Rigid, Religious Stupidity

Um... scientific evidence would show you that races actually are different from one another in certain respects. Like black people do, on average, have bigger dicks than white people, just like in the stereotype. Isn't that great?

Now, some people would argue that this does not exonerate racism at all. So, my question is, do you disapprove of racism only when it is not based on logic proof or material evidence?

Wowser!

 

i was using racism as an example of an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

i thought this would be understood, as i wrote meaning below it

i will draw you a picture with cookies in it next time

 

Are you one of those idiots who can't accept that anyone who doesn't agree with them is capable of understanding them, or is it something I personally have done to offend you that's causing this rather childish resort to the ad hominem?

In case it wasn't obvious, I was picking holes in your argument by illustrating that many things which have no or even negative factual basis are still considered beneficial to society even by most atheists.

 

So if human conciousness is 'god', then does human conciousness control how the cells divide? I'm pretty sure the force that makes the cells divide is the bodys need to live. survival dives it, and so does evolution. Unless you still mean something else, I'm not exactly comprehending. But why not call 'god' 'the human mind'? why 'god'?

agreed 100%

agreed.. not so much.

 

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

i know of "beneficial" events. their are sources to these on page 1 of this thread.

 

So you would favour racial profiling if the evidence showed that people of a certain race were statistically more likely to commit crimes?

 

of coarse not.

race is a condition, not an institution.

 

So? If it is a statistical fact that black people commit more crimes, it would be foolish to ignore that, wouldn't it? Or would you ignore it, preferring the belief that all races are equal even if it is unjustified?

(I am speaking hypothetically here, of course, but then I'm happy to admit I believe things that can't be proved).

 

the implications of race end at appearance and possibly, size of reproductive anatomy

race is not a custom, race is not a practice, it is not a behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society

-accept my apologies for prior kiddish remarks

ps. i believe in aliens

 

That's not answering my question though, is it.

I am sorry, but this is a relevant line of questioning. Users of this forum feel comfortable in profiling the religious because it is currently societally acceptable to do so. They do not feel comfortable profiling races for the same inverse reason - that it would make them look bad. How is it any more acceptable for someone to call all religion bad on the basis of a few isolated examples of religious people doing bad things than it is to stop and search more black people purely because there is a higher crime rate among black people?

I'll admit, I was trying to goad you a little, but I'm still not sure why you'd be so loathe to make a judgment against a race based on one interpretation of evidence, when you and others like you feel fine judging all Christians by the Crusades, all Muslims by 9/11, or at the very least considering that it is acceptable to do so because the Christians/Muslims that didn't attempt religious genocide somehow Don't Count.

Alien life is statistically likely to exist somewhere in the universe other than our own planet. But being measured by probability, even a 1 in a million chance that we are alone in the universe could just happen to be the reality we live in. Would you feel foolish if you believed that aliens existed and then we checked and found that they didn't? Or would you feel that it was legitimate to believe that aliens exist before it could be proven otherwise?

 

you are comparing statistics of unreasonable crime with statistics of drug dealers feeding their children

i feel safe saying that the christians/muslims that didnt attempt religious genocide probably didnt do so for the wrong reasons, thus, their ideas still carry irationality that will, somewere down the line of generation, (illustrated by history, up to this very minite) create death or at least confusion.

 

Feeding children isn't a crime. Dealing drugs is. Sounds obvious, but did you know that most drug dealers don't earn much more than they would working at McDonalds? Like, the economic and power structure of the crack industry is virtually identical to that of a fast food giant. Most drug dealers still live with their parents! My question is: why should we have sympathy for someone who chooses to break the law, just because they happen to be poor?

If you were defending drug dealing on the moral grounds that drugs are fine, I'd at least understand what you're trying to say (if not why you said it - do you equate black people with drug dealing, or poverty generally?). But since you added the part about them having to feed their kids, nope, sorry, no dice. Plenty of people feed their kids without dealing drugs. If you think people should deserve sympathy for wanting a better life for their kids, why not extend this to people who want to become rock stars or models? They're high-paying careers that are virtually impossible to get into and largely just take up your time for a few years before you give up and get a proper job. Dealing drugs is slightly stupider because you're likely to die from it, but all three are just objectively bad choices to make. Do you have sympathy for everyone who makes a bad choice?

I'm not sure I understood any of this. Are you saying that people who don't kill in the name of religion should do so, on the grounds that their religion must be telling them to because a few religious have done so?

I do also think it's wrong to judge wars fought a thousand years by today's standard. The people who are religious now, particularly in the West where not having a religion doesn't get you killed, are different from the people who were around then. If someone fought in any war up unil about a hundred years ago, it's safe to assume they would have had some religion. So essentially, it's more likely to be a coincidence than it is now.

Even then though, I'd still need to see evidence of a causal link, really.

