# Oh America... (This bill...)



## GuitaristOfHell (Feb 20, 2013)

Oklahoma Bill Would Allow Students To &#8216;Debunk&#8217; Science | Addicting Info
This really pisses me off not because I'm a biology major, but it's reasons like this my country is falling behind in education. Now I don't mind religion, but they should be kept OUT of our laws otherwise there is no religious freedom. If you put Christianity, Judaism, Islamic, ect... laws that shows that religion is favored making others inferior.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

Oh... But debunk actually implies that one is not talking out of one's ass


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Oh... But debunk actually implies that one is not talking out of one's ass



But that's what the bill will let them do ironically


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

Personally, I'm not too convinced by meteorology, so if I were a student there, I'd write about how Tor (proper spelling, you can suck it english) makes the thunder and lightning appear.. Hey, I'm just asking questions, we're all entitled to our own opinions.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Personally, I'm not too convinced by meteorology, so if I were a student there, I'd write about how Tor (proper spelling, you can suck it english) makes the thunder and lightning appear



I love my science. You mean Thor?


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

No, I think you are the one meaning Tor


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> No, I think you are the one meaning Tor


----------



## Watty (Feb 20, 2013)

It sucks, but all the bill is going to do is further sow the seeds for shaping the youth that are impressionable against religious ideals. Those students would actually take advantage of this and use it for the "maliciously religious" intent are too far gone for me to give two shots about.


----------



## ElRay (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> ... I'd write about how Tor (proper spelling, you can suck it english) makes the thunder and lightning appear.. Hey, I'm just asking questions, we're all entitled to our own opinions.


Well, Odin did promise an end to the Ice Giants. The Christian god promised "Peace on Earth" (Ps 29:11). I don't see any Ice Giants. I'm just saying.

Ray


----------



## pink freud (Feb 20, 2013)

The only way to debunk science is by using science. That's actually kind of the point...


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 20, 2013)

Okay...So why does this matter at all, If some extremely religious guy wants to go out of his way to speak the "truth". it's sooooo bad, but every fucking atheist/agnostic on this site thinks there shit don't stink. You're babbling about science and lack of god or aliens or whatever you believe in now is just as bad as Mr. Evangelist. Fuck you all. 

Just shut up and live your own god damn life.

(not directed to anyone in particular)


----------



## pink freud (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Okay...So why does this matter at all, If some extremely religious guy wants to go out of his way to speak the "truth". it's sooooo bad, but every fucking atheist/agnostic on this site thinks there shit don't stink. You're babbling about science and lack of god or aliens or whatever you believe in now is just as bad as Mr. Evangelist. Fuck you all.
> 
> Just shut up and live your own god damn life.
> 
> (not directed to anyone in particular)



That's a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is.

An empirical deduction that is open to revision upon new information is an inherently more accurate portrayal of reality than a sociological "gut-feeling" that doesn't change for hundreds/thousands of years due to dogma.

That's all science is. "We are pretty sure X because evidence Y supports it, but X might change depending on evidence Z." People may use it incorrectly, but the foundation is sound.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> You're babbling about science and lack of god or aliens or whatever you believe in now is just as bad as Mr. Evangelist.



Errr, not to be that guy but atheists aren't trying to make gay people second class citizens, athiests generally do not deny climate change, atheism has no inherent connection to mass murder and totalitarism, and several crusades have not been carried out in the name of atheism. 

Most Atheists do not have a problem with evangelists because they "babble" about their beliefs, they have a problem with those pushing fundamentalist beliefs that are both dangerous and have a proven track record of evil. 


Don't believe me then tell me the last time an athiest blew up an abortion clinic?


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 20, 2013)

pink freud said:


> That's a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is.
> 
> An empirical deduction that is open to revision upon new information is an inherently more accurate portrayal of reality than a sociological "gut-feeling" that doesn't change for hundreds/thousands of years due to dogma.
> 
> That's all science is. "We are pretty sure X because evidence Y supports it, but X might change depending on evidence Z." People may use it incorrectly, but the foundation is sound.


Christians/Religious people say the exact same thing though. Because that's what they believe, just like you (apparently) believe in Science. I don't really care either way, It's way too much thought to be spent on something that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Religiously speaking anyways.

Oi, this is going nowhere fast, time to dip!


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Christians/Religious people say the exact same thing though. Because that's what they believe, just like you (apparently) believe in Science.!



This is implying that a person who makes an unsupported claim without any facts to back it up is the same as a person who made an intelligent claim supported by evidence and facts. Pretty out of touch with reality imo.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Christians/Religious people say the exact same thing though. Because that's what they believe, just like you (apparently) believe in Science. I don't really care either way, It's way too much thought to be spent on something that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Religiously speaking anyways.
> 
> Oi, this is going nowhere fast, time to dip!



Surely a Christian would say something like: "We know that X is correct because the bible says so, this is set in stone." rather than; "We are pretty sure X because evidence Y supports it, but X might change depending on evidence Z."


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 20, 2013)

But how else would children expose that Jesus made the DNAs on the third day of creation? All the other scientists are talking smack about god and using words like Ab-ioh-genesis and blaming stuff on evilution!

Hopefully this nonsense gets smacked down before it can progress too far. There are have been a couple attempts at stuff like this recently, "Teach the controversy" and all that silliness. However, when it comes to stuff like this the internet has made watchdog groups aware much more quickly. Worst comes to worst, I'll get passed and then beaten down in a law suit. 

No matter how they try and spin this stuff, it's always a transparent effort to get religion into schools.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 20, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> This is implying that a person who makes an unsupported claim without any facts to back it up is the same as a person who made an intelligent claim supported by evidence and facts. Pretty out of touch with reality imo.


What is Reality though? 



Pooluke41 said:


> Surely a Christian would say something like: "We know that X is correct because the bible says so, this is set in stone." rather than; "We are pretty sure X because evidence Y supports it, but X might change depending on evidence Z."


 More than likely. Whatever said person believes is what they believe. to the fullest extent possible in most cases. Which is why I choose not to even bother caring about it much. All I ever hear/see is arguments about the same subjects over and over and over. What is the point.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> What is Reality though?
> 
> More than likely. Whatever said person believes is what they believe. to the fullest extent possible in most cases. Which is why I choose not to even bother caring about it much. All I ever hear/see is arguments about the same subjects over and over and over. What is the point.



The point?

Well, one gave us modern medicine, put us into space, allows fast communication over great distances and developed materials that we couldn't currently live without.

The other didn't.


----------



## Watty (Feb 20, 2013)

How about them batteries, eh?


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> What is Reality though?



Things that are repeatable, explainable, understandable, and backed up by evidence.

You can try and play existentialist all you want, but there's a concrete, fundamental difference between belief and science, despite long-term attempts to equate the two.

Science works. Need proof? You're typing on it. No miracles or belief needed - you can NOT believe in electrons all you want and it doesn't change the fact that their interaction is what makes your computer work.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 20, 2013)

I have a degree in biochemistry, and have to work with people who think evolution is a lie. This leads to me having some rather strong opinions regarding things of this nature.

Unfortunately too many people in positions of power in this world are scientifically illiterate.


----------



## Nyx Erebos (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> (not directed to anyone in particular)



Translation : directed to everybody.


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> More than likely. Whatever said person believes is what they believe. to the fullest extent possible in most cases. Which is why I choose not to even bother caring about it much. All I ever hear/see is arguments about the same subjects over and over and over. What is the point.



I care because what people believe matters. It influences their behavior and their decision making. 

I personally care that people hold false beliefs to be true and are spreading misinformation to different people. People have used religion to justify slavery, bigotry towards gender minorities, inaccurate depictions of science and a whole slew of other wrong doings.

There is an AIDS epidemic in Africa, yet the the Catholic church has used it's influence to discourage the use of condoms and other means to prevent the transmission of sexual illnesses. The Catholic church facilitated moving know pedophiles around to prevent their detection, resulting in the rape of countless children. Crusades, the religiously justified slaughter of innocent people, have been committed as a result of orders for a religiously established hierarchy. 

I understand people like to use the excuse "Well, it's their opinion," to brush off criticism. However, these beliefs have lead to many unfortunate events, so, regardless of how steadfast people may believe something, I contest people when they propose bills like this. Otherwise, I'd be standing by, not opposing something I find fundamentally flawed and damaging to society.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Okay...So why does this matter at all, If some extremely religious guy wants to go out of his way to speak the "truth". i*t's sooooo bad, but every fucking atheist/agnostic on this site thinks there shit don't stink. You're babbling about science and lack of god or aliens or whatever you believe in now is just as bad as Mr. Evangelist. Fuck you all.*
> 
> Just shut up and live your own god damn life.
> 
> (not directed to anyone in particular)



Hey man, I'm glad that you have found a way to feel superior to most people no matter of their beliefs/lack of beliefs, whatever floats your boat man. 

However, it's bullshit. The scientific approach is based on reality (and don't go existentialist on me), religion is not. Science is verifiable and provable, religion is not. Science has been found to have real-world applications, religion has not cured smallpox, built a computer, or invented a stick of dynamite.

The problem with this is that they are lying to the kids, evolution is as much of a fact of nature as gravity, which makes their "debunking" demonstrably untrue.


----------



## Danukenator (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> However, it's bullshit. The scientific approach is based on reality (and don't go existentialist on me), religion is not. Science is verifiable and provable, religion is not. Science has been found to have real-world applications, religion has not cured smallpox, built a computer, or invented a stick of dynamite.



To be fair Genesis 2:19 details the construction of a computer and creation of the DOS operating system. In detail. People have thus know how to make computer for as long as the bible existed.

They just didn't feel like it until some scientists did it.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

Heretic, *everyone* knows it's the Quran that contains every scientific discovery ever


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Feb 20, 2013)

It's sort of ironic that there was this thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age where the were so many scientific discoveries and stuff. Nowadays it's not the same with religion. It's become...sooooo anti-science


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

Eh... It was more of an arabic golden age, and not as much an islamic golden age. Many discoveries were for example by Iranians, and they were not muslim for a very long time.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Feb 20, 2013)

Fair enough


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 20, 2013)

If this is the case, I would hope students also have the right to go into a church and debunk all their 'theories' as to how the world works.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Feb 20, 2013)

That's intolerant!!!11shiftone


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Eh... It was more of an arabic golden age, and not as much an islamic golden age. Many discoveries were for example by Iranians, and they were not muslim for a very long time.



And Iranians weren't Arabic for a very long... ever.


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

Fair point, but they were more arabic than muslim for most of the time


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Fair point, but they were more arabic than muslim for most of the time



As Arabic as Swedes are Estonian, I suppose...


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

^Then you'll be happy to know that Estonia wants to be included in Scandinavia, because of the similarities in culture, and the shared history (spoiler: We went over there and killed as many as we could find)


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 20, 2013)

>Doesn't Support Either Side 
>Obviously that must mean I support Christianity (ss.org logic at least.)
>Attack me for things I hardly even mentioned after I said you act exactly the same as Christians, which every single one of you did. Proving my point exactly.

Congratulations.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> ^Then you'll be happy to know that Estonia wants to be included in Scandinavia, because of the similarities in culture, and the shared history (spoiler: We went over there and killed as many as we could find)



As Arabic as Swedes are Slavic, then .

Point is, Arabic people (Arabs) are either A) From the Arabian Peninsula, or B) Native speakers of Arabic, generally of Middle Eastern descent. Iranians are neither of those. Farsi and Arabic aren't even from the same language families (Indo-European and Semitic, respectively). In fact, at the military language academy, the languages are grouped in building clusters on campus based on geographic region, and despite Iran being in the Middle East, they didn't put them in the Middle Eastern language area, and word was part of the reason was that the Iranian teachers didn't get along with the Arab teachers  (Hebrew was also in a different area, for similar and obvious reasons).

So, long tangent short: Iranians aren't Arabic. They never have been. Referring to one as such to his face might land you in some hot water, even .


Okay. Back to the religion bashing...


----------



## Watty (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Okay...So why does this matter at all, If some extremely religious guy wants to go out of his way to speak the "truth". it's sooooo bad, but every fucking atheist/agnostic on this site thinks there shit don't stink. You're babbling about science and lack of god or aliens or whatever you believe in now is just as bad as Mr. Evangelist. Fuck you all.
> 
> Just shut up and live your own god damn life.
> 
> (not directed to anyone in particular)



Exhibit A.



BlindingLight7 said:


> >Doesn't Support Either Side
> >Obviously that must mean I support Christianity (ss.org logic at least.)
> >Attack me for things I hardly even mentioned after I said you act exactly the same as Christians, which every single one of you did. Proving my point exactly.
> 
> Congratulations.



