Ten oz

The basic definition of consciousness is the state of being awake or aware of ones surrounds. Many biological processes respond to surrounding environments. Single cell organisms respond to there surroundings yet responses do not neccessarily imply any sense of awareness as it applies to the definition of consciousness. Plants move in response to the sun. Are plants aware of the suns position in the sky? Where do we draw the line between chemical triggers, automatic biological responses, and our understand of awareness (consciousness)? *I am not implying or interested in the thought that plants and cells all have feelings.

^^^ I see conservative slightly differently. I don't believe many conservatives actually believe their own rhetoric. In our current society it is not appropriate to be openingly racist, classist, greedy, and etc. So a lot of conservatives true intentions are hidden behind made up arguments meant to mask unpopular themes. I don't believe most conservatives honestly think climate science is wrong for example. I think most of them simply don't care because there is so much money to be made. An exhibition of greed would never work in a debate so they just make crazy stuff up. They are like teenage boy going through puberty. They just try every angle and talking point imaginable that serves their only true desire which is to score. If a teenage boy thinks it will help him score any number of attributes will be exaggerated or faked. In my opinion the conservatives that actually believe the talking points not realizing they're cover are ignorant. While the ones who perpetuate false debates are legitimate sociopaths. Those of us who accept the falsehoods as real points are ignorant as well. With those of us who understand that they are lies but say nothing are cowards.

Context is critical. For example calling someone ignorant sarcastically may actually be a compliment. What matters is the intent. Are posters purposefully choosing specific words to slight each other or advance discussion. The difference can often be subtle and posters who prefer to argue against style over substance look to latch on to such oportunities.

The writer had some fun. And the title of this thread has a question mark at the end not an exclamation point. So I think you are missing some of the context here.As for picking out a few key issues; how parties vote matters. If you look at the record number of filibusters against Obama and Congress doing nothing at a historic rate itis clear that the whole party in towing the line. They don't just cherry pick. They are united and push a specific agenda and the public that donates money and votes for them supports that specific agenda. Perhap some more out of ignorance than insanity.

The OP and subsequent studies are the point of conversation in this thread. So if one does not wish to continue discussing them why read and or post in this thread? Here is an article from "Psychology Today" looking at 10 sign of mental illness within the Republican party. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolutionary-entertainment/201206/conservatism-mental-illness

I think people have the feelings you described above because religion is already a thing. Everyone already has a concept of it. Facts compete for a persons attention vs the foundation of myth which already exists. If there were no myths to begin with and a foundation of science did I don't believe religion would rise. It came about before because humans had far less knowledge. Humans did not know where floods came from, why eclipses happened, what caused volcanos to erupt, and etc. Starting fresh with our modern knowledge of science in a world where religion does not already have a huge footprint I do not think religion would organically just spring up.

I do not believe all black people share specific views. Some Black people like Clearance Thomas are crazy conservatives while others are brilliant advocates of science like Neil Degrasse Tyson. Nor do I believe all black people share a common environment. Jaden Smith for example has had a different unbringing than Tamir Rice had. The overwhelming majority of people who have religion have the religion they were born into. People born in Muslimmdominant areas who become religious become Muslim overwhelmingly. The numbers of people raised Christian who become Muslim or vice versa is very low. All religions in the United States other than Christian combined (Hindu, Muslim, Buddist, etc) are less than 5% and the overwhelming majority of them moved to the U.S. from a country where their faith was in the majority. If you need citation Pew Research and the Cencus Bureau have the statistics. Even if you could prove that people often change faith, blacks share common attitudes, or etc it doesn't lend a defense to container ions of this thread. This is not a thread about the insanity of black culture. Switching it to that does not serve as a logical defense of conservative ideology.

@ Overtone, bait and switch is a common debating tactic for conservatives. I wouldn't get too worked up over it.

I think that would depend on whether or not that large group of children were brought up with a modern understanding of Physics and Biology. While history reflects society after society creating myths those societies did so because they had no other explanations. When an explanation is availible myths is are not necessary. For example assuming the children involved in this experiment were taught astronomy it is unlikely they would invent a God to explain solar eclipses.

I think most people only have faith in first place because it is put into them as children culturally. Obviously the Bible (or any religious text) doesn't have to be true in order to have faith but how many children in Northern America and western Europe lay in bed at night pondering Allah, Krishna, Buddha, or any god that isn't Jesus? The concept of god exists because it is taught. I do not think questions about faith naturally happen the way questions about love and sex do. Children ponder religion because it is present it to them as a real thing. In Willie71's case I image he was exposed primarily to Christianity and the Bible. Once that was understand not to be true how much further is there to go? Some people claim Aliens have visited the earth. I don't feel compelled to examine every claim. Other people say God created life. I don't feel compelled to examine every claim. Unless there is a legitimate reason to explore faith beyond fallacies preached why bother?

