2008 Political debate thread

[Statler Waldorf]

I would feel comfortable betting money that there are more fallacious and errored (purposefully and otherwise) articles posted by Fox than by Wikipedia. Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, and the rest - all have an agenda. Wikipedia eradicates agenda with peer judgment.

I personally don't feel there is such a thing as a truly objective source of information just because of the nature of facts. People observe things differently. Though I do like what Fox has done where they try and bring on a person from each viewpoint instead of trying to deliver the message from a unitary source (an often biast one) like MS-NBC and CNN, but still not perfect. Interesting post though Kenneth.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

*Sigh* All I can do is shake my head in disgust. People that have such an ignorant understanding of science should NOT be allowed to hold office. QUOTE]

Fascism anybody? If those people you speak of are trying to send you back to the Dark Ages, I think I'd rather go there than where you're trying to send us....Nazi Germany.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

[QUOTE Do people realize how important evolution is in biology!? These people can except the scientific method when it comes in the form of phones, computers, carsQUOTE]

I really don't think that using objects that are a product of design is a good way to make your point about methodologic naturalistic Darwinism and its importance today Noble. This exact argument could be made by someone supporting ID, "Do people realize how important design is in biology!? These people can accept the scientific method when it comes in the form of phones, computers, and cars but not when design inferences are made in the natural world." Can't deny intelligent design's importance in our modern conveniences. Sorry to interrupt your guys' vent session, just thought I'd point that out.

 

[noble savage]

Edit: I deleted both of my posts because this will just end up as an exercise of futility. Again. I can't defend my position against someone who thinks a basic, working knowledge of science in politicians would throw us into Nazism.

 

[ABQShredHead]

Just a quick question, perhaps a new approach to the topic: Do you in fact know that mankind is not merely discovering what God has created, and solving the mathematical and physical riddles involved?

 

[Swabs]

Oh for fucks sake!

 

[Kenneth R.]

Just a quick question, perhaps a new approach to the topic: Do you in fact know that mankind is not merely discovering what God has created, and solving the mathematical and physical riddles involved?

Actually I do believe something of that to be true. I can't show it to be fact, but it seems rational to me to believe that, if one believes in a higher power, that the mechanics and rules of the universe are governed by that higher power, and our discovery of the inner workings is merely approaching the greater knowledge.

Statler failed to understand my post about wikipedia. Everyone observes differently and everyone has a bias. Because many people can edit wikipedia, the differing viewpoints come to consensus. Political slant of any kind is removed by the opposition, and all that is left is what all agree upon. Of course, just because all agree does not make it fact, but it does eliminate agenda.

As we've gone to extreme length attempting to illustrate the flaw of intelligent design in another thread, I'll simply reiterate the summary that "ID does a great job pointing out the real flaws of Darwinism as Darwin presented it. But biology has made leaps and bounds since his time. Thinking this is a sound refute to other theory is like thinking that because your calculator can play 3d games on it, the abacus is inefficient. It's a comparison that makes no sense. Furthermore, and more importantly than the strawman set up by ID proponents against evolution, for it DOES refute old Darwin quite well, is the problem that while ID puts Darwin out of the picture, it does not refute modern evolutionary theory. Finally and most importantly, simply proving one theory wrong does not make the other one right unless they are the only two possibilities. That is ID's greatest error, it does almost nothing to show how it is true, only focuses on how old Darwin, way back in the day, is wrong, given all that we know today. Well, Newton didn't have it all right either. Neither did Einstein. Their contributions were excellent and necessary but we've since moved on. ID needs to move on."

As for science in politics, PLEASE yes. We've had enough poor legislation based on ignorance in so many fields. The comparison to Fascism is particularly ridiculous, because given enough scientific knowledge, the fascists would be forced to accept that their views are in error.

 

[Swabs]

Religious debates, now matter how "intellectual" never go anywhere, mainly because an Athiests views are usually based on logic and evidence, and a Religious persons views are based on faith (after all, that's what religion is). For instance I'm currently studying Evolutionary Psychology (involves Natural Selection and Sexual Selection ect ect (In fact, many of the things Natural Selection can't explain, Sexual Selection can)) and I'm thoroughly enjoying it, because it makes sense Whereas if somebody gave me a Bible to study, I'd probably be like "Yeah.. I prefer Tolkien thanks".

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Edit: I deleted both of my posts because this will just end up as an exercise of futility. Again. I can't defend my position against someone who thinks a basic, working knowledge of science in politicians would throw us into Nazism.

Never said that, I simply mean that we live in a Democratic Republic, if you want someone to have a basic working knowledge of science in office, then by all means elect someone like that. However, to say that this is required in order to even hold office is fascism and is an assault on our freedoms. That's all I meant.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

As for science in politics, PLEASE yes. We've had enough poor legislation based on ignorance in so many fields. The comparison to Fascism is particularly ridiculous, because given enough scientific knowledge, the fascists would be forced to accept that their views are in error.