You referred to the religious man with reverence ("Mr.") and referred to those who hold to the opposing argument as "fucking" __________. This shows that you're at least more in favor of one over the other.

And our shit does stink...want to know why? Most likely the Mercaptain present, which is a compound proved to have existed at all because of SCIENCE. The theist would simply say that God must have wanted our shit to stink...

Finally, we're not "babbling" in so much as does a god damn brook. We view the world through a lens created by facts. Is there a God as is defined by the prominent religions of the world? It's impossible to prove a negative, but I'd like to say not. Are there aliens? I'd hope we're not the most advanced being present in the entirety of the universe. 

The difference between me an "Mr. Evangelist" is that I don't try to:

a) Restrict your rights based on sexual orientation.
b) Restrict your rights based on your gender.
c) Restrict the ability of your child to think critically about the world in which she lives.
d) Restrict your rights based on some obscure passage in some book written thousands of years ago (or more recently...)

So kindly take your fuck and shove it.

We ARE just trying to live our own lives, but the religious nuts aren't content with that. They won't rest until they can dictate what you can and cannot do based on what they believe; doesn't matter if you don't believe it to begin with. We have to stand up to their ignorance and be a bastion of reason, lest we end up living under the Christian variant of Sharia Law.


----------



## Murdstone (Feb 20, 2013)

groverj3 said:


> I have a degree in biochemistry, and have to work with people who think evolution is a lie. This leads to me having some rather strong opinions regarding things of this nature.
> 
> Unfortunately too many people in positions of power in this world are scientifically illiterate.



NLS targeting? More like will of God!


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 20, 2013)

Watty said:


> Exhibit A.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still attacking, pretty much the exact same thing Christians do. And the need to bring up science facts instead of things regarding the religious aspects of science kind of tells me you don't have anything else to say but more attacks / completely off topic facts about poop. Further proving my point. The use of derogatory remarks isn't really needed either.


----------



## SummonTheAncients (Feb 20, 2013)

You're wrong, I'm right
BlahblahblahscienceChristianityJesusHominidsVsHomininsBiomolecularPersecutionElectronProtonMetaltronSEVENSTRIIING


----------



## Watty (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Still attacking, pretty much the exact same thing Christians do. And the need to bring up science facts instead of things regarding the religious aspects of science kind of tells me you don't have anything else to say but more attacks / completely off topic facts about poop. Further proving my point. The use of derogatory remarks isn't really needed either.



Dude, I pointed out that you were contradicting yourself and provided insight into why you were wrong on your first post in the thread. And I didn't use a derogatory remark other than to say that you should keep yours to yourself.

Your second sentence is also a pretty solid non-sequitor; not only are there no religious aspects to science (the ideas are contradictory insofar as faith is concerned), I brought up the idea of olfactory receptions because you introduced the topic...



Edit: 1,500th post; and what a doozy it was.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 20, 2013)

I don't think you can physically put the word "fuck" into an anus. I tried finding a scientific method and also prayed to god to put a fuck in my ass. nothings happened yet.


----------



## Watty (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> I don't think you can physically put the word "fuck" into an anus. I tried finding a scientific method and also prayed to god to put a fuck in my ass. nothings happened yet.



Your attempt at a snide post would only be funny if I'd actually told you shove the "fuck".....up your anus. Strange how that's absent from my post.

Perhaps someone would care to get us back on topic?


----------



## Jakke (Feb 20, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> As Arabic as Swedes are Slavic, then .



I think we could get away with as Swedes and Finns... Some common elements in culture (but yet quite different), a different ethnicity, and a language from a different language group.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Point is, Arabic people (Arabs) are either A) From the Arabian Peninsula, or B) Native speakers of Arabic, generally of Middle Eastern descent. Iranians are neither of those. Farsi and Arabic aren't even from the same language families (Indo-European and Semitic, respectively). In fact, at the military language academy, the languages are grouped in building clusters on campus based on geographic region, and despite Iran being in the Middle East, they didn't put them in the Middle Eastern language area, and word was part of the reason was that the Iranian teachers didn't get along with the Arab teachers  (Hebrew was also in a different area, for similar and obvious reasons).
> 
> So, long tangent short: Iranians aren't Arabic. They never have been. Referring to one as such to his face might land you in some hot water, even .



Yes, I am aware, and it was clumsily expressed of me.

I thus instead propose how it was a _Middle Eastern_ golden age, as there were persians and arabs involved, and because there simply is no islamic science, just as little as any achievments in Byzantine or medieval Europe is labeled christian science (it's even considered an oximoron).

Muslims on youtube are great fun though when they claim how the Quran contains all science there is, they are _so_ cute, regurgitating point after point by Hamza Tzortzis


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 20, 2013)

So, anyway....

I don't think they should make shit like this a law though. (now that I actually clicked the link)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 20, 2013)

Jakke said:


> I thus instead propose how it was a _Middle Eastern_ golden age, as there were persians and arabs involved, and because there simply is no islamic science, just as little as any achievments in Byzantine or medieval Europe is labeled christian science (it's even considered an oximoron).



I was going to suggest a _Brown People_ golden age, but once again, the Swede flexes his reasonable human being muscles.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Feb 20, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Christians/Religious people say the exact same thing though. Because that's what they believe, just like you (apparently) believe in Science. I don't really care either way, It's way too much thought to be spent on something that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Religiously speaking anyways.
> 
> Oi, this is going nowhere fast, time to dip!



That's your problem. You think science is a belief system. It's a fact system. I KNOW science is true, until it is proven false.


----------



## Blind Theory (Feb 20, 2013)

I know some people who would love to see this shit where I live. I think the problem here with laws like this isn't necessarily the religions themselves but the fact that we allow so much power and influence to prevail from churches. You look at our politicians and one of the big questions at some point is what their beliefs are. A lot of the major issues in our society are based off of religions not liking something (I.E. abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, contraception, etc.) and then going and making big fusses over these. Gay marriage is not a threat to marriage. Gay marriage is a threat to religious agendas. Our problem is that we allow religion to shine through into our laws and politics far too much. This law shows just how extreme this bleeding through of religion is getting. 

If we want to stop these sort of things from happening in the future we need to do a little remodeling, so to speak. This shouldn't be an issue of Atheism Vs. Religions of the world. This is an issue of truly having our freedoms and not worrying about laws we don't agree with being passed because someone's bible tells them not to like certain behaviors. If you don't want to believe in evolution, sub atomic particles, the big bang, black holes, the sun being the center of the solar system, whatever, whatever, whatever then don't, but, keep it to yourself. I don't think religion is bad. I think people are bad at religion. That is why we have the problems we have and why we get things like this bill.


----------



## Watty (Feb 20, 2013)

All of what you say is great, but unfortunately this one is a bit trickier than that. We're getting into the "telling people how to raise their children" territory when it comes to issues surrounding education, and this is something people will be debating until the proverbial cows come home....


----------



## ElRay (Feb 20, 2013)

Nyx Erebos said:


> Translation : directed to everybody.



No, it's really directed at all the folks that won't let the religious folks do whatever, and oppress whomever, they want.


BlindingLight7 is just your typical apologist that doesn't have the balls to actually admit they're religious, but does their best to fuss over anything that can be twisted into anti-religion and "back handedly" support his religion.


Ray


----------



## Blind Theory (Feb 21, 2013)

Watty said:


> All of what you say is great, but unfortunately this one is a bit trickier than that. We're getting into the "telling people how to raise their children" territory when it comes to issues surrounding education, and this is something people will be debating until the proverbial cows come home....



I agree that, that is a difficult subject to get around. I don't think it is a matter of telling people how to raise their children though. If you want to tell your children as they grow up that the Earth was created in 7 days and that you are to follow Christ's words and commandments then so be it. The stretch here, and I know this, is that the religious folk need to keep their religion out of schools. If you don't want your kids to believe in evolution give them a nice little pep talk on how evolution is another view point on creation but stress that it goes against their beliefs. Religious people need to admit that, even though they think their beliefs are 110% true they are not recognized as a legitimate theory in any form of science. The hard part here comes when religious folk take that as an insult but we need to be more rational about it. Explaining that religion very well could be correct but is something that is not at all provable by any test or experiment is what needs to be done. 

There are ways to go about this kind of thing. I think people are just over complicating the problem here. Plus, private schools are always there. Keep religion out of public school. If you want to send your kids to a private school that has a focus around a religion then that is your choice. Religion has overstepped it's boundaries and people need to acknowledge that.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 21, 2013)

I'd like to quickly point out that the title of the thread should be "Oh Oklahoma... (This bill...)." We'll never get non-Americans to take note of the fact that State laws and Federal laws aren't the same thing if even we aren't discriminating between the two.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 21, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Still attacking, pretty much the exact same thing Christians do. And the need to bring up science facts instead of things regarding the religious aspects of science kind of tells me you don't have anything else to say but more attacks / completely off topic facts about poop. Further proving my point. The use of derogatory remarks isn't really needed either.



You definitely started the attacks bro .



BlindingLight7 said:


> So, anyway....
> 
> I don't think they should make shit like this a law though. (now that I actually clicked the link)



And that picture seems like a lame attempt at you attempting to get someones goat (sadly I lost my goat many years ago in a house fire ).

The fact that you acknowledge it shouldn't be a law is rather amusing given your position through this thread. If you were truly being neutral then no one would be able to presuppose your position. Watty nailed it on the head when he broke down the way you chose to write your post (and quite carefully written it seems). Nonetheless, the majority of what you have attempted to say could have been stated far more professionally (and probably received better as well). Then again I don't think that was your goal since you were being offensive in an attempt to make someone take the offensive towards you allowing you to say _"I told you so"_. A little too 3rd grade neener neener for my taste.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Feb 21, 2013)

flint757 said:


> You definitely started the attacks bro .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You kept a goat at home? As a pet?


----------



## flint757 (Feb 21, 2013)

No.  

It was a play on words....not a bad idea to have one though. A lot cheaper and easier than mowing.


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 21, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> >Doesn't Support Either Side



Not true. You don't just wander into a thread and start telling people to fuck off and shut up if you don't have a horse in the race. There aren't enough hours in the day for you to play devil's advocate for every argument that shows up on here. I'm all for a spirited debate, but there's no honor in starting an argument and then backpedaling to "I'm not choosing a side." Be honest and stand your ground.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 21, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> >Doesn't Support Either Side
> >Obviously that must mean I support Christianity (ss.org logic at least.)
> >Attack me for things I hardly even mentioned after I said you act exactly the same as Christians, which every single one of you did. Proving my point exactly.
> 
> Congratulations.



Man you came into this thread saying 'fuck you all', you surely couldn't expect a nice reception to that?

It appears you misunderstand the difference between fundamental principles of science and religion, and there's nothing you can bring to this debate unless you do. It's been brought up in multiple replies to your posts, and yet you seem to have ignored them. I'm not sure whether you're trolling or just trying to play devil's advocate, but I really can't see any foundation to your posts.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Feb 21, 2013)

I just can't even handle America right now.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 21, 2013)

vampiregenocide said:


> Man you came into this thread saying 'fuck you all', you surely couldn't expect a nice reception to that?
> 
> It appears you misunderstand the difference between fundamental principles of science and religion, and there's nothing you can bring to this debate unless you do. It's been brought up in multiple replies to your posts, and yet you seem to have ignored them. I'm not sure whether you're *trolling* or just trying to play devil's advocate, but I really can't see any foundation to your posts.


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 21, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> >Doesn't Support Either Side
> >Obviously that must mean I support Christianity (ss.org logic at least.)
> >Attack me for things I hardly even mentioned after I said you act exactly the same as Christians, which every single one of you did. Proving my point exactly.
> 
> Congratulations.



Except, of course, we didn't. We pointed out a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Don't go acting butthurt over it.


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 21, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Still attacking, pretty much the exact same thing Christians do. And the need to bring up science facts instead of things regarding the religious aspects of science kind of tells me you don't have anything else to say but more attacks / completely off topic facts about poop. Further proving my point. The use of derogatory remarks isn't really needed either.



The person with the attacking attitude is you, dude. I haven't smacked it because I'm watching this thread and no one has crossed the line yet, though you've come the closest.

We've pointed out that you're, well, WRONG. Sorry if that makes you feel bad, but reality isn't always there to lift your spirits.


