. It helps guide our morals and such with teachings such as "love your neighbor". So, even though I don't believe in religion. I certainly do support it.

[Vendel]

It helps guide our morals and such with teachings such as "love your neighbor". So, even though I don't believe in religion. I certainly do support it.

...

Religion helps guide our morals? If the fear of god, of going to a place of pain and suffering when they died is what's helping guide a person's morals, then there's definitely something wrong with the person. Using religious texts to guide people's morals seem pretty idiotic. I mean, why would anyone think it is a good idea to use a book written centuries ago to guide morals, when other things like misogyny, and discrimination were preached in those texts as well? Why not use something more modern such as humanism or even the act of being a good person; what happened to human empathy and the golden rule?

Let us not forget that religion itself is inherent a source of discrimination and conflict, so that "love thy neighbor" bit isn't going to cut it. The monotheistic religions in particular, which preach that if you do not believe in their deity, their rainbow unicorn, or spaghetti monster, you're going to be damn to a world of pain and suffering. How can these religions coexist without conflict if they inherently preach that, "only we are right, all others are wrong".

To summarize, religions are obsolete as a method of teaching morals, and in the end would entice more conflict than any miniscule amount of good it might do.

So in conclusion, I was put on anesthesia which knocked me out for 10 hours while the proctologist probed my rectum for the ring, which I then used to propose to my girlfriend.

Edited by Delcer, 21 August 2011 - 03:48 PM.

[Volition]

It helps guide our morals and such with teachings such as "love your neighbor".

Ummmm, and also to shove religion down their throats right? *cough*NATIVEAMERICANS*cough* or are they not our neighbors? Its not like people gave them the choice of converting or being sent to residential schools where they'd surely die.

[Ellipses]

...

Religion helps guide our morals? If the fear of god, of going to a place of pain and suffering when they died is what's helping guide a person's morals, then there's definitely something wrong with the person. Using religious texts to guide people's morals seem pretty idiotic. I mean, why would anyone think it is a good idea to use a book written centuries ago to guide morals, when other things like misogyny, and discrimination were preached in those texts as well? Why not use something more modern such as humanism or even the act of being a good person; what happened to human empathy and the golden rule?

Let us not forget that religion itself is inherent a source of discrimination and conflict, so that "love thy neighbor" bit isn't going to cut it. The monotheistic religions in particular, which preach that if you do not believe in their deity, their rainbow unicorn, or spaghetti monster, you're going to be damn to a world of pain and suffering. How can these religions coexist without conflict if they inherently preach that, "only we are right, all others are wrong".

To summarize, religions are obsolete as a method of teaching morals, and in the end would entice more conflict than any miniscule amount of good it might do.

So in conclusion, I was put on anesthesia which knocked me out for 10 hours while the proctologist probed my rectum for the ring, which I then used to propose to my girlfriend.

I'm not saying we should follow every word in the bible. I'm not religious - I don't believe we're going to heaven/hell after we die. What I am saying is that there are certain stories/text in the bible which can influence us in a positive way - the story of the good samiritan etc etc. You can probably tell I'm not that familiar with the bible. And I find it hard to imagine that people who are religious do every act with the mind set of "If I don't donate money, I'll go to hell". I believe its more instinctive than intentional. If a couple of kids approached someone who is religious and asked for a donation for like relieve efforts in Japan, I'd just find it extremely hard to believe that the first thing that comes to mind is that "oh if I don't donate, I'm going to hell". I'd find it much more likely that something along the lines of "Why not? It's only a dollar. Might as well help out a little bit". And I'm not sure whether religion has to do with this instinctive good deed ,but I find it likely that it has some factor in it.


Religion is the source of discrimination? As far as discrimination of our country in current times, religion is not the source. There are MANY MANY MANY reasons for this and religion is not a primary source of it. Government/policies are the source of discrimination. And it was not intentional, it was just a perverse effect of the ill-policies we enacted.

Lets pretend we're past slavery (obvious example of discrimination, so I won't even go there) and say its about 50-60 years back. During this time, for simplification purposes lets only consider 2 families - one black and one white. The housing act of (some year I forgot) basically redlined the neighborhoods we have today. Generally speaking, the banks lent money to black families and let them buy houses in a certain area - this basically redlined the districts and the districts they were allowed to live in are now called ghettos. They did this not because they hated black people but because white families were generally more financially stable, so they let them take out loans more easily. Lets say the house back then cost 50000 dollars. Now lets consider a white family, the housing act allowed them to move into suburbs. Lets just say back then their house cost 50000 dollars.

