#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Could atheism lead to more problems than religion?
Could atheism create moral problems or such?
Add New Argument |
3
points
Could atheism create moral problems or such? Not likely. Countries with high levels of atheism (the Scandinavian countries) tend to have very low crime levels. In America, the percentage of the Atheist prison population is lower than the national average (indicating we are less likely to commit crimes). Most importantly, one does not need God to have morals. We come pre-packaged with a sense of empathy, and the ability to logically identify harmful actions. We can recognize that we are one species, a giant social organization and that helping others benefits the whole group, and we don't need someone speaking on behalf of a "higher power" to point this out to us. We also can easier "see things as they are" scientifically because we don't have some prior belief pushing us to disbelieve something that conflicts with old, untestable stories. This means we can advance and adapt more quickly and fluidly than many religions tend to tolerate. The reason America is high in crime is because it is highly ethnically diverse. Correlation does not equal causation. In fact there are recent studies that fly in the face of statements blaming crime on ethnic diversity. For instance a study done by UC Irving researchers compiled 2010 US Census and annual crime reports of local cities and compared back through the last 50 years. They found that in highly ethnically diverse neighborhoods not only did crime rates go down, but home values increased over time. Another study done by Immigration Policy Center had similar findings to the UC Irving study. They found that between 1990 and 2010 the foreign born population in the US increased from 9% to 13% while violent crimes decreased 45%. They noted cities that had large immigrant populations such as New York and Los Angeles also experienced a decrease in crime rates. Being ethnically diverse is less an issue with crime and more an issue with perceptions of the 'other'. These immigrants do add to the increased ethnic diversity of the population but are not in the same situation as many other people of different ethnicity. Those who immigrate usually have the financial means and skills to do so and do not find themselves in economically adverse situations as other minorities that find themselves economically compromised. Which leads to a highly possible cause, economic inequality. I think you will find high crime rates to be associated with great inequalities. In the same stroke you can find that highly diverse ethnicity and inequalities go hand in hand, hence the correlation you noted above. edit: couple of the sources. 3
points
Interesting how Canada, which is more diverse per capita, especially in its metro regions, has far lower levels of crime than we do. Mexico isn't especially ethnically diverse, but much more violent crime there. It is true that Christianity's direct influence on crime may be minimal. Religion tends to flock to poverty, and so does violence. Thus the seeming correlation between the two may be coincidental. But if Christianity truly inspires morality, than it should be able to oversome both poverty and ethnic differences. South America should be a pretty safe and low-crime continent given its huge percentage of Christian practitioners. So should have Europe during the days when virtually every kingdom was a theocracy. And yet. The idea of increased ethnic diversity feeding into the crime rates is a persistent belief despite the many examples and studies that show otherwise. One could easily draw a poor conclusion by using too few measures. This belief is widespread according to many polls, a person could just stop looking at the evidence too early feeling their belief has already been validated. I believe the erroneously held belief is largely to lack of interest in the related fields that feed into these issues. Some people may only have interest in a portion of the issue while the issue as a whole is very multifaceted. 1
point
I don't agree with Lolzors that ethnic diversity is the main factor in crime, but I do think it plays a larger role than religion. Do you agree with that? No. And Jroc seems to have some information on the subject suggesting a negative corelation between diversity and crime, so that might be a person with a more informed view on the subject. For my take, I'm compelled to ask why diversity could be assumed to play any role? For my take, I'm compelled to ask why diversity could be assumed to play any role? Racially charged hate-crimes ultimate source is diversity. There may be factors such as culture, education, economic situation and so on that can build off of this source and lead to a hate-crime... but it is the source that ultimately allows the crime into existence. An analogy I used for J-Roc was that to prevent a sinus infection (racism), we can increase our intake of Sudafed (education)... but the ultimate source, which is pollen (diversity) is still there. Arguing that a lack of education is the cause of racism, is like arguing that a lack of Sudafed is the cause of a sinus infection. We could get rid of pollen (diversity) and stop sinus infections (racism), but that would be a stupid move that would end up leading to more serious issues. The wise choice would be to increase intake of Sudafed (education) to continually prevent