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 21, 2013)

Watty said:


> All of what you say is great, but unfortunately this one is a bit trickier than that. We're getting into the "telling people how to raise their children" territory when it comes to issues surrounding education, and this is something people will be debating until the proverbial cows come home....



There is, actually, a simple way to handle this: If it isn't sound scientific theory, it doesn't belong in a science class in public schools. That's the way it was when I was a kid.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 21, 2013)

eaeolian said:


> There is, actually, a simple way to handle this: If it isn't sound scientific theory, it doesn't belong in a science class in public schools. That's the way it was when I was a kid.



I agree, but I would take it further. If it isn't sound scientific theory, it doesn't belong in a democracy.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 21, 2013)

eaeolian said:


> There is, actually, a simple way to handle this: If it isn't sound scientific theory, it doesn't belong in a science class in public schools. That's the way it was when I was a kid.


 
Agreed. Actually, if it isn't a sound theory it probably isn't in a textbook. The quality and content of science education varies more than it should though at the high school/middle school level. There are a large number of schools that either teach things "by the book" with outdated textbooks or don't use a book at all and teach things incorrectly.

This is why we need to have a national curriculum for all subjects at least in grades 9-12. That's a whole different problem though.

States and individual schools have far too much control over what classes they offer and what the content of those classes is. I mean, my high school AP Biology teacher was required to tell us that "intelligent design" was a perfectly acceptable theory (although he said it sarcastically and wasn't happy about being forced to say so). This even is outside the bible belt at a public school. 

Getting off-topic though...


----------



## Alberto7 (Feb 21, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> Christians/Religious people say the exact same thing though. Because that's what they believe, just like you (apparently) believe in Science. * I don't really care either way, It's way too much thought to be spent on something that ultimately means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Religiously speaking anyways.*
> 
> Oi, this is going nowhere fast, time to dip!



Now, I'm not going to even touch the other things you've said, as I believe others here have done enough work in trying to make you see the flaws in your arguments.

With that said, one thing that has bothered me from the very second post you made... how can you even form something resembling an opinion of any sort if you can't even be bothered to think about the matter at hand? How can say it means nothing when you don't even dedicate the time to think about it? I completely understand that at some point you would want to take a step back and not bother yourself with it until you're ready again, since this is a very dense topic, but the sensitive thing to do in that case would be to NOT argue. If you don't give thought to something, logically, you're not entitled to an opinion. And, if you do not have an opinion, it's best to keep silent until you do have one (which, again, requires thinking and analyzing).

That seems to be precisely the issue with politics. People forming opinions without enough knowledge to back them up.


----------



## Mexi (Feb 21, 2013)

pretty sure the winking smiley a few posts backs confirms that he was just trolling the past few pages


----------



## Hollowway (Feb 21, 2013)

Mexi said:


> pretty sure the winking smiley a few posts backs confirms that he was just trolling the past few pages



No, I think he's pretending now that he was trolling to try to save face and backpedal out of it.


----------



## ghostred7 (Feb 21, 2013)

This bill is horseshit. 

Like others have said....if it's going to be in a textbook, it needs to be 100% religion neutral. If they want to "debunk" based on their chosen (or forced depending on their family) faith, that crap can happen in their own homes. I don't want other kids that are minimally versed in their religion being allowed to argue with their teachers about something in front of my kids. We're a Pagan/Spiritualist family.....damn sure don't want anyone else shoving their religious views down my kids' throats and I/we will respectfully not do it as well.

Hell, even Pat Roberson of 700 Club "fame" said that Creationist Christians should NOT ignore science.


----------



## Blind Theory (Feb 21, 2013)

I've said this before; I think that offering a class in school where people can debate these things or talk about them is fine. Make it an elective. Don't force it upon anyone. No religious person should force their religion upon someone else just like no atheist should try and convince a religious person to disassociate from their beliefs. Simple as that. Beliefs are personal and they should be kept that way.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Feb 21, 2013)

Now like I stated earlier. I'm fine with religion, I just don't believe it should be in our laws because it's not fair to other religions or people who do not have a religion. It shows a favoritism of a group of people and in the USA we're supposed to be "equal".


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Feb 21, 2013)

You guys are talking about religion...but aren't you all talking about Christianity?


----------



## Watty (Feb 21, 2013)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> You guys are talking about religion...but aren't you all talking about Christianity?



Well, last I checked, this bill involves teachings associated with all the Judeo-Christian religions prominent in America; also, we aren't discussing other religions as they typically don't have the pull in the US to influence legislation. 

I'd be interested to know how a teacher would grade a paper on the FSM.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Feb 21, 2013)

So Islam isn't part of that bill.


----------



## Mexi (Feb 21, 2013)

lol, if they tried to legitimize Islamic teachings in the political discourse in America, the conspiracies around Obama's secret muslim background would come full circle.


----------



## Mexi (Feb 21, 2013)

at least in the current state of affairs.
edit: ooops double post, my bad


----------



## flint757 (Feb 21, 2013)

Watty said:


> Well, last I checked, this bill involves teachings associated with all the Judeo-Christian religions prominent in America; also, we aren't discussing other religions as they typically don't have the pull in the US to influence legislation.
> 
> I'd be interested to know how a teacher would grade a paper on the FSM.



Yeah and other religions in the US recognize how religion is supposed to work most of the time. Then again given the chance they very well could follow the same path of political bullying/power.


----------



## Watty (Feb 21, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Yeah and other religions in the US recognize how religion is supposed to work most of the time. Then again given the chance they very well could follow the same path of political bullying/power.



They do, it's called a Theocratic State. Sharia Law was mentioned as well...


----------



## flint757 (Feb 21, 2013)

I meant in the US though. I imagine those who migrate from the middle east do so to get away from Sharia law which would lead me to believe that they wouldn't pursue such a system here otherwise they might as well have stayed.


----------



## Watty (Feb 21, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I meant in the US though. I imagine those who migrate from the middle east do so to get away from Sharia law which would lead me to believe that they wouldn't pursue such a system here otherwise they might as well have stayed.



Fair point, thought who's to say that they would not have ditched only those parts that made them want to leave? (provided they had free reign to inflict their system on America)


----------



## flint757 (Feb 21, 2013)

In time I'm sure it would happen given the course of Judeo-Christianity as a reference in the States. It would take a long time and a large majority though.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 22, 2013)

Mexi said:


> lol, if they tried to legitimize Islamic teachings in the political discourse in America, the conspiracies around Obama's secret muslim background would come full circle.



Keep in mind that we're talking about people who shrieked at Hallal food but are totally OK with Kosher food


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 22, 2013)

What the fuck is wrong with the world


----------



## flint757 (Feb 22, 2013)

Nothing more than the usual. I'm sure if you sifted through any states bills you'd find a few ridiculous ones and some down right scary ones that have already passed (not including potential bills/agendas that are probably even more frightening). The downside to state rights is the difference in quality varies dramatically state-by-state and laws are not universally enforced. I'm sure the same can be applied to other nations as well.

As soon as a tea partier positioned as our state senator and Ron Paul stepped down as my Congressman I get no feedback whatsoever from my local/state officials. At least Ron Paul wrote me back. Hard to influence your government when they don't care what you have to say.


----------



## Daemoniac (Feb 22, 2013)

It's not so much that the laws are done state-by-state (which, to an extent, I can understand) so much as that there are people in power in the western world who can possibly think this shit is a good idea... It's ludicrous.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 22, 2013)

Daemoniac said:


> It's not so much that the laws are done state-by-state (which, to an extent, I can understand) so much as that there are people in power in the western world who can possibly think this shit is a good idea... It's ludicrous.


 
You're preaching to the choir, buddy. (An ironic phrase due to the direction of this thread, don't you think?)

Unfortunately, having power does not preclude one from completely lacking logic...


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 23, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I meant in the US though. I imagine those who migrate from the middle east do so to get away from Sharia law which would lead me to believe that they wouldn't pursue such a system here otherwise they might as well have stayed.



Some migrants and refugees from the middle east are leaving their countries because "we" (the political leadership of the US, UK, Australia and a few others about ten years ago) decided to ignore the UN's advice on NOT blowing up a bunch of civilians based on faulty advice about WMDs, and now they don't have homes or for some reason are concerned that their home towns and countries are no longer safe havens. Many still believe in the laws and morals of their home countries and would like to see them propagated in other countries, although I daresay most do not support Sharia Law. It's a big topic in Australia right now, and the amount of misinformation being thrown around by every side of the argument is ... tiring. It's especially bad here because our Prime Minister decided to go to war against the advice of our military and ministers, and against the wishes of a great big chunk of the population. Two governments / Prime Ministers later, we're still shooting people over there, and imprisoning them for trying to come here. It's easy to see how Sharia Law is a fucking awful thing, it's not so easy to see how our system treats people unless you've been put through the worst aspects it, at which point it's understandable to see how someone who lived under Sharia Law and prospered might think it better than the 'democratic' method of invasion and imprisonment.

Closer to the original topic, as a current student teacher I don't think I could teach in any school / state that actively attempts to mislead or deceive students by allowing facts to considered a faith system that can be argued. I'm weird like that.


----------



## groph (Feb 24, 2013)

BlindingLight7 said:


> What is Reality though?
> 
> More than likely. Whatever said person believes is what they believe. to the fullest extent possible in most cases. Which is why I choose not to even bother caring about it much. All I ever hear/see is arguments about the same subjects over and over and over. What is the point.



No need to get into the existential quandary here, we're talking about how religion influences public education IE two observable forces operating within the same system that is empirical reality. Even if there is something beyond empirical reality it's irrelevant to this question.



Semichastny said:


> I agree, but I would take it further. If it isn't sound scientific theory, it doesn't belong in a democracy.



Again, science, talking about science as an abstract concept here, transcends democracy or any other human invention regarding social organization. I think your point is that a democratic society ought to be informed by true things, things that have been scientifically verified and that a scientifically-minded populace will be better capable of governing itself, right? 

To build on this, and I imagine you have this or something like it in mind, isn't the reverse situation the truth now? Similar to how civil rights are subject to democracy, scientific "fact" is a matter of public/political opinion. The spheres of science and society cross over (inevitably) and all sorts of shit starts happening. We've got global warming deniers who insist that there isn't a scientific consensus on humanity's impact on global warming as well as evolution deniers who peddle intelligent design or "teach the controversy" as students must know "both sides" of the "debate" as evolution is "just a theory." 

Ugh.



pink freud said:


> That's a fundamental lack of understanding about what science is.
> 
> An empirical deduction that is open to revision upon new information is an inherently more accurate portrayal of reality than a sociological "gut-feeling" that doesn't change for hundreds/thousands of years due to dogma.
> 
> That's all science is. "We are pretty sure X because evidence Y supports it, but X might change depending on evidence Z." People may use it incorrectly, but the foundation is sound.



For the record, and go ahead and correct me if this isn't what you were implying, but sociology isn't based on gut feelings. Auguste Comte back in the day thought society could be studied in the same way (scientifically) as other subjects in the other natural sciences were/are. While I agree that it's kind of problematic to call everything termed "sociology" strictly scientific, this isn't to say that empirical evidence doesn't have a place in sociology or other forms of social research.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 24, 2013)

groph said:


> Again, science, talking about science as an abstract concept here, transcends democracy or any other human invention regarding social organization. I think your point is that a democratic society ought to be informed by true things, things that have been scientifically verified and that a scientifically-minded populace will be better capable of governing itself, right?
> 
> To build on this, and I imagine you have this or something like it in mind, isn't the reverse situation the truth now? Similar to how civil rights are subject to democracy, scientific "fact" is a matter of public/political opinion. The spheres of science and society cross over (inevitably) and all sorts of shit starts happening. We've got global warming deniers who insist that there isn't a scientific consensus on humanity's impact on global warming as well as evolution deniers who peddle intelligent design or "teach the controversy" as students must know "both sides" of the "debate" as evolution is "just a theory."
> 
> Ugh.



Democracy should be based on knowledge, rational thinking and facts not irrational religious delusion. Science remains by far the best way to determain knowledge and facts. Social "science" is not real science, it's the art of rhetoric. When Social "science" can actually meet scientific standards and operate like physics, chemistry, etc I would accept this argument. The delusions of racists and conservatives do not influence or impact objective reality. A society governed by the logic and rational thinking of science would destroy racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion.


----------



## Waelstrum (Feb 24, 2013)

^ Are you suggesting that making unscientific ideas illegal would make for a a more democratic society? I agree that it would be nice if people were more logical, but oppressing the uninformed is no solution. (EDIT: If that is not what you meant then please disregard.)