You do not have any statistical analyst to support your assertion. A breakdown of the actual voting shows that their is no difference in the support Obama received vs other democrats:Al Gore in 00' received 42% of the white vote John Kerry in 04' received 41% of the white vote Obama in 12' received 39% of the white vote. The difference between all 3 democrats was marginal. What effected the outcome was a drop in the total portion of that specific demographic of total voters. In 2000 whites made up 81% of total voters. By 2012 that number had fallen to 72% of total voters. The trend continues for other groups: Al Gore in 00' received 90% of the African American vote John Kerry in 04' received 88% of the African American vote Obama in 12' received 93% of the African American vote Again, the difference in marginal. If you look up other groups (women, Asians, Latinos, etc) you will see the same consistantcy in rewards for which party they support. The race of a candidate, home state, age, and etc does not change the numbers. The idea that Obama won election because he is black is a fallacy. Obama received all the same support Democrats typically receive nationally. I used the last three national candidates as an example but the trend goes further back. 2000 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_00.html 2004 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_04.html 2012 http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_12.html

Of course not. The comment was not meant to be a complaint that I believed required action.

Religion informs a persons thinking. It effects the way its members process information. Religion is not any more a scapegoat for ongoing chauvinism in Islamic countries than science is merely an excuse for the existence of smartphones. What humans believe matters. I can not agree with the notion that religion has been blamed for wars that were actually cause by other factors like economics. No thought exists on an island. Manifest destiny may have been economic but it was thought up upon a foundation of religious thinking.

The Biological angles to discuss this from seemed to have dried up quickly. Perhaps this topic is better suited for the religion or politics? Far as biology is concerned life exists before and after conception. Human DNA is present before and after conception. The question as asked by the OP seems to seek a point of value which is more philisophical than biological. Philisophically I vote that human life begins at birth. All humans contain multiple living things inside of us. Every cell is alive. Yet is is all boardly considered part of one being. Until birth a fetus is part of its mother.

Many people attempt to demand explanations all the way to before the big bang as a means of saying science does not have all the answer. Meanwhile many average people can't explain how a combustion engine works. So there is a huge double standard at play. In my life every question I have every had about the world around me has been successfully answerd by science without the need for a God. Black holes, Big Bangs, time travel, and so on are not tangible things that currently are part of the world around me to my knowledge. So I do not seek absolute answers to them. I can accept not fully understanding them just as most of the population gets by having no idea how their smartphones work. People use God to answer false or redundant questions. An example of that would be attempts to understand what happens after death. I have always found that question silly. It is well documented what happens. We have graveyards full of dead people. To challange that which is clearly observable with no evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Please share. I have never been privy to anything I would consider a remotely reasonable answer for a proof question regarding god.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus

All points of view deserve to be heard but I see nothing wrong with labeling destructive ones as destructive. Labeling in itself is not a childish thing. We label any number of groups in society. People who willfully commit crimes are labelled criminals for example. If conservatives are not deserving of being labelled insane please provide an explanation that addresses their political beliefs. Simply calling labels unfair does not speak to the sanity/insanity of conservative dogma.

I can't think of any good reasons for cloning a human. Of course that doesn't mean there are not any. Many important scientific inventions weren't immediately recognized as such throughout history. So long as some basic guidelines are in place keeping the practice humane I don't see any any problem with it.

Why is this question one you "could never ask"? Personally I never had faith so it wasn't a matter of losing it. I did not grow up practicing any specific faith. As I got older and began hearing about various beliefs from others (friends, teachers, etc) none of it made any sense. Even as a 10yr old kid the concept seemed very convoluted. I think religion is something a person needs to be raised with. There needs to be a foundation in place for accepting the contradictions and absences of logical reasoning. I have older siblings that are all closer in age to each other than they are to me. They were taking biology in high school at various times when I was between 7-10 yrs old. Through their conversations and studying I learned to basic concept of evolution during those years. I was never conflicted about it. It made sense to me. I recall one day being at a friends house. His family are Mormon. I made a comment about humans evolutioning from an ancestor common to primates mistakenly assuming everyone understood that as proven history. My friends mother exploded and began yelling at me and demanding an apologize. She accussed me of calling her father and grandfather monkeys. I could not make any sense of it but gave her an apology because she was an adult and I was a kid. Ultimately I was asked to leave. Prior to that experience I thought religion was just cute fairytales like the tooth fairy or Easter Bunny. I did not realize that people actually believed it was real.

The technology could be applied that way. Encode a track and place software in vehicles that ensure they read the track while still responding to human control in terms of speed and passing. I'm personally a fan of Speed Racer and have not seen the film or cartoons. Does the construction of such a race track benefit society in some way?

This is a very difficult question. As already described in the OP life exists throughout the process. Even prior to Conception. If we are purely commenting on biology I guess human life begins at conception. At that point genetically it is a human and no longer just an egg or just a sperm. Of course a large number of fertilized eggs miscarriage. So conception is no guarentee of a birth or a life lived. So I selected not truly human until born because ultimately the mothers life is still the dominating factor. Once born a baby can survive being cared for by anyone willing and able. Prior to to birth life is still contingent on a variety biological processes.

There is a company called Anki that makes toy car race tracks that are encoded with positioning information. The toy cars have cameras on them that read the track and use that information to stay on the track. The cars themselves are operated remotely. Something like this scaled up considerably might provide you the sort of speed racer track you are imagining. http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/11/anki-drive-reveals-secret-track-technology-guides-ai-controlled-cars/

None, however it could become redundant. I like the idea I am just struggling to imagine it I guess. Do you have examples of possible discussions that would be specifically suited for a history forum that would not fit elsewhere?

It did not go over my head. I simply wasn't compelled by your examples for the reasons I outlined. The application of a political philosophy for most people is voting. When it comes to that you can paint with a broad brush. Most all conservative vote the same way. In that regard their personal beliefs are actually more lock step than that of religious people.