sinus infections (racism), which would then make pollen (diversity), more acceptable. Both... kind of. While I think diversity is a fantastic thing, it does have some negative effects. Racism leads to plenty of crimes. There is also obvious racial tension between different ethnic groups. Assuming that you're white, do you feel safer in a neighborhood full of blacks or a neighborhood full of whites? The same could be said when the races are reversed. It's no secret that a large portion of the black population consists of criminals and that more than likely has to do with the typical opinions of many whites, especially the big-wigs, regarding blacks. Blacks in those situations, tend not to trust whites. They often grow up poor and unmotivated, feeling like they'll never succeed in a "white world". So, they become rebellious... which leads to crimes. Diversity is important, but we aren't spread out evenly... so to speak. In other words, we aren't equal in terms of numbers. A nation with a large number of minorities, especially ones who were treated unfairly in the past, is likely to see a significant amount of crime. While I do agree with Lolzors that diversity does play a larger role in crime than religion, I also believe there are other factors. Like poverty, for example. Crime is terrible in the Middle East and Africa. They aren't very racially diverse, but certain parts are culturally diverse... but they're also extremely poor. All that being said, racism is clearly declining in the U.S. If crime is increasing, then it has more to due with other factors... but I seriously doubt it's because of religion. The second portion (the 2nd bolded part) on down you may find more relevant to this discussion. Where I start may be a whole different debate. I start here though as it may be a strong anchor for your stance though. It's no secret that a large portion of the black population consists of criminals ...can you cite this. How did you come to this conclusion? It is not that blacks have a "large portion of the black population consists of criminals" that "has to do with the typical opinions of many whites" it is that blacks make up for much more of the arrests for these crimes than their white counterparts. I would say that blacks are over represented in this aspect while other ethnicity that are considered white are under represented. Specifically current drug enforcement policy and practices are far more likely to arrest ethnic minorities for crimes than their white counterparts for the same crimes. http://www.hts.gatech.edu/dwc/images/ http://faculty.washington.edu/kbeckett/ Page 427 (9 on the pdf)of the study shows the disparity of users versus arrests by race on the second link. Under Beckett's study the research shows that blacks make up about 8 percent of the population in the area and about 15% of the crack cocaine users however they make up near 70% of the arrests for that offense. Whites however make up about 70% of the population and 70% of the users for that crime but only account for 20% of the arrests. Wash rinse repeat for other drugs. Garland and Bumphus's study arrives at similar conclusions to Beckett's about the over representation of minorities in arrests. I can find a few more studies as well if needed, Nyorp of USC springs to mind and I believe also has a joint study done with U of W. Current policing practices certainly skew how the public feels about these issues. While I do admit that in these studies blacks have a higher percentage of users in comparison to their population in the areas studied than whites, this has more to do with economic situation than their race or ethnicity. I don't think you were going there, just nipping that in the bud. It is not an issue of motivation, it is an issue inequalities (economic, education, social mobility etc). While I do agree with Lolzors that diversity does play a larger role in crime than religion Above you a few arguments I noted that this idea does not pan out either, in fact data shows quite the opposite. I think this is a correlation issue and not a causation. A study done by UC Irving researchers compiled 2010 US Census and annual crime reports of local cities and compared back through the last 50 years. They found that in highly ethnically diverse neighborhoods not only did crime rates go down, but home values increased over time. The study noted home ownership has much to do with low crime rates in these areas, meaning that in ethnically diverse areas that are economically sound has less crime. If a largely ethnically diverse population were to blame these areas would be affected as well. Another study done by Immigration Policy Center had similar findings to the UC Irving study. They found that between 1990 and 2010 the foreign born population in the US increased from 9% to 13% while violent crimes decreased 45%. They noted cities that had large immigrant populations such as New York and Los Angeles also experienced a decrease in crime rates. These immigrants do add to the increased ethnic diversity of the population but are not in the same situation as many other people of different ethnicity. Those who immigrate usually have the financial means and skills to do so and do not find themselves in economically adverse situations as other minorities that find themselves economically compromised. Which leads to a highly possible cause, economic inequality. Being ethnically diverse is less an issue with crime and more an