I would say that a better method for eradicating prejudice and other such backward ideas is through education, which is the system in place now. Each generation is less prejudiced, less religious, and more scientific than the last. It's slow going, but is working.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 24, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> Democracy should be based on knowledge, rational thinking and facts not irrational religious delusion. Science remains by far the best way to determain knowledge and facts. Social "science" is not real science, it's the art of rhetoric. When Social "science" can actually meet scientific standards and operate like physics, chemistry, etc I would accept this argument. The delusions of racists and conservatives do not influence or impact objective reality. A society governed by the logic and rational thinking of science would destroy racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion.



Not necessarily. There is a point where someone can become too rational, kind of like the movie I Robot scenario where the robot (using rational, logical thought) saved the man over the child. I wouldn't be so quick to discredit things like psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. which are based on observation, patterns and whatnot and not really considered 'hard science'. Too much of anything can be a bad thing.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 24, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Not necessarily. There is a point where someone can become too rational, kind of like the movie I Robot scenario where the robot (using rational, logical thought) saved the man over the child. I wouldn't be so quick to discredit things like psychology, sociology, anthropology etc. which are based on observation, patterns and whatnot and not really considered 'hard science'. Too much of anything can be a bad thing.



A person or system with high levels of Rational/Logical thinking &#8800; A child-sacrificing robot. Rational thinking does not need to be tempered with the irrational. We are humans not robots, any system guided by reality does not need to become cold and blindy efficent we have EMOTION. We have seen what irrational thinking has given this planet (the holocaust, homophobia, racism, war on drugs etc), so are you arguing that homophobia and racism need to exist so that we don't end up with to much logic? Is there really something wrong with thinking that policy shoud be based on reality and not fantasy?


----------



## flint757 (Feb 24, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> A person or system with high levels of Rational/Logical thinking &#8800; A child-sacrificing robot. Rational thinking does not need to be tempered with the irrational. We are humans not robots, any system guided by reality does not need to become cold and blindy efficent we have EMOTION. We have seen what irrational thinking has given this planet (the holocaust, homophobia, racism, war on drugs etc), so are you arguing that homophobia and racism need to exist so that we don't end up with to much logic? Is there really something wrong with thinking that policy shoud be based on reality and not fantasy?



You're reaching.  I never said any of that...

It is an interesting point though, as you recognize that irrationality and emotion are key factors in us being human and not cold hearted. In many cases these things go against logic so where do you draw the line? I think it should definitely be based in reality and if we go along with how it was supposed to be done in the first place many laws that are in place should already not exist, but they persist anyways. There is the other issue of corruption and/or disagreement leading to inconclusive results though, so it would still be far from perfect. There is no such thing as a simple solution. That being said, I doubt it'd be any worse than what we've got now so it is certainly worth a try. My main point was we shouldn't completely discredit the 'soft sciences' out of that post.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 24, 2013)

flint757 said:


> You're reaching.  I never said any of that...



Not as much as it appears, You said:



flint757 said:


> Too much of anything can be a bad thing.



I interpreted this as being in responce my comments of an ultra-rational society. I was merely pointing out two irrational thoughts and demonstrating how redicoulous the idea that either should hold a place in our society is. Let us use the black and white analogy (black=rational & white=irrational), I think things should be black while you think they should be grey. The only possible way to create grey is to combine black and white, and illogical thought processes are thus made partly acceptable. What exact illogic is ok though... homophobia, racism, sexism, religious hatred, voodoo trickle-down ecomonics? If we do the grey path what do we end up with... logically ending the war on drugs but as concession we amend the federal constitution to ban gay marriage? The entire concept of balancing these two opposing forces seems rediculous when we start trying to decide what policies should be what, because illogic is fundamentally behind some of the most reprehensible laws we have.

I think Things don't always have to be black and white, but sometimes they should be. As stated before I don't think we need to temper logic & rational thinking with the illogical and illrational. 



flint757 said:


> It is an interesting point though, as you recognize that irrationality and emotion are key factors in us being human and not cold hearted. In many cases these things go against logic so where do you draw the line? I think it should definitely be based in reality and if we go along with how it was supposed to be done in the first place many laws that are in place should already not exist, but they persist anyways. There is the other issue of corruption and/or disagreement leading to inconclusive results though, so it would still be far from perfect. There is no such thing as a simple solution. That being said, I doubt it'd be any worse than what we've got now so it is certainly worth a try. My main point was we shouldn't completely discredit the 'soft sciences' out of that post.



Emotion is a fundamental part of the human experience, it can guide us towards our goals. Besides logical/rational thinking is better described as a process not a result. Logical thinking means that nothing is off the table, unless it can't meet the intellectual demands. We do not legislate emotion, we legislate laws weakly supported by emotion. In this we look for rational and logical reasons to hold up / get rid of the law. There is no logical defence of homophobia, therefore we should not consider it. On the other hand with government handouts we don't use logic for just a yes or no answer but also to decide how to best implement the plan and what possible alternatives are.

The line is very simple, if it infringes on peoples rights it must have a rational defence. If we persue a policy it must be persued rationally. Simple as that.

Corruption could hindered or solved though a logical and rational review of how those who weild power are controlled / held accountable. For example, we could require complete transparency and ban lobbying (random examples not meant to be taken as what we should actually do).

Soft sciences need to be held to higher standards. These fields do not act enough with the constraints of the scientific process for them to weild the amount of power and authority they do. After all Psych thought homosexuality was a mental illness and Ecomonics has little factual basis. Read the article below for an example of what I mean.

"Binge eating disorder has also now made it to the major leagues as an _official_ DSM-5 mental illness (moving up from a non-official mental illness status in Appendix B in DSM-4). What constitutes binge eating disorder? Frances reports, Excessive eating 12 times in 3 months is no longer just a manifestation of gluttony and the easy availability of really great tasting food. DSM 5 has instead turned it into a psychiatric illness called binge eating disorder. "

Why the Newest Psychiatric Diagnostic Bible Will Be a Boon for Big Pharma | Alternet


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 24, 2013)

Waelstrum said:


> ^ Are you suggesting that making unscientific ideas illegal would make for a a more democratic society? I agree that it would be nice if people were more logical, but oppressing the uninformed is no solution. (EDIT: If that is not what you meant then please disregard.)



If unscientific ideas were made illegal we might not be more democratic is some worthless theoretical sense, but we would be physically. Anti-gay laws would be thrown off the books, our dangerous and failed drug policy would be ended, and racism would be extinct. Doesn't that sound like a more democratic society to you? This is definitly begging the question but aren't you arguing that it is more democratic for some racist homophobe to be able to vote then for a gay person to get married? That solving all of our problems with the minor cost of casting out a poisonous group of people who are not capable of responcibly weilding their power is wrong?

Someone who thinks thinks that the earth is 9000 years old has no place in this country or our government.




Waelstrum said:


> I would say that a better method for eradicating prejudice and other such backward ideas is through education, which is the system in place now. Each generation is less prejudiced, less religious, and more scientific than the last. It's slow going, but is working.



Anti-brainwashing you could say... which is what I want. A Logical republic with rational citizentry.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2013)

The part your taking out of context, and that's my fault, is that I'm not equating irrational with manslaughter, concentration camps, racism etc (all of which are irrational), but the things that are just as irrational and hold the capacity for good. I may have taken what you originally said out of context or too literally as a society that only accepted rational thought (totally and completely) would be eradicating some good with the bad. Grey can be achieved without mixing the worst with the best or completely rational with bat shit crazy, some things just naturally fall into murky territory.

Corruption in any system is inevitable and unavoidable. The portion of psychology that dictates mental health and pharmacology should definitely be more strenuously guided, but the rest of what I classified as 'soft science' doesn't honestly need to be.

In any case, I pretty much agree with you. I was thinking more broadly, like living life through extreme rationality, when you in fact were just talking about laws and the function of the government. Broadly, hyper rationality would be a very bad thing.

You are reaching though because you seem focused on a singular point (homophobia, racism, bigotry, violence, etc.) and fail to recognize that for it to in fact work the way you intend it would affect a lot more than civil rights. Beyond gay rights and your occasional racist the law is already doing as much as it can to stop racism, civil rights issues, etc. Beyond what we already do it sounds like you are talking about removing freedom of speech and quartering people who are offensive. I'm not one to usually invoke the slippery slope, but that could end badly in the long run.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 25, 2013)

flint757 said:


> The part your taking out of context, and that's my fault, is that I'm not equating irrational with manslaughter, concentration camps, racism etc (all of which are irrational), but the things that are just as irrational and hold the capacity for good. I may have taken what you originally said out of context or too literally as a society that only accepted rational thought (totally and completely) would be eradicating some good with the bad. Grey can be achieved without mixing the worst with the best or completely rational with bat shit crazy, some things just naturally fall into murky territory.



I can see your point, but wouldn't have been more effective to give me an example of some good that could come from irrationality? It seems kind of strange that you managed to get a full paragraph out without a single positive that irrationality could bring to the table...



flint757 said:


> Corruption in any system is inevitable and unavoidable. The portion of psychology that dictates mental health and pharmacology should definitely be more strenuously guided, but the rest of what I classified as 'soft science' doesn't honestly need to be.



No power has to be unaccountable. Either way I think logic and reason would lead us towards the best answer to corruption. A country and citizentry guided by logic would yeild corruption that is less severe in concept then what we have today. For example despite overwhelming evidence that marijuana is safe and has medical applications our government refuses to relent on it's policy. That kind of corruption wouldn't exist. Psych and econ. hold a lot of influence, I don't think it's to much to ask that we demand responcibility and factually guided decisions from those we bestow with so much influence.




flint757 said:


> In any case, I pretty much agree with you. I was thinking more broadly, like living life through extreme rationality, when you in fact were just talking about laws and the function of the government. Broadly, hyper rationality would be a very bad thing.



I disagree, hyper rationality wouldn't be some lobotomy. People would still have emotions. This would just mean everyone is going to much more responcible fiscally. Better parenting would be an eventiable result of this as parents did what worked best for the kid and did not make choices based on irrational bigotries or thought processes. Kids would do better in school because they would be conditioned to understand its imporatance.



flint757 said:


> You are reaching though because you seem focused on a singular point (homophobia, racism, bigotry, violence, etc.) and fail to recognize that for it to in fact work the way you intend it would affect a lot more than civil rights. Beyond gay rights and your occasional racist the law is already doing as much as it can to stop racism, civil rights issues, etc.



>Homophobia & Racism are eradicated.
>Millions of potential lives ruined by our drug policy are saved.
>Economy is no longer poisoned by voo-doo ecomonics.

>The cost? Making sure those who brought such immense levels of human suffering and finiancial instability are never able to hurt us again.

Freedom of speech is not harmed, if you are not able to shout fire in a theatre you are not able to use your words to light the rights of others on fire. Hatred and bigotry contribute nothing to the world, and they do not deserve to be protected.

EDIT:



flint757 said:


> Beyond what we already do it sounds like you are talking about removing freedom of speech and quartering people who are offensive. I'm not one to usually invoke the slippery slope, but that could end badly in the long run.



Actually I disagree. I am not talking about punishing people who disagree with me. I've made it very clear that I am talking about punishing people who's illogical thoughts have wrought harm upon others. This isn't "I think homophobes suck lets get rid of em" this is "Homophobia has no logical standing and causes harm to the civil rights of gay people / pushes gay children towards suicide. Let's make sure they can't keep harming our society.". I don't think it is acceptable to say that gay kids need to die as a tribute to our democracy. The "law" may be doing what it can but lets look at the facts. These states all have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage:








If you recognized your argument as a logical fallacy why would you still put it forward?


----------



## groph (Feb 25, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> Democracy should be based on knowledge, rational thinking and facts not irrational religious delusion. Science remains by far the best way to determain knowledge and facts. *Social "science" is not real science, it's the art of rhetoric.* When Social "science" can actually meet scientific standards and operate like physics, chemistry, etc I would accept this argument. *The delusions of racists and conservatives do not influence or impact objective reality*. A society governed by the logic and rational thinking of science would destroy racism, sexism, homophobia, and religion.



The first bolded point is almost completely untrue. If anything, the art of rhetoric might be teachings based in classical Greek philosophy on how to construct an argument using yes, logic and rationality. "social science" can refer to anthropology, sociology, geography, history, cultural studies, feminist research, economics and so on and while these disciplines use different methodologies and go about obtaining knowledge in different ways they are by no means completely unscientific. You can't pull stuff out of your ass and say you've reached a new breakthrough in sociology without first backing it up with evidence gained through various forms of research, hard numbers (statistics) and not before consulting established social theories. It's not about standing on your soapbox and talking a big game. There's also a peer review process in social sciences as well; there are standards. 

