"Irrational belief", a lack of respect?

[DC]

Humans have many genetic differences and still are we all equally Humans.

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by DC

Humans have many genetic differences and still are we all equally Humans.

Exactly. What is the genetic definition of race? But your right, we are all the genus homo (even the he/she Beth).

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Someone who proclaims that there is a genetic reason for prejudice is someone I wouldn't waste time answering questions for.

Except that she's not proclaimed that there is a genetic reason for prejudice. She's pointed out that there are genetic differences; you're the one inferring that "different" == "bad."

Indeed, the idea that there are genetic differences among people is becoming an increasingly important idea in medicine; if you have a family history of some particular condition, then the doctors are quite likely to prescribe different drugs for you, or at least to run more extensive tests on you before prescribing, than they would on a member of the general public.

If making sure that treatment is appropriate to the individual is prejudice, then long live prejudice. If it's merely common sense and good medicine, then Beth isn't advocating prejudice, but good medicine. Either way, you're way out of line.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Someone who proclaims that there is a genetic reason for prejudice

I didn't make that claim.

Quote:

is someone I wouldn't waste time answering questions for.

And yet you responded to my post. You may state that as your motivation, but I deduce from your actions that you simply don't want to answer my questions. If you didn't want to waste time talking to me, you wouldn't have responded at all.

Quote:

Would you like me to repeat that slowly for you? Kinda figured a guy using the screenname Beth would be a bit shall we say questionable.

I'm female.

Quote:

I didn't think you would admit your prejudice so easily.

I did not admit prejudice. I said that I think there are genetic differences. Those statements are not equivalent. I also think that men are genetically different from women. This is not generally considered a statement indicating prejudice.

Do you disagree that genetic differences exist? If so, how do you justify that belief with the genetic evidence available to us?

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Except that she's not proclaimed that there is a genetic reason for prejudice. She's pointed out that there are genetic differences; you're the one inferring that "different" == "bad."

Indeed, the idea that there are genetic differences among people is becoming an increasingly important idea in medicine; if you have a family history of some particular condition, then the doctors are quite likely to prescribe different drugs for you, or at least to run more extensive tests on you before prescribing, than they would on a member of the general public.

If making sure that treatment is appropriate to the individual is prejudice, then long live prejudice. If it's merely common sense and good medicine, then Beth isn't advocating prejudice, but good medicine. Either way, you're way out of line.

No Beth is claiming that there are differences between people based on genetics and that is patently false. Can you define race according to genetics? There are many differences within the genetic code of individuals (within reason) yet there is no distinction between any member of the genus homo based on genetic differences. If there were, they would be a new species. Are you claiming that there are different species of human currently (not throughout human history)?

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by Beth

I'm female.

Not according to the homepage linked to in your profile.

[DC]

Originally Posted by noreligion

No Beth is claiming that there are differences between people based on genetics and that is patently false. Can you define race according to genetics? There are many differences within the genetic code of individuals (within reason) yet there is no distinction between any member of the genus homo based on genetic differences. If there were, they would be a new species. Are you claiming that there are different species of human currently (not throughout human history)?

Afaik the Neanderthal parts of DNA are only found in non-African humans.
there are many differences regionally etc, but not in the sense of races.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by noreligion

No Beth is claiming that there are differences between people based on genetics and that is patently false.

Goodness, no, it's patently true.

For example, a natural blonde has different genes than a natural redhead; we can point to the specific gene that creates this difference.

Quote:

Can you define race according to genetics?

No, but that wasn't Beth's claim, either. You're the one bringing race into it, not her.

Quote:

There are many differences within the genetic code of individuals

And at the same time, "there are no difference between people based on genetics"?

Don't be any stupider than you have to.

Quote:

yet there is no distinction between any member of the genus homo based on genetic differences.

Which is why all members of the genus Homo (note caps) are genetically identical.

Right.

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by DC

Afaik the Neanderthal parts of DNA are only found in non-African humans.
there are many differences regionally etc, but not in the sense of races.

Exactly, according to genetics we are all "created" equal. Can't for the life of me understand why some people would rather push their faith based bs to twist this into meaning we are not equal.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No, but that wasn't Beth's claim, either. You're the one bringing race into it, not her.

She said, "I believe that Jews are genetically different from Aryans." Based on this statement and context, I understood her to say that one could look at a person's genetic makeup and distinguish between a Jew and an Aryan - that either one has a specific genetic pattern.

Perhaps I'm not the only one who may have misunderstood so some clarification would be helpful.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

She said, "I believe that Jews are genetically different from Aryans."

Only in response to the Godwin-esque challenge "Guess you also believe Hitler was correct that Jews are inferior to Aryans."