issue with perceptions of the 'other' as with the first bolded statement from you above. I think you will find high crime rates to be associated with great inequalities. In the same stroke you can find that highly diverse ethnicity and inequalities often go hand in hand in many areas of crime, hence the correlation you noted above. edit: couple of the sources. http://today.uci.edu/news/2012/06/ TLDR? Well it is off topic. you just seem to be a level headed guy so I figured some studies relevant to your points may change your opinion a bit. ...can you cite this. How did you come to this conclusion? I think you may have misinterpreted my comment as saying "MOST of the black population consists of criminals", but what I really said was that a "large portion" consists of criminals. It just seems obvious to me. I have a job that takes me to many different places. Some of those places are prisons (not as a prisoner lol). The majority of the prisoners are always black, in my experience. They aren't always the majority population in the areas either. I've also traveled to many different countries. In Italy there are people who stand on the streets selling items illegally (purses, scarves, etc.) . When the cops come, they run away. Every single one of those guys was either African or Indian. I'm not exaggerating. In France there was a group of Africans (I say African because they said that they were from Africa) who would grab people's hands and start tying a string to it (some sort of African finger-bracelet, I guess). If the people tried to pull away, the African men would become more aggressive, even yelling at the person. If the person gave up, the men would finish tying the bracelet and then harass the person until they paid. Obviously, a big time scam. Now, I realize I may sound kind of racist right about now, but that truly isn't the case. I'm just sharing what I've witnessed. Anyways, I'll just share some information I found on the NAACP website: "African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population" "African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites" "Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population" "One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime" "Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice)." I would say that blacks are over represented in this aspect while other ethnicity are under represented. Specifically current drug enforcement policy and practices are far more likely to arrest ethnic minorities for crimes than their white counterparts for the same crimes. Is that not evidence that diversity can lead to crimes? How do you think falsely accused blacks are going to react? They don't have to be black either. If it were blacks falsely accusing whites, I imagine that would only increase actual crimes committed by whites. I can almost guarantee that the blacks (or anyone for that matter) who were arrested on drug charges, most likely drew unwanted attention to themselves. this has more to do with economic situation than their race or ethnicity. I don't think you were going there, just nipping that in the bud. Actually, I did go there: "While I do agree with Lolzors that diversity does play a larger role in crime than religion, I also believe there are other factors. Like poverty, for example. Crime is terrible in the Middle East and Africa. They aren't very racially diverse, but certain parts are culturally diverse... but they're also extremely poor." My argument is that diversity plays a LARGER role in crime than religion. Above you a few arguments I noted that this idea does not pan out either, in fact data shows quite the opposite. I think this is a correlation issue and not a causation. So, this comment that you made was in response to my "diversity plays a larger role in crime than religion" comment. You say that data shows the opposite? So, in other words... religion leads to more crimes than race? I find that hard to believe. Another study done by Immigration Policy Center had similar findings to the UC Irving study. They found that between 1990 and 2010 the foreign born population in the US increased from 9% to 13% while violent crimes decreased 45%. They noted cities that had large immigrant populations such as New York and Los Angeles also experienced a decrease in crime rates. As I said before, my argument isn't that diversity is the main factor in crimes, just that it plays a larger role than religion. Times are changing. We've progressed pass slavery and aren't nearly as racist as we used to be. Diversity's role in crime is decreasing, but it's still there. There is still both seen and unseen tension between different races. Of course, having a friend of a different ethnic background is different. You've had time to become comfortable with that person... but like I said in my previous argument, assuming you're white... do you feel safer in a neighborhood full of blacks or a neighborhood full of whites? People don't like to admit that there is still some unseen tension there. The majority of the prisoners are always black, in my experience. I am not sure you read fully what I wrote. I showed that blacks are over represented in this metric but you still list the number of arrests of these groups as proof of your stance. The studies provided show minorities (blacks in particular) made up less than 20% of the crimes committed that were in the study but over 70% of the arrests. Whites were almost the