Granted, when people start talking about social "theory" it's worth raising an eyebrow over. "Theory" implies, in the positivist science sense, a way of explaining related facts that is based on repeatable experimentation and observations that has survived the test of time and peer review. Society doesn't work like chemistry and it's nearly impossible to duplicate a social environment in a laboratory setting because a laboratory setting is itself a social environment and there are dynamics at play between the researcher/researched that can influence the outcome of the research. Social researchers are actually very aware of that. Unless it can be someday proven that all of human behaviour is really just the sum of biological processes, meaning that we're subject to biological determinism, then society, and knowledge about society can't be studied and understood in the same way as the natural sciences. I'm of the opinion that while we are biological beings and thus at least part of our nature can be studied strictly scientifically, we can't be fully understood like that, knowledge gained through social research and biology are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Also, consider something like psychoanalytic theory. I'm not an expert in it but I question the basis it has in reality. Freudian psychoanalysis has influenced a lot of critical theory (different from social theory and I'd probably say it's less evidence-based) like some feminist theories esp. Judith Butler as well as a lot of work done on human sexuality. I guess if such a theory actually does explain society or human behaviour effectively, then it's a good theory? I'm honestly not sure and it's a question worth exploring a lot more. Marx's theory of capitalism seemed to be much more applicable to his particular environment at the time, namely early industrialism, and nowadays Marx's ideas definitely sound outdated, as such he's been revisited, but studied and re-read in different ways.

The second bolded point makes no sense to me, of course the delusions of conservatives and racists influence and affect objective reality! The holocaust happened, and racism has influenced and affected at least Western societies for the past 500 years or so. Conservatives/liberals/whatever influence policy, that affects objective reality - the New Deal affected Planet Earth, not the eleventh aether where leprechauns live. If you meant that the delusions of individuals do not affect what *is *objective reality then ok, I can sit here and deny evolution or how carbon atoms bond and my delusion doesn't affect what actually happens, but human social interaction is part of objective reality, too, and I think it ought to be researched.


EDIT: Also, you're using an interesting definition of "rational." The Holocaust wasn't irrational, Hitler did it for a reason and it's possible to argue that the human race could have been better off had he "succeeded;" eugenics has a reason and purpose behind it. Was the Holocaust/eugenics just and ethical? Holy shit, was it ever not. Just to be super, super clear, I'm not defending his actions. It's just that he *did* have a goal and reasons to do what he did. Whether something is rational or not is not enough to justify carrying it out, is what I'm saying.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 25, 2013)

groph said:


> The first bolded point is almost completely untrue. If anything, the art of rhetoric might be teachings based in classical Greek philosophy on how to construct an argument using yes, logic and rationality. "social science" can refer to anthropology, sociology, geography, history, cultural studies, feminist research, economics and so on and while these disciplines use different methodologies and go about obtaining knowledge in different ways they are by no means completely unscientific. You can't pull stuff out of your ass and say you've reached a new breakthrough in sociology without first backing it up with evidence gained through various forms of research, hard numbers (statistics) and not before consulting established social theories. It's not about standing on your soapbox and talking a big game. There's also a peer review process in social sciences as well; there are standards.



The standards and methods are not up to the quality of physical sciences. That was my point and I stand by it. Economics fails to have repeatable experiments, psychology can call anything a mental illness. Read the article I linked before to alternet about that. Other sciences have varying degrees of accuracy but I feel that if something cannot be held to the high standards of a physical science then does not constitute a real science as it substitutes the standards of fact and evidence for person interpretation. It does not matter if they do not assemble their facts though the same exact physical methods such as using a microscope or a particle-accelorator, all that is required is that facts are determained is a non-partisan method. 



groph said:


> The second bolded point makes no sense to me, of course the delusions of conservatives and racists influence and affect objective reality! The holocaust happened, and racism has influenced and affected at least Western societies for the past 500 years or so.



I meant people who denied the holocaust ever happened or believe climate change is a conspiracy. A persons opinion cannot alter reality or fact. If I stop believing in gravity I will not start floating off. You completely misread what I wrote. I never said social science shouldn't be researched just that they are not responcible enough for the power they've been given.





groph said:


> Also, you're using an interesting definition of "rational." The Holocaust wasn't irrational, Hitler did it for a reason and it's possible to argue that the human race could have been better off had he "succeeded;" eugenics has a reason and purpose behind it. Was the Holocaust/eugenics just and ethical? Holy shit, was it ever not. Just to be super, super clear, I'm not defending his actions. It's just that he *did* have a goal and reasons to do what he did. Whether something is rational or not is not enough to justify carrying it out, is what I'm saying.



Are you seriously trying to argue the holocaust was rational? A person having a reason or purpose does not make their actions rational. I could run my car into a lake because a ghost told me to, that wouldn't make it rational. 

"Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. *It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.*"

The anti-semistism that prompted the holocaust started because of irrational reasoning... jewish conspiricies etc etc. While the holocaust was undoubted the most rational way of handling the "jewish problem" the holocaust remains irrational because it's foundations are irrational. Wether or not the human race is better off thanks to the holocaust has nothing to with the events rationality, it is an interpretation of wether the outcome holds enough positives to be considered "good".


----------



## broj15 (Feb 25, 2013)

Just so everyone knows when you let bills like this (or anything for that matter) get under your skin your letting the people that you don't like win. I don't agree with the bill at all, but then again I couldn't really give a fuck wether it gets passed or not. Sit back and ask yourself two questions:

1. "will this bill directly affect me in my day to day life?"
2. "Is my bitching about it on the internet really gonna do anything to stop them?"

If your answer to those questions is no and your still pissed about it then you need to sit back and wonder what good getting mad is really gonna do.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> I can see your point, but wouldn't have been more effective to give me an example of some good that could come from irrationality? It seems kind of strange that you managed to get a full paragraph out without a single positive that irrationality could bring to the table...



I can name one obvious one right off the back, it is irrational to believe absolutely that there is a God (it is just as irrational to believe absolutely there isn't though), but that brings comfort to many people. The idea of heaven typically puts families and people at ease during times of death. Drinking alcohol recreationally has no rational benefit (it harms your body more than anything) yet when used under proper, safe conditions enhances the fun people have on any given weekend.



Semichastny said:


> No power has to be unaccountable. Either way I think logic and reason would lead us towards the best answer to corruption. A country and citizentry guided by logic would yeild corruption that is less severe in concept then what we have today. For example despite overwhelming evidence that marijuana is safe and has medical applications our government refuses to relent on it's policy. That kind of corruption wouldn't exist. Psych and econ. hold a lot of influence, I don't think it's to much to ask that we demand responcibility and factually guided decisions from those we bestow with so much influence.
> 
> I disagree, hyper rationality wouldn't be some lobotomy. People would still have emotions. This would just mean everyone is going to much more responcible fiscally. Better parenting would be an eventiable result of this as parents did what worked best for the kid and did not make choices based on irrational bigotries or thought processes. Kids would do better in school because they would be conditioned to understand its imporatance.



I take issue with a lot of what you have been saying as it works under the assumption that you're right and we have no experiment to prove that you would be right. Working under a scientific system you are merely working under an educated guess as it cannot even be called a theory without proper testing.



Semichastny said:


> >Homophobia & Racism are eradicated.
> >Millions of potential lives ruined by our drug policy are saved.
> >Economy is no longer poisoned by voo-doo ecomonics.
> 
> ...



What I meant was who decides what is offensive, who decide what is okay? As an example, the word retard is considered derogatory yet it only means slow. Negro means black in Spanish. Gay means happy. Fag means stick or cigarette. I think you get my point. While the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy the notion isn't always wrong either. Meddling extensively with what you can and cannot say can only lead to something bad. Are we going to burn 90% of hip hop records because they say '.....'? Now do you get it?



Semichastny said:


> Actually I disagree. I am not talking about punishing people who disagree with me. I've made it very clear that I am talking about punishing people who's illogical thoughts have wrought harm upon others. This isn't "I think homophobes suck lets get rid of em" this is "Homophobia has no logical standing and causes harm to the civil rights of gay people / pushes gay children towards suicide. Let's make sure they can't keep harming our society.". I don't think it is acceptable to say that gay kids need to die as a tribute to our democracy. The "law" may be doing what it can but lets look at the facts. These states all have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage:



You are supplying a problem and who to place the blame on, but still have not indicated what you want to happen. What do you intend to do to these people? What if someone doesn't like what someone is saying about the government or a politician? It could easily be abused hence why we do not limit (to the extent you are discussing) free speech. I agree I think racism is very bad and I do not think it is acceptable either, but your solution is not better. I do agree that the ban should be removed.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 25, 2013)

flint757 said:


> I can name one obvious one right off the back, it is irrational to believe absolutely that there is a God (it is just as irrational to believe absolutely there isn't though), but that brings comfort to many people. The idea of heaven typically puts families and people at ease during times of death. Drinking alcohol recreationally has no rational benefit (it harms your body more than anything) yet when used under proper, safe conditions enhances the fun people have on any given weekend.



So are you saying religion is the only thing that can bring comfort to people? I don't think that it does. All that we would need is an alternative system of community. Once again you keep talking as if an ultra-rational/logical society would require people to get a lobotomy and become computers. People can still make choices, it is the unfounded dangerous ones that effect others. A person drinking is no problem, a person drunk driving is.



flint757 said:


> I take issue with a lot of what you have been saying as it works under the assumption that you're right and we have no experiment to prove that you would be right. Working under a scientific system you are merely working under an educated guess as it cannot even be called a theory without proper testing.



Flint, Science remains by and far the best way to determain what is true and to gain knowledge. All I am asking is that the logic and reason that guide science guide society.

You want a test?

You have to buy a car. You can buy a cheap car that your best friend told you about OR you can research the type of car you want online and make an educated decision based on the data. Which is objectively going to have a better result?

Your (theorectical) child is accused of being a drug dealer. You can say "OH NOT MY BABY HE COULDN'T HAVE, I'M FIGHTING THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT!!" or you can ask your child about it and do a little bit of investigating. Which is objectively going to have a better result?

Our country is adressing climate change in congress. Should we go along with the people who think the earth is 9000 years old and hurricanes are gods punishment for supporting gay people OR do we turn to the scientists who have devoted their lives to the topic? Which is objectively going to have a better result?




flint757 said:


> What I meant was who decides what is offensive, who decide what is okay? As an example, the word retard is considered derogatory yet it only means slow. Negro means black in Spanish. Gay means happy. Fag means stick or cigarette.



Two things here flint:

1. I already stated how we would determain what is acceptable:



Semichastny said:


> The line is very simple, if it infringes on peoples rights it must have a rational defence. If we persue a policy it must be persued rationally. Simple as that.



2. What I'm saying is not just about banning "offensive" terms. It is the hatred and bigotry that have factual impacts on our society that I have a problem with not just some word. Notice below:




Semichastny said:


> >Homophobia & Racism are eradicated.





Semichastny said:


> I am not talking about punishing people who disagree with me. I've made it very clear that I am talking about punishing people who's illogical thoughts have wrought harm upon others. This isn't "I think homophobes suck lets get rid of em" this is "Homophobia has no logical standing and causes harm to the civil rights of gay people / pushes gay children towards suicide. Let's make sure they can't keep harming our society".



I didn't use gay with some implied definition. I used gay in hand with homophobia demonstrating that I am not talking about ciggarettes nor am I talking about the simple ban of a word. I am talking exclusively about homosexuals (IE man-man, woman-woman) and making sure all the factual harm caused to them by homophobia and disriminatory laws do not continue. You keep acting like I just want offensive terms banned, but haven't I already said that these things are a little more then "offensive"? A homosexual child who kills him/herself because they live in a society that hates them is a pretty tangible effect. A youth having their life fucked up because of a drug offence is factual. That is what I am trying to stop, not just some word. 





flint757 said:


> I think you get my point. While the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy the notion isn't always wrong either. Meddling extensively with what you can and cannot say can only lead to something bad. Are we going to burn 90% of hip hop records because they say '.....'? Now do you get it?



