Top Law Schools

x

Nope.

NZA wrote:Nope.

NZA wrote:Nope.

+1

I think if your beliefs have somehow put you in a position of being marginalized at some point (such as if you grew up in a family that took a very strong position of atheism and were harassed by religious folks) then MAAAYBEE this could be appropriate. But I think that usually 'diversity' characteristics are facts about you (or perhaps your family) that (1) generally you don't have control over (such as race) AND (2) which have potentially or actually marginalized or disadvantaged you in some way.

Just my opinion.

I'd bet atheism is pretty common in law schools.

Lawquacious wrote:I think if your beliefs have somehow put you in a position of being marginalized at some point (such as if you grew up in a family that took a very strong position of atheism and were harassed by religious folks) then MAAAYBEE this could be appropriate. But I think that usually 'diversity' characteristics are facts about you (or perhaps your family) that (1) generally you don't have control over (such as race) AND (2) which have potentially or actually marginalized or disadvantaged you in some way.

Just my opinion.

Nope.

Sorry man. The only CR is "no."

You're not a Zoroastrian. You're an Atheist. It's not that diverse and I would imagine any DS you would write on that would come off pretentious as shit.

NZA wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:I think if your beliefs have somehow put you in a position of being marginalized at some point (such as if you grew up in a family that took a very strong position of atheism and were harassed by religious folks) then MAAAYBEE this could be appropriate. But I think that usually 'diversity' characteristics are facts about you (or perhaps your family) that (1) generally you don't have control over (such as race) AND (2) which have potentially or actually marginalized or disadvantaged you in some way.

Just my opinion.

Nope.

Sorry man. The only CR is "no."

I respectfully disagree; I think if someone had the experience of being marginalized for religious beliefs (or lack thereof) while growing up that it could reasonably be considered an element of 'diversity.'

But I am definitely not saying that this likely applies to OP's situation, nor recommending that OP write a DS on this topic.

Lawquacious wrote:

NZA wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:I think if your beliefs have somehow put you in a position of being marginalized at some point (such as if you grew up in a family that took a very strong position of atheism and were harassed by religious folks) then MAAAYBEE this could be appropriate. But I think that usually 'diversity' characteristics are facts about you (or perhaps your family) that (1) generally you don't have control over (such as race) AND (2) which have potentially or actually marginalized or disadvantaged you in some way.

Just my opinion.

Nope.

Sorry man. The only CR is "no."

Meh.. that's your opinion. I respectfully disagree; if the narrow set of conditions I mentioned above were met, I think the experience of being marginalized for religious beliefs while growing up (or lack thereof) could reasonably be considered an element of 'diversity.'

But I am definitely not saying that this likely applies to OP's situation.

I like you as a TLSer, but, I'm sorry, no.

Any sort of ideological DS is absolutely not going to help your chances at admission.

NZA wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:

NZA wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:I think if your beliefs have somehow put you in a position of being marginalized at some point (such as if you grew up in a family that took a very strong position of atheism and were harassed by religious folks) then MAAAYBEE this could be appropriate. But I think that usually 'diversity' characteristics are facts about you (or perhaps your family) that (1) generally you don't have control over (such as race) AND (2) which have potentially or actually marginalized or disadvantaged you in some way.

Just my opinion.

Nope.

Sorry man. The only CR is "no."

Meh.. that's your opinion. I respectfully disagree; if the narrow set of conditions I mentioned above were met, I think the experience of being marginalized for religious beliefs while growing up (or lack thereof) could reasonably be considered an element of 'diversity.'

But I am definitely not saying that this likely applies to OP's situation.

I like you as a TLSer, but, I'm sorry, no.

Any sort of ideological DS is absolutely not going to help your chances at admission.

I think that saying there is never a case where religiously-related beliefs that have had a strong marginalization effect in someone's life can be considered a diversity factor is overstated though. Diversity is by its nature a fluid and largely contextual issue (e.g. what groups comprise minorities and what draws discrimination can differ in different cultures), although obviously people have come to accept that there are certain categories that are 'diverse' based on cultural realities--I think these diversity norms probably should generally be what is focused on in any DS, but also think that the categorical assertion that it could never be appropriate to do a DS on atheism is short-sighted. Is it a good idea though for OP to do it though? I think almost definitely not.