inverse of these numbers with 70% of the crimes studied but less than 20% of the arrests. Can you see how this invalidates your metric? I can almost guarantee that the blacks (or anyone for that matter) who were arrested on drug charges, most likely drew unwanted attention to themselves. According to the studies I posted, nope. Current policing practices target minorities out of proportion with the crimes committed according to the studies I provided, I can show more if needed but if you don't address the ones I listed there is no need really. I am not sure how this fits into your claim of Is that not evidence that diversity can lead to crimes? as it actually would lead to ethnically diverse populations can have issues with profiling and profiling is inaccurate rather than diversity leads to crime. So, in other words... religion leads to more crimes than race? This is my poor communication at work. I did not mean to include 'religion' in the comment but only wanted to contest that diversity leads to crime. Diversity's role in crime is decreasing, but it's still there. Links to verify this? Not that crime is decreasing, my posts showed that, but that diversity is the cause of these crimes. My second half of the post seems to counter this point directly. The studies I posted seem to show this idea here is flawed and in fact the opposite of what you claim is true or does not have a bearing on the situation. That is that diversity in the studied areas increased and crime went down, that is counter intuitive to your point. See my last point in this rebuttal to explore this idea more of decreasing crime (bottom of this huge amount of text). Your statements about ethnically/racially homogeneous groups having high crime rates due to poverty seems to undercut your points here as well and point to the factors being about poverty and not at all about race. Again the studies I linked showed that ethnically diverse cities had decrease in crime rates. The study also noted that areas with high home ownership had less crimes lending credence to my claim that this is a socio economic issue and not one of ethnicity. If it were about race or ethnicity these diverse areas would be affected still and your points about racially homogeneous groups would be also out of place (which they are). The common factor here is economic not ethnicity or race. assuming you're white... do you feel safer in a neighborhood full of blacks or a neighborhood full of whites? This plays into perceptions or profiling, not into crimes. Do people steal food or money because they are uncomfortable or because they are poor? Are people abusing these drugs because of diversity? Of course not. As for your argument that diversity plays a LARGER role in crime than religion. I don't see it as you outline it yet. The examples you give are of people in economically diverse situations, the cause is not being racially or ethnically diverse but economically hobbled. If you want to say that often minorities are economically worse off than the majority that still puts the cause on economics not race or ethnicity. I think your claim is post hoc. As for uncomfortable feelings causing crimes, sure hate crimes happen. Is diverse ethnicity responsible for hate crimes? Or is lack of education and or prejudices? I have further issue with your point here though Diversity's role in crime is decreasing,. The claim is a causal one, diversity does not cause prejudice rather lack of education does. If diversity were the culprit, then after education of the people who feel uncomfortable, diversity would still cause the issue. Since we see that diverse areas have decreased in crime over time we can rule out diversity being the culprit and look at the other factors that lead to crime, inequalities (education, economic etc.) I am not sure you read fully what I wrote. None of your links worked other than your final one. All of the others brought me to error pages. I showed that blacks are over represented in this metric but you still list the number of arrests of these groups as proof of your stance. I'm also going to use this highlight to respond to your argument that economic class plays the main role in black arrests. http://www.usatoday. Obviously, profiling plays a large role in black arrests... but what I don't understand, is how that isn't influenced by ethnical diversity... and while poverty does play a significant role in the matter, what are the factors that lead to blacks being more impoverished than whites? It would seem to me that ethnical diversity plays at least some role in that. The link that I provided was just to show that current economic situation doesn't always play a role in black arrests. The article mentions profiling, which the players themselves feel victim of, is possibly the main factor in their arrests. So, what is profiling? It is the "analysis and classification of somebody: the analysis and classification of somebody based on personal information such as ethnicity, shopping habits, or behavioral patterns, used, e.g. in criminal investigations or product advertising". Racial profiling can lead to arrests, which is obviously a problem... is it not? According to the studies I posted, nope. Well, I couldn't see your studies, so I'll just have to take your word for it. Current policing practices target minorities out of proportion with the crimes committed according to the studies I provided So how is that not related to race!? All