Good post Kenneth. I do not agree with this though, the whole "Final Solution" was based on Darwinistic thinking and practice. Many of the death camp experiments were conducted by Germany's "best" scientists. Science can lead to fascism just as easily as religion in my opinion.

 

[Swabs]

^ Intersting fact, shame that more people have died in the name of "God" than for any other cause.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Good post Kenneth. I do not agree with this though, the whole "Final Solution" was based on Darwinistic thinking and practice. Many of the death camp experiments were conducted by Germany's "best" scientists. Science can lead to fascism just as easily as religion in my opinion.

^ Intersting fact, shame that more people have died in the name of "God" than for any other cause.

It's obvious that any knowledge or belief can be used as a weapon.

 

[Kenneth R.]

However, to say that this is required in order to even hold office is fascism and is an assault on our freedoms. That's all I meant.

To say that you must be 35 in order to be president is fascism then also? Please I don't think you understand fascism, politics, or freedom. Certainly I will never vote for an uneducated idiot to hold office.

Religious debates, now matter how "intellectual" never go anywhere, mainly because an Athiests views are usually based on logic and evidence, and a Religious persons views are based on faith (after all, that's what religion is).

Perhaps true for the uneducated religious. Personally, I can't put stock in anything on faith alone. There is no rational reason to.

Good post Kenneth. I do not agree with this though, the whole "Final Solution" was based on Darwinistic thinking and practice. Many of the death camp experiments were conducted by Germany's "best" scientists. Science can lead to fascism just as easily as religion in my opinion.

How much German history have you studied? Not much, in my opinion. I could write up about 5 pages worth of "summary" for the history, causes, effects, and reaction that led up to the two world wars, the period between them, and everyone involved. I believe you are just generalized based on popular culture. Like Zach said, Science leads to knowledge. What you do with it defines your character. To be willfully ignorant also defines your character, in a way that I find most regressive.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

^ Intersting fact, shame that more people have died in the name of "God" than for any other cause.

Don't think that's correct, the three most brutal dictators and mass murderes of the 20th century were all atheists, Stallon, Hitler (raised Catholic turned Atheist), and Mau in China. Religion is just an easy target for people, I think the real blame falls on each individual and their actions.

 

[Kenneth R.]

He didn't specify 20th century. You're ignoring the Crusades, and so-called "holy wars" of other religions. There are countless. His statement is absolutely correct.

PS It's spelled "Mao" and "Stalin". You forgot Lenin, but then, Swabs' point still stands.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Y'know, the whole "more people have died in the name of god" business is really fucking stupid. More people have died in the name of greed and land by merciless dictators. Ok, crusades. That's a holy war. Middle east is ripe with people killing and dying in the name of their respective gods. American civil war had nothing to do with god, nor did the revolutionary war, nor did either of the world wars, nor did the huns, nor did the roman empire... many people will conquer something because they want to rule it. Then they will convert people to their religion. Whoopty fuck, that's not killing in any god's name.

Athiests saying that war comes from religion is like the media saying school shootings are because of metal and video games. Seriously, it's a tired and invalid point.

edit: ken posted between me, so let me ammend that to say Athiests and Ken Seriously though, just because wars are fought in the name of gods (yeah, it's happened) doesn't mean that more people die because of that than anything else.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Certainly I will never vote for an uneducated idiot to hold office.QUOTE]

Well then don't vote for one, that's your right and what it's all about, but to tell people you can or can't hold office because you don't ascribe to a certain system is fascism, don't care how you paint it. I would love to see these 5 pages on German history, would be an interesting read....

 

[Statler Waldorf]

He didn't specify 20th century. You're ignoring the Crusades, and so-called "holy wars" of other religions. There are countless. His statement is absolutely correct.

PS It's spelled "Mao" and "Stalin". You forgot Lenin, but then, Swabs' point still stands.

Stallin killed millions of his own people, Hitler's rule led to the extermination of 6 millioni Jews and millions of Allied forces, that's far more than ever died in the crusades, we never saw mass killings like we did in the 20th century in previous history, that's why it's completely relevant.

 

[razoredge]

oh grief.......

 

[razoredge]

Y'know, the whole "more people have died in the name of god" business is really fucking stupid. More people have died in the name of greed and land by merciless dictators. Ok, crusades. That's a holy war. Middle east is ripe with people killing and dying in the name of their respective gods. American civil war had nothing to do with god, nor did the revolutionary war, nor did either of the world wars, nor did the huns, nor did the roman empire... many people will conquer something because they want to rule it. Then they will convert people to their religion. Whoopty fuck, that's not killing in any god's name.

Athiests saying that war comes from religion is like the media saying school shootings are because of metal and video games. Seriously, it's a tired and invalid point.

edit: ken posted between me, so let me ammend that to say Athiests and Ken Seriously though, just because wars are fought in the name of gods (yeah, it's happened) doesn't mean that more people die because of that than anything else.

Good post Zach...... truth be known the bible was only toted as an excuse or validation for many other wars that were honestly about....... GREED, even "Moses"