Conservatives, why do you vote against intelligence in party leaders?

[momeNt]

Lets take the Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." Even if someone is trying to do you harm, you can't kill them? Or "Thou shalt not lie." What if your wife asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" or someone was being nice and cooked something food you and it sucks ass, should you tell them "This tastes awful."?

What are you trying to say? He just said strictly literal interpretations would result in retardation. You retarded?

 

[her209]

What are you trying to say? He just said strictly literal interpretations would result in retardation. You retarded?

I was adding to his post.

 

[momeNt]

I was adding to his post.

Man forums sometimes just don't convey things like that! I'm sorry, I thought you were countering him, I'm retarded for even thinking your response was a counter. lol sorry.

 

[polarmystery]

How can you be agnostic and athiest? The two conflict.

false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[19] A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

 

[her209]

false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

Read that again.

They claim not to know whether a deity exists or not, but do not believe in the existences of any deity.

 

[momeNt]

Read that again.

They claim not to know whether a deity exists or not, but do not believe in the existences of any deity.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.

They are simply saying I haven't proven a deity doesn't exist. Using Richard Dawkins as an example, he is not agnostic because he believes he knows a deity does not exist, furthermore, he is the one that has proven it

 

[William Gaatjes]

People are not asking for proper experience or intelligence. They want the person that promises the biggest TURKEY :thumbsdown:


Note I stated people; not political party.

This is only true if the party candidates and the party members are part of the people and that can be doubted if that is the case.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm a catholic and tend to vote republican. I have no problem with evolution or science, and I don't understand why some christians see it as a threat to their belief in God. Scientific arguments do not address philosophical issues, and there's no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive. However, that rebuke goes to atheists as well, who do not limit their views on evolutions strictly to the domain of science, but also use it to try and disprove God's existence.

You make a very good point but I don't think an effective counter to the atheists argument is to refute the science. While I do not believe in God if in fact it does exist there is no reason that an all powerful being that theists believe God is couldn't have made evolution as well. Would not a perfect creator give his creation the ability to adapt to the ever changing planet he created and put us on? Even the Catholic Church recognizes evolution now.

I find it insanely ironic that in my state they are trying to get ID/Creationism taught in science class while my daughters Catholic school teaches nothing but Evolution in science class. They leave the biblical creation for religion class...

This isn't about intellect. This is about an age-old debate. Evolution is a scientific concept that has been leveraged for its utility in the atheist-theist debate, with the OPs argument as the atheist's primary weapon: evolution disproves God, and anyone who thinks otherwise in unintellectual. Ironically, that is a thoroughly unintellectual position to hold. Intellectuals would think twice before casually dismissing the beliefs of the vast majority of human beings throughout history as nothing more than a particularly pervasive superstition.

The vast majority of human beings that have lived on this rock did not believe in what most believe in today. I would wager that the sun was worshiped for far longer than "God". You can even see a lot of resemblance in some of the major modern religions to old pagan religions and/or sun worship.

For the record, I don't care what your philosophical beliefs are or if you believe in any particular religion or not. I am not trying to convert anyone into non-belief. I would really really appreciate it if you theists would return the favor.

 

[Craig234]

Lets take the Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." Even if someone is trying to do you harm, you can't kill them? Or "Thou shalt not lie." What if your wife asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" or someone was being nice and cooked something food you and it sucks ass, should you tell them "This tastes awful."?

As I understand it, the commandment is 'thou shall not murder' rather than kill.

Of course, some believe that some things the country might say are 'justified killing' are murder, take a lot of Vietnam and other military killing for example.

I don't know the translation of the original language on lying, but there are different types of lies. It might say not to do certain types. But, let's say that yes, it does mean don't answer falsely even when diplomacy might prefer it. But the answer 'it doesn't make you look thin, but you look beautiful in it' might not only be honest, but more diplomatic and 'score more points' than the lie.

These things come up; what if you marry an ugly person? It might not be a good idea to lie about it, as diplomatic as that is.

A tougher case is when someone doing wrong makes a lie tempting. If you are being robbed, and the robber asks 'do you have any jewelry in the house?'; if a hostage taker asks a question where a lie can save the hostages? What then? There's no 'except' clause.