I am not meddeling with what a person can and can't say, so much as I am saying that dangerous illogical / irrational thought processes have no place in our society. Something is not a slippery slope only when it can show it's effects are actually going to happen. It's a SS to say that people can get married to animals if the gays can get married, but it is not a SS to say that one could end up killing 12 people if they closed their eyes and took their hands of the wheel while doing 90mph in the center lane of a busy highway. I think it is rediculous to say that a system that would end bigotry (racism, homophobia, sexism) is all of a sudden going to turn into a despotic tyranny. If hatred and discrimation have no place then they have no place, but trying to say that a homophobe or a racist bigot need to be protected and allowed to influence our policy is crazy.




flint757 said:


> You are supplying a problem and who to place the blame on, but still have not indicated what you want to happen. What do you intend to do to these people? What if someone doesn't like what someone is saying about the government or a politician? It could easily be abused hence why we do not limit (to the extent you are discussing) free speech. I agree I think racism is very bad and I do not think it is acceptable either, but your solution is not better. I do agree that the ban should be removed.



They should not be allowed to vote or run for office. Flint, it is up to you to provide the burden of proof. How exactly would taking away free speech to halt disent be rational or logical based on the standards of human rights? To me it just sounds like a slippery slope. 

My solution is not better? You would rather have millions locked away for drug offences, thousands of gay kids kill themselves, and have climate change ravage our populace because your scared that if we don't let the people responcible for such immense suffering vote you'd be next on the chopping block?


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Feb 25, 2013)

This thread still exists?


----------



## pink freud (Feb 25, 2013)

groph said:


> For the record, and go ahead and correct me if this isn't what you were implying, but sociology isn't based on gut feelings. Auguste Comte back in the day thought society could be studied in the same way (scientifically) as other subjects in the other natural sciences were/are. While I agree that it's kind of problematic to call everything termed "sociology" strictly scientific, this isn't to say that empirical evidence doesn't have a place in sociology or other forms of social research.



I probably should have "Societal Gut Feeling" instead, but I wanted to allude to the Zeitgeist (for lack of a non-pretentious asshole term).


----------



## Double A (Feb 25, 2013)

I had no idea this thread was this old.


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 25, 2013)

It's actually fairly interesting, unlike your trolling. Consequently, you can both take a week off.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 25, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> So are you saying religion is the only thing that can bring comfort to people? I don't think that it does. All that we would need is an alternative system of community. Once again you keep talking as if an ultra-rational/logical society would require people to get a lobotomy and become computers. People can still make choices, it is the unfounded dangerous ones that effect others. A person drinking is no problem, a person drunk driving is.



You asked for an example and I gave you one, simple as that. 



Semichastny said:


> Flint, Science remains by and far the best way to determain what is true and to gain knowledge. All I am asking is that the logic and reason that guide science guide society.
> 
> Your (theorectical) child is accused of being a drug dealer. You can say "OH NOT MY BABY HE COULDN'T HAVE, I'M FIGHTING THIS TO THE SUPREME COURT!!" or you can ask your child about it and do a little bit of investigating. Which is objectively going to have a better result?
> 
> Our country is adressing climate change in congress. Should we go along with the people who think the earth is 9000 years old and hurricanes are gods punishment for supporting gay people OR do we turn to the scientists who have devoted their lives to the topic? Which is objectively going to have a better result?



Our current system, to some degreee, is already supposed to function based on 'logic'. Admittedly it doesn't always, but your scenario you have worked up into an idea isn't going to work the way you think as our current system is already supposed to work that way (and as you clearly noted it doesn't).

As an example, per your example, you can't just keep petitioning the court without good reason and clear (scientific) evidence.



> Generally, the decisions of a lower-court made in the course of a continuing case will not be reviewed by higher courts until there is a final judgment in the case. On the federal level, for example, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 provides that appellate review of lower-court decisions should be postponed until after a final judgment has been made in the lower court. A writ of mandamus offers one exception to this rule. If a party to a case is dissatisfied with some decision of the trial court, the party may appeal the decision to a higher court with a petition for a writ of mandamus before the trial proceeds. *The order will be issued only in exceptional circumstances.*





Semichastny said:


> Two things here flint:
> 
> 1. I already stated how we would determain what is acceptable:
> 
> ...



That doesn't answer my question as well as you think it does. You've only made broad generalities that on a scale of 300 million people is impractical. I agree bigotry is bad, drugs should not be a criminal offense, laws, in the realm of scientific ideas, should be based solely on the theory/standard/whatever is set in place in the field the law is being written for. The only thing I've gotten from your post is that:

You want to free all of those who have been charged with a drug related crime (I get it, that makes sense)
Laws should be determined by rational thought and on concrete ideas (It is supposed to work that way already, it just doesn't sometimes)
Bigots, racists (and based on many of your other posts/comments) and religion do nothing, but harm towards society
We need to rid us of that problem

I am not a religious person, but religion isn't the problem, ignorance and those willing to abuse power are the problem. As for the last 2 points you have not written out a solution other than saying it is a problem and we need to get rid of it. How do you intend on doing that exactly? That is the question you have left unanswered and have only spoken about in broad generalities.



Semichastny said:


> I didn't use gay with some implied definition. I used gay in hand with homophobia demonstrating that I am not talking about ciggarettes nor am I talking about the simple ban of a word. I am talking exclusively about homosexuals (IE man-man, woman-woman) and making sure all the factual harm caused to them by homophobia and disriminatory laws do not continue. You keep acting like I just want offensive terms banned, but haven't I already said that these things are a little more then "offensive"? A homosexual child who kills him/herself because they live in a society that hates them is a pretty tangible effect. A youth having their life fucked up because of a drug offence is factual. That is what I am trying to stop, not just some word.



Nice ideal and an opinion I think anyone can get behind, but you are still leaving the question unanswered, how do you handle the problem? In court the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Do we just start taking peoples word for it and open up the 'ass' prison. What I find odd about your plan is that earlier you agreed with someone that the slow method of each generation becoming more accepting was the proper approach. If you intend to become the word police (when used in derogatory fashion) I can safely assume that you will only prolong the period of racism/sexism/etc.



Semichastny said:


> I am not meddeling with what a person can and can't say, so much as I am saying that dangerous illogical / irrational thought processes have no place in our society.



Great so what exactly does that entail? Again a statement people can get behind without a real solution beyond silencing those you disagree with (which can and has gone bad historically).



Semichastny said:


> I think it is rediculous to say that a system that would end bigotry (racism, homophobia, sexism) is all of a sudden going to turn into a despotic tyranny. If hatred and discrimation have no place then they have no place, but trying to say that a homophobe or a racist bigot need to be protected and allowed to influence our policy is crazy.
> 
> They should not be allowed to vote or run for office. Flint, it is up to you to provide the burden of proof. How exactly would taking away free speech to halt disent be rational or logical based on the standards of human rights? To me it just sounds like a slippery slope.



Again you are working under the assumption that your plan would work. I'm not saying logic is bad, but, as I pointed out previously, you have not written out any sort of plan of action either. You've merely pointed out a problem and that we should rid ourselves of it (in other words not very helpful). In a debate it is up to both parties to supply proof as we are functioning in the real world, not science vs. metaphysical. As it stands there is no actual proof that what you vaguely intend would work out the way you think it would (ideally). You are working under the false assumption that I think the current state of affairs is fine and that I think everything is A-okay which is also untrue. I do not think the current system is doing good at all and I do think it needs change, but I don't think what your offering will work. Ideally it isn't a bad idea and as I've said numerous times, it is something people can get behind, but that doesn't mean it would work.



Semichastny said:


> My solution is not better? You would rather have millions locked away for drug offences, thousands of gay kids kill themselves, and have climate change ravage our populace because your scared that if we don't let the people responcible for such immense suffering vote you'd be next on the chopping block?



Once again you are speaking in hyperbole. Me disagreeing with you does not imply in any way at all that I want millions to suffer. You are working under the false assumption that you are right and as such everyone else is wrong and disagreeing with _your_ approach (not goal mind you) means that they want everyone to suffer too. Not a conversationally helpful POV. It is a pressuring technique to get me to side with you and it isn't going to work. Sorry.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 26, 2013)

I am tired of this debate. To make this more constructive I will address your idea of a "education problem" with this nice quote:

"In one of Kahan&#8217;s studies, members of the different groups were asked to imagine that a close friend has come to them and said that he or she is trying to decide about the risks on three contested issues: whether global warming is caused by human beings, whether nuclear waste can be safely stored deep underground, and whether letting people carry guns either deters violent crime on the one hand, or worsens it on the other. The experiment continued:


The friend tells you that he or she is planning to read a book about the issue but before taking the time to do so would like to get your opinion on whether the author seems like a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert.
Then study subjects were shown alleged book excerpts by fake &#8220;experts&#8221; on these issues, as well as phony pictures of the authors and fictitious resumes. All the authors were depicted as legitimate experts and members of the National Academy of Sciences. The only area where they differed was on their view of the risk in question.


The results were stark: When the fake scientist&#8217;s position stated that global warming is real and caused by humans, only 23 percent of hierarchical-individualists agreed the person was a &#8220;trustworthy and knowledgeable expert.&#8221; Yet 88 percent of egalitarian-communitarians accepted the same scientist&#8217;s alleged expertise. (Similar divides, although not always as sharp, were observed on the other issues.)


In other words, people were rejecting the scientific source because its conclusion was contrary to their deeply held views about the world. None of the groups were &#8220;anti-science&#8221; or &#8220;anti-expert&#8221;&#8212;not in their own minds, anyway. It&#8217;s just that science and expertise were whatever they wanted them to be&#8212;whatever made them feel that their convictions had been bolstered and strengthened.


When they deny global warming, then, conservatives think the best minds are actually on their side. They think they&#8217;re the champions of truth and reality, and they&#8217;re deeply attached to this view. That is why head-on attempts to persuade them otherwise usually fail. Indeed, factual counterarguments sometimes even trigger what has been termed a backfire effect: Those with strongly held but clearly incorrect beliefs not only fail to change their minds, but hold their wrong views more tenaciously after being shown contradictory evidence or a refutation.


To show this, let&#8217;s move from global warming to a question that, from the perspective of the political mind, is very similar: whether Saddam Hussein&#8217;s Iraq possessed hidden weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003. When political scientists Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth and Jason Reifler of Georgia State showed subjects fake newspaper articles in which this incorrect claim was first suggested (in a real-life 2004 quotation from President Bush) and then refuted (with a discussion of the actual findings of the 2004 Duelfer report, which found no evidence of concerted nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons efforts in pre-invasion Iraq), they found that conservatives were more likely to believe the claim than before.
The same thing happened in another experiment, when conservatives were primed with a ridiculous (and also real) statement by Bush concerning his tax cuts&#8212;&#8220;the tax relief stimulated economic vitality and growth and it has helped increase revenues to the Treasury.&#8221; The article then went on to inform study subjects that the tax cuts had not actually increased government revenue. Once again, following the factual correction, conservatives believed Bush&#8217;s false claim more strongly.


Seeking to be evenhanded, the researchers then tested how liberals responded when shown, in a similar format, that despite some Democratic claims, George W. Bush did not actually &#8220;ban&#8221; embryonic stem cell research. And it&#8217;s true: Bush merely restricted government funding to research on a limited number of stem cell lines, while leaving research completely unregulated in the private sector. Liberals weren&#8217;t particularly amenable to persuasion in the experiment either&#8212;but unlike conservatives, they did not &#8220;backfire.&#8221; Perhaps they were less defensive about the matter, less wedded to the notion of a &#8220;ban.&#8221; Perhaps whether or not it was technically a ban, they still felt Bush&#8217;s limits on stem cell research were a bad policy.
The Nyhan and Reifler study presents another piece of evidence suggesting that conservatives may defend their beliefs more strongly than liberals do in the face of challenge, and be less amenable to changing their minds based on the evidence&#8212;at least in the political realm.
Another similar study gives some inkling of what may be going through people&#8217;s minds when they resist persuasion&#8212;and shows powerful evidence of conservative defensiveness in particular.


Take the common insinuation during the George W. Bush years that Iraq and Al Qaeda were secretly collaborating in some way. Northwestern University sociologist Monica Prasad and her colleagues wanted to test whether they could dislodge this belief among those most likely to hold it&#8212;Republican partisans from highly GOP-friendly counties in North Carolina and Illinois. So the researchers set up a study in which they directly challenged some of these Republicans in person, citing the findings of the 9/11 Commission as well as a statement by George W. Bush, in which the former president himself protested that his administration had &#8220;never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.&#8221;
As it turned out, not even Bush&#8217;s own words could change the minds of these Bush voters. *Just one out of 49 partisans who originally believed the Iraq&#8211;Al Qaeda claim changed his or her mind about it upon being challenged and presented with new information. Seven more claimed never to have believed the claim in the first place (although they clearly had). The remaining 41 all came up with ways to preserve their beliefs, ranging from generating counterarguments to simply being un-movable:*
*INTERVIEWER: . . . the September 11 Commission found no link between Saddam and 9/11, and this is what President Bush said. [pause] This is what the commission said. Do you have any comments on either of those?*
*RESPONDENT: Well, I bet they say that the Commission didn&#8217;t have any proof of it but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that.*


I didn&#8217;t choose these two studies of political misinformation and the Iraq war by accident. It is hard to think of many liberal-conservative divides over the facts that have held greater consequences for lives, economies, and international security, than this one.