you're doing is validating this point that I made: "It's no secret that a large portion of the black population consists of criminals and that more than likely has to do with the typical opinions of many whites". To put it in better words, racial profiling! Maybe rather than saying that a large portion of blacks are criminals, it might be better to say that a large portion has criminal records. Those arrests go on their rap sheets. This is my poor communication at work. I did not mean to include 'religion' in the comment but only wanted to contest that diversity leads to crime. Okay... fair enough. Links to verify this? No. Hell, it may be increasing! However, from my experience racism in particular seems to be continually decreasing. I should also add that when I say "experience" it's not as just some person who watches the news and goes to public places and thinks "society seems a lot less racist than it used to be!". I have a job that deals specifically with crime (I'm not a criminal LOL!). I often know precisely who is committing the crimes and what their background is. Maybe my experiences and the national statistics don't quite match up according to your studies, but I truly believe first-hand experience in a field dealing with this stuff can answer questions that the internet can't... or doesn't. My second half of the post seems to counter this point directly. The studies I posted seem to show this idea here is flawed and in fact the opposite of what you claim is true or does not have a bearing on the situation. If you could provide me with a better link, that would be great... if not, then I'm just going to remain in the dark whenever you mention your "studies". That is that diversity in the studied areas increased and crime went down, that is counter intuitive to your point. I don't think diversity is a bad thing, just to make that clear again. Also, I should probably clarify, that when I say "diversity", I'm speaking more broadly than just different people in the same area. Racism leads to crimes... true or false? Unfairly treated minorities also leads to crimes... true or false? It's the actions that diversity can lead to, such as racism and profiling, that often result in crimes and arrests. If we weren't racially diverse, blacks wouldn't be profiled and racism wouldn't occur within the states... but that's just because they wouldn't be here. It may be the economic situation that leads so many blacks to committing crimes... but since they are a minority, racial profiling will occur more often. This could lead directly to increased tension amongst blacks and whites in that area. How many times have you seen on TV or in a movie, a white cop arresting a black guy and the man being arrested shouting, "it's because I'm black!". That occurs very often in real life, believe it or not. The suspect never shouts, "it's because of my economic situation!". I'm pretty sure that within the argument I just made are responses to your other points. Certain things I couldn't address though, like your links... since I can't view them. http://www.hts.gatech.edu/dwc/images/ http://faculty.washington.edu/kbeckett/ Fixed links. I probably ruined my old links in an edit. My apologies. how that isn't influenced by ethnical diversity Again, the claim is a causal one. If the diversity was what causes crime after people educated/acclimated themselves diversity would still cause crime. Since crime rates have lowered as areas became more diverse this shows that diversity is not the cause but other factors are. So how is that not related to race!? All you're doing is validating this point that I made See above, it is not the race that causes the issue, it is prejudices, education, economic issues etc. Obviously, profiling plays a large role in black arrests... but what I don't understand, is how that isn't influenced by ethnical diversity. That's like saying diversity causes others to be less educated. The cause of profiling is under-education, not diversity. Again a causal argument, if diversity were the cause after education on the issue diversity would still cause the issue in those educated on the issue, which the links I provided shows to be decreasing while diversity increases. No. Hell, it may be increasing! err, the links I provided (the ones that originally worked) shows it is decreasing... If diversity is a cause in crime, then this would not happen. Racism leads to crimes... true or false? True, but is racism caused by diversity or by lack of education/acclimation? See my first point again. The claim is causal. IF diversity were the culprit, then after education and such crimes would still be caused by it. This shifts the cause not to be diversity but the other things I outlined. a white cop arresting a black guy and the man being arrested shouting, "it's because I'm black!". That occurs very often in real life, believe it or not. The suspect never shouts, "it's because of my economic situation!". That doesn't make the claim valid now does it? The corollary to 'diversity is a cause crime' is that to decrease crime we should be less diverse rather than 'we should be more educated'. Again, the claim is a causal one. If the diversity was what causes crime after people educated/acclimated themselves diversity would still cause crime. See below. Since crime rates have lowered as areas became more diverse this shows that diversity is not the cause but other factors are. Diversity may still be a