Now 50/however much years forward. Well lets see. Whose house is worth more? The house in the ghetto or the house in the suburb? I think probably the suburban house right? So we can see just by government policies a equal investment in 50000 dollars made such a big difference in the long run. And what happens with the money difference? The children of the white family get priviledge/head start. The extra assets they have ensure they will more advantages in life. And also consider this, there are also 2 schools in those 2 areas - ghettos and suburbs. Obviously, the 2 schools are NOT equally funded. So who gets to go to the school thats better funded? Who's family is better suited to provide priviledges to them? So who gets to hire that tutor to help their child? Who gets to sign their kid up for summer school/SAT classes? Who gets to go to the better college or college at all because they went to the better school and went to SAT classes and summer school? Whos more financially capable of paying for college? And who gets the better jobs after college? And this process repeats and the advantages produced by a policy far beyond the time the child was born and it gets repeated and repeated. This is one of the arguments for affirmative action, because even though the black child by total accomplished less in their academics or whatever. They actually overcame far more and leaped far more than the while child. Lets say the black child starts at 0 (because of their lack of priviledges) and the white child starts at 50(because of the sat classes/better school/ summer school etc etc) And by the time their 18 and applying to college, the merit of the black child is at 80 and the merit of the white child is at 100. So basically, the white kid has better grades/sat scores and stuff than the black kid. But who actually accomplished more? The black child had no tutors/overcame drug pressures of their neighborhood/went to a lessly funded school. So beyond college, the black child is predicted to be ahead of the white child because he accomplished more - which is an argument for affirmative action. So all this privilege and head start talk was because of one simple government policy which really did not intend for this but it just happened this way. And there are MANY more policies that contribute in a similiar matter. And before you say our government is mainly christianity or whatever. The policies are NOT mainly guided by religion unless somehow you believe this logic "oh god wants us to lend money to families so they can buy a house. so thats exactly what we'll do!". Its mainly guided by ethics and economics.

And actually, it was far beyond the housing act that began this cycle of discrimination. Consider this, like I said, GENERALLY SPEAKING, white families are more financially stable than black families. So obviously, that means white families are more likely to have a better job. So what happens? Imagine the white family has a cousin, and the black family has a cousin. And the cousins need a job. So whose more likely to get a job? I would think probably the white cousin because the white cousin has connections to someone who has a better job and thus they hook them up with the job. (this is a simple but VERY powerful form of the cycle of discrimination. the white family who had the job probably doesnt hate black people, but they gave the job to the cousin because they know each other. So who gets better off now? the white cousin does, but not because the family hates black people or something. And also, there are alot of studies that indicate that a large percentage of people with jobs got their jobs because they knew somebody in the business or something.


And I know I used 2 races to simplify the story above. However, race is not an indication of discrimination. MONEY is the main reason for discrimination. Imagine a black/asian/whatever race family having 500000$ to begin with compared to a white family that had 25000$. We can imagine the black/asian/whatever race being able to produce advantages (tutoring,better school, sat classes, able to afford college) for their child and the child will in turn more likely be successful etc etc etc.

The main problem with DISCRIMINATION TODAY, is not the KKKs etc etc (in the case of KKK I would agree with you that discrimination is probably based on religion much more). The main problem with discrimination today is the ill-policies enacted by our government that created unfair advantages in favor of one class. The policies did not have these effects intended, it was a perverse effect. Religion has little/nothing to do with the policies enacted by our government. However, discrimination such as just hating a certain race still does exist. It is still an issue. But like I said, it is not as big of a problem anymore.

Basically, I paraphased my current memory of discrimination today. My econ teacher showed us a old PBS video that discusses racism/discrimination etc etc and I forgot what its called. I'll tried to look it up or something if you really don't believe anything I just said.

Ummmm, and also to shove religion down their throats right? *cough*NATIVEAMERICANS*cough* or are they not our neighbors? Its not like people gave them the choice of converting or being sent to residential schools where they'd surely die.