The split over whether Iraq had the touted &#8220;WMD,&#8221; and whether Saddam and Osama were frat buddies, represented a true turning point in the relationship between our politics and objective reality. In case you missed it: Reality lost badly. Conservatives and Republicans were powerfully and persistently wrong, following a cherished leader into a war based on false premises&#8212;and then, according to these studies, finding themselves unable to escape the quagmire of unreality even after several years had passed.
And still, I have not yet described what may be the most insidious side of motivated reasoning, particularly as it relates to conservative denial of the seemingly undeniable.


Call it the &#8220;smart idiots&#8221; effect: The politically sophisticated or knowledgeable are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. &#8220;People who have a dislike of some policy&#8212;for example, abortion&#8212;if they&#8217;re unsophisticated they can just reject it out of hand,&#8221; says Stony Brook&#8217;s Milton Lodge. &#8220;But if they&#8217;re sophisticated, they can go one step further and start coming up with counterarguments.&#8221; These counterarguments, because they are emotionally charged and become stored in memory and the brain, literally become part of us. They thus allow a person with more sophistication to convince him- or herself even more strongly about the correctness of an initial conviction.


It was this &#8220;smart idiots&#8221; effect, and especially its recurrent appearance on the political right, that changed how I think about our disputes over science and the facts, and eventually set in motion the writing of this book. I even remember when I first became aware of it. It was thanks to a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming&#8212;a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.


Those facts are these: Humans, since the industrial revolution, have been burning more and more fossil fuels to power their societies, and this has led to a steady accumulation of greenhouse gases, and especially carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. At this point, very simple physics takes over, and you are pretty much doomed, by what scientists refer to as the &#8220;radiative&#8221; properties of carbon dioxide molecules (which trap infrared heat radiation that would otherwise escape to space), to have a warming planet. Since about 1995, scientists have not only confirmed that this warming is taking place, but have also grown confident that it has, like the gun in a murder mystery, our fingerprint on it. Natural fluctuations, although they exist, can&#8217;t explain what we&#8217;re seeing. The only reasonable verdict is that humans did it, in the atmosphere, with their cars and smokestacks.
The Pew data, however, showed that humans aren&#8217;t as predictable as carbon dioxide molecules. Despite a growing scientific consensus about global warming, as of 2008 Democrats and Republicans had, like a couple in a divorce, cleaved over the facts stated above, so that only 29 percent of Republicans accepted the core reality about our planet (centrally, that humans are causing global warming), compared with 58 percent of Democrats. (The divide is, if anything, even bigger nowadays.)


But that&#8217;s not all. Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one&#8217;s political party affiliation, one&#8217;s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one&#8217;s level of education. And here&#8217;s the mind-blowing surprise: *For Republicans, having a college degree didn&#8217;t make one any more open to what scientists have to say. On the contrary, better educated Republicans were more skeptical of modern climate science than their less educated brethren. Only 19 percent of college-educated Republicans agreed that the planet is warming due to human actions, versus 31 percent of non-college-educated Republicans.*

*For Democrats and Independents, precisely the opposite was the case. More education correlated with being more accepting of climate science&#8212;among Democrats, dramatically so. The difference in acceptance between more and less educated Democrats was 23 percentage points.*


This finding recurs, in a variety of incarnations, throughout the rapidly growing social science literature on the resistance to climate science. Again and again, Republicans or conservatives who know more about the issue, or are more educated, are shown to be more in denial, and often more sure of themselves too&#8212;and are confident they don&#8217;t need any more information on the issue.


The same &#8220;smart idiots&#8221; effect also occurs on nonscientific but factually contested issues, like the claim that President Obama is a Muslim. Belief in this falsehood actually increased more among better educated Republicans from 2009 to 2010 than it did among less educated Republicans, according to research by George Washington University political scientist John Sides.
Finally, the same effect has been captured in relation to the myth that the healthcare reform bill empowered government &#8220;death panels.&#8221; According to research by Brendan Nyhan, Republicans who thought they knew more about the Obama health care plan were &#8220;paradoxically more likely to endorse the misperception than those who did not.&#8221; Well informed Democrats were the opposite&#8212;quite certain there were no &#8220;death panels&#8221; in the bill. (The Democrats also happened to be right, by the way.)


What accounts for the &#8220;smart idiot&#8221; effect? For one thing, well informed or well educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they&#8217;re supposed to think about the issues&#8212;what people like them think&#8212;and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They&#8217;ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they&#8217;ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain &#8220;facts&#8221; or claims, and their deeply held political values.


What this suggests, critically, is that sophisticated conservatives, like Andrew Schlafly, may be very different from unsophisticated or less-informed ones. Paradoxically, we would expect less informed conservatives to be easier to persuade, and more responsive to new and challenging information.


*The &#8220;smart idiots&#8221; effect generates endless frustration for many scientists&#8212;and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.*
*These people&#8212;and I know many of them&#8212;want to believe that the solution to the problem of resistance to science, or to accurate information in general, is more and better education&#8212;leading, presumably, to greater public Enlightenment (capital E). No less than President Obama&#8217;s science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept the science of climate change, that it&#8217;s an &#8220;education problem.&#8221;*
*But scientists must now acknowledge that science itself refutes this idea. In fact, Dan Kahan&#8217;s research team at Yale found a clever way to test it, and it failed badly.*


In another study, Kahan and his colleagues once again surveyed how the four cultural groups&#8212;egalitarians, communitarians, hierarchs, and individualists&#8212;respond to the issue of climate change. Only this time, they included two revealing new measurements in the analysis&#8212;ones that caught the smart idiots red handed (or, red-brained, if you&#8217;d prefer).


This time, people weren&#8217;t just asked about their cultural worldviews and their views on how dangerous global warming is. They were also asked standard questions to determine their degree of scientific literacy (e.g., &#8220;Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria&#8212;true or false?&#8221 as well as their numeracy or capacity for mathematical reasoning (e.g., &#8220;If Person A&#8217;s chance of getting a disease is 1 in 100 in ten years, and person B&#8217;s risk is double that of A, what is B&#8217;s risk?&#8221. The latter attribute is particularly significant in light of what we&#8217;ve already said about the brain, because aptitude in mathematical reasoning requires the use of calmer and more deliberative &#8220;System 2&#8221; cognition. You can&#8217;t intuit or emote your answer to a math problem using &#8220;System 1.&#8221;


*Kahan&#8217;s group now had four sets of information, for over 1,500 randomly selected Americans: Their views on global warming, their political values, their degree of scientific literacy, and their capacity for mathematical reasoning. The relationships between them were stunning and alarming. The standard view that knowing more science, or being better at mathematical reasoning, ought to make you more accepting of mainstream climate science simply crashed and burned.*


Instead, here was the result: If you were already part of a cultural group predisposed to distrust climate science&#8212;e.g., a hierarchical-individualist&#8212;then more science knowledge and more skill in mathematical reasoning tended to make you even more dismissive, not more open to the science. Precisely the opposite happened with the other group&#8212;egalitarian-communitarians&#8212;who tended to worry more as they knew more science and math. The result was that, overall, more scientific literacy and mathematical ability led to greater political polarization over climate change.
So much for education serving as an antidote to politically biased reasoning.
Kahan&#8217;s studies, I should note, are presented in an entirely even-handed fashion. Like many motivated reasoning researchers, he does not postulate that any of his cultural groups are more biased than any other&#8212;just that they&#8217;re biased in different directions.


Still, it is hard to miss that in his studies, one group in particular, the hierarchical-individualists&#8212;which includes not only Republicans and conservatives but also right-wing authoritarians, who are very hierarchical and religious, and very defensive of their beliefs&#8212;not only starts out highly disconnected from scientific reality on climate change, but also becomes even more out of touch with greater scientific literacy and mathematical ability.


By contrast, when I discuss the views of liberals concerning nuclear power, I will turn again to Kahan&#8217;s results&#8212;because they are not the mirror image of these findings on conservatives and global warming.
By now, we&#8217;ve seen ample evidence of just how biased humans can be by their preexisting beliefs and convictions&#8212;and how this infects not only our relationships and our personal lives, but also our politics.
It all leads to an overwhelming question&#8212;and one that&#8217;s very difficult to answer: How &#8220;irrational&#8221; is all this?


On the one hand, it surely makes sense not to discard an entire belief system, built up over a lifetime, because of some new snippet of information. &#8220;It is quite possible to say, &#8216;I reached this pro-capital punishment decision based on real information that I arrived at over my life,&#8217;&#8221; explains Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick. Indeed, there&#8217;s a sense in which even right-wing science denial could be considered keenly &#8220;rational.&#8221; In certain conservative communities of the United States, explains Dan Kahan, &#8220;people who say, &#8216;I think there&#8217;s something to climate change,&#8217; that&#8217;s going to mark them out as a certain kind of person, and their life is going to go less well.&#8221;


Rational or otherwise, however, motivated reasoning poses a deep challenge to the ideal of Jeffersonian democracy, which assumes that voters will be informed about the issues&#8212;not deeply wedded to misinformation. We&#8217;re divided enough about politics as it is, without adding irreconcilable views about the nature of reality on top of that.
And there&#8217;s an even bigger question looming in the background. It&#8217;s one we&#8217;ve already begun to consider: How can evolution explain all of this? But now it&#8217;s time to go farther.


Even after what we&#8217;ve already learned about the brain and the emotions, it&#8217;s still hard to imagine why evolution would create a creature that is capable of reason, and yet performs so badly at it. One might think there would have been an absolute premium on accurately perceiving our environments, and a survival advantage accompanying this capacity that would be preserved by natural selection and passed on to offspring.


Explaining why that is not the case is a fascinating question in evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology right now. And it is going to be a difficult one to definitively answer, since we can&#8217;t reset the clock of evolution to see what actually occurred. Whatever its strengths or weaknesses, human reason has not yet given us the ability to create a time machine." - The Republican Brain


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2013)

Old hat my friend. I'm well aware there are people who deny climate change and justify other delusional thoughts/practices. I have already agreed that it is a problem and that ingesting a bit more logic and science in certain scenarios (especially with writing laws) would be a good thing AND that it is already supposed to work that way to a degree. The reason many illogical things still make it into policy is simply because of lobbies and money. Petroleum is a huge financial market for our government and as such it is to their benefit to ignore/deny climate change. Not a good excuse, but that is the reason. We most definitely need to get money and lobbies out of congress which would resolve, hopefully, many of these problems. Religion is already supposed to be separate from our government, the fact that it isn't is merely bad execution not from a bad plan. A step in the right direction would be disallowing companies on wall street from lobbying.

Where I disagreed with you was how you intended to handle bigotry/racism and your opinion of the various_ 'soft sciences'_ (not that you explained yourself very well). What little you have suggested (vague) would not work across the board like you seem to think it would. 

I doubt you have a significant enough background in the various _'soft sciences'_ to hold such a low opinion of them either. Reading a few articles hardly makes someone an expert and a few blemishes doesn't completely invalidate an entire subject.


----------



## Semichastny (Feb 26, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Old hat my friend. I'm well aware there are people who deny climate change and justify other delusional thoughts/practices. I have already agreed that it is a problem and that ingesting a bit more logic and science in certain scenarios (especially with writing laws) would be a good thing AND that it is already supposed to work that way to a degree. The reason many illogical things still make it into policy is simply because of lobbies and money. Petroleum is a huge financial market for our government and as such it is to their benefit to ignore/deny climate change. Not a good excuse, but that is the reason. We most definitely need to get money and lobbies out of congress which would resolve, hopefully, many of these problems. Religion is already supposed to be separate from our government, the fact that it isn't is merely bad execution not from a bad plan. A step in the right direction would be disallowing companies on wall street from lobbying.
> 
> Where I disagreed with you was how you intended to handle bigotry/racism and your opinion of the various_ 'soft sciences'_ (not that you explained yourself very well). What little you have suggested (vague) would not work across the board like you seem to think it would.
> 
> I doubt you have a significant enough background in the various _'soft sciences'_ to hold such a low opinion of them either. Reading a few articles hardly makes someone an expert and a few blemishes doesn't completely invalidate an entire subject.