cause in certain areas. I'm sure that there are areas that have become more diverse and crime has increased. See above, it is not the race that is the issue, it is prejudices, education, economic issues etc. Prejudice is often a result of race. As for education and economic issues, I think that goes hand in hand. So why is it that blacks tend to be more impoverished than whites? err, the links I provided (the ones that originally worked) shows it is decreasing... Then why did you ask for me to provide a link if my original statement was true? Is racism caused by diversity or by lack of education/acclimation? It could be both. Someone who is racist obviously wishes his/her society were less racially diverse. See my first point again. The claim is causal. IF diversity were the culprit, after education and such crimes would still be caused by it. Million dollar black athletes are being arrested significantly more than white athletes. That doesn't make the claim valid now does it? No, but that shows the racial tension, doesn't it? The corollary to 'diversity is a cause crime' is that to decrease crime we should be less diverse rather than 'we should be more educated'. A continuous decrease in racial tension would help. Increased diversity may not be the factor that results in less crime in those areas. I'm sure that there are areas that have become more diverse and crime has increased. The fact that diversity is seen in both sets shows that it is not the cause. If it were then the outcomes would be the same. Hows this...someone states 'Socialism caused the holocaust,' and someone else points out 'other socialist countries had no such inclinations'. Did socialism cause the holocaust or was the cause other factors? here is another one. If a magician has red cups and blue cups they are hiding balls under, and they hide balls under one color more than the other does the color of the cups cause this or does the magician cause this? The color is not the cause, the magician is. These are examples of a post hoc fallacy. This is why I claim your claim is of this nature. Prejudice is often a result of race. I am not sure you made the point you want here. I think I know where you wanted to go though. I disagree that race causes racism. Race is the target of racism, the cause is something else, see the magician analogy above. The very fact that as our society becomes more educated racism lessens and diversity is on the rise proves that race is not the cause. Then why did you ask for me to provide a link if my original statement was true? I wrote this: Links to verify this? Not that crime is decreasing, my posts showed that, but that diversity is the cause of these crimes. You still have not showed where this comes from other than your own mind. I showed that areas that increased in diversity had crimes decrease, if diversity is a cause of crime then this wouldn't happen. This shifts the cause elsewhere, see my magician analogy again. No, but that shows the racial tension, doesn't it? Which I am claiming the cause is based on education/acclimation not based on race. See my magician analogy. Furthermore if race was the cause there would be no decrease in these issues after education. You yourself stated that these are on the decline, how could that be if the cause was race and diversity is increasing as shown by the studies I linked? The corollary to 'diversity is a cause crime' is that to decrease crime we should be less diverse rather than 'we should be more educated'. A continuous decrease in racial tension would help. Which is my point, but I don't think you are understanding what you just wrote. A decrease in racial tension could be achieved by education. A decrease in racial/ethnic diversity would not decrease racial tension, it would decrease diversity. I think this is what you meant by decreasing racial tensions? So why is it that blacks tend to be more impoverished than whites? See my magician analogy. Is this due to a system of hegemonic power or because someone is X race. Again cause and affect, does race cause this or does prejudices. Million dollar black athletes are being arrested significantly more than white athletes. I think I covered this enough, this has to do with prejudices, systemic racism etc. The cause here again is not race but the things I outlined above. The socialism/magician analogies can be applied here again. The fact that diversity is seen in both sets shows that it is not the cause. If it were then the outcomes would be the same. But the argument isn't that diversity was THE cause. It's that it is A cause. Crime may be decreasing because the police force increased or the area became more family oriented... anything like that. The crime didn't completely vanish though. Some of the crimes that are still there may be as a result of racial tension. It never said that there was an increase in people with criminal backgrounds who moved to those areas. If a magician has red cups and blue cups they are hiding balls under, and they hide balls under one color more than the other does the color of the cups cause this or does the magician cause this? The color is not the cause, the magician is. It could be that the magician has a favorite cup to hide his ball under. Maybe he likes blue more than red. I disagree that race causes racism. Race is the main factor in order for racism to even exist. I showed that areas that increased in diversity had crimes decrease, if diversity is a