She's right, too. The genetic differences between Jews (as a group), and most of the groups that could be called "Aryans" are well-documented. For example, (Ashkenanzi) Jews have a much higher incidence of Tay-Sachs disease.

Quote:

Based on this statement and context, I understood her to say that one could look at a person's genetic makeup and distinguish between a Jew and an Aryan - that either one has a specific genetic pattern.

That's quite transparently a misreading; if I were to say that January is colder than September, that doesn't mean that every instant of every January is colder than every instant of every September. But the difference in average temperatures is quite marked, at least in most of the USA.

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The genetic differences between Jews (as a group), and most of the groups that could be called "Aryans" are well-documented. For example, (Ashkenanzi) Jews have a much higher incidence of Tay-Sachs disease.

Does that mean Jews and Aryans are not equal according to genetics? Then why are both classified as homo sapiens according to the same science or do you believe they are not?

Actually if you read the reason behind the genetics of Tay-Sachs you will find they are fairly evolutionary (a recent mutation) much along the same lines as sickle cell disease. Non of this makes any human another species or race. Once again I will say the idiotic thought that there are racial differences between people is based on religion and not on genetics.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Only in response to the Godwin-esque challenge "Guess you also believe Hitler was correct that Jews are inferior to Aryans."

She's right, too. The genetic differences between Jews (as a group), and most of the groups that could be called "Aryans" are well-documented. For example, (Ashkenanzi) Jews have a much higher incidence of Tay-Sachs disease.



That's quite transparently a misreading; if I were to say that January is colder than September, that doesn't mean that every instant of every January is colder than every instant of every September. But the difference in average temperatures is quite marked, at least in most of the USA.

Thank you. You have done a better job of explaining what my meaning was than I could. You are 100% correct in your interpretation of what I said.

[DC]

RAL 6001, RAL 6002, RAL 6017 and RAL 6018 are clearly different, yet all of them are green.

[Beth]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Not according to the homepage linked to in your profile.

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. I think that originally linked to my family homepage, but my husband has altered the web site considerably since I put that link there several years ago.

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by drkitten

She's right, too. The genetic differences between Jews (as a group), and most of the groups that could be called "Aryans" are well-documented. For example, (Ashkenanzi) Jews have a much higher incidence of Tay-Sachs disease.

Me:
"I understood her to say that one could look at a person's genetic makeup and distinguish between a Jew and an Aryan - that either one has a specific genetic pattern."

Quote:

That's quite transparently a misreading;

Um. Okay.

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Me:
"I understood her to say that one could look at a person's genetic makeup and distinguish between a Jew and an Aryan - that either one has a specific genetic pattern."




Um. Okay.

You understood what she wrote. If something else was intended the wrong words were used as there is no distinction based on anything besides human and not human in DNA. For that matter, there is really no distinction on a basic level of human and non human DNA. The difference is between entire genomes.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Does that mean Jews and Aryans are not equal according to genetics?

The distribution of alleles in Jews is different than the distribution of alleles in most other groups studied.

So, no, they're not equal.

Quote:

Then why are both classified as homo sapiens according to the same science

Because mere genetic difference is not sufficient for two groups to constitute a separate species; the general definition of "species" involves interbreeding, and it's fairly obvious that, yes, Jews are interfertile with all other known subgroups of humanity.

Quote:

Actually if you read the reason behind the genetics of Tay-Sachs you will find they are fairly evolutionary (a recent mutation) much along the same lines as sickle cell disease. Non of this makes any human another species or race.

But you're the only person who is suggesting that "genetically different" is equivalent to "of a different species." If there's an idiotic thought in this exchange, it's that suggestion -- and it's yours.

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by drkitten

So, no, they're not equal.

Ok, you are in the same category as Beth. Expect no further response from me.

[DC]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The distribution of alleles in Jews is different than the distribution of alleles in most other groups studied.

So, no, they're not equal.

...

they are different and are equal

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Beth

I didn't make that claim.
And yet you responded to my post. You may state that as your motivation, but I deduce from your actions that you simply don't want to answer my questions. If you didn't want to waste time talking to me, you wouldn't have responded at all.


I'm female.



I did not admit prejudice. I said that I think there are genetic differences. Those statements are not equivalent. I also think that men are genetically different from women. This is not generally considered a statement indicating prejudice.

Do you disagree that genetic differences exist? If so, how do you justify that belief with the genetic evidence available to us?

On your home page it says:

I'm your man.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Beth

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. I think that originally linked to my family homepage, but my husband has altered the web site considerably since I put that link there several years ago.

Then you might want to change the link to avoid confusion.

[thaiboxerken]

Can someone give a rational reason to believe in a god?

[DC]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Can someone give a rational reason to believe in a god?

evidence

[Crocoshark]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Can someone give a rational reason to believe in a god?

I'll bite

Cost-benefit analysis by someone with a religious soul mate.

Let's say there's a man of a minority religion who finds and falls in love with a woman; same religion. Due to the few people of their religion, this common ground has a special bonding nature to it, the way sharing a rare hobby or other similarity might. They both have someone to both go with and take home from their weekly worship. One day, this man stumbles upon various atheist websites and has a look through them. He doesn't feel his religion is absolutely right, and doesn't consider atheists wrong by default, and is aware that if he spent too much time looking for and contemplating atheist criticisms of religion he MIGHT de-convert. Now, he doesn't experience any of the more obvious disadvantages of being religious; he doesn't fear that he or anyone he knows is going to Hell for example. He puts all the benefits of being religious and irreligious on a graph and has a look, and decides that he would personally value the benefits on the religion side. Not just for him, but for his significant other. A deconversion would be a loss to their common ground and his lover would feel that much more alone in this aspect of her life.

Now granted this is obviously at its basis completely irrational, it's all about romance and love. But within that context and life position, it would be unnecessarily detrimental to this man's life to unconditionally pursue whatever is closest to true; it would be a cost to his one, single life (as he'd conclude he had if he deconverted) and would not be outweighed by its benefits. In terms of quality of life, it simply makes more sense for this particular man to stay religious.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Ok, you are in the same category as Beth. Expect no further response from me.

Perhaps you need to clarify your understanding of the word "equal".

If I said "All dialects of chinese are equal" I'd consider it a pretty non-sense statement. Is it true? Well, they are all different from each other. They are also all chinese, rather than different languages (that's why they are called dialects). But you can't tell me that Shanghainese is not different from Mandarin.
Are they equal? Well they are probably equally good as means of communicating between native speakers. On the other hand, there are more people who speak Mandarin than Shanghainese, which is why Shanghainese is declining, so they are perhaps not equally useful.

Are "all men created equal"? Maybe in terms of their ability to suffer. In my moral system they are all equal in their right to moral consideration. But some are born with greater athletic potential, for instance. I'm 5'6", my dad is 5'10", and likely some of that difference is down to genetics. No, it doesn't mean we are members of different species, but it's certainly a difference.

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Perhaps you need to clarify your understanding of the word "equal".

If I said "All dialects of chinese are equal" I'd consider it a pretty non-sense statement. Is it true? Well, they are all different from each other. They are also all chinese, rather than different languages (that's why they are called dialects). But you can't tell me that Shanghainese is not different from Mandarin.
Are they equal? Well they are probably equally good as means of communicating between native speakers. On the other hand, there are more people who speak Mandarin than Shanghainese, which is why Shanghainese is declining, so they are perhaps not equally useful.

Are "all men created equal"? Maybe in terms of their ability to suffer. In my moral system they are all equal in their right to moral consideration. But some are born with greater athletic potential, for instance. I'm 5'6", my dad is 5'10", and likely some of that difference is down to genetics. No, it doesn't mean we are members of different species, but it's certainly a difference.

Go ahead and delude yourself into believing we were discussing language or athletic potential.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Crocoshark

I'll bite

Cost-benefit analysis by someone with a religious soul mate.

Let's say there's a man of a minority religion who finds and falls in love with a woman; same religion. Due to the few people of their religion, this common ground has a special bonding nature to it, the way sharing a rare hobby or other similarity might. They both have someone to both go with and take home from their weekly worship. One day, this man stumbles upon various atheist websites and has a look through them. He doesn't feel his religion is absolutely right, and doesn't consider atheists wrong by default, and is aware that if he spent too much time looking for and contemplating atheist criticisms of religion he MIGHT de-convert. Now, he doesn't experience any of the more obvious disadvantages of being religious; he doesn't fear that he or anyone he knows is going to Hell for example. He puts all the benefits of being religious and irreligious on a graph and has a look, and decides that he would personally value the benefits on the religion side. Not just for him, but for his significant other. A deconversion would be a loss to their common ground and his lover would feel that much more alone in this aspect of her life.

Now granted this is obviously at its basis completely irrational, it's all about romance and love. But within that context and life position, it would be unnecessarily detrimental to this man's life to unconditionally pursue whatever is closest to true; it would be a cost to his one, single life (as he'd conclude he had if he deconverted) and would not be outweighed by its benefits. In terms of quality of life, it simply makes more sense for this particular man to stay religious.

At it's basis it is irrational, I agree. Now, does anyone have a rational reason to believe in a god?

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

At it's basis it is irrational, I agree. Now, does anyone have a rational reason to believe in a god?

Yep, the parasitic class (i.e., priests). No god, they have to find some other way to make a living.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Yep, the parasitic class (i.e., priests). No god, they have to find some other way to make a living.

