Why are people of color in the US on average poorer and less educated than white people? Something must be wrong with them, or they must be doing something wrong.

Hey SC welcome!

That's a good question, probably has something to do with the human condition. Psychological bias, racism, you know, those kinds of things.

To that end, you think it's a pathology of sorts, or just human nature?

Any takers? — 3017amen

Of course atheism and theism are untenable since their 'truths' can't be shown, and it gets worse, though, than indefensible, in that it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to proclaim them. The same for anything else that can't be shown.

We developed our abilities over a very long time; they weren't just granted to us. I'm not musical, though.

Thats not what those statements are about, though I understand why you might think that.
That comment was not intended as insult, or to express discontentment about religion. They are observations, and I wish there were other, less “offensive” words to use but those seem like the most accurate words to use.
As to what you should do with them...you understand that what you quoted wasn't at all directed at you right? Understand? I was talking to someone else, so I really didnt have expectation of what you should do with those words. Why would I? As they were directed at somebody else, not you, I don’t have anything I would “like” you to do with them.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist, not the belief that no mysteries exist, that would be amysterism.


We agree! It does seem logical that mysteries exist. Unfortunately, many Atheists I've come to know don't hold your/that world view.

Of course it begs many questions, one of which might be: what does one do with the concept of mystery that exists in the world?

Hey Poetic, yeah, that's one of many reasons why I'm a Christian Existentialist.

We agree! It does seem logical that mysteries exist. Unfortunately, many Atheists I've come to know don't hold your/that world view. — 3017amen

Many atheists might indeed hold the view mysteries do not exist, but not because of their atheism. As the person pointed out, atheism doesnt have anything to do belief in mystery, it has to do with lacking belief in god. (Or gods).
There is a different word for lacking belief in mystery, also pointed out to you.

Okay Gotcha. Then is this statement true:

1. God does not exist.

True or false? (I'm just asking don't get angry.)

Christian Existentialist — 3017amen

Still in one of the camps whose 'God' can't be shown, regardless of their claims.

While I'm in agreement with your description of how the survival mechanism of evolution happens, I do think there has to be positive survival value to higher cognition. — Artemis

What do you think about sexual selection, for example? I have always found it weird that there is such a focus on survival advantage when what really matters is not surviving, but passing on your genes.

Concerning the subject of higher cognition, it's possible that higher cognition had a survival value in general, but specific results, like mathematical abilities, are accidental byproducts.

Still in one of the camps whose 'God' can't be shown, regardless of their claims.


Are you sure? What is leap of Faith?

No need to worry about me getting angry at your questions/comments.
As to your statement, it depends on what you mean by “god”. Generally my answer would be “I do not know”, but that might change depending on how you define “god”.

If you don't mind me wondering too...I was always curious about sexual selection as it were. I mean, with human's, it's not just pure instinct... .

What do you think about sexual selection, for example? I have always found it weird that there is such a focus on survival advantage when what really matters is not surviving, but passing on your genes.

Concerning the subject of higher cognition, it's possible that higher cognition had a survival value in general, but specific results, like mathematical abilities, are accidental byproducts. — Echarmion

When I say reproductive mechanism, I mean sexual selection. And, yes, I think it's just as important to understanding evolution as mere survival.

I think simple math has huge survival value. I've read a lot of accounts of birds and mammals having basic math skills, understanding when something is more or less, being able to count up to 5 or 10, etc. It seems to me, especially if you're living in groups, it would be beneficial to know how to share resources and how to count how many apples you're trading for how many walnuts, for example. Or how many babies are in your nest, how many members are in your group, etc. etc.

Our developed ability to do higher math, like statistics, or understand the Pythagorean theorem is probably, as you suggest, just a happy coincidence of evolution. Though I think it obviously stems from useful evolutionary traits. Curiosity, innovation, and basic math skills coming together to aid us in our understanding of the world--that sort of thing.

Great...to me, " I don't know" sounds much more reasonable or even 'logical'.

But once again, existential questions can rear their ugly heads hence: If one says that they don't know something, what are they really saying/what's behind that thought process?

I suppose one could say that one is Stoic or indifferent to the question. Or maybe even some element of the so-called sense of wonderment is there. I think that's of higher consciousness...kind of like Kant's form of a priori logic, or in other words innate or intrinsic human intuition.

What I don't quite get is what rational process you aim to follow here. It has already been pointed out that disproving the theory of evolution wouldn't affect atheism, though it might affect the view of individual atheists.

But apart from that, you cannot actually poke holes into a scientific theory by pointing out phenomena it cannot (fully) explain. You'd have to point to examples that explicitly disprove the theory, that is things that cannot possibly happen under it's framework.

If what you mean to do is to argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because it doesn't offer a compelling account of all phenomena, your problem isn't with the theory of evolution but with the scientific method itself.

When I say reproductive mechanism, I mean sexual selection. And, yes, I think it's just as important to understanding evolution as mere survival. — Artemis

I refer specifically to the idea that traits with no, or even negative, survival value are selected for due to the sexual preferences - attractiveness, if you want - of the species. Like a peacocks feathers not being selected for because they symbolise a strong male capable of "wasting" resources, but rather because long, colorful feathers are attractive to peacocks. Of course what's attractive is also determined by evolution, but it's possible that something that originated as a survival advantage stops being one, without a corresponding change happening in the species' own logic for selecting partners.

Analogous to a peacocks feathers. I’ve seen that theory debunked but I don’t recall how exactly.