cause of crime then this wouldn't happen. But hate crimes do exist. They don't have to be directly related to race, but some of them are. Education may play a role in it... but take away the diversity and racism won't occur, whether their education remains poor or not. The argument is not that race/diversity is the main factor... just that it is a factor. Which I am claiming the cause is based on education/acclimation not based on race. You're basically arguing that increased education is a cure to racism, which may be accurate... but you're also saying that low education is the cause. That's like saying that the cause of a sinus infection is not enough Sudafed. Sudafed could help prevent a sinus infection, but a lack of it isn't the cause. Furthermore if race was the cause there would be no decrease in these issues after education. Taking more Sudafed decreases your chance of getting a sinus infection, just like acquiring more education decreases racism. You yourself stated that these are on the decline, how could that be if the cause was race? The cause of a sinus infection is pollen (I assume). The amount of people with a sinus infection is decreasing, because more people are taking Sudafed... but pollen itself isn't decreasing. The cause is still there... the medicine is just making it less of a big deal. P.S. I don't really know if sinus infections are decreasing lol. That was just for the sake of the argument. A decrease in racial/ethnic diversity would not decrease racial tension, it would decrease diversity. It would decrease both... well, at least they couldn't act on their racial tension any longer. A decrease in pollen (diversity) would also decrease the amount of sinus infections (racism). If race is a cause then racists have no control over their decisions due to an object exerting a force on them and making the decisions for them instead of the other way around. The cup coerces the magician to put the ball where he does, and not the magician making the decision. This obviously has some issues with it... Lets apply this idea here: Race is the main factor in order for racism to even exist. This is like saying heads are the cause for baldness, without heads there would be no bald people. Having a head doesn't cause baldness, but the two ideas are inseparable. If i is an idea of x then x is the object of i. The relationship isn't causal it is necessary. Now we can see what ideas lead to racism or what leads a person to experience the objective reality in their subjective way. It could be that the magician has a favorite cup to hide his ball under. Maybe he likes blue more than red. This, the cup doesn't exert force or decisions here, the magician does. He 'likes' one color more than the other. The cup just is (objective reality). The interpretation of likes or dislikes is (subjective reality). The first cause of the idea is the subjectivity, that is by being experienced, the magician has a feeling about it that attributes qualities to the object, not the other way around. If you remove the cups we have the no head/no bald thing again. It is the subjective reality of the viewer that is the cause for the idea and not the objective reality. First cause is by the one experiencing the feeling as the two ideas (race/racism)are inseparable. The concept of both must be experienced to exist. This idea addresses about half of your points above and why I disagree (relationship is not causal but necessary). We're getting into ideas here of duality, types of reality and such. but you're also saying that low education is the cause A cause not the cause. This is where ideas that lead to racism come into play. There are many causes and many ways to deal with it. You can exert force (ideas debate etc.) on the subjective reality to change it, but not the objective reality. Well if you exert lethal force on the objective reality I suppose you could end up with the no heads=no baldness thing. But in this case you are not attacking the cause, you are attacking the entirety of the relationship. If race is a cause then racists have no control over their decisions due to an object exerting a force on them and making the decisions for them instead of the other way around. Racial diversity is the source. Racism is a bullet... racial diversity is a gun (maybe not the best analogy, but I'm sure you'll get the point). Without the gun, the bullet could not be fired. This is like saying heads are the cause for baldness, without heads there would be no bald people. Having a head is one of the factors that leads to baldness or rather allows baldness into existence, that is obvious. Diversity/race is a necessary factor for racism to exist... no matter how you look at it. You could prevent baldness by having a surgery, maybe get some hair implants or something like that... but when you go down the line and look for the ultimate source of baldness, you'll find that it's as dumb as just having a head. Obviously, you could prevent ever having to experience baldness by decapitating yourself... but that's just stupid. The same with racism and racially based crimes. You can prevent them by getting rid of the ultimate source, which is racial diversity... but that's just stupid. A cause not the cause. This is where ideas that lead to racism come into play. There are many causes and many ways to deal with it. Oh... well, I assumed you meant THE cause since you've been saying it yourself: "Which I am claiming the