I didn't initially realize that this was the URM forum; I apologize if I offended anyone here. I think that my arguments would have been less hypothetical if I had realized that.

OP I hope you are not a troll.

Lawquacious wrote:I didn't initially realize that this was the URM forum; I apologize if I offended anyone here. I think that my arguments would have been less hypothetical if I had realized that.

OP I hope you are not a troll.

Dude, I feel like you're cool, you're offering your opinion, that's what this forum is for.

I just think OP needs to actually go more into detail, I guess, before anyone can really offer him advice. If it's like, "Oh, I read "The God Delusion" and my parents still made me go to church" then that is retarded.

If it's, "I had to flee X country because the Y religious figure demanded I be executed" then that would obviously be different. Though, frankly, I think that would be a true DS in the sense that it is about diversity, not your ideological position.

NZA wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:I didn't initially realize that this was the URM forum; I apologize if I offended anyone here. I think that my arguments would have been less hypothetical if I had realized that.

OP I hope you are not a troll.

Dude, I feel like you're cool, you're offering your opinion, that's what this forum is for.

I just think OP needs to actually go more into detail, I guess, before anyone can really offer him advice. If it's like, "Oh, I read "The God Delusion" and my parents still made me go to church" then that is retarded.

If it's, "I had to flee X country because the Y religious figure demanded I be executed" then that would obviously be different. Though, frankly, I think that would be a true DS in the sense that it is about diversity, not your ideological position.

Thx for understanding dude-- yeah, I think OP is almost definitely closer to the first variety you mentioned, in which case I think a DS on the topic is in fact entirely inappropriate.

Lawquacious wrote:

NZA wrote:

Lawquacious wrote:I didn't initially realize that this was the URM forum; I apologize if I offended anyone here. I think that my arguments would have been less hypothetical if I had realized that.

OP I hope you are not a troll.

Dude, I feel like you're cool, you're offering your opinion, that's what this forum is for.

I just think OP needs to actually go more into detail, I guess, before anyone can really offer him advice. If it's like, "Oh, I read "The God Delusion" and my parents still made me go to church" then that is retarded.

If it's, "I had to flee X country because the Y religious figure demanded I be executed" then that would obviously be different. Though, frankly, I think that would be a true DS in the sense that it is about diversity, not your ideological position.

Thx for understanding dude-- yeah, I think OP is almost definitely closer to the first variety you mentioned, in which case I think a DS on the topic is in fact entirely inappropriate.

Okay, Im not sure why this is in URM that was silly of me.

After hearing these responses I agree that the answer is no, i just was wondering what peoples thoughts would be (not a flame). To be clear I am not some prick (No I did not read the God Delusion and get all anti-rightous). I grew up in a household with one deeply Muslim and one deeply christian parent, I have basically been an atheist since Day 1 and it connects to my personality and viewpoint in interesting ways. I still agree no PS...

Moved.

admisionquestion wrote:Hi,

I know religious beliefs are not something that earns URM boosts.

But if being an atheist has substantially influenced my life is it something worth writing about in a DS?

I would avoid it because you really don't know who will be reading your DS. Being anti-atheists is much more common than being anti-gay or racist. I would not risk that unless you think it would significantly increase your chance of admissions, which I doubt because as others have noted being atheist or agnostic is common in graduate education.

Calling atheism a religious belief is like calling bald a hair color.

/thread

BeaverHunter wrote:Calling atheism a religious belief is like calling bald a hair color.

/thread

BeaverHunter wrote:Calling atheism a religious belief is like calling bald a hair color.

/thread

Definitely not at all bothered by your comment but I am hoping to start a friendly debate.

I have heard this sentiment often and it confuses me. As I understand it:

Atheist = without god
apolitical=without politics

To call someone apolitical is to say that the person does not have beliefs about politics.
To call someone atheist is to say that the person does not believe in the existence of a god.

Do you see how not believing in the existence of a god is not the same thing as not having religious beliefs.

Unless, religious beliefs are only beliefs affirming the existence of religious conjectures... but that is not usually how that grammar would work. Political Beliefs means to have beliefs about politics at all. You would never say an anarchist is apolitical just because they do not support affirmative conjectures about government.

admisionquestion wrote:

BeaverHunter wrote:Calling atheism a religious belief is like calling bald a hair color.

