Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, what world do you live in?Politicians of [b]all
political parties in all Western nations constantly speak about their personal faith and its impact on their political decisions. [/B]
They don't in Germany....
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ.
I don't think anyone denies that. What gets often said is that it is not a true measurement of intelligence, and that it is culturally biased.
Originally posted by inimalist
ah, my bad 🙂
No problem. In Germany we mostly go by the Abbreviation of the major parties anyways. I don't know if there's studies, but I wouldn't even be surprised if a large part of the population didn't even know what the initialisms stand for.
In Germany there are 5 or 6 main parties
CDU/CSU
SPD
FDP
The Greens
The Left (formerly PDS)
and that's basically what they are known by.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloFirst of all, what defines a race?
If atheists were actually interested in the scientific method rather than just sperging out over creationism, they would accept racial differences in IQ.
Second of all, what scientific data do you have that proves there is a correlation between race and IQ?
Third of all, have you even done a google search?
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KaY9AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR6&dq=race+iq&ots=AK-nmmaqJe&sig=zICNePx7zeCABKJdp2AH7BXRrXM#v=onepage&q&f=false
The summary is of course that environment has a bigger influence than race and genetics. The argument there can be backed up by the fact that more black people are getting higher paid jobs and better qualifications. Although jobs and qualifications don't directly relate to IQ, having them as opposed to not having them, is an acceptable rule of thumb for having greater intelligence.
Fourth of all, why do all people who claim race and iq have a correlation happen to be white?
Fifth, lol, creationism. Most creationist critics are in fact people with basic scientific literacy with nothing better to do than to laugh at creationists.
Most scientists spend their time applying what they already know to find out new theories.
Theory, by the way, is everything that is backed up by evidence and fits with everything else to do with science, like a puzzle or equation.
To disprove evolution, would to basically disprove almost every other science.
Do ya'll think that Obama considers himself a christian? Or said that to get elected (based on the post that said you have to be a christian to get elected)? He has attended church I believe twice since he started his presidency. (not a necessary component of being a christian, i know, but pertinent information.)
Originally posted by lord xyz
what scientific data do you have that proves there is a correlation between race and IQ?
the last time I checked the data (about 4-5 years ago now), there was a persistent 4 point difference between whites and black that held even when the most obvious things were controlled for (SES, education, etc).
what this means, its mechanism, all that stuff, is still open for discussion, as is the issue of whether IQ score differences of 4 points (less than a standard deviation) are even worth noting as being functionally different.
Originally posted by truejedi
Do ya'll think that Obama considers himself a christian? Or said that to get elected (based on the post that said you have to be a christian to get elected)? He has attended church I believe twice since he started his presidency. (not a necessary component of being a christian, i know, but pertinent information.)
obama is obviously a muslim
Originally posted by truejedi
Do ya'll think that Obama considers himself a christian? Or said that to get elected (based on the post that said you have to be a christian to get elected)? He has attended church I believe twice since he started his presidency. (not a necessary component of being a christian, i know, but pertinent information.)
Originally posted by inimalist
the only people I can think of that might have a legitimate claim against "in god we trust" on money would be those like Jehovah's Witnesses, who, afaik, think even modest forms of idolatry are totally sacrilegioushowever, if the state mandated policy in such a way that it didn't offend any religious traditions, [b]that would be a specific violation of church and state.
(forcing society to conform to specific religious traditions). For atheists, agnostics or non-believers to have a legitimate claim that the word "god" infringes on their rights, they would have to believe something akin to religion about the word itself. The word God on money is in no way forcing someone to accept that religious tradition, and the economy itself is such an areligious space that it would hardly matter if currency was covered in religious iconography.The only possible exception I can see would be if it cost more somehow to put religious symbols on the money, so like, if the government were spending extra to have "in god we trust" there, which would mean your tax dollars are going to specifically religious things, rather than just money printing in general. [/B]
Grow up a Buddhist surrounded by bible thumpers. There are enough people of god that made fun of our traditions etc.
Personally when I pledge allegiance I never mention the god part. And the separation is to identify that your government doesn't choose a single religion.. Even if Christians dominate. It's to allow others to not feel looked down upon or separate from everyone else. Not just the atheist but Muslims buddhists etc