EPTI'd have to answer farva in more details, because you could nitpick his position intelligentl, but that would require to have an idea of what religious thinkers thought...
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 897
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
I'd have to answer farva in more details, because you could nitpick his position intelligentl, but that would require to have an idea of what religious thinkers thought... | ||
|
Acertos
France852 Posts
On February 23 2014 05:59 corumjhaelen wrote: But atheists never have that feeling of superiority, especially not you right now. I'd have to answer farva in more details, because you could nitpick his position intelligentl, but that would require to have an idea of what religious thinkers thought... Ofc I've got this feeling over these activists, I don't deny it and people in general shouldn't have to (when it concerns religious activists). | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On February 23 2014 05:37 Dapper_Cad wrote: A link between race and what? If you have a definition of intelligence you'd win a Nobel prize before you even began your study. My point exactly. You have a nebulous question and people with strong emotional investment or some ugly ideologies getting in your way. The smart thing is to avoid the issue and work on something more productive. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
problem with religion is that a sincere and effective religion must take god sincerely at face value, but this contradicts best science and scientific epistemology, though latter's normative force can be negotiable if there are for example moral value in the religious system. so the best state of religious belief afai can see is if you believe in a god of this kind, she can be the creator and so on, you also have to believe in the best science about cosmic origin( including science informed lack of belief). this applies for every divine in ur religion. so basically u need to hold two beliefs 1 god 2 god doesnt actually exist but i entertain it to better my life. simultaneously and full faith. i find it hard but perhaps the more creative minds can do it | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
so basically u need to hold two beliefs 1 god 2 god doesnt actually exist but i entertain it to better my life. or to characterize ALL religious as uneducated morons ignores the vast history of religious scientists and philosophers. Even if they were wrong (not saying they were or weren't), people like Thomas Aquinas, Issac Newton, or Michael Faraday were not bumbling idiots. I made this point a couple days ago when Gay Marriage came up. Just because "fundamentalists" get all the media time doesn't mean you can characterize a whole belief system this way. Just because Atheists rule the internet doesn't make them smarter than everyone else. Edit: Michael. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 23 2014 06:23 hypercube wrote: My point exactly. You have a nebulous question and people with strong emotional investment or some ugly ideologies getting in your way. The smart thing is to avoid the issue and work on something more productive. I think it's even simpler than that. You have a nebulous question. Emotional investment and ugly ideologies can't stop you being more rigorous. Speaking of which... On February 23 2014 05:41 Chocolate wrote: Intelligence will never have a good definition because detractors will always find populations who will perform worse than other populations which to detractors will be seen as threatening to equality. That doesn't mean that intelligence is not real, but that to actually have a working definition is impossible. Nobody wants to be the racist who thinks that IQ is a decent measure, even if it might be. So a definition of intelligence must differentiate the "races" in order to be a definition at all? Who exactly is restricting whose thinking here? Let's try a thought experiment. An arbitrary measure of intelligence which we will grab from thin air. The ability to play Jazz. Holy crap you're right! Seems like some "race" or other is going to get huffy at that definition. And think of the poor horses! My god man, think of any ruminant at all! Hmmmm... but a gnu has to be smarter than a jellyfish right? Yet they always seems to score identically poorly on all our Standardised Jazz Scale Tests. This... Just... In.. Prof. Vilderberger von Duseldorf at the University of Stuttgard has shown that an adult Bonobo can repeatedly nail out the blues lick "Spoonful" under laboratory conditions. It's fascinating really. The prof. Sculpted the keys of an organ to into exact anatomical replicas of the hind quarters of other Bonobos previously imprinted on the subject in a strict social heirarchy. Or IQ tests. Let's use those. On February 23 2014 05:41 Chocolate wrote: Detrimental to mental health as measured by instances of depression and suicide attempts. Like I wrote previously this is obviously partly societal, but to what degree is unknown. And I don't know if this is a factor because I don't know of any studies, but some LGBT people (rather logically) may also be upset that they are unable to have biological children with their partners. Anyway I just brought this up to use as an example that dogma provides an excuse that prevents people from entertaining ideas that offends what they fundamentally believe to be true. Weirdly, studying the infinite and the limits of human intelligence also results in a lot of depression and suicide. Maybe we can come up with a gene therapy for that. Or maybe high rates of suicide and depression is an indicator that our LGBT friends are "correct"(?!) and it's us cissexuals that are the nutters. Or maybe our understanding of human sexuality is so poorly formed that we shouldn't be contemplating gene therapy even for this poor lady. I actually have no clue just how many fundamental beliefs I have, but I keep stumbling over yours. Obscured though they are by a rational fear of a leftist conspiracy. Or is it just that your fundamental beliefs are so shockingly facile that you are embarrassed to make them clear? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Many famous scientists adhered to pantheist views, but that's basically just romanticized atheism. Faraday also wasn't just religious but part of an evangelical sect called the 'Sandemanians' and he kept that apart from his research,which was probably for the better. You'll have a hard time finding a really smart person that is religious in the sense of how most people understand and practice religion. Not every religious person is as extreme as the WBC, but many religious people have prejudices against homosexuals, and treat them as inferior. Just because you're average religious person is a little less intolerant than a fundamentalist doesn't mean it's not a problem. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 23 2014 07:15 farvacola wrote: You should read Anthony Kenny's "What is Faith?" or something by Richard Swinburne or William Alston if you think that that is the only way for a "proper" rational mind to go about the process of faith. It's neither as limited nor as immature in terms of epistemology as you seem to think. i know there are a garden variety of these theories of faith/rational theism but i dont find them all that interesting. to me faith in god is cognitive and realist, asserting a fact just as any other statement about the world. and it has to be this way for it to have force at least to someone who has gone all the way in her belief reflection | ||