Yes that event happened in the pass. So how many instances of people shoving religion down native americans throats today? People still preach religion, but definitely not to that extent.

edit: I reread what I wrote and I realize I have extremely poor grammar. Please excuse this, its just a forum post and not an essay ,but I know its annoying considering how much I wrote. So yeah, sorry guys.

Edited by Dogger, 21 August 2011 - 07:14 PM.

[Kat]

Religion is the source of discrimination? As far as discrimination of our country in current times, religion is not the source. There are MANY MANY MANY reasons for this and religion is not a primary source of it. Government/policies are the source of discrimination. And it was not intentional, it was just a perverse effect of the ill-policies we enacted.

I don't know where you live, but where I live religion is a big source of discrimination. All social factors of a person can be considered a source of discrimination by others, and it would be ignorant to think otherwise. The rest of your post was really long and quite irrelevant to the conversation. Not sure why you posted all that.

Anyway, I agree with Delcer. A person should gain their morals from their parental figures and society's laws, not some hoodoo bullshit and stories from a book.

Yes that event happened in the pass. So how many instances of people shoving religion down native americans throats today? People still preach religion, but definitely not to that extent.

Uhm.. have you ever heard the word jihad?

[Volition]

Yes that event happened in the pass. So how many instances of people shoving religion down native americans throats today? People still preach religion, but definitely not to that extent.

So let the past be forgotten? reeks of holocaust denial. Still preach religion to people who don't want to hear about it. I've been forced to attend church at times, and people would talk about how missionaries are getting sent to blah country in blah, and on the news I see missionaries being killed (good riddance).

[Hawk]

So let the past be forgotten? reeks of holocaust denial. Still preach religion to people who don't want to hear about it. I've been forced to attend church at times, and people would talk about how missionaries are getting sent to blah country in blah, and on the news I see missionaries being killed (good riddance).

I'm confused. You're against religion because it is ignorant. This ignorance has led to things like the Holocaust, which obviously you do not deny nor forget. Yet you are HAPPY that people are dying simply because of their beliefs? Are you also happy to see salesmen die, because they push products on people who do not want to hear about it? Your "Good Riddance" is out of line; nobody should die because of what they believe, regardless of how incorrect it may be, so long as nobody's rights are violated.

[Ellipses]

I don't know where you live, but where I live religion is a big source of discrimination. All social factors of a person can be considered a source of discrimination by others, and it would be ignorant to think otherwise. The rest of your post was really long and quite irrelevant to the conversation. Not sure why you posted all that.

Anyway, I agree with Delcer. A person should gain their morals from their parental figures and society's laws, not some hoodoo bullshit and stories from a book.



Uhm.. have you ever heard the word jihad?

Well thats just a difference of opinion. Not much I can do about that. I see the problem of discrimination as mainly social class because our system lets the people who are ahead stay ahead and get more ahead while it makes the people who are behind stay behind and even makes them more behind.

And all that was basically a short argument to why religion isn't the source of discrimination.

And yes, you can find an exception to a lot of things. However, I'm just speaking of the general case and the main case. Not the exceptions. Like how smoking is GENERALLY bad for most people. However, in some strange medical coincidences, smoking can be good for you. And what I am saying is that in the general and main case. Religion is NOT the source of discrimination.

Just a quick observation of our society today we can notice that white people are generally more ahead than black people. Before anyone tries to argue a genetic superiority, just realize that its been proven there is no genetic basis for race. So the question is what are the forces that create the constant unequalness in our society? The truth (atleast I'm pretty convinced of it) is that unintended discrimination from our policies that are cased on ethics, economics, and fundamental opinions (such as classical economics(conservatives) and keynesian (liberal) economics. basically, just a different way of viewing how certain things in economics work.)

So let the past be forgotten? reeks of holocaust denial. Still preach religion to people who don't want to hear about it. I've been forced to attend church at times, and people would talk about how missionaries are getting sent to blah country in blah, and on the news I see missionaries being killed (good riddance).

Well, my whole point is based in CURRENT TIMES. I'm sure you could go prehistoric to prove everything I said wrong.

Edit: Despite all that, I do agree that the issue of discrimination was primarily the fault of religion in the past. However, in CURRENT TIMES. Religion is far from being the source of discrimination - atleast in the main/general case.

Edit 2: And also, I'm talking about current times in the U.S. I'm probably wrong if I tried to argue that for the case of the world.