I think this is where some common sense and interpretation come in - and the bible supports this.

How many stories are things like Jesus saying to rescue the animal in a ditch despite the bible saying not to work on the Sabbath, and not listing an exception?

In the robbery example above, interpret it. He's just asking you to help him rob you more; probably under the threat of harm. I don't think you owe him an honest answer to that. Now, it gets more complicated when you recall instructions to give a man who wants your shirt, your coat too, or turning your other cheek if slapped. But if you tell them where the jewelry is for those reasons, it's not the same as the issue on lying.

If you walk into a church and ask for the gold cup, I wonder what they'd say? Have times changed to affect this between the economy then versus now?

It says to give to anyone who asks you to; does a 'Sabbath' type exception apply for, say, drug addicts who ask for money?

 

[woolfe9999]

Dawkin's is all about disproving religion through evolution, so it is material to the discussion.

Seems like you might be slightly mistaken on what scientific theory actually means though. It cannot be distilled into a simple equation like scientific laws which can explain our observations. It is an explanation that is supported by a strong body of evidence and as such has yet to be disproved.

Full disclosure: I do subscribe to the theory of evolution

How is this thread about Dawkins? I think Atreus was subtely changing the subject here to focus attention on something he thinks he can attack/critique among atheists, but the critique is off point. The thread topic is "why do republicans vote against intelligence," and Perry's rejection of evolution is used as an example. Perry does not believe in God and accept evolution. He flatly rejects evolution.

Even addressing Atreus' off point argument on its merits, I would add that atheists aren't the only people who think evolution poses a problem for religion. Quite clearly, many creationists implicitly buy into that as well or they wouldn't be so concerned about refuting evolution. Perry himself most likely buys into this same "unintellectual" position that Atreus ascribes to atheists.

It's also not a very accurate description of common arguments made by atheists, which typically run along the lines of saying that evolution disproves the stories of the bible as taken literally. I don't often hear that it disproves the existence of any kind of creator in and of itself. The most common position of atheists seems to be that evolution (among other things) disproves the Bible as a literal story and, furthermore, that there just isn't sufficient evidence of any kind of deity, which is a separate argument.

As to the use of the term "theory," I agree that in science a "theory" is not something conclusively proven for all time and hence set in stone. However, it does mean considerably more than it means in common diction. It does have the status of something that is considered generally accepted until proven otherwise. Perry's use of the idiomatic expression "just a theory" tracks the use of the expression in common parlance, where it is used non-scientifically to refer to something that is basically just conjectural. It's either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous to use the expression "just a theory" to attack any scientific theory. At the very least, it preys on the ignorance of many people about science, hoping that they won't understand that "theory" means more than conjecture in science.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I thought the issue of 'theory' versus 'law' for gravity might be useful for discussing the 'theory' of evolution, and found this with Google:

Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws

This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S. president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was "just a theory." The president's misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until "lawness" has been bestowed upon it.

The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).

For instance, Newton described the relationship of mass and distance to gravitational attraction between objects with such precision that we can use the law of gravity to plan spaceflights. During the Apollo 8 mission, astronaut Bill Anders responded to the question of who was flying the spacecraft by saying, "I think that Issac Newton is doing most of the driving fight now." (Chaikin, 1994, p. 127). His response was understood by all to mean that the capsule was simply following the basic laws of physics described by Isaac Newton years centuries earlier.

The more thorny, and many would say more interesting, issue with respect to gravity is the explanation for why the law operates as it does. At this point, there is no well. accepted theory of gravity. Some physicists suggest that gravity waves are the correct explanation for the law of gravity, but with clear confirmation and consensus lacking, most feel that the theory of gravity still eludes science. Interestingly, Newton addressed the distinction between law and theory with respect to gravity. Although he had discovered the law of gravity, he refrained from speculating publically about its cause. In Principial, Newton states" . . . I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained . . ."

 

[Atreus21]

Lets take the Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill." Even if someone is trying to do you harm, you can't kill them? Or "Thou shalt not lie." What if your wife asks you "Does this dress make me look fat?" or someone was being nice and cooked something food you and it sucks ass, should you tell them "This tastes awful."?

