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

[momeNt]

The burdon of proof lies upon the ones who claim something exists. It does not lie with the person who does not believe it. How can you not see this?

Why the fuck anyone would 100% believe in something without proof is beyond me. That is what is great about scientific theories. Is you can believe in one but you still cant be 100% sure its correct. It is just the one that makes the most logical scientific sense with the information presented before you. And you can always change your theory as more knowledge is learned and gathered.

My point was discussing his belief that there is no creator. I would be perfectly okay if he phrased his opinion scientifically, either noting that he has failed to prove the existence of a creator or he has yet to have failed disproving the existence of a creator. But when someone takes what they believe is proof when in fact it isn't, I will continue to call them out.

 

[momeNt]

And he's a doctor. What does that tell you about the medical establishment in this country?

Apparently med schools are teaching their doctors how to be proper politicians.

 

[First]

My point was discussing his belief that there is no creator. I would be perfectly okay if he phrased his opinion scientifically, either noting that he has failed to prove the existence of a creator or he has yet to have failed disproving the existence of a creator. But when someone takes what they believe is proof when in fact it isn't, I will continue to call them out.

Of course I never said any of this. Though I guess it makes sense that a gold bug would believe in this, or for that matter revere the likes of Ron Paul who offers nothing but faith-based solutions. Your poor posts make a lot more sense in this context.

 

[momeNt]

Of course I never said any of this. Though I guess it makes sense that a gold bug would believe in this, or for that matter revere the likes of Ron Paul who offers nothing but faith-based solutions. Your poor posts make a lot more sense in this context.

Oh good, then what are we arguing about, had you pegged as the believer type my bad. Probably because you came into this thread with your boxing gloves on.

And my posts aren't poor. I've made two friends on this forum!

 

[badb0y]

My position on this issue is there may be a God since we can't definitively prove or disprove it's existence (yet) however I do believe all the religions are bullshit though.

 

[momeNt]

My position on this issue is there may be a God since we can't definitively prove or disprove it's existence (yet) however I do believe all the religions are bullshit though.

Love your sig!

 

[Ausm]

Talk about a stretch...

Evolution explains how life went from a bunch of chemicals in a pond to humans.

It does not explain how those chemicals got there or who created the pond or the planet or the universe.

Easy God took a dump in that pond.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

If there is no way to disprove a creator, then the existence or not of that creator is totally irrelevant. The statement requires that there is no difference between a universe with a creator versus one without - otherwise, that difference would provide a method to disprove the creator.

You end up with a situation where the existence of a creator is entirely and totally irrelevant. It changes nothing. If a creator can exist in such a fashion that it has no effect whatsoever, I'm inclined to wonder if 'exists' is being misused.

 

[Paul98]

This thread alone should be able to answer your question...

 

[soulcougher73]

The problem with blind faith is it forces you to leave your brain at the door. Hey that sounds familiar.

It would be equally as rediculous if i told you Alice created the universe and man and based it upon the book Alice in Wonderland. Everyone would think im crazy and ask for proof of my claim. Of course i would have none other that his book written by man. But i would just say "just have faith". I would be the laughing stock of the world.

The burdon of proof would lie upon me to prove my claim and just saying "just have faith" is no proof at all. Well proof im delusional, but that is another topic...or is it?

 

[momeNt]

If there is no way to disprove a creator, then the existence or not of that creator is totally irrelevant. The statement requires that there is no difference between a universe with a creator versus one without - otherwise, that difference would provide a method to disprove the creator.

You end up with a situation where the existence of a creator is entirely and totally irrelevant. It changes nothing. If a creator can exist in such a fashion that it has no effect whatsoever, I'm inclined to wonder if 'exists' is being misused.

Sometimes I wonder if I even exist.

 

[soulcougher73]

If there is no way to disprove a creator, then the existence or not of that creator is totally irrelevant. The statement requires that there is no difference between a universe with a creator versus one without - otherwise, that difference would provide a method to disprove the creator.

You end up with a situation where the existence of a creator is entirely and totally irrelevant. It changes nothing. If a creator can exist in such a fashion that it has no effect whatsoever, I'm inclined to wonder if 'exists' is being misused.

You cant disprove made up things. Nor can you prove them. So what is the point of believing in made up things again?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

BTW I think people make too much out of this. The origin of life is a very faith based question any religious people aren't going to allow evolution to trump their belief that life was created by god thus they use intelligent design to say that god did create life (at least in the beginning) but after that who knows what happened.

The entire problem stems from the misconception that many people have that evolution says anything about the origins of life. The theory of evolution makes no claims about where life originated, only how it has adapted and changed over billions of years. In that context, evolution is 100% compatible with a belief in a creator who set everything in motion, even a creator who endowed humans with a soul. But because people have conflated evolution with abiogenesis as a means for discussing where life originated, it gets labeled as being diametrically opposed to a belief in the metaphysical. It's a misrepresentation of the theory of evolution, but that's how many people have come to view it which is why it's so "controversial."

Also, when people like Perry use the phrase "it's a theory," they're doing so in a way designed to appeal to common usage of the word "theory," not the scientific definition of the word. When your average American hears someone say "theory of evolution," they think of the word in the context of someone having a "theory about women," or what have you. But it's a very different term when used scientifically; it's not just someone's guess, it's verifiable through evidence. The theory of evolution is universally accepted as fact in the scientific community, but you won't hear Perry say "the fact of evolution." Strange how he doesn't use the term "theory" if he's talking about gravity or cells or atoms... those are all scientific theories too. His language only serves to politicize a debate which centers around the misrepresentation of scientific fact as being incompatible with religion, and in that sense, all he's doing is perpetuating ignorance. That's not what I want from a politician regardless of the issue.

 

[OutHouse]

Funny, I know more democrats who are very religious and do not believe in evolotion.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Dawkin's makes a good point about the current state of the Republican party.

Actually your link says 38% of AMERICANS (no mention of party affilliation) believe in evolution. Personally I don't believe the number is that low. But whatever...

Why is it that as a Republican, Tea Partier, or other type of conservative you *must* reject evolution and science in general?

Umm... :hmm: You don't really believe that do you?

How can you expect the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth to be able to actually lead, if they can't understand basic science, deductive reasoning, critical thinking, and the scientific method that is are the reasons why we have become an advanced species (advanced compared to other species on Earth that is)? How can we honestly expect Congress, the POTUS, SCOTUS, and others at all levels of government to be able to be effective leaders if we can't expect them to be the best and brightest?

Some of them don't believe in or understand the basic principles of science or the scientific method. But ALL of them lack basic accounting skills. I'll refer you to our budget deficit and national debt for reference

I really would like to know from any Republican, Tea Partier, or other conservative what it is about these intellectually inept fools that you see as reasons to vote for them. Is it because you just hate liberals, Democrats, etc that much? Is it because of their other policies that they hold? Something else?

What makes you think that Democrats are any smarter? As far as I'm concerned the entire group that makes up the Legislative and Execuitive branch are completely incompetent. Actually, it's wose than that because for the most part they really are competent... they simply choose to ignore the obvious. How can you vote for anyone who tells you our only way out of this mess is to spend more money?

Y'know... the sooner people like you wake up and realize that the 'Team Sports" concept of politics is the problem and start looking for candidates who have real solutions to hard problems and not just pixie dust and Hope(t) and whatever other catch-phrase crap they're throwing around out there, the sooner we can start fixing things. Until then, it'll be the same "Yay... my guys won! Your guys suck!" Yankees/Red Sox bullshit politics where everyone is more concerned about keeping control of congress than they are about doing what's right for the country.

It really makes me sick.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I was mainly responding to the incendiary topic title, While it might be incendiary, it drew your attention and got you to put your opinion down which was what I wanted. I wanted to get other views and see if I could figure out what I am missing, because as I see it conservatives vote party leaders in place that show fear, hate, contempt, and dont trust science. I believe that science is something that we should embrace and that it can be used to advance our society. I have yet to see religion or creationism provide anything that betters our society, and until I see that I will continue to believe it should not be a part of any kind of public education system. If that day ever comes where it does provide something, then I will take a second look at it. which painted not just Perry, but all conservatives as unintelligent. Yes it painted all conservatives who vote within their party to elect people who distrust and are averse to science. If you are a conservative who doesn't do this, then you aren't part of this group. Conservatives, on the whole, are much more likely to believe in creationism/ID and think that evolutionary theory is false. I'm not the only person who sees this in the conservative parties either. Also, as Dawkin's suggests in this article, perhaps evolution can be used as a litmus test. It's effectively scientific fact in the science community, and there has yet to be any real "hole" shot in it that hasn't been refuted with evidence. Since it is a solid scientific theory, suggesting that it is not true is a red flag that tells me that person could be uneducated, unintelligent, or otherwise not somebody who should be leading this country. 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. As Dawkin's and I have both stated, his stance on evolution alone don't make him unelectable. However, his stance on evolution suggests that there will be other reasons which make him unelectable (from lack of intelligence/education, to religious beliefs working their way into laws, to policy, to retarding the advancement of science because of a fear based in religion. 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. There are more important metrics, however many studies have shown that the more education a person has the more likely they are to agree/believe in evolution and NOT creationism. There was a poll sent out within the past year that asked political affiliation, education level, and if you believed in creationism, evolution, or weren't sure/other. Take a guess at the correllations. Less educated people more likely believed in creationism, and PHD's basically all believed in evolution. Dems were much more likely to support evolutionary theory than R's accross the board. Hence, it suggests that Republicans are less likely to have a high education level. There is a correllation there. 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. True, but if you want to talk about that then you must also include that many religious people have done very bad things, and 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.

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.

My anecdotal evidence indicates otherwise.

In complete agreement here.

See bolded

Could it be that unknown micro-second is when god created the universe?


You are going to have to do better than that.

Here are the FACTS:
You can NOT disprove the existence of god. By definition and concept is is something that you can not do.

However, god could prove his existence by showing up on FOX news and turning water into wine etc etc.

At the end of the day it is about faith. Either you believe in god or you do not, but either way you can't prove that you are 100% right or wrong in your decision. That is why it is called faith.

So could a magical unicorn. Or hell, just about anything. What's your point?

 

[werepossum]

There is a question about whether creationism is actually being taught in Texas schools since the court ruled it could not due to separation of church and state.

It can be taught in social studies as comparative religion, but not in science class.

Good to hear. None of us can prove that G-d didn't create the world 6,000 years ago, but that doesn't raise it to the level of science.

And he's a doctor. What does that tell you about the medical establishment in this country?

That they are smart, ethical people not dedicated to forcing other people to behave as they wish?

 

[woolfe9999]

If there is no way to disprove a creator, then the existence or not of that creator is totally irrelevant. The statement requires that there is no difference between a universe with a creator versus one without - otherwise, that difference would provide a method to disprove the creator.

You end up with a situation where the existence of a creator is entirely and totally irrelevant. It changes nothing. If a creator can exist in such a fashion that it has no effect whatsoever, I'm inclined to wonder if 'exists' is being misused.

Yes this. The word you're angling at here is falsifiability. Any hypothesis which by definition cannot be falsified is irrelevant. It isn't merely wrong. It's a non-argument, non-issue; it's like one divided by zero.

 

[sandorski]

To claim that the entire universe is the result of no creator requires greater faith than most theists have.

No, it does not.

 

[momeNt]

No, it does not.

Here we go again!

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Politics in Canada: Oh wow. We really need to do something about this. Let's put our heads together and get it done. We won't all like it but in the end it's all for what's best for the country.

Poitics in the US: People in my party are smarter than people in your party! You don't know that... Yes I do! No you don't! You're a poopy head. Yeah, well you're a soopy poopy head! Derp... (As the place burns down around them both)

 

[piasabird]

What good is evolution? Will this solve our financial problems?

Answer: It does nothing for me and solves no problems.

This is a stupid subject.

 

[ProfJohn]

You cant disprove made up things. Nor can you prove them. So what is the point of believing in made up things again?

Because god is the foundation of their moral and ethical code.

Without god there is no punishment for poor behavior and no reward for good.

And if there is no reward or punishment then there is no incentive to behave.

It is very telling that the biggest mass murders in history were also atheists or deists.

 

[First]

Because god is the foundation of their moral and ethical code.

Without god there is no punishment for poor behavior and no reward for good.

And if there is no reward or punishment then there is no incentive to behave.

It is very telling that the biggest mass murders in history were also atheists or deists.

lmao at this made-up shit. Oh ProfJo, you truly are a trollish wimp.

 

[WelshBloke]

Here we go again!

Well it doesn't.


Theres no need to believe in God to explain the creation of the universe apart from an "yeah its too complicated dude, just blame it on magic" mindset.

Its the same reason that creationism should be kept well away from the science room. Mind you if I was religious and believed in creationism I'd want it kept away from the science room as well. If you are going to place it there you better be ready for it to stand up to the sort of criticism that all scientific theories have to stand up to, that would actually be quite funny.