|
Paljas
Germany6926 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
So a definition of intelligence must differentiate the "races" in order to be a definition at all? Who exactly is restricting whose thinking here? Let's try a thought experiment. An arbitrary measure of intelligence which we will grab from thin air. The ability to play Jazz. Holy crap you're right! Seems like some "race" or other is going to get huffy at that definition. And think of the poor horses! My god man, think of any ruminant at all! Hmmmm... but a gnu has to be smarter than a jellyfish right? Yet they always seems to score identically poorly on all our Standardised Jazz Scale Tests. This... Just... In.. Prof. Vilderberger von Duseldorf at the University of Stuttgard has shown that an adult Bonobo can repeatedly nail out the blues lick "Spoonful" under laboratory conditions. It's fascinating really. The prof. Sculpted the keys of an organ to into exact anatomical replicas of the hind quarters of other Bonobos previously imprinted on the subject in a strict social heirarchy. Or IQ tests. Let's use those. No, it's just that intelligence tests tend to highlight disparities between races, which are typically the main reason that intelligence tests are not given much credibility these days. The thing about Jazz that makes it a poor example is that racially Jazz is played by one race much more than others. All humans have verbal and spatial reasoning skills, however. I'm not sure why you insist on being "satirical" (when has this ever been different from mocking?) rather than serious. Weirdly, studying the infinite and the limits of human intelligence also results in a lot of depression and suicide. Maybe we can come up with a gene therapy for that. Or maybe high rates of suicide and depression is an indicator that our LGBT friends are "correct"(?!) and it's us cissexuals that are the nutters. Or maybe our understanding of human sexuality is so poorly formed that we shouldn't be contemplating gene therapy even for this poor lady. I actually have no clue just how many fundamental beliefs I have, but I keep stumbling over yours. Obscured though they are by a rational fear of a leftist conspiracy. Or is it just that your fundamental beliefs are so shockingly facile that you are embarrassed to make them clear? Yeah, lots of things lead to depression and suicide. But there are factors that can be part of a person, such as sexuality, and factors that are external, such as what you study. I don't know WTF you are talking about with the "correct" stuff, and the fact that we don't know all this stuff is the reason that I suggested there should be more research in this area... Dude, I am in fact a leftist. I am simply saying that the lack of research into homosexuality and transgenderism is due to the fact that a large part of the left has made any deleterious part of being queer taboo to discuss. It would be interesting to know if there is a major factor when it comes to determining sexuality. My original purpose for broaching this topic was to pose a question that would be controversial not on a logical basis but which would offend people emotionally (and even their sense of what is right and wrong, as in the past few decades there has been a great increase of blanket queer and lgbt acceptance). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On February 23 2014 10:04 oneofthem wrote: not sure if you are actually blaming suicide in homosexual group on their sexuality. clearly not a sign of social marginalization. even with increased and more public voicing of acceptance it is still far from reality He probably shouldn't have made that side point, the real question is it a disability to not be able to have biological kids from both parents? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of research on homosexuality and transgenderism; you just may not hear about it as much. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
On February 23 2014 11:28 zlefin wrote: I don't know; given that a number of heterosexual couples are unable to have children, I'm sure whether or not it qualifies as a disability has been addressed. I'm pretty sure there is a lot of research on homosexuality and transgenderism; you just may not hear about it as much. Wouldn't you consider those heterosexual parents disabled as well, at least one of them? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28894 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On February 23 2014 21:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: Seriously.. Gays have much higher suicide rates than others. You accept that this is not due to some genetic defect, but due to society's lack of acceptance for them. Then lets fucking invest money in gene therapy for them rather than to just accept them. Why do gays need gene therapy? ... | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28894 Posts
My previous post is not how I myself feel.  | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Industry groups and Republican-led states are heading an attack at the Supreme Court against the Obama administration's sole means of trying to limit power-plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming. As President Barack Obama pledges to act on environmental and other matters when Congress doesn't, or won't, opponents of regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases cast the rule as a power grab of historic proportions. The court is hearing arguments Monday about a small but important piece of the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to cut the emissions — a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must also evaluate ways to reduce the carbon they release. Environmental groups and even some of their opponents say that whatever the court decides, EPA still will be able to move forward with broader plans to set emission standards for greenhouse gases for new and existing power plants. But a court ruling against the EPA almost undoubtedly would be used to challenge every step of the agency's effort to deal with climate change, said Jacob Hollinger, a partner with the McDermott Will and Emery law firm in New York and a former EPA lawyer. Source | ||
| ||