Edited by Dogger, 21 August 2011 - 08:22 PM.

[jargon]

Seeing as to how I don't even believe in souls (not enough sufficient evidence for this one either), I can't say I believe in God either.
You see, even if I did imagine that God exists, I can't imagine wanting to follow his doctrine.

Edit: Despite all that, I do agree that the issue of discrimination was primarily the fault of religion in the past. However, in CURRENT TIMES. Religion is far from being the source of discrimination - atleast in the main/general case.
Edit 2: And also, I'm talking about current times in the U.S. I'm probably wrong if I tried to argue that for the case of the world.

Religion is a source of discrimination in the U.S. Muslims are discriminated all the time. (For example, like a month or two ago there was the bombing/shooting in Norway, the first suspect was Muslims just because it was a bombing. Turns out, it was a Christian extremist.) Of course, there's no religious genocide in the U.S if that's what you mean by main/general case. Though you don't see the U.S stopping certain religion-related genocide from happening abroad. *cough*Syria*cough*.

Edited by jargon, 21 August 2011 - 09:24 PM.

[Sweeney]

Before anyone tries to argue a genetic superiority, just realize that its been proven there is no genetic basis for race.

What?!
You've basically invalidated everything you've ever said with that incredible howler.

If there's no genetic basis for race, then how does racial inheritance work?

(Also, you should really look up the African witch trials, and the AIDS epidemic.)

[Ellipses]

Seeing as to how I don't even believe in souls (not enough sufficient evidence for this one either), I can't say I believe in God either.
You see, even if I did imagine that God exists, I can't imagine wanting to follow his doctrine.

[/size][/color]


Religion is a source of discrimination in the U.S. Muslims are discriminated all the time. (For example, like a month or two ago there was the bombing/shooting in Norway, the first suspect was Muslims just because it was a bombing. Turns out, it was a Christian extremist.) Of course, there's no religious genocide in the U.S if that's what you mean by main/general case. Though you don't see the U.S stopping certain religion-related genocide from happening abroad. *cough*Syria*cough*.

Yes, that is a form of discrimination that is based on religion. HOWEVER, like I said, thats not the biggest problem of discrimination.

I'll try to repeat myself to make it more clear.

So GENERALLY SPEAKING, an observation of our society should show that people who are on top stay on top and people who are on bottom stay on the bottom. I don't care if you can give me one name that is an exception. This is the generalization. The reason for this is because the system we live in basically allows those who are privileged to remain and get more privileged and vice versa. The way our policies were enacted etc etc are the reason for this. I don't know how to make it anymore clear. In other words, our system discriminates against people constantly. THE PRIVILEGES THAT OUR SYSTEM DISTRIBUTES IS NOT BASED ON RELIGION/RACE IT IS BASED ON SOCIAL CLASS. Past policies have unintentionally did this. Why does it seem the minority groups live in the ghettos and the white people live in suburbs? Well if you were a bank and you had to make loans, who would you give a loan to? It's not because the person making the loans doesn't like minority groups, its because it just happens that the minoritys don't have job security etc etc to be able to be able to take out loans. Theres so many things that our country did to attribute to this discrimination. I can't even list them all. But it should be clear.

Also, the type you are talking about is definitely around. You're right. However, the issue of religious discrimination is NOT dominant way people are discriminated. In fact, the issue of religious discrimination as been dying down as history shows - probably cause our population has trended to being more open-minded as time goes on. Anyways, yes yes yes you're absolutely right in the fact that there is religious discrimination. Though, the problem at hand when it comes to discrimination - as a whole - should hardly be attributed to religion. For example, lets say as a world we try to focus on an issue to fix. Lets say we choose diseases. So okay someone suggests Ebola. Ebola will basically kill you at like a 90% rate - depending on the strain. And also, your death will not be pleasant. So if I had a choice between cancer or ebola. Cancer is a no brainer. HOWEVER, the world should not focus on Ebola as an issue to fix even though it is an issue. The issue of diseases is is more related to cancer than Ebola (which is rare). So if you had let say 1000 dollars in funds. How would you distribute those funds if it was between ebola and cancer. I hope you don't choose 500 each for both....

What?!
You've basically invalidated everything you've ever said with that incredible howler.