cause is based on education/acclimation not based on race.". Maybe there was some confusion, but my argument has been that diversity/race is the ultimate source of racism and race-based crimes. My argument hasn't been that economic situation or education isn't a factor. I am not sure we will see eye to eye on this. I get what you are trying to say but I disagree. We agree on many parts just some of the nuts and bolts are not lining up. Much of the original language has changed, previously you were lumping the 'source' in with causes like education etc. I think you are conflating the objective reality with the subjective reality. When you label racial diversity as the source of racism it is redundant because it is evident. Adding it to the list of causes of an output of subjective reality is irrelevant as we already know the prerequisite exists in the objective reality or we would not be discussing the idea. It is double counting the notion, tacking it on both ends of the issue. I have been outlining how the objective and subjective realities differ in the relationship and where causes come into play in regards to outputs like racism. You don't need to list race as a source of racism just as you do not need to list having a head as a source of baldness. They are prerequisites of the idea and not causes. This is why I say race is not a cause of racism and noted it is not a causal relationship but a relationship of necessity. I fear I may be repeating myself if we continue down this road. Thanks for the dialogue, if anything comes of this I hope it is knowledge of how groups are disproportionately represented in arrests in comparison to the crimes they commit (where this started). Much of the original language has changed, previously you were lumping the 'source' in with causes like education etc. I was thinking of racial diversity as the ultimate cause, but realized that term was leading to some confusion. So, I figured source would be a better choice. I think what you were referring to as "causes", I was calling "factors". Sorry for the confusion. When you label racial diversity as the source of racism it is redundant because it is evident. Which is why I had such difficulty in understanding why you were disputing me. Adding it to the list of causes of an output of subjective reality is irrelevant as we already know the prerequisite exists in the objective reality or we would not be discussing the idea. The argument of mine in which you initially responded to was regarding racial diversity vs. religion... and which one leads to more crime. They're both sources of their particular crimes, but religious intolerance, just like racial intolerance, has other factors... or as you've been saying, causes. Lack of education would be one, as you've been arguing is also a cause of racism. So, I think what you midunderstood is that the debate that I was originally in, which was diversity vs. religion, was not an argument of direct causes, but a comparison of sources... and which source leads (as the title implies) to more problems (even though I was addressing mainly crimes in particular). You don't need to list race as a source of racism just as you do not need to list having a head as a source of baldness. You probably get the point by now, but I feel like I could further clarify by addressing this statement. I don't need to list race as a source of racism, just like I don't need to list religion as a source of religious intolerance. The debate was a comparison of two sources to see which source has ultimately led to more problems. This is why I say race is not a cause of racism and noted it is not a causal relationship but a relationship of necessity. I'm not sure if you overlooked this, but in the argument that I made in which you first responded, I said this: "While I do agree with Lolzors that diversity does play a larger role in crime than religion, I also believe there are other factors. Like poverty, for example. Crime is terrible in the Middle East and Africa. They aren't very racially diverse, but certain parts are culturally diverse... but they're also extremely poor. All that being said, racism is clearly declining in the U.S. If crime is increasing, then it has more to due with other factors... but I seriously doubt it's because of religion." I think we agreed the entire time and you didn't even realize it LOL! I just thought that you didn't agree with the source. 2
points
Lets see: Fundamentalist Islam: 1. 9/11 2.Suicide Bombing 3.Female Genital mutilation 4.mysoginy 5. kill anyone who dares to critizise their religion Fundamentalist Christianity: 1. Bombing of abortion clinics 2. Murder of medical personell who work on abortions 3. Discrimination against homosexuals 4. Discourage condom use in heavy HIV parts of Africa 5. Take away a womans reproductive rights Fundamentalist Atheism: 1. Write books and lectures teaching logical thinking.... Yea, Im sure that less religion would be terrible..(sarcasm) 1
point
COULD it lead to more problems than religion? Sure, it could, under the right circumstances. I don't think it's very likely to lead to more problems than religion, however. Even if it could, religion has millenia of related problems under its belt that atheism would have to catch up to first- and even that would require that atheism create more problems in a given timespan than religion does. Outside of religion disappearing altogether, I find that extremely unlikely. 1
point
|