In Hebrew, it was translated into thou shalt not murder. There are just reasons for killing. Murder is not among them.

 

[Craig234]

If 75% of voters a politician wants to appeal to say the sky is orange, there will be politicians who don't say it's blue.

Perry's behavior isn't really about science - it's about pandering for votes.

Huntsman, trying to distinguish himself rather than chase the same voters, criticizes Perry's statements (and has 1% in polls).

Sadly, I suspect there's a connection between right-wing policies that are anti-education, and their preference for voters easier to manipulate.

It's a fitting coincidence it's called 'liberal arts'.

 

[Atreus21]

You make a very good point but I don't think an effective counter to the atheists argument is to refute the science. While I do not believe in God if in fact it does exist there is no reason that an all powerful being that theists believe God is couldn't have made evolution as well. Would not a perfect creator give his creation the ability to adapt to the ever changing planet he created and put us on? Even the Catholic Church recognizes evolution now.

I find it insanely ironic that in my state they are trying to get ID/Creationism taught in science class while my daughters Catholic school teaches nothing but Evolution in science class. They leave the biblical creation for religion class...

Absolutely agree. Intelligent Design is a matter of philosophy, not science.

The vast majority of human beings that have lived on this rock did not believe in what most believe in today. I would wager that the sun was worshiped for far longer than "God". You can even see a lot of resemblance in some of the major modern religions to old pagan religions and/or sun worship.

For the record, I don't care what your philosophical beliefs are or if you believe in any particular religion or not. I am not trying to convert anyone into non-belief. I would really really appreciate it if you theists would return the favor.

Well, I'd gladly return the favor to you. But don't you think it's a question worth discussing? I don't see how any question could be more consequential. I don't think it's a matter of conversion to argue over whether something exists or not.

 

[momeNt]

How is this thread about Dawkins? I think Atreus was subtely changing the subject here to focus attention on something he thinks he can attack/critique among atheists, but the critique is off point. The thread topic is "why do republicans vote against intelligence," and Perry's rejection of evolution is used as an example. Perry does not believe in God and accept evolution. He flatly rejects evolution.

Even addressing Atreus' off point argument on its merits, I would add that atheists aren't the only people who think evolution poses a problem for religion. Quite clearly, many creationists implicitly buy into that as well or they wouldn't be so concerned about refuting evolution. Perry himself most likely buys into this same "unintellectual" position that Atreus ascribes to atheists.

It's also not a very accurate description of common arguments made by atheists, which typically run along the lines of saying that evolution disproves the stories of the bible as taken literally. I don't often hear that it disproves the existence of any kind of creator in and of itself. The most common position of atheists seems to be that evolution (among other things) disproves the Bible as a literal story and, furthermore, that there just isn't sufficient evidence of any kind of deity, which is a separate argument.

As to the use of the term "theory," I agree that in science a "theory" is not something conclusively proven for all time and hence set in stone. However, it does mean considerably more than it means in common diction. It does have the status of something that is considered generally accepted until proven otherwise. Perry's use of the idiomatic expression "just a theory" tracks the use of the expression in common parlance, where it is used non-scientifically to refer to something that is basically just conjectural. It's either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous to use the expression "just a theory" to attack any scientific theory. At the very least, it preys on the ignorance of many people about science, hoping that they won't understand that "theory" means more than conjecture in science.

- wolf

Well Dawkin's wrote the story. He is pushing for the elimination of God in schools the very same way that the Catholic church was pushing for the elimination of science 500 or however many years ago.

I try not to consider it as an issue between what is right or wrong, I look at it as an issue of freedom, if schools were made private, then politician's views on the issue would be immaterial, schools can teach whatever they want, the ones that teach evolution are free to do so, and the ones that don't are free to do so. What is the need for government endorsed censorship on either side of the issue? Why is government even involved in deciding what our children learn?

 

[Atreus21]

How is this thread about Dawkins? I think Atreus was subtely changing the subject here to focus attention on something he thinks he can attack/critique among atheists, but the critique is off point. The thread topic is "why do republicans vote against intelligence," and Perry's rejection of evolution is used as an example. Perry does not believe in God and accept evolution. He flatly rejects evolution.