If there's no genetic basis for race, then how does racial inheritance work?

(Also, you should really look up the African witch trials, and the AIDS epidemic.)

""There's no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all," said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford geneticist and author of "The Seven Daughters of Eve." "I'm always asked is there Greek DNA or an Italian gene, but, of course, there isn't. . . . We're very closely related." "

No big deal. Not like CNN is a creditable news source. Not like Oxford is a creditable school.

But, all jokes aside. I completely understand what you mean. Before I took, biology and psychology, I would have arrived at the same conclusion you did.

Basically, genes are not always expressed etc etc etc. A lot of biology stuff, but genetically we can't say one race is superior than the other.

http://www.cnn.com/2...11/nyt.kristof/

Edit: I wanted to add that there was a famous research project done in which IQ tests from white people and black people were ploted, and it showed that white people have higher IQs. So, then the conclusion of the researcher was that white people are genetically superior/smarter than black people. However, the research project data is not bullet-proof. People argue against the conclusion of his research project because 1. there is no genetic basis for race , in other words, what we call race is really just skin deep. 2. the conditions in which the white people were in were much different than the conditions the black people were in. In other words, white people had a lot more privileges(tutors, private schools, ability to pay for college etc etc etc list goes on) and as a result, they got a higher iq score. So basically ceteris paribus(all other factors held constant) was violated. So now the question was that if genetics/race was not a factor in the difference of IQ scores, then what was? The sampling population would obviously be HUGE and so as a result, whatever forces that are causing the difference in IQ scores must be greatly affecting society. And I think most people would agree it was just the way our society works that causes this. We literally DISCRIMINATE against the poor. It just happens the poor people are minorities. The system works quite well for minorities who aren't poor though.

Edit 2: Basically, I'm arguing that the privileges we received is the greatest form of discrimination. The problem with this is that people who have these privileges don't see them. I was one of those people who thought "Oh I'm going to college and thats because of my hard work in school" and the truth is that yes I am right but I'm not accounting for what I have that helped me get into college. For example, I have a house to live in - sounds pretty basic right? but imagine you had to move from home to home because your family couldn't afford the rent. I have a computer - you know some people dont have the luxury/advantages of having a computer. Yeah they can go to the library to use a computer, but whose better off still? College is about 30k a year for me and I'm just a kid so no way I have 120k sitting in my bank account to use. My FAMILY is paying for my college. And I could go on and on about the things I have that others don't. Some are small privileges - like the computer - but they surely do add up and I could go on and on and on and on about things I have. So what made me so special to receive these privileges? What did I do? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The second I was born I was blessed. For someone less fortunate than me, the second they were born, they were discriminated upon. I got a job my sophomore year in high school. How did I get that job? Cause my mom knew someone that worked there and I got the job. I didn't even have to go in to a interview. I get money every week as a allowance. I don't have to work while I'm in school. Theres SO MANY PRIVILEGES we have that we don't even see. I honestly was like you and I didn't realize what I've accomplished in life wasn't all attribute to me. In fact, it was mainly not attribute to me. I'm lucky and I'm blessed to have the system work for me. And I appreciate that, however, in A LOT of other cases, it doesn't work that well for others. We all need to take some time and appreciate what we have cause most of it we don't even deserve. Basically the privileges that guide us thru life were GIVEN TO US AND NOT GIVEN TO OTHERS. THAT IS A TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION AND ITS ALL AROUND US. When people talk about discrimination, they say "Oh, I don't discriminate I appreciate all people" and they just don't get it.

Edited by Dogger, 22 August 2011 - 01:34 AM.

[Sweeney]

""There's no genetic basis for any kind of rigid ethnic or racial classification at all," said Bryan Sykes, the Oxford geneticist and author of "The Seven Daughters of Eve." "I'm always asked is there Greek DNA or an Italian gene, but, of course, there isn't. . . . We're very closely related." "

No big deal. Not like CNN is a creditable news source. Not like Oxford is a creditable school.

But, all jokes aside. I completely understand what you mean. Before I took, biology and psychology, I would have arrived at the same conclusion you did.