 

nothing has really been defined. the word conciousness is a blanket term iv used to articulate the human expirience...i and my relationship with all things. i dont think any of us really knows how far reaching the term really is. nor who "i" am.
i do know that "i" am not my mind...."i" can observe my mind, "i" can silence my mind, "i" am in control of my mind, it is just a tool for "i". "eye?" lol, "aye!"

this is the difficult part of communication, words are mere symbols, and they so often mean different things to us all.

 

...as its conciousness that forms matter and not the other way around.

How do we get our creative ideas about what matter is? Do other people influence our interaction for the imagination directly or after-all freely and independently? That would be still the case in the terms of appropriate Praxis.

Thank you anyway; I wanted to know what La Marckian self-consiciousness Meta-physics was about.

 

I agree, why not call 'god' the human mind if consciousness is 'god?' Tracing the evolution of writing some 6,000 years to its very beginning, it is evident that every word humans have conceived and recorded is a product of human awareness/consciousness. The very word 'god' is a human invention.

Tracing the evolution of language - the necessary pre-condition for writing and recording language - back to a roughly 50,000 year old re-organization of our ancestors' brains which equals the birth of 'modern' human consciousness, it is obvious that every letter and connotation of the word 'god' is a product of modern human consciousness/awareness.

Furthermore, since everything we have created is a subject of re-interpretation and re-design, 'god' is a product of collective human consciousness. Evolution does not exclude 'god', evolution gave rise to human consciousness and 'god'.

But did 'God' ultimately give birth to us? Scientists are now doing intense research on apoptosis - programmed cell death - and even though there's a lot of unknown apoptotic pathways, it's clear that about a trillion cells die every day and a similar amount is born. When we understand how cell birth and death occurs, perhaps we'll know more about the process to whom some people credit 'god' - the concept we ultimately gave birth to ourselves.

 

Our brains are equal, the racist notion has been dispelled. But our cultural, environmental, and social conditions are different, and I believe attaching too much importance to race in isolation gives a wrong picture. Blacks may commit more crimes in the U.S., but when you consider where they came from, how they were brought over, how they were treated for centuries as slaves, even segregated until the 20th century, and the crappy opportunities they've been given, it's understandable that they're overrepresented in crime statistics. Social, political, ecological, and environmental factors in harsh, poorly managed regions in Africa, Asia, Europe, America etc. create criminal minds, rather than the mind itself or the color of the skin around the mind/brain's skull.

I'm not making excuses, it's just a complex picture. I hope (and believe) that Obama will help bring about necessary political, social, and cultural change. Perhaps will also the black crime statistics change.

 

because poverty is also a condition, as is race. we can talk about the corrupt institution that is monetarism next.

"plenty of people" have jobs in their neighborhoods..

-law is irrelevant.

i cannot say what is "right" or "wrong", as i am not the creator of the universe. discrepancy is what i see.

law has little to do with "right" and "wrong". it has much to do with other things......like profit.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcFDOWIl7Nw
(look at the 1st comment.....thats like, quadroople irony)

i am saying people that don't kill in the name of religion don't do so with the same irrationality that is apparent in those who do. the reason for violent disagreement, oppression and love are one in the same. based on nothing but assumptions, for no reason, save fear and intangible solace.

-even politics contains religious corruption.
my interracial grandparents couldn't get married until they had been together for nearly 15 years, because it was illegal. gay couples are still told they are unable to get married. values based on nothing but assumptions.

it is impossible to seperate religious institution from state.....we are a nation under god.....we are a world under it.

a standard of a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties......don't make me laugh.

war is nothing but the eventuality of discrepancy, with guns.

 

my brain is in a twist. xD

true...

 

i dont think "the human mind" and "conciousness" are synonymous.

the word god is a symbol....a poor symbol, but we work with what we have got. thats why i throw words like conciousness in with god. to expand the symbol, and hone in on specific charicteristics.

 

Scientists can't come to a consensus regarding a definition of consiousness, and I doubt that we ever will. But I think this is the easiest way to see it:

Your brain is a processor, right now it's processing these letters/reading while steering any actions, such as moving your scrolling finger, controlling your eye movement, keeping you balanced on your chair, your heart beating, breathing...

Your mind is an interpreter - it weaves meaning from (some of) the brain's processes, such as how you feel about these words and sentences, whether you agree or not...

Some brain researchers call this a first person (brain)/third person (mind) interaction. ''I am'' layered with ''How/Why I am'' (doing/being/feeling/thinking etc.)

Consciousness - to me - equals awareness of these processes and the interpretations of them. God is a part of awareness/consciousness, but it's only a part of it as much as you direct your attention to it, bringing it into your awareness. And your knowledge and interpretation of any symbol or concept determine the state of your mind. The wiser the president (you), the better the state of mind.