I am not going to respond to any point you made in this post (edit: other then the soft sciences dig), I said I was tired of the debate. I posted about your idea of an "education problem" with some compelling evidence that it might be flawed and definatly should be studied more. You did not bother to respond to it, I would appreciate if you would stay on topic instead of completely curcumventing my entire post.

By the way Flint:

"Two important aspects of a scientific instrument are _validity _and _reliability_. DSM scientific validity would mean that behaviors labeled as disorders and illnesses are in fact disorders and illnesses. And DSM reliability would mean that clinicians trained in DSM criteria agree on a diagnosis. 
One historical example, a century before the first DSM, of a clearly invalid mental illness is _drapetomania_. Louisiana physician Samuel A. Cartwright was certain he had discovered a new mental disease. After studying runaway slaves who had been caught and returned to their owners, Cartwright concluded in an 1851 report to the _New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal_ that these slaves suffered from drapetomania, a disease causing them to flee. 

While virtually all psychiatrists today rightfully mock the idea that fleeing slavery could be considered a valid mental illness, it was not until the 1970s that cultural upheaval and political protests persuaded the APA of the invalidity of homosexuality as a mental illness. 
And while homosexuality was dropped from the 1980 DSM-3, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) was added, and ODD is now a popular child and adolescent diagnosis. The symptoms of ODD include &#8220;often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules&#8221; and &#8220;often argues with adults.&#8221; Is it any more valid to label teenage rebellion and anti-authoritarianism as a mental illness than it is to label runaway slaves as mentally ill? 
Even if you believe that oppositional defiant disorder and all the other DSM disorders are in fact valid mental illnesses, for them to be considered _scientific_, they have to be able to be reliably diagnosed. 
In a landmark 1973 study reported in _Science_, David Rosenhan sought to discover if psychiatry could distinguish between &#8220;normals&#8221; and those so &#8220;psychotic&#8221; they needed to be hospitalized. Eight pseudopatients were sent to 12 hospitals, all pretending to have this complaint: hearing empty and hollow voices with no clear content. _All_ pseudopatients were able to fool staff and get hospitalized. More troubling, immediately after admission, the pseudopatients stated the voices had disappeared and they behaved as they normally would but none were immediately released. The length of their hospitalizations ranged from seven to 52 days, with an average of 19 days, each finally discharged diagnosed with &#8220;schizophrenia in remission.&#8221; 
Psychiatry was embarrassed by Rosenhan and other critics and knew if the DSM wasn't fixed, they would continue to be mocked as a science. The 1980 DSM-3 was dramatically altered to have concrete behavioral checklists and formal decision-making rules, which psychiatry hoped would solve its diagnostic reliability problem. But did it? 
Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk are coauthors of two books investigating this claim of &#8220;new and improved&#8221; reliability of the DSM-3 and DSM-4: _The Selling of DSM: Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry_ (1992), and _Making Us Crazy, DSM: The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders _(1997).
Kutchins and Kirk detail a major 1992 study done to examine the reliability of the supposedly new and improved DSM-3. This reliability study was conducted at six sites in the United States and one in Germany. Experienced mental health professionals were given extensive training in how to make accurate DSM diagnoses. Following this training, pairs of clinicians interviewed nearly 600 prospective patients. Because of the extensive training, Kutchins and Kirk note, &#8220;We would expect that diagnostic agreement would be considerably lower in normal clinical settings.&#8221; The results showed that the reliability of the DSM-3&#8212;even with this special training&#8212;was not superior to the earlier unreliable editions of DSM, and in some cases it was worse. Kutchins and Kirk summarize: 



What this study demonstrated was that even when experienced clinicians with special training and supervision are asked to use DSM and make a diagnosis, they frequently disagree, even though the standards for defining agreement are very generous....[For example,] if one of the two therapists....made a diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder and the other therapist selected Avoidant Personality Disorder, the therapists were judged to be in complete agreement of the diagnosis because they both found a personality disorder&#8212;even though they disagreed completely on which one!...Mental health clinicians independently interviewing the same person in the community are as likely to agree as disagree that the person has a mental disorder and are as likely to agree as disagree on which of the...DSM disorders is present. 




Kutchins and Kirk report there is not a single major study showing high reliability in _any version_ of the DSM, including the DSM-4."


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2013)

For your last 2 post you have posted without proper citation and have not actually inputted your own opinion along with it (or so it appears). You're kind of talking in circles and now that _you're_ done you've changed the subject. Mind you, you derailed this thread a long time ago as everything we've discussed has nothing to do with the OP. 

I haven't dodged anything as you didn't ask anything (not in the last couple posts at least, otherwise I've pretty much attempted to answer your questions). If there was a question buried in that wall of text, my bad. I can't tell in either of these posts what is copied and pasted and what is actually you. Not going to take the time to figure it out either. You haven't directly answered a single question I have asked you either. You've presented me with other peoples opinions, hyperbole and general ideals. You offered up a scenario with no meat and I called you on it. I'm growing bored with this as well so I'll leave it as it is.


----------



## skisgaar (Feb 27, 2013)

Sevenstring.org: SRS BsnS


----------



## pink freud (Feb 27, 2013)

skisgaar said:


> Sevenstring.org: SRS BsnS


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Mar 4, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> Errr, not to be that guy but atheists aren't trying to make gay people second class citizens, athiests generally do not deny climate change, *atheism has no inherent connection to mass murder and totalitarism, and several crusades have not been carried out in the name of atheism.*
> 
> Most Atheists do not have a problem with evangelists because they "babble" about their beliefs, they have a problem with those pushing fundamentalist beliefs that are both dangerous and have a proven track record of evil.
> 
> ...


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion

Oops. It's almost as though that bolded piece you wrote has nothing to do with anything. 

From the article:



> Eric Meikle, a man with what must be one of the most frustrating jobs in the country, education project director at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), says that the biggest problem with these bills is that they are *open-ended and easily misinterpreted*. But since they are really only code for the anti-science crowd there isn&#8217;t much he can do other than maintain his stance that we can&#8217;t teach kids every dumbass (my word, not his) theory since time began.


 
This could be used to espouse religion in a public setting, and this is the problem, not the existence of religion. There are millions upon millions of nice, quiet Christians in the US who mind their own fucking business and couldn't care less about pushing their beliefs on the world through legislation. You're no better than the right-wing pundits on FOX that talk about the decline of God in civilization being responsible for everything from earthquakes to economic recessions. People are responsible for their own actions, and to imply that religion is somehow responsible for atrocities such as murder and misinformation is removing the burden of guilt from the individual and placing it on an institution. Call me crazy, but that seems... illogical.

**EDIT: And unless I'm missing something the climate change denial thing and the religion thing are more of a coincident demographic thing than a causal relationship, unless people have started saying that Jesus is going to save us from hotter temperatures.


----------



## Jakke (Mar 4, 2013)

Mo Jiggity said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
> 
> Oops. It's almost as though that bolded piece you wrote has nothing to do with anything.



Come on... Don't use that argument for stupid people

Here goes (again): the crusades is a valid point, because that was religious warfare, i.e. religion motivated the violence. Stalin's motivation was not being an atheist, it was that he wanted power. It was not "hey, I don't believe in god, so here's some starvation and secret police", it was instead "hey, you are in the way of me/you don't do as I say/you have written/said something bad about me, here's some death".
His persecution came not from a place of non-belief, but instead from one of competition... If there is an almighty god in the mind of the population, how can he then be all-wise and all-knowing? An almighty god is not something that a mortal man can compete with, no matter how mean either of them are.


Also... Ooops, seems like you are implying that totalitarianism is inherent in atheism, as that was what you felt the paragraph about Stalin's religion proved.


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Mar 4, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Come on... Don't use that argument for stupid people
> 
> Here goes (again): the crusades is a valid point, because that was religious warfare, i.e. religion motivated the violence. Stalin's motivation was not being an atheist, it was that he wanted power. It was not "hey, I don't believe in god, so here's some starvation and secret police", it was instead "hey, you are in the way of me/you don't do as I say/you have written/said something bad about me, here's some death".
> His persecution came not from a place of non-belief, but instead from one of competition... If there is an almighty god in the mind of the population, how can he then be all-wise and all-knowing? An almighty god is not something that a mortal man can compete with, no matter how mean either of them are.
> ...


 
Atheism was a major platform of the Communist party and he killed hundreds of thousands of peaceful believers. In the same way as what you said above it could be argued that any number of rulers during the Crusades "wanted power" and used religion as an impetus. I'm saying that this kind of reasoning is absurd and yields no useful deductions. I'm not implying anything about atheism and totalitarianism, just as nobody should be implying anything about religion and killing people en masse. More succinctly, I applied the "religious killing" BS reasoning to the opposite side of the fence. Clearly this incensed someone and I'm glad that it did.


----------



## Jakke (Mar 4, 2013)

Mo Jiggity said:


> Atheism was a major platform of the Communist party and he killed hundreds of thousands of peaceful believers. In the same way as what you said above it could be argued that any number of rulers during the Crusades "wanted power" and used religion as an impetus. I'm saying that this kind of reasoning is absurd and yields no useful deductions. I'm not implying anything about atheism and totalitarianism, just as nobody should be implying anything about religion and killing people en masse. More succinctly, I applied the "religious killing" BS reasoning to the opposite side of the fence. Clearly this incensed someone and I'm glad that it did.



But the crusades where inarguably religious conflicts. They were cross-cultural, cross-national, and multi ethnic initiatives to take the holy land.

Stalin demonized religion to consolidate his power. The Tzar had been a dictator, sure, but during his reign, the orthodox church had a pretty privileged position. This is of course in exchange for them proclaiming how god wanted the Tzar to rule Russia. 
When Stalin came to power, the orthodox church had been against him, so he excecuted the lot of them. He also saw how powerful the belief in religion was, and that, of course, was a rival to his power. Therefore he outlawed the practice of religion, as he outlawed all political parties as well. There were to be only one truth, and that was his truth.


----------



## Semichastny (Mar 4, 2013)

Mo Jiggity said:


> Atheism was a major platform of the Communist party and he killed hundreds of thousands of peaceful believers. In the same way as what you said above it could be argued that any number of rulers during the Crusades "wanted power" and used religion as an impetus. I'm saying that this kind of reasoning is absurd and yields no useful deductions. I'm not implying anything about atheism and totalitarianism, just as nobody should be implying anything about religion and killing people en masse. More succinctly, I applied the "religious killing" BS reasoning to the opposite side of the fence. Clearly this incensed someone and I'm glad that it did.



You cannot claim something is intrinsically connected to another thing based on the words of one group / person. You could have one black person say it is in his blood to kill people but that wouldn't mean there is a biological connection between being black and being a killer. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship, simply choosing some random facet as being responcible for religious persecution is foolish. If this connection had extended out past commumnist totalitarian dictorships and into everyday life and democratically elected socialist / communist governments it would hold weight.

Edit: The death of a girl stoned by the religous for violating a religious law is directly correlated to religion. The death of a girl by a person who is atheist does not demostrate any credible correlation that his (ir)religion was responcible.


----------



## groverj3 (Mar 6, 2013)

Going off on a slightly different tangent... since leaving the University environment that I was thankful enough to call home for 4 years I have noticed that out here in the "real world" older generations tend to reject scientific ideas more than those in the <35 years old group. This might be a regional thing, but I believe that backwards thinking about science and technology (at least in the US) will become less of an issue as younger generations take a more active role in policy-making.

This isn't an indictment of age per se as the cause of backwards thinking about science, more of an observation about the societal differences that may have influenced the opinions of people. So, before someone calls me age-ist (is that the correct term?), lack of exposure to scientific ideas while growing up is the real problem. A problem which I feel is being slowly addressed (although I feel science education is still inadequate).

This is just a hunch, obviuosly.

Of course, I live in a pretty conservative state by non-bible belt standards. It might have something to do with my opinion about the prevalence of super conservative fact-ignoring science-hating types. Yes, Michigan is quite conservative everywhere outside the Detroit and Lansing areas.


----------



## Double A (Mar 15, 2013)

eaeolian said:


> It's actually fairly interesting, unlike your trolling. Consequently, you can both take a week off.


I posted a reply thinking the thread was brand new and realized my reply was out of date and made no sense so I edited it. I am very sorry.


----------