Basically, genes are not always expressed etc etc etc. A lot of biology stuff, but genetically we can't say one race is superior than the other.

http://www.cnn.com/2...11/nyt.kristof/

Oh, bless you. You are adorable.
There's a world of difference between "no genetic basis for rigid classification of race" and "race has no basis in genetics". All inherited features are genetic (or, potentially epigenetic, but let's leave that aside for now), and racial features are inherited. Ergo, since racial features are inherited, they are genetic. You can't possibly dispute that.

I'm interested in the level of your qualifications in biology and psychology. Do tell.

Edit: I wanted to add that there was a famous research project done in which IQ tests from white people and black people were ploted, and it showed that white people have higher IQs. So, then the conclusion of the researcher was that white people are genetically superior/smarter than black people. However, the research project data is not bullet-proof. People argue against the conclusion of his research project because 1. there is no genetic basis for race , in other words, what we call race is really just skin deep. 2. the conditions in which the white people were in were much different than the conditions the black people were in. In other words, white people had a lot more privileges(tutors, private schools, ability to pay for college etc etc etc list goes on) and as a result, they got a higher iq score. So basically ceteris paribus(all other factors held constant) was violated. So now the question was that if genetics/race was not a factor in the difference of IQ scores, then what was? The sampling population would obviously be HUGE and so as a result, whatever forces that are causing the difference in IQ scores must be greatly affecting society. And I think most people would agree it was just the way our society works that causes this. We literally DISCRIMINATE against the poor. It just happens the poor people are minorities. The system works quite well for minorities who aren't poor though.

People over-extrapolate from primary research all the time. It's virtually the mainstream media's job.
Have you read the actual paper, though? Or just other people's opinions on the piece?
I'd appreciate a link to it.

Edit 2: Basically, I'm arguing that the privileges we received is the greatest form of discrimination. The problem with this is that people who have these privileges don't see them. I was one of those people who thought "Oh I'm going to college and thats because of my hard work in school" and the truth is that yes I am right but I'm not accounting for what I have that helped me get into college. For example, I have a house to live in - sounds pretty basic right? but imagine you had to move from home to home because your family couldn't afford the rent. I have a computer - you know some people dont have the luxury/advantages of having a computer. Yeah they can go to the library to use a computer, but whose better off still? College is about 30k a year for me and I'm just a kid so no way I have 120k sitting in my bank account to use. My FAMILY is paying for my college. And I could go on and on about the things I have that others don't. Some are small privileges - like the computer - but they surely do add up and I could go on and on and on and on about things I have. So what made me so special to receive these privileges? What did I do? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The second I was born I was blessed. For someone less fortunate than me, the second they were born, they were discriminated upon. I got a job my sophomore year in high school. How did I get that job? Cause my mom knew someone that worked there and I got the job. I didn't even have to go in to a interview. I get money every week as a allowance. I don't have to work while I'm in school. Theres SO MANY PRIVILEGES we have that we don't even see. I honestly was like you and I didn't realize what I've accomplished in life wasn't all attribute to me. In fact, it was mainly not attribute to me. I'm lucky and I'm blessed to have the system work for me. And I appreciate that, however, in A LOT of other cases, it doesn't work that well for others. We all need to take some time and appreciate what we have cause most of it we don't even deserve. Basically the privileges that guide us thru life were GIVEN TO US AND NOT GIVEN TO OTHERS. THAT IS A TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION AND ITS ALL AROUND US. When people talk about discrimination, they say "Oh, I don't discriminate I appreciate all people" and they just don't get it.

Your assumptions about my life are unendingly astounding.

[Kat]

And all that was basically a short argument to why religion isn't the source of discrimination.

And yes, you can find an exception to a lot of things. However, I'm just speaking of the general case and the main case. Not the exceptions. Like how smoking is GENERALLY bad for most people. However, in some strange medical coincidences, smoking can be good for you. And what I am saying is that in the general and main case. Religion is NOT the source of discrimination.

You're still wrong. The rest of your posts are extremely off-topic so I'm just going to ignore them.
If you know anything about sociology, or even being a person who actually interacts with people, any social factor can be a main source of discrimination/bigotry against another person.
You keep saying IN GENERAL, you obviously don't in the Bible Belt. You also say THE source is race or social class or some shit, but that's different from person to person in accordance with their values. You obviously value those things higher than another person's religion, but there are some who judge others differently.

