Michele Bachmann - why politics and faith don't mix

[Twa Cairpets]

The recent "Church of Scotland" thread focussed on the impact of religion on personal morals and the potential of faith to impact on society in the UK.

In the USA it is altogether a more scary situation, and to me is the natural outcome of religion being preached and accepted. If you haven't heard of Michele Bachmann, you will. She is a Republican presidential candidate who makes Sarah Palin look like an agnostic leftie.

There is a really good article on her in "Rolling Stone" here. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?page=4) It's quite a long piece, but well worth the read. The summary however is the really scary bit:


Even other Republicans, it seems, are making the mistake of laughing at Bachmann. But consider this possibility: She wins Iowa, then swallows the Tea Party and Christian vote whole for the next 30 or 40 primaries while Romney and Pawlenty battle fiercely over who is the more "viable" boring-white-guy candidate. Then Wall Street blows up again — and it's Barack Obama and a soaring unemployment rate versus a white, God-fearing mother of 28 from the heartland.

It could happen. Michele Bachmann has found the flaw in the American Death Star. She is a television camera's dream, a threat to do or say something insane at any time, the ultimate reality-show protagonist. She has brilliantly piloted a media system that is incapable of averting its eyes from a story, riding that attention to an easy conquest of an overeducated cultural elite from both parties that is far too full of itself to understand the price of its contemptuous laughter. All of those people out there aren't voting for Michele Bachmann. They're voting against us. And to them, it turns out, we suck enough to make anyone a contender.

[Beefster]

I know nothing about Michele Bachmann but, considering Matt Taibbi's politics, I'd take his criticisms of anyone as seriously as I'd take criticism from the Mirror's Kevin Maguire.

[Twa Cairpets]

I know nothing about Michele Bachmann but, considering Matt Taibbi's politics, I'd take his criticisms of anyone as seriously as I'd take criticism from the Mirror's Kevin Maguire.

I dont know anything about Matt Taibbi (or Kevin Maguire for that matter - cant remember the last time I looked inside the mirror), but a quick Google suggests he's a liberal. But no matter: The subject of the piece is a damn sight more worrying than the author. