About your perceived arrogance. I'm not judging anybody on the Sift. You alone are the one who came here with a single-purpose account to try and convert people to your faith. I'm telling you how you come off and how it's affecting your goal. Your spamming of what I consider nonsense into the middle of what I consider rational discussions and your indifference to the fact you're irritating people, in my mind, gives me licence to be blunt. You could accept it as honest criticism and go from there.

I think you, and many other people here, see me through a fun-house mirror made up of your preconceived notions about God and Christians in general. The reasons I am here are not so cut and dry, but I certainly feel that God wants me to talk to people here.

About evidence. You and your religion are the ones showing up uninvited and making incredible claims. If you're making the claim, it's to you to provide a way to prove it. The only way a claim has any meaning is if there's some way to falsify it. But your claim is designed in such a way that it is literally impossible to falsify it. That's the weakness that inspired the spoof deities like FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Bertrand Russell's Teapot: in practice, one is exactly as falsifiable as the other. In theory, your faith has seemingly falsifiable statements, but in practice, every time one of them is falsified, theologians and apologists work endlessly to somehow "make" it still hold true, sometimes by changing the meaning of words retroactively, or claiming retroactively it was just a metaphor or whatever. Sometimes it's a legitimate save, but usually it's intellectually dishonest. When someone points that out, you come up with some other intellectually dishonest way of getting out of that too.

This website is open to the public, is it not? If so, then in what sense am I uninvited?

My claim isn't "designed", it is simply the fact of what I believe. I don't modify it to escape someones inquiry. You like to make some bold claims about what it is, or isn't, but you never happen to back them up with evidence. As I told you earlier, it is falsifiable. You could prove it to be logically inconsistent. You could find the body of Jesus. You could disprove the major facts of the bible. You cannot claim it is unfalsifiable. The problem with your spoof deities is that they have no explanatory power. A flying teapot explains exactly nothing..

Here's an example of what I mean: You make the claim that God is all-loving. To me, if words have meaning, "all-loving" that means God will only do loving things. But he commits mass murder several times. Now, any human that even once had ever beat somebody up, even in the heat of passion, would be disqualified from the category of "all-loving". But for God, there's always an apologist loophole because you'd decided beforehand that God was all-loving and will stop at nothing to make sure that label sticks.

What the scripture says is that God is love. Not that He is loving, but that He is love itself. Yes, it is true that God took the lives of thousands of people in the Old Testament because of disobedience. That is indisputable. What you're claiming is that this was "mass murder". The fundamental question being posed here is, does God have the right to take a life? If He does, then there is nothing unjust about what He did, and therefore it is not inconsistent with His love.

Now, God is the author and sustainer of life. Meaning, that life is a gift and a privilege for human beings. There is no fundamental right to be alive. Neither is there anything we can do to continue our life a second longer than God ordains. When we are born and when we die is entirely in His hands. He is the one who is causing our lungs to receive breathe, who is maintaining the coherence in our atomic structure. So what life we do have is a tender mercy from God, especially considering the fact that all of us abuse His creation and spit in His face on a constant basis.

Further, God has ordained that the punishment for sin is death. The people you speak of in scripture were all sinners, and most of them grievous sinners at that. Why is God unjust for enforcing His law? What is wrong with God enforcing His law at His prerogative?

Considering that we live because of God, and that it is a gift which can be revoked at any time because of sin, why is it unjust for God to do so? If you're going to say I am being intellectually dishonest, then prove it and explain why. Where is the flaw in my reasoning here?

Or the claim of intercessory prayer. Of the rigorous studies that have been done, all have said there is no correlation between prayer and positive health effects, even when religious groups sponsor the study. To anybody using reason, this proves that prayer doesn't work. But you need so badly for it to be true that you ignore the statistical evidence, and rely instead on anecdotes or the studies (however rigorous) that showed a positive effect, or you dismiss all the studies because they are science, and science is a false religion, or whatever. Regardless, as the result, "Prayer doesn't work" is unacceptable, any results by any method you will invent fault with, even if you agreed to the method beforehand.

Some Christians may feel that way, but only because they don't understand scripture:

Luke 4:12

And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

The Lord doesn't perform on camera for skeptics because He isn't a guinea pig subject to our experiments. Those who test the Lord will not get any results.

Hebrews 11:6

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

>> ^messenger

Sweet, thank you!
In reply to this comment by messenger:
That's some *quality *parody.

http://videosift.com/video/Serious-Talk-About-Death-Afterlife-and-the-Meaning-of-Life

You might like

>> ^Deano:

I've just started Richard Morgan's The Cold Commands (which I think is sci-fi/fantasy with gay characters but I'm not entirely sure) and then I'm going to reread American Tabloid by James Ellroy as I stopped and forgot all about it and I want to read the entire trilogy eventually.


You, sir, have excellent taste in books. Ellroy and Morgan are both awesome, especially the Dudley Smith and Takeshi Kovacs books respectively.

As for me, my last few were Iain Banks Transition, the Atheists Guide to Christmas and Paul Kimmage's Engage (true account of a tetraplegic rugby player, fascinating story and insight into coping with such a horrific accident).

I'm currently reading Milligan's Meaning of Life: An autobiography of sorts by Spike Milligan. It's really just a collection of Milligans other writings but it's great fun.

This is exactly what I have been thinking... Give this man a nobel he has unlocked the meaning of life.

@dystopianfuturetoday:

I see what you're going for, so here's your Yes. Where our opinions diverge is a matter of perspective.

Slavery is not unique to the Black race, nor even Black Americans, it's a worldwide institution with ancient origins that is still practiced in parts of Africa TODAY. Every race on earth has at one time been enslaved, just as every race on earth has also enslaved other races. As horrible as it seems to us, for centuries slavery was accepted as necessary and a part of life. For Black Americans to feel singled out is, to me, just silly.

So enter the Civil War, a complex struggle involving myriad factors that became more about slavery about halfway through. Republicans ended slavery. Not that is was all sugar and poetry: Lincoln said it didn't matter if he had to keep slavery or end it, he would do whichever it took to save the Union. Lincoln did the paperwork but the Abolitionists did the real work.

We had a Civil Rights movement and it was just. (Now we have a Special Rights movement that is unjust, but that's another chapter).

I don't buy this crap about psychic injuries from slavery. And yes, here is the part where I provide the transcript of Bill Cosby's "Poundcake speech". I know you're going to have your reasons for not liking what he had to say (and I'm sure Jesse Jackson, who was right beside him was shocked and pissed) but all the same, please READ IT.


Yes, there was a time in America where lynchings were common, racism was institutional and opportunities for Blacks were severely limited. That time has passed. Yes, there are remnants of the klan out there, but they're not the ones forcing Blacks to drop out of school, disparage reading books and getting an education as "the White Man's Game" or impregnating young girls like it's nothing.

We've had generation after generation of immigrants now, from Vietnam, India, the failed soviet bloc. They came here with nothing and in a generation or two have risen. And if the excuse is, 'Well, they're not Black," here come Blacks from the Caribbean, working hard and doing just as well. All of these immigrant groups have one HUGE advantage: they haven't suffered decades of this American victim mentality.

I trust your sincerity and the sincerity of all the liberals who want to see Black Americans improve their lot (and they have, most are middle class). But there are forces that demand the dependency of Black Americans and use a victim mentality to get their votes. I don't see why anyone would heed voices that say, 'You Can't Do It'.


RE: the "science" article bashing conservatives. In Japan there are "scientists" whose entire output is exceptionalist-nationalist philosophy (nihonjinron) that is to be taken very seriously. This article is on the same level as, "liberals are better lovers".








>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

qm - Imagine if you and the rest of your ethnic heritage were brought to this country as prisoners, to be sold as property to other people. You are bought and sold and expected to do hard labor without protest. Any resistance could mean your life, or your foot, so you quickly learn to submit yourself to the authority of the ruling racial class. Your ethnic heritage, as a whole, is kept in poverty and ignorance for many generations. Old proud traditions are beaten out of you, and new ones are created in secret, out of the watchful eye of your master. You cannot sing your music, but you can sing in the church choir, so you create your own new culture under the restrictions imposed by your masters.
Then a century down the road, it is decided that slavery is wrong and you are set free. Unfortunately for you, you are in your middle age with no money or education in a culture where you are thought of as subhuman. In this hostile environment, you are expected to compete with people who have been free all their lives, and more sinisterly, people who loathe you and are actively against your progress. They even create organizations to make life worse for you and to form lynch mobs to murder you and your kind.
This new generation continues to pass along the legacy of poverty, lack of education, self doubt, fear and shame to further generations. For the next few generations, laws are set up to discriminate against your people, and it is publicly acceptable to insult, attack and even kill your underclass with minimal consequences. There are new freedoms and a desire to rise above, but there are so very many cultural barriers.
Eventually society decides this underclass should have the same rights as everyone else, but at this point, the legacy of slavery has been imprinted on an entire culture for many generations - Hundreds of years of negative cultural conditioning. Although free in law, there is still much animosity aimed at your group. Not only are ou different in color and culture, but you also carry the stigma of being poor and not having access to the same level of education of the ruling racial class.
Eventually steps are taken to reverse this legacy of hate, poverty and slavery through government assistance programs, and while costly, they do yield success as your underclass rises in wealth and social acceptance. The fact that we, the racial ruling class, see them as equal and expect them to do as well as we do speaks greatly to the change in culture over the last half century. But, just are the legacy of slavery lives on in black culture, so does the legacy of hate live on in white culture. Groups of neo-confederate whites are angry that there is an effort to help remedy a problem created by our forefathers. They don't care whether or not these programs have been successful, they just hate the idea of this long hated underclass getting some help.
Just as the legacy of poverty has made it's way from generation to generation, so has the legacy of hate.
Perhaps the neo-confederates should take the log out of their own eye, before cataloging the failings of others. Or at least, they could attempt some understanding of why these stats are the way they are, how much progress has been made, and what could be done to stop these destructive legacies in the future.

Do you see what I'm going for here, qm? I'd love a yes, even if it comes with heavy reservations.

qm - Imagine if you and the rest of your ethnic heritage were brought to this country as prisoners, to be sold as property to other people. You are bought and sold and expected to do hard labor without protest. Any resistance could mean your life, or your foot, so you quickly learn to submit yourself to the authority of the ruling racial class. Your ethnic heritage, as a whole, is kept in poverty and ignorance for many generations. Old proud traditions are beaten out of you, and new ones are created in secret, out of the watchful eye of your master. You cannot sing your music, but you can sing in the church choir, so you create your own new culture under the restrictions imposed by your masters.

Then a century down the road, it is decided that slavery is wrong and you are set free. Unfortunately for you, you are in your middle age with no money or education in a culture where you are thought of as subhuman. In this hostile environment, you are expected to compete with people who have been free all their lives, and more sinisterly, people who loathe you and are actively against your progress. They even create organizations to make life worse for you and to form lynch mobs to murder you and your kind.

This new generation continues to pass along the legacy of poverty, lack of education, self doubt, fear and shame to further generations. For the next few generations, laws are set up to discriminate against your people, and it is publicly acceptable to insult, attack and even kill your underclass with minimal consequences. There are new freedoms and a desire to rise above, but there are so very many cultural barriers.

Eventually society decides this underclass should have the same rights as everyone else, but at this point, the legacy of slavery has been imprinted on an entire culture for many generations - Hundreds of years of negative cultural conditioning. Although free in law, there is still much animosity aimed at your group. Not only are ou different in color and culture, but you also carry the stigma of being poor and not having access to the same level of education of the ruling racial class.

Eventually steps are taken to reverse this legacy of hate, poverty and slavery through government assistance programs, and while costly, they do yield success as your underclass rises in wealth and social acceptance. The fact that we, the racial ruling class, see them as equal and expect them to do as well as we do speaks greatly to the change in culture over the last half century. But, just are the legacy of slavery lives on in black culture, so does the legacy of hate live on in white culture. Groups of neo-confederate whites are angry that there is an effort to help remedy a problem created by our forefathers. They don't care whether or not these programs have been successful, they just hate the idea of this long hated underclass getting some help.

Just as the legacy of poverty has made it's way from generation to generation, so has the legacy of hate.

Perhaps the neo-confederates should take the log out of their own eye, before cataloging the failings of others. Or at least, they could attempt some understanding of why these stats are the way they are, how much progress has been made, and what could be done to stop these destructive legacies in the future.


Do you see what I'm going for here, qm? I'd love a yes, even if it comes with heavy reservations.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.
But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.
Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.
New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins
The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.
Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?
Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."
Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156
"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"
Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J. & Weldon J. , "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.

>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?


Needs more quotes. But I guess that's what religion is all about, rely on things someone said before you and not think for yourself.

Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.

It's all you have, and we have to define what we're talking about when you say evolution, because there is microevolution and macroevolution. The difference between them is, one has been observed and one hasn't.

But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.

Science v.208 1980 p.716
DS Woodroff U. of CA, SD

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

New Evolutionary Timetable p.95
SM Stanley, Johns Hopkins

The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize.

Plant life through the ages p.561
AC Seward, Cambridge

Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

Of course there were atheists around before darwin, but they had no basis for a religion without a creation story.

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."

Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], "Darwin Day" website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], ", "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life", Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

"Dr. Gray goes further. He says, `The proposition that the things and events in nature were not designed to be so, if logically carried out, is doubtless tantamount to atheism.' Again, `To us, a fortuitous Cosmos is simply inconceivable. The alternative is a designed Cosmos... If Mr. Darwin believes that the events which he supposes to have occurred and the results we behold around us were undirected and undesigned; or if the physicist believes that the natural forces to which he refers phenomena are uncaused and undirected, no argument is needed to show that such belief is atheistic.' We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic, that the exclusion of design from nature is, as Dr. Gray says, tantamount to atheism."

Hodge, Charles [late Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA], in Livingstone D.N., eds., "What Is Darwinism?", 1994, reprint, p.156

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory-is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof"

Matthews, L. Harrison [British biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society], "Introduction", Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," J. M. Dent & Sons: London, 1976, pp.x,xi, in Ankerberg J.* & Weldon J.*, "Rational Inquiry & the Force of Scientific Data: Are New Horizons Emerging?," in Moreland J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL., 1994, p.275.



>> ^EMPIRE:
shinnyblurry, you are so fucking ignorant it actually hurts my eyes to read your comments.
I also love how your "atheist creation" history is somehow mixed with darwinism, which just proves how much of an ignorant you are.
Evolution is just another item in the list of fact we atheists can use to disprove religion, since according to pretty much every religion around, evolution is not real, even though it's a PROVEN fact, studied, analyzed and even used in several fields of science on a practical level, to the point of exhaustion.
Are you actually stupid enough (and I do believe you are) to think there were no atheists before Darwin came around, or to mix atheism and darwinism?

@hpqp, @Boise_Lib, you guys are awesome. I'm one of the people on this site that likes to self-identify as agnostic rather than atheist, and between the chart hpqp linked and your discussion, I think I can now be perhaps a bit more precise about why.

First, in this image, I fit exactly into the category at the top that says "It is impossible to gain absolute knowledge of God, so I tend towards thinking there isn't one."

I also am sorta surprised to find that I have the same position as Dawkins, in saying "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there," at least assuming that by "God" he means "a God who loves us and actively gets involved in human affairs."

Which sorta crystallizes the real distinction I'm trying to make. It's not actually a gnostic/agnostic or even a theist/atheist distinction, it's a judgmental/tolerant distinction.

The aspect of religion I feel most certain about is my agnosticism -- I don't think it's possible for us to really know one way or another about God, the afterlife, what the meaning of life is, etc. As a part of that agnosticism, I don't really feel like I have any right to tell people that their beliefs about these things are wrong, so I try to be respectful and tolerant of people's religious beliefs.

I'm still perfectly willing to be judgmental about people using their religious beliefs as a justification to do something I think is immoral, but that at root is about a moral disagreement, not a religious disagreement.

I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'monty, python, meaning, of, life, eric, idle' to 'monty python, meaning of life, eric idle, penis song' - edited by bareboards2

@NetRunner

1. "What I mean by "life isn't fair" is that people are not always wrong when they feel that way. Some people are right to feel that way."

For people who care to be successful, it is always wrong to try to quantify how unfair life is. Business books always advise against it. Ycombinator's unofficial motto is, wisely, "Strap on some plums."

Herman Cain emphasized drive and proactivity instead of a victim world view and that's why he was able to contribute to society in ways more advantaged "victims" are generally unable to.



2. "Giving poor and disadvantaged people a break is the liberal position. Do what we can to equalize income, and improve the quality and pay of jobs at the bottom of the payscale."

If liberalism cared about bettering people's lives, why do Maddow and TYT never educate their audiences with the kind of career intellectualism that would actually better their lives?

How effective is 'promoting outrage' really? Unskilled workers are becoming less valuable each year everywhere in the world, and the next US president has good odds of being a Republican.


3. "The problem isn't the study itself, per se, it's how the wider world will use it."

The problem is that all facts are connected, so if liberal academics intentionally lie in order to shape knowledge about human history and society, the increased inaccuracy created by those lies doesn't remain contained within those special areas. I hope we stay in touch for the next 20 years, so we can see if you reverse your position and start advocating reprogenetics to create actual rather than fictitious equality.

>> ^chilaxe:

"In other words, life isn't fair."
Right, that's what I'm arguing. But if Herman Cain was trained to think along the lines of your comment, he'd still be like all the kids he played with growing up: poor, uneducated, and blaming other people and refusing to adopt basic success strategies.

This is also why I'm saying "learn more about liberalism" -- you're doubling down on the idea that baked into my entire spiel above was some sort of resentment-induced self-destructive behavior.

Conservatives fall prey to that pretty easily, IMO. Most lash out at liberals in a pretty accusatory tone, saying their entire lives are being destroyed by taxes, regulation, the national debt and the Fed printing money. They like to talk about how rich they'd be, if only it weren't for taxes, or how it's just not worth it for them to work any harder, because taxes are higher on rich people. They say that any day now they might just "go Galt" and withhold their productivity to punish the creeping socialism that's invading their lives. They say unions are killing factories, immigrants are stealing their jobs, and the minimum wage is why people can't find work. It's not that they're not as creative as that liberal arts major, it's not that they're not as industrious as that Mexican immigrant, it's not that they should've paid more attention in class, it's liberals, immigrants, and government are to blame for all my problems in life.

What you're talking about isn't liberal, it's human nature. People generally wanna blame someone or something else for their problems, whether they're right or not.

What I mean by "life isn't fair" is that people are not always wrong when they feel that way. Some people are right to feel that way.

Just not the people whose biggest concern in life is a millionaire's surtax.

>> ^chilaxe:
Give poor disadvantaged people a break... encourage them to become success-oriented. The first step would be sincerely reading many business books.

Giving poor and disadvantaged people a break is the liberal position. Do what we can to equalize income, and improve the quality and pay of jobs at the bottom of the payscale.

Also, a free quality education, that teaches them not just facts and figures, but teaches them why what they're learning is important.

>> ^chilaxe:
On genes, I'm confused... is liberalism arguing that genetics substantially influence diversity in economic outcomes even to the point of diversity in the evolutionary history of ethnic groups, or is liberalism arguing what most liberal academics argue: we don't care if it's true and we'll break your faith in academia and liberal intellectualism by calling you the worst names in the language.

What, nigger? Oh, you must mean racist.

Let me try and explain. I'm saying liberals think life isn't fair. The real next step to being a liberal is to say "but it should be made as fair as humanly possible."

You believe racism still exists, right? Specifically, racial prejudice, conscious or unconscious, subtle and gross -- we still have that, right? And you also agree that that prejudice against your ethnicity will negatively impact the quality and number of opportunities made to you, right? You also agree that ethnicity isn't something you choose, or can change if you want to, right?

In a fair society, race shouldn't factor into the type and quality of opportunities people have in life. So for fairness's sake, we should try to discourage people from holding racial prejudice, because it's not fair to deny people an opportunity on the basis of their skin color.

In a market-driven society like ours, this means you should be hiring people based solely on their ability to do the job, not some unrelated characteristic (white, black, man, woman, gay, straight, etc.).

So the problem here is that while it's possible to make some sort of scientific observations about a link between ethnicity and intellectual capability, it's not really a question we should be terribly interested in as a society. And if someone does come up with some sort of empirical analysis validating one of those prejudices we're fighting against, it's morally wrong to then hand that kind of loaded gun over to the people who want to use that to justify denying opportunities to people on the basis of race.

In other words, that kind of study is rightfully controversial. The problem isn't the study itself, per se, it's how the wider world will use it. Racists will latch onto it as justification for their prejudices, just like they might cling to quotes from Bill Cosby.

None of that is a concern about the study of human genetics itself, it's a concern about the ways in which society might use that information.

"Firefighters put their lives on the line every day". *sigh* Just being a firefighter does not make you a hero. Nor does it mean your life's on the line all the time. It's not that dramatic. There was an explosion where he didn't get hurt... of course he kept going...