Do you tend to find artists sexy, by the way? — praxis

I'm not an expert, but seeing how most animals try to make themselves seem bigger when predators approach, I would assume that a huge plumage with spots that look like eyes would also have survival value. Probably explains their hideous voices too :lol:

I think most people think creativity is an attractive trait. But I've met enough otherwise unattractive artists to tell you that's just not enough overall. Steven Tyler is just not a "sexy" man, for example :P

If what you mean to do is to argue that the theory of evolution is wrong because it doesn't offer a compelling account of all phenomena, your problem isn't with the theory of evolution but with the scientific method itself.

No E! What I'm saying is that it is LIMITED. I'm not dichotomizing.

Like a peacocks feathers not being selected for because they symbolise a strong male capable of "wasting" resources, but rather because long, colorful feathers are attractive to peacocks. — Echarmion

See my response to Praxis re:peacocks.

I refer specifically to the idea that traits with no, or even negative, survival value are selected for due to the sexual preferences - attractiveness, if you want - of the species — Echarmion

Sure, like blonde versus brunette. There's no reason (I know of, correct me if I'm wrong) for one to be more attractive than the other, yet people often have strong preferences.

Fun related fact: red hair does make sense to be considered less attractive, because it is correlated with a higher rate of genetic abnormalities.

What is leap of Faith? — 3017amen

Wishes and hopes.

Wishes and hopes.

Great response. Why do we hope, is there survival value to Faith, Hope and Love?

No E! What I'm saying is that it is LIMITED. I'm not dichotomizing. — 3017amen

But what follows from it's limitation? The God of the gaps?

Sure, like blonde versus brunette. There's no reason (I know of, correct me if I'm wrong) for one to be more attractive than the other, yet people often have strong preferences.

Fun related fact: red hair does make sense to be considered less attractive, because it is correlated with a higher rate of genetic abnormalities. — Artemis

Damn, looks like I selected the wrong partner....

Anyways, it seems we mostly agree. I just find it curious that, apparently, the idea that this sort of sexual selection plays a (significant) role in evolution is highly debated, when it seems so obvious.

"Atheism is just another religion; at worse it’s just Nihilism."--3017amen

This alone indicates that you have no idea what you’re talking about. — praxis

:up:

Of course atheism and theism are untenable since their 'truths' can't be shown, and it gets worse, though, than indefensible, in that it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to proclaim them. — PoeticUniverse

I think theism means a BELIEF in god, and atheism, a BELIEF in no god. Belief requires no proof. No atheist is showing you or attempting to show you the truth about god's existence or inexistence. It is not intellectual dishonesty to believe in something that is possible.

@PoeticUniverse, I think your fallacy lies in your expectation or presumption that atheists try to prove the non-existence of god, and theists, the existence. A learned, smart, philosophical person will never attempt either. Because theism and atheism are matters of faith, of, as you precisely said, an untenable truth. So neither side (as long as one has a minimum required amount of brains) will claim their belief to be the truth.

It is a question of belief. No truth is needed, no truth is to be shown, and nobody will try to show a proof therefore.

I don't know if it will sink in. But I hope it will.

Assuming you're an atheist, you consider there is no mystery in the world, — 3017amen

Again, that's not at all the case. I think it's interesting for theists to try to argue in support for theism. I don't think it's interesting when they do that by arguing against atheism where they're completely misrepresenting what atheism even is. Atheism doesn't imply a belief that evolutionary theory is correct, it doesn't imply a belief that there is no mystery in the world, etc. What you're doing is akin to someone saying, "I'm going to demonstrate that the Beatles aren't the best band: first, the Beatles were leprechauns from another planet . . . "

Please Tell me what Love is?

Examples could be: subjective truth, objective truth, phenomena of some sort, or... ? — 3017amen

Love is the name for a set of brain states, the set of states that amount to an intense feeling of deep affection, caring, romantic attachment, etc.

therefore you must use logic to explain human existence. Therefore, please explain that human phenomenon using logic. — 3017amen

That's a category error that, like suggesting that the Beatles were leprechauns from another planet, suggests that you're not very familiar with what logic is. Logic isn't an "explanation tool." Logic is the way we think about implicational and inferential relations.

I explained everything I'm explaining here in the other thread. But you're just repeating the same misconceptions. You need to acknowledge and either present objections to what I'm saying or reflect that you agree and understand what I'm saying.

Okay. then how do you explain why we have that ability? — 3017amen

First, note that holding any particular stance doesn't actually require that one explain particular things. One can be an atheist and think that we have no idea how to explain various things--we're still figuring it out.

At any rate, I do buy evolutionary theory, and on a broad level, the reason that we have every single ability that we have is that it was a possible property of the materials that comprise our bodies, in the wake of a progression of genetic mutations over a huge period of time. The abilities that persisted were those that were genetically transmitted, and that weren't enough of a liability to make it not possible for the species to continue breeding.

But what follows from it's limitation? The God of the gaps?

Great question. As volitional Beings, what should we choose...and I never asked you E, what have you concluded thus:

1. God does not exist.

(True or false just asking)

While I'm in agreement with your description of how the survival mechanism of evolution happens, I do think there has to be positive survival value to higher cognition. — Artemis

Yeah, I think that, too. But 3017amen has the common misconception that a trait can't arise unless it's evolutionarily advantageous, so it's important to get him to realize that that's a misconception.

But 3017amen has the common misconception that a trait can't arise unless it's evolutionarily advantageous, so it's important to get him to realize that that's a misconception.


I'll get to your other concerns TS, but we are talking over each other. I am asking why we have those traits.

1. God does not exist.

True or false? — 3017amen

True, of course.

I'll get to your other concerns TC, but we are talking over each other. I am asking why we have those traits. — 3017amen

If you're asking why in the sense of looking for a purpose, there is none. The world in general has no purposes.

True, of course.


Great. How do you know that for sure? I realize that's a big question, but I'm guessing it's as simple as the ontological argument....