Endercreeper01

A supreme court ruling has been announced in favor of a Colorado baker. The case involved a Colorado baker who refused to serve cake to a gay couple for their wedding. This case seems like a good example of a situation that show how discrimination is justified in a certain context, where the context is within the framework of the religious beliefs of the baker. What do you all think of the case? Is it justified?

What woo are you referring to? The idea of a higher power is not woo, nor is the phenomena of synchronicity.

I don't have a problem with that.

What I said was there is a difference between evidence in scientific contexts and evidence in other contexts. What may not be considered evidence in science could be considered evidence elsewhere. I am referring to synchronicity in reality itself, with a significant alignment, pattern, or number appearing throughout in reality, where it would have a very small probability of occurring without any interference of a higher power.

You can call me a bigot all you want, and it still won't raise the black IQ above 86. According to this, it seems there is some genetic component to such differences. In fact, the gap only grows larger when looking at African countries. The IQ goes down to 70 for Africans. When such findings are paralleled by factors such as brain size, it becomes obvious that there are hereditary factors involved. And I don't see what environmental factors would lower the black IQ to 86.

My acceptance of a higher power does not have to based in faith. It can be based on reasoning, and also involve an observation of naturally occurring synchronicity in reality.

Race and intelligence already have commonly agreed upon notions. And the citation is in my post. I thought I just told somebody else this...

It's in my post.

One notable difference between the races is IQ. It seems that race and IQ have some sort of connection to each other. Studies such as described here have shown a difference between IQ in races. Most notably, blacks have been shown to be less intelligent than whites overall, with an average IQ of 86, compared to the white IQ of 100.However blacks have their advantages too, as they are stronger and more athletic than other races. However, the differences do not appear to be a result of environmental factors. They seem to be related to genetics or ancestry. It could be that it has to do with the way that different populations develop in their respective geographical regions. My question is how these differences could have evolved naturally. It doesn't seem like there should be any reasons for these differences to develop, except as a result of environmental conditions where the different races developed.

On a personal level, faith can be described as a trusting in it's existence, as opposed to simply believing in a higher power without any personal relationship or connection.

It's an example the attitude against racism or bigotry that is being taken too far. Someone says something bigoted ans all of a sudden they are treated like some sort of bad person. So what if she was a little racist in her comment? Her intention was to insult a specific person, not a whole race, and it should be OK to be racist in this context if someone is trying to say something racist towards something else like using it as an insult to somebody.

My definitions are supposed to be describing faith in a certain way. Faith in a higher power can be described as a trusting in a certain sense. Faith can still be described with the idea of trust, in a way that describes the way that faith involves a personal connection to a higher power.

You don't understand what trust really is in a religious sense if you don't always have trust in a higher power. It means giving your heart to a higher power, entrusting with that you not only exist, you exist with a purpose and a reason. It is all about giving trust in your existence and reality itself to a higher power and giving yourself to it. I might have, but I think the OP said something like this:

Faith is not only about belief, it is about trust. True faith is when you have trust in a higher power and you personally connect with the higher power.

Offense to a simple off handed comment is simply taking things too far. It's the general attitude that is being taken too far in general and causing things like this to happen. The idea that prejudice at all or the adherence to stereotypes is wrong is really being based on emotional opposition to racism rather than an adherence to truth. Stereotypes tend to be true a lot of the time or at least have some sort of accuracy. A desire to prevent racism, however well it may be, should not be held in higher esteem than an adherence to truth, no matter what that truth may be. Is canceling a show that affects the jobs of almost 200 people really the best course of action? Over reactions like this really do nothing but harm. It's not necessarily the companies fault. However they are still acting in compliance with a culture of over-sensitivity that prevails over common sense when it shouldn't.

It's not that they have to be extraterrestrial in nature. They could have any number of possible explanations, but what I mean is about phenomena outside of the reach of science. UFOs might not be extraterrestrial or even may be non-physical phenomenon, but either way fall outside of the reach of scientific inquiry. If UFOs are of a non physical explanation in any way they would definitely be outside of scientific knowledge. While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that is really only when discussing scientific knowledge. If something is outside of scientific thought, it can still be discussed outside of the context of scientific thought, although not being thought of as strictly true or untrue.

The problem is not only with the company, rather it is with the general attitude against racism, and the general attitude of taking offense.

The problem is with the idea of getting offended. The only thing that offense is rooted in is emotional reaction to a situation. There isn't any real reason behind taking offense to things besides emotion. As for Rosanne Barr, canceling her show was an overreaction, and it really doesn't accomplish anything. Not that there was anything wrong with what she said, because she really didn't say anything bad. It may be racist, but racism isn't really bad itself.

There really isn't any reason to be offended at someone who isn't being intentionally racist. Such reactions are based in emotion and not logic, and don't actually do any good.

The question is really about whether everything in reality must have a scientific explanation behind it. After all, science can only know about what can be directly verified and studied, as such some things may simply be outside the reach of scientific inquiry.

Racism isn't exactly always a bad thing as is thought. Racism can be justified in certain contexts or situations, even if it is offensive to some.

It isn't more or less, it is conscousness. How about observations of numbers appearing in a statistically unlikely manner repeatedly through reality, in a synchronized manner?

Well it isn't, so it counts as it shows the existence of a higher power.

It becomes statistically less and less likely to be a coincidence as it appears more and more times in reality. Eventually, it becomes obvious that it is not a coincidence.

It's more about the self that experiences consciousness which perceives itself as always existing, since it is constantly experiencing reality and must exist to be experiencing. This means that relative to the self it will always be existing.