re: Science, Race, Homosexuality, Abortion, and Religion

So, those things equal "Race" as we understand it?

If two tall people marry and have children, they will be tall, most likely. That does not make them a separate "race" of people. Sure, characteristics are passed down through families, but it does not separate people out so much to the point that there are real significiant differences.

The way that "race" is used in America is in a determinative sense. There is no evidence for that from science, yet we class people according to race unnecessarily.

quote:

---

So, those things equal "Race" as we understand it?

---

As you incorrectly understand it? No.

As we as a species currently understand it? Absolutely.

quote:

---

yet we class people according to race unnecessarily.

---

The racial classifications of black, white, etc. are haphazard, since they rely solely on skin color, which groups people together of widely different genetic backgrounds.

For example, the designation African denotes a place name, but Africans, at the tribal, ethnic level, show more differentiation than European populations. In America, we can take someone from Yoruba descent, and a person of Kalenjin descent, and call them black, though they probably share little in terms of genetics. In my view, we use race haphazardly, as a method of writing off large groups of people.

If you disagree, explain why? I'm not a science person, thought I love reading about genetics and the movement of populations in particularly.

Also here's a link that displays Africa's wide genetic diversity. LINK

quote:

---

By contrast, using this colour scheme virtually the whole of East Asia is a virtually undifferentiated sea of pink, Europe a block of blue, and even the diversity of India is reduced to a mix of just two colours. The reason for this is simple: our species evolved in Africa, and all of us non-Africans represent just a paltry sub-sample of the genetic variation that arose there.

---

quote:

---

My point is that the debate is skewed with one set of evidence/argument being admitted and another being dismissed, but both arguments are of the same nature.

---

I have yet to see you give an example of a law or any moral or social issue where we base our decision on what is right or wrong on some sort of scientific evidence. Science has no sense of "right" or "wrong", and no morality. Science is a tool, and in cases where we might use it to help us make decisions, it is because it offers tested/testable, unbiased facts, not because it is some ultimate determiner of what we consider right or wrong.

quote:

---

The only thing that seems to be questioned is a religious authority over morality, even though you admit that religion has helped to shape morality.

---

I admitted no such thing. I said that the various religions are derived from sets of human morals, not the other way around. As in, morals have shaped religion.

quote:

---

Long ago, people/society decided that they would treat people differently according to race. More recently, it was decided that homosexuality was not a choice, but was inborn. Abortion was deemed to be the sole decision of the mother. None of these decisions were rooted in science, but rather, in whatever benefitted the ones trying to convince the rest of us. And, a supposed secular society that claims to use "reason" and ground their beliefs in science and "fact" went along with all of it without even questioning it.

---

You are so all over the place in this thread, it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make. Is it that you feel that religion should play a more prominent role in society to match that of the "religion" of science? Is it that you don't agree with the current direction of our country and world?

quote:

---

The way that we use race - pretty much all of us - is horribly wrong and is not based on science at all or anything objective for that matter.

It is the same way that we engage the homosexual debate or the abortion debate. It is a hodge-podge of emotion and agenda and ignorance dressed up as public policy with derision dripping from the discussion toward anyone who would question the utter stupidity of our cultural positions.

---

The debates concerning race have nothing to do with whether or not we use the terms correctly in a scientific sense. The only reason there are conversations about race is because many believe that the morally responsible thing to do is to atone for the wrongs of the past. The fact that race is assigned primarily by skin color in social settings is of little importance. The thing that matters is that the people who were wronged should be compensated, and the definition doesn't matter as long as it is consistent. But as I mentioned earlier, I think these attempts at compensation are futile and pointless, and is a whole different conversation. I think the better goal is to just treat everyone the same, regardless of race. Neither science nor religion matter here. It is simply the social and moral realization that we are all the same.

The same applies to homosexuality. Neither science nor religion should matter. Everyone should be treated equally, right? So why should some be denied the right to marry? If the goal of society is to be as fair as possible to everyone, then we should all be allowed to do as we please as long as we don't harm others. Who does it hurt if two dudes get married? The religious view that it destroys the sanctity of marriage is kind of silly. It comes across as just a way to justify being hateful. How insecure do you have to be in your own marriage to worry about the impact other marriages have on it?

The abortion discussion doesn't really fit with the other two. The basic right to control medical issues concerning our own bodies conflicts with the basic social and moral decision to not intentionally end a human life. Still, I don't see what science or religion have to do with these issues.



You have framed this false dichotomy of science vs. religion, but all of your examples boil down to whether or not society has found a consensus on morality.

quote:

---

And? Cystic fibrosis patients and autistic people are abnormal too.

---

Off topic and not really apples to apples Roger.

quote:

---

Why not? What good reason is there to violate someone's rights based on a 3,500 year old book?

---

I have seen you assert this a lot. If you have such knowledge that the Bible is wrong and not accurate, please present it.

quote:

---

Numerous contradictions, historical inaccuracies, edits after the fact, gross mistranslations of the original text, splicing together of multiple texts written by multiple people over centuries with no central style...the list goes on and on. Plus the books that are in it differ depending on which type of Christian you are and were arbitrarily chosen over other books from the era.

---

Have not found any of that Roger.

quote:

---

Additionally, the first five books of the bible are written about an ancient polytheistic war God called Yahweh who was later converted to a monotheistic God during the Babylonian exile. The God of the OT doesn't resemble the one of the NT at all and the two are mutually exclusive in their natures.

---

Personal name, title, and epithet. That's first. Second, is why is this even an argument on your part? It has no merit as to the Bible being accurate. There were many times in the OT that jewish people worshiped pagan false gods.

quote:

---

Everyone should be treated equally, right?

---

Actually, no.

Everyone should have the opportunity to be treated equally though.