That's not a rational reason to believe in a god. It's a reason to con others into believing.

[Gawdzilla]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

That's not a rational reason to believe in a god. It's a reason to con others into believing.

It's as rational as any other job.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Dani

Well, evidence is always tied to what it means. Usually, it's presented as "X is evidence of Y". We can examine if Y follows from X. If I perceive the Virgin Mary, this is evidence that I perceived the Virgin Mary, not that the Virgin Mary exists outside my mind.

Subjective data is not only valuable, but necessary in order to obtain objective data. However, a single subjective event only accounts for what it is.

It's only "usually" in skeptic circles. In medical research, subjective evidence plays a key role.

And trained observers whose observation skills are tested and verified can provide reliable observations.

I know we are not disagreeing here. I'm just pointing out that it isn't the fact something is a subjective observation that is the key to the problem. The core issue is the validity of the conclusion and the reliability of the evidence, not simply the fact something is a subjective or a single observation. If you collect a slew of objective data with an instrument that is out of calibration, that evidence and any conclusion you base on that evidence can be just as faulty.

By the same token, millions of god believers all making the same personal observation is not very good evidence gods exist. We know that because millions of people have been known to believe in gods that have been shown to be mythical in the past, and because millions today believe in different gods while their beliefs are not compatible with each other's beliefs so at least half are demonstrably wrong.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Go ahead and delude yourself into believing we were discussing language or athletic potential.

Language was an analogous case to make clear that a difference between two things doesn't mean that they necessarily fall into an entire class. Two dialects can be different without being different languages, two people can be different without being different species.

And athletic potential is something that derives from genetic difference. I'm pretty sure its exactly the kind of think that Beth was referring to, but if I'm wrong, well, why don't we just ask her: Beth, am I misreading you?

[Beth]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Language was an analogous case to make clear that a difference between two things doesn't mean that they necessarily fall into an entire class. Two dialects can be different without being different languages, two people can be different without being different species.

And athletic potential is something that derives from genetic difference. I'm pretty sure its exactly the kind of think that Beth was referring to, but if I'm wrong, well, why don't we just ask her: Beth, am I misreading you?

No. You are correct.

[noreligion]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Language was an analogous case to make clear that a difference between two things doesn't mean that they necessarily fall into an entire class. Two dialects can be different without being different languages, two people can be different without being different species.

And athletic potential is something that derives from genetic difference. I'm pretty sure its exactly the kind of think that Beth was referring to, but if I'm wrong, well, why don't we just ask her: Beth, am I misreading you?

Yet it was clearly said that Jews and Aryans are genetically different. Go ahead and claim sports and language all you want but understand that you are defending a prejudiced statement.

[Bad vibe]

personally I think irrational is legitimate by definition although I prefer delusional. Responses to any statement can be entirely subjective even more so in a text enviroment but to be overly critical of the particulars and how they may be interpreted would leave us all saying "hi" and not much else I don't personally feel the need to disect everything down to the level of absurdity but thats just me

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beth
I believe that Jews are genetically different from Aryans.

As I suspected. Any attempt at a rational conversation with you is doomed to failure.

Are you suggesting that the genetics of Jews (as an ethnic group) are not significantly different from the Aryan subgroup of Caucasians (or, indeed any other ethnic or racial group)?

If so, you may like to consider spending a little time learning about the genetics of race & ethnicity & Population groups in biomedicine - for example the medical genetics of Jewish people.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting any superiority or inferiority between such genetic subgroups, simply that they are genetically different, as you would expect if you understood population genetics.

[Dani]

Beth:

I think that "All men are created equal", although not clearly phrased as such, is a moral statement. At least this is what I infer from the context of your posts. What I think you believe is that all human beings should have the same rights. Make it a must instead of a should if you feel strong today, but I think that's your idea.

If that's your understanding of the statement "All men are created equal", I think such principle is not rational, but it's not irrational either. I would use the word "arrational" if it existed.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by DC

they are different and are equal

There are clearly some widely differing definitions of 'equal' being applied in this thread and confusion has arisen as a result.

I suspect that Beth and DrKitten are using 'equal' in its formal logical, philosophical or mathematical sense - i.e. the identity operation. If two things A and B are different, A does not equal B - they are not equal.

This has no bearing on any value judgement of A or B, and is a different concept from social or cultural equality.

[dlorde]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Yet it was clearly said that Jews and Aryans are genetically different.

And so they are, according to current genetic evidence (I provided links above).

Quote:

Go ahead and claim sports and language all you want but understand that you are defending a prejudiced statement.

Don't forget that it was you who first introduced Jews and Aryans into the discussion when you godwinned the thread.