/thread

Definitely not at all bothered by your comment but I am hoping to start a friendly debate.

I have heard this sentiment often and it confuses me. As I understand it:

Atheist = without god
apolitical=without politics

To call someone apolitical is to say that the person does not have beliefs about politics.
To call someone atheist is to say that the person does not believe in the existence of a god.

Do you see how not believing in the existence of a god is not the same thing as not having religious beliefs.

Unless, religious beliefs are only beliefs affirming the existence of religious conjectures... but that is not usually how that grammar would work. Political Beliefs means to have beliefs about politics at all. You would never say an anarchist is apolitical just because they do not support affirmative conjectures about government.

Since you asked, I'd suggest you get a firmer grasp on your "beliefs" before writing a personal statement about them.

BeaverHunter wrote:

admisionquestion wrote:

BeaverHunter wrote:Calling atheism a religious belief is like calling bald a hair color.

/thread

Definitely not at all bothered by your comment but I am hoping to start a friendly debate.

I have heard this sentiment often and it confuses me. As I understand it:

Atheist = without god
apolitical=without politics

To call someone apolitical is to say that the person does not have beliefs about politics.
To call someone atheist is to say that the person does not believe in the existence of a god.

Do you see how not believing in the existence of a god is not the same thing as not having religious beliefs.

Unless, religious beliefs are only beliefs affirming the existence of religious conjectures... but that is not usually how that grammar would work. Political Beliefs means to have beliefs about politics at all. You would never say an anarchist is apolitical just because they do not support affirmative conjectures about government.

Since you asked, I'd suggest you get a firmer grasp on your "beliefs" before writing a personal statement about them.

What the heck? I asked to debate a matter of semantics and never claimed to be the least bit confused. I am damn sure I know what I believe in... I am slightly less sure I know if a rejection of a system constitutes beliefs of or in that system. Your response is rude and I am for once actually insulted.

admisionquestion wrote:

BeaverHunter wrote:Calling atheism a religious belief is like calling bald a hair color.

/thread

Definitely not at all bothered by your comment but I am hoping to start a friendly debate.

I have heard this sentiment often and it confuses me. As I understand it:

Atheist = without god
apolitical=without politics

To call someone apolitical is to say that the person does not have beliefs about politics.
To call someone atheist is to say that the person does not believe in the existence of a god.

Do you see how not believing in the existence of a god is not the same thing as not having religious beliefs.

Unless, religious beliefs are only beliefs affirming the existence of religious conjectures... but that is not usually how that grammar would work. Political Beliefs means to have beliefs about politics at all. You would never say an anarchist is apolitical just because they do not support affirmative conjectures about government.

Are you really using English grammar and the fact that they both start with "a" to question whether or not atheism is a religion?

admisionquestion wrote:

BeaverHunter wrote:

admisionquestion wrote:

BeaverHunter wrote:Calling atheism a religious belief is like calling bald a hair color.

/thread

Definitely not at all bothered by your comment but I am hoping to start a friendly debate.

I have heard this sentiment often and it confuses me. As I understand it:

Atheist = without god
apolitical=without politics

To call someone apolitical is to say that the person does not have beliefs about politics.
To call someone atheist is to say that the person does not believe in the existence of a god.

Do you see how not believing in the existence of a god is not the same thing as not having religious beliefs.

Unless, religious beliefs are only beliefs affirming the existence of religious conjectures... but that is not usually how that grammar would work. Political Beliefs means to have beliefs about politics at all. You would never say an anarchist is apolitical just because they do not support affirmative conjectures about government.

Since you asked, I'd suggest you get a firmer grasp on your "beliefs" before writing a personal statement about them.

What the heck? I asked to debate a matter of semantics and never claimed to be the least bit confused. I am damn sure I know what I believe in... I am slightly less sure I know if a rejection of a system constitutes beliefs of or in that system. Your response is rude and I am for once actually insulted.

Flame.

There is no need to be rude.

This was never a flame. Yes I am using english grammar to debate something. There is absolutely NOTHING absurd about that.

Look dude, a lack of belief does not constitute beliefs. I'd give you more than one liners if your position was defensible but it is not. Move on, you've lost this one.