[Jake]

It's impossible at our current level of scientific understanding to completely prove or disprove the existence of some sort of "afterlife," so it is up to the individual to weigh the odds of its existence against the amount off effort required to achieve their desired outcome in whatever afterlife they think will occur.

What you imply here is that within time, whether it be 50 years, 500 years, 5000 years or x years after humanity resets after y disaster, natural, galactic etc; we will one day prove whether or not the afterlife exists. It's simply impossible. The only way you could possibly find out if that exists is if you were to die, but that's another theory in itself if were to consider that you cease to exist after you die in which case you would not find out anything. Nevertheless which I would rather not believe, but it being possible and will be impossible to disprove is the assumption of a being out there in another planet, universe etc. that could possibly deal with a spiritual world, other times or dimensions. Who the fuck knows. To be honest I'm not afraid of death because I would love if even just a slim chance to find out what the fuck happens when you die. Just imagine you could move at the speed of light, or better yet being able to teleport to anywhere you wish in an instant. See distant planets and the liking. The only possible worse thing that could happen is you would cease to exist as I mentioned, but at that point who gives a shit?

[Ellipses]

Oh, bless you. You are adorable.
There's a world of difference between "no genetic basis for rigid classification of race" and "race has no basis in genetics". All inherited features are genetic (or, potentially epigenetic, but let's leave that aside for now), and racial features are inherited. Ergo, since racial features are inherited, they are genetic. You can't possibly dispute that.

I'm interested in the level of your qualifications in biology and psychology. Do tell.


People over-extrapolate from primary research all the time. It's virtually the mainstream media's job.
Have you read the actual paper, though? Or just other people's opinions on the piece?
I'd appreciate a link to it.


Your assumptions about my life are unendingly astounding.

Well the line "There is no genetic basis for race" I guess I kinda stole. I definitely didn't make it up myself. But, you can just google the line. And you're absolutely right, features are inherited. But, thats alot different than saying "there is a genetic basis for race". That would mean a certain gene would ONLY be apparently in a certain race - which isn't true. Genes can be either off or on (transcription I think?) and I'll be completely honest with you, I got a 5 on my AP biology exam. I just took normal psych in high school. You want a picture of of the portal to my school where it shows my ap scores? Or do you want me to take a picture of the mail I got? I mean you're already looking like a fool. Hey, maybe I'm lying and you can bust me out. Or you'll just look foolish some more.

"In fact, “There is no genetic basis for race,” says Fullwiley, who has studied the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome project with sociologist Troy Duster at UC, Berkeley. She sometimes quotes Richard Lewontin, now professor of biology and Agassiz professor of zoology emeritus, who said much the same thing in 1972, "


http://harvardmagazi...etic-world-html



http://en.wikipedia....Intelligence.22

^ Its wikipedia, or is that not creditable to you? You can google "the bell curve" yourself. But I'll just copy and paste some points for you

"Its central argument is that intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level"

"IQ tests are not biased with regard to race ethnic group or socioeconomic status."

It's pretty easy to find. You can go find some articles or maybe even read the paper itself.

So, you know how to sound fancy. Congratulations! However, it'd be great to see you add some intelligence in what you say and what you're saying is pretty worthless and you're trying to dispute pretty common information among people.

Just keep going at it. You're only going to look more and more like a fool.

And oh yeah? I mean you can try to play off my point sarcasticly. It doesn't make it anymore less valid and true. Its probably you're only way to defend yourself.

Edit: When I say genes can be either Off or on. It's actually far more complicated than that. But, whether you want to take my word for it or not. You can just google the line "THERE IS NO GENETIC BASIS FOR RACE". You'll definitely find something. And I promise you I'm not the one writing that line in all the articles and such. It's probably SCIENTIST - you know, those who actually look into these kinda stuff? - that are writing it. So, what does that mean? It means that just by looking at someones genes. It's impossible to be certain of their race.

You should probably just take your last jab/chance at sounding smart/fancy and just don't come back.

You're still wrong. The rest of your posts are extremely off-topic so I'm just going to ignore them.
If you know anything about sociology, or even being a person who actually interacts with people, any social factor can be a main source of discrimination/bigotry against another person.
You keep saying IN GENERAL, you obviously don't in the Bible Belt. You also say THE source is race or social class or some shit, but that's different from person to person in accordance with their values. You obviously value those things higher than another person's religion, but there are some who judge others differently.

