Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, because we don't share the exact same genes, You are not me and I am not you. A species is the totality of all genes, but an individual is not all genes. Neither your nor my genes need to replicate for the species to survive. That is the problem with your idea.
You provide more evidence of what I said: "... the real point is being entirely missed. "
In debate, you don't get to insist that your personal, preferred definition of words is correct because if you allow someone to define the word "fly" in their own way, they can give you a sound argument that horses can fly.
If you think moral judgment is a matter of IQ, why don't we see a direct correlation between IQ and moral behavior?
Why is it different? If given all the true facts in the State vs. Gordon, why would unbiased jurors come up with different judgments?
How can fairness be biased? Biases are unfair.
Bias: an attitude that you have that makes you treat someone in a way different from the way you treat other people.
Note biased against versus biased in favor.
“Clash” and “spark of truth” are buzzwords from what Baha’i scriptures say about consultation. There are certain conditions for that to be fruitful. For example the purpose of the participants has to be to agree on some actions for the participants to try, or for people to try who are willing to follow their advice. That’s only one example of conditions required for fruitful consultation. There are others, and I don’t see any hope of it happening in this thread. What I do see is more of the depraved and poisonous kind of socializing and entertainment that I want to avoid.
I see now that your whole purpose in this thread might have been, once again, to shovel quotes from Baha’i scriptures into people’s faces against their will, and I don’t want to be associated with that. I only posted in this thread because I thought you might be trying something different this time, that I might like.
You are confused.
This is the best response you wrote to me but it goes down hill after this.
I've noticed this is the bulk of your reply to me: "Uh, nah uh, you too bro!" My reply to you was to offer my observation of you and your belief. There are two differences between you and me. First, I know I can be arrogant and act superiorly, and I'll especially question my behaviour when confronted about it, though sometimes I do it on purpose. You however, it seems, cannot do this. You're so blinded by your belief that this becomes impossible because you are following some infallible entity/person/whatever. You have not wavered, at all, to my critique of your behaviour. You cannot seem to realise your superior attitude. If you don't believe me, ask a neutral observer to see whether I'm right. Second, I did not say I have an answer. I was questioning your biases in this matter and your involvement, which you don't want or can't analyse yourself.
How am I supposed to refute anything without you clarifying anything? Your responses are always copy/paste scripture without an evidential basis. Here, let me try: The Great Jack says. "you are wrong and Baha is nonsense." Damn, that was easy.
Yeah, and where's your evidence for that other than mumbo jumbo some guy said?
They are neither good nor bad: they're assertions. Anyone, I repeat, anyone can assert anything.
You seem to revere a source and consequently think everything a source says is correct. Children do this. I don't do this. What I do is examine the context ONLY and then see if it corresponds with reality. Who gives a rats *** about the source. I don't look to see if the context came from some revered figure and then think reality must correspond with it. This is what zealots do and this is how, in my opinion, humanity destroys itself.
Tu quoque much? I replied to this in the second quote above. The passive-aggressiveness that your response gives is absolutely amazing. If you're annoyed with me just say it, rather than go into these passive aggressive retorts.
First, since the word “prejudice” seems to be distracting people from the issue that concerns me, I want to say what the issue is for me. The issue for me is alienation between people, and people hardening their hearts against other people, across various lines they draw in their minds between themselves and other people, and people making excuses for themselves, for doing that. The only way that I think it will ever change, and I think it is already happening and will continue happening, is for more and more people to presume that they are doing that themselves, whether they see themselves doing it or not, and to work continually to free themselves from it, never imagining that their work on that is finished.
Not my bias, I am a centrist. The point is demonstrated by the data. If you are unfamiliar with the field you should hit the books before flapping the gums.
That has more to do with your biases that place positives on the prefrontal mediated phenomena and negatives on those mediated by the amygdala. Those are solely your judgements, but I do find your judgements revealing ... they lead me to suspect that you'd like to be a leftie ... but can't seem to figure out how to do so.