I was mainly responding to the incendiary topic title, which painted not just Perry, but all conservatives as unintelligent. This smacks of a general tone of arrogance from the left and atheists in particular when it comes to criticizing political opponents.

I would vote for Perry because I don't care about his stance on evolution. From what I've seen of him he got good results in Texas despite his mistaken belief against evolution. There are more important issues, and more important metrics of intelligence, than belief or nonbelief in evolution. Finally, intelligence itself is not the end-all of qualifiers. Some of the most intelligent people have done very bad things, indeed some of the worst.

Dawkins irks me because he was annoyed that a non-atheist, Francis Collins, was elevated to the head of....I think it was the NIH or the Human Genome Project; I can't remember which.

Even addressing Atreus' off point argument on its merits, I would add that atheists aren't the only people who think evolution poses a problem for religion. Quite clearly, many creationists implicitly buy into that as well or they wouldn't be so concerned about refuting evolution. Perry himself most likely buys into this same "unintellectual" position that Atreus ascribes to atheists.

I don't believe that evolution poses the slightest challenge to religion or faith at all. Darwin identified a process by which life adapts. Why anyone on either side seizes upon that as evidence of anything more than that escapes me.

It's also not a very accurate description of common arguments made by atheists, which typically run along the lines of saying that evolution disproves the stories of the bible as taken literally. I don't often hear that it disproves the existence of any kind of creator in and of itself.

My anecdotal evidence indicates otherwise.

As to the use of the term "theory," I agree that in science a "theory" is not something conclusively proven for all time and hence set in stone. However, it does mean considerably more than it means in common diction. It does have the status of something that is considered generally accepted until proven otherwise. Perry's use of the idiomatic expression "just a theory" tracks the use of the expression in common parlance, where it is used non-scientifically to refer to something that is basically just conjectural. It's either totally ignorant or completely disingenuous to use the expression "just a theory" to attack any scientific theory. At the very least, it preys on the ignorance of many people about science, hoping that they won't understand that "theory" means more than conjecture in science.

In complete agreement here.

 

[soulcougher73]

How can you be agnostic and athiest? The two conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QdYoufb0U...600/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png

And im not an agnostic AND an athiest. I am an agnostic athiest as are many others. Basically it means i dont personally believe thier is a god but i cannot prove it one way or another that one does or does not exist.

Most people who call themselves athiest are agnostic athiests but dont realize it. Unless they have 100% proof of gods nonexistence they havent shared with the world.

 

[woolfe9999]

My anecdotal evidence indicates otherwise.

Can you provide a link to some atheist, any atheist, saying that evolution, in and of itself, disproves the existence of any sort of deity? I ask, because honestly I have read I don't know how many million words written by atheists and I can't recall the argument ever being framed that way, or if it has, it isn't a common position.

I don't believe that evolution poses the slightest challenge to religion or faith at all. Darwin identified a process by which life adapts. Why anyone on either side seizes upon that as evidence of anything more than that escapes me.

How does evolution square with the idea that God created Adam then fashioned Eve from Adam's rib, and that these were the first 2 human beings, with all of humanity being their progeny?

I'll leave the rest of your comments alone for the moment.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well Dawkin's wrote the story. He is pushing for the elimination of God in schools the very same way that the Catholic church was pushing for the elimination of science 500 or however many years ago.

I try not to consider it as an issue between what is right or wrong, I look at it as an issue of freedom, if schools were made private, then politician's views on the issue would be immaterial, schools can teach whatever they want, the ones that teach evolution are free to do so, and the ones that don't are free to do so. What is the need for government endorsed censorship on either side of the issue? Why is government even involved in deciding what our children learn?

He doesn't want creationism taught in schools because creationism has no basis in science and is a matter of faith. And furthermore, there is the notion we have here of separation of church and state. "Freedom" means many things. It can mean that you are free to worship but also free from state run educational institutions pushing religion on you when you're still at a young and impressionable age. Isn't parental indoctrination enough?

In any event, Dawkins' views on creation in education are kind of tangential here.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Well Dawkin's wrote the story. He is pushing for the elimination of God in schools the very same way that the Catholic church was pushing for the elimination of science 500 or however many years ago.