I know they're off-topic and originally it wasn't like that. But, some people tried to say the societal problem of discrimination should be attributed to religion - in which it partly should but that's like saying we should try to cure ebola instead of cancer. So obviously, the conversation went in that direction. I was not trying to say social class/race had anything to do with values? I was just trying to say religion can provide a nice sense of hope and it has some positive values to offer. Thats really far from saying "Follow every word in the bible cause its right". I think I was leaning more in the direction "Well some stuff in the bible are okay"

And yup, I'm sure ANY social factor can be a source of discrimination. Studdering when you speak etc etc. But, if you're trying to summarize discrimination today in terms of being made fun of at school by kids then you're missing the point.

And when I start using "In general / main case" it was mainly in association to all the discrimination talk stuff.

And are you trying to argue that being discriminated upon isn't based on social class/race and that it depends on each person in accordance to their values? That is so flawed I don't even know where to start... Just forget that you ever said that.

Edited by Dogger, 22 August 2011 - 06:33 AM.

[Sweeney]

Well the line "There is no genetic basis for race" I guess I kinda stole. I definitely didn't make it up myself. But, you can just google the line. And you're absolutely right, features are inherited.

So what part of race isn't defined by racial features?
If racial features are inherited, and therefore genetic, but race isn't, then you're going to need to justify that distinction.

But, thats alot different than saying "there is a genetic basis for race". That would mean a certain gene would ONLY be apparently in a certain race - which isn't true.

I think you mean allele, and no, that's not necessarily the case at all.
I really don't think you understand what you're quoting. You cannot, it is true, use a genetic sequence to map a person's race accurately, but to say that "race has no basis in genetics" is a snappy soundbite, and a gross oversimplification.

Genes can be either off or on (transcription I think?)

Relevance?

and I'll be completely honest with you, I got a 5 on my AP biology exam. I just took normal psych in high school. You want a picture of of the portal to my school where it shows my ap scores? Or do you want me to take a picture of the mail I got? I mean you're already looking like a fool. Hey, maybe I'm lying and you can bust me out. Or you'll just look foolish some more.

I don't think you're lying, I think it's amusing that you think your high school diploma entitles you to lecture me on the subject of my degree.

"In fact, “There is no genetic basis for race,” says Fullwiley, who has studied the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome project with sociologist Troy Duster at UC, Berkeley. She sometimes quotes Richard Lewontin, now professor of biology and Agassiz professor of zoology emeritus, who said much the same thing in 1972, "
http://harvardmagazi...etic-world-html

Wonderful. More quotes that you haven't contextualised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#.22Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence.22

^ Its wikipedia, or is that not creditable to you? You can google "the bell curve" yourself. But I'll just copy and paste some points for you

"Its central argument is that intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level"

"IQ tests are not biased with regard to race ethnic group or socioeconomic status."

It's pretty easy to find. You can go find some articles or maybe even read the paper itself.

It's incredible that you don't seem to know the difference between a paper and a book...
Just so we're clear, I'm not interested in arguing for or against the claims of this book, or the concept in general.

So, you know how to sound fancy. Congratulations! However, it'd be great to see you add some intelligence in what you say and what you're saying is pretty worthless and you're trying to dispute pretty common information among people.

Regrettably, your appraisal of my abilities is as irrelevant as your aside on transcription.
It's also worth noting that ad hominem attacks are not generally considered a valid debating technique. Just so you are aware.

Just keep going at it. You're only going to look more and more like a fool.

There's another one.

And oh yeah? I mean you can try to play off my point sarcasticly. It doesn't make it anymore less valid and true. Its probably you're only way to defend yourself.

And another.

Edit: When I say genes can be either Off or on. It's actually far more complicated than that. But, whether you want to take my word for it or not. You can just google the line "THERE IS NO GENETIC BASIS FOR RACE". You'll definitely find something. And I promise you I'm not the one writing that line in all the articles and such. It's probably SCIENTIST - you know, those who actually look into these kinda stuff? - that are writing it.

Actually, I believe the exact quote you're referring to is from a medical anthropologist whose later work supports the notion that race is a useful, if underconsidered, diagnostic tool.

You should probably just take your last jab/chance at sounding smart/fancy and just don't come back.

And one last ad hominem just for luck/fun.