I try not to consider it as an issue between what is right or wrong, I look at it as an issue of freedom, if schools were made private, then politician's views on the issue would be immaterial, schools can teach whatever they want, the ones that teach evolution are free to do so, and the ones that don't are free to do so. What is the need for government endorsed censorship on either side of the issue? Why is government even involved in deciding what our children learn?

For a free and healthy Democracy citizens must be well educated. There is simply no better way to ensure that than through a public school system.

Not teaching science in a private school because it conflicts with your sect's beliefs is counter to that.

Not teaching creationism in the context of a science class is not censorship anymore than not teaching about using 16th century bleeding techniques is censorship in a medical course.

There is no equivalency argument.

 

[ProfJohn]

The story and a lot of people in this thread are mischaracterizing Perry and his beliefs based on one six word statement.

Perry has also said:
“Well, God is how we got here. God may have done it in the blink of the eye or he may have done it over this long period of time, I don't know. But I know how it got started."

Which suggest that he is open to the idea of evolution.

Click this link and watch the video yourself. Perry gave a very good answer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/rick-perry-evolution-intelligent-design_n_932073.html

Boy asks "how old do you think the earth is?"
Perry answers roughly:
"I think the earth is... you know what I don't have any idea, I know its pretty old. It goes back a long long ways. I am not sure anyone actually know completely how long ago.

I hear your mom is asking about evolution. It's a theory that's out there and it's got some gaps in it.

In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our schools. Because I figure you are smart enough to figure out which one is right."

And check out the low class mom using her son up to ask Perry questions while leaning over the kids shoulders and trying to feed him more BS questions "ask him why he doesn't believe in science"

Pathetic.

The right should start having their children walk up to Obama and ask questions like "why do you punish success?"

 

[ProfJohn]

ABC does a good job at calling out the mom for using her child as a prop.

- Among the protestors at Thursday morning's meet and greet here, a mother used her child as a prop to confront Rick Perry about his beliefs on evolution and science.

The mother pushed her son towards Perry and insisted he ask the governor about the age of the earth.

"How old do I think the earth is? You know what, I don't have any idea," Perry said. "I know it's pretty old so it goes back a long long way. I'm not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long, how old the earth is."

While Perry was answering the child's question, the mother continued to loudly whisper in the child's ear to ask him about evolution and why he doesn't believe in science.

"Here your mom was asking about evolution, and you know it's a theory that's out there, and it's got some gaps in it. In Texas we teach both creationsim and evolution in our public schools," Perry said. "Because I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...prop-to-question-rick-perry-on-evolution.html

He also addressed global warming as well...

nside the restaurant, Perry was asked about his views on global warming, saying he's a "skeptic about the science." This came one day after he told New Hampshire voters he questions the theory of global warming.

"I do believe that the issue of global warming has been politicized. I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling in to their -- to their projects," Perry said in Bedford, N.H. Wednesday. "I think we're seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man made global warming is what is causing the climate to change."

“I don't think from my perspective that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...ientific-theory-that-has-not-been-proven.html

Videos at both links if you want to hear it for yourself.

 

[soulcougher73]

Creationism should not be taught in schools. It is a faith based issue. Evolution is science based thus should be taught in schools. Just as i would not expect to see evolution taught in churches, nor should it be.

 

[woolfe9999]

Mom using son as a prop is a legitimate criticism of the mom, but doesn't change anything about what Perry said. He's expressing doubt about a generally accepted scientific theory using the cliched "it's just a theory" creationist line, and by the easily debunked notion that "gaps" may disprove the theory.

The major problem I have with this sort of thing is when science is disregarded or maligned to support someone's religious or political agenda. I don't want a POTUS who accepts or rejects what the scientific community is saying according to an agenda that has nothing to do with science. We can't just pick and choose the science we like. It doesn't work that way.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I would vote for Perry because I don't care about his stance on evolution. From what I've seen of him he got good results in Texas despite his mistaken belief against evolution.

Ya, 'good results'. If by good results you mean the highest rate of minimum wage, of not having medical insurance, in the nation; the employment you do have and brag about coming reportedly mostly from the stimulus he lied about saying he wouldn't take; a budget balanced by paying for education a day later into the next fiscal year...

You have decided to be quite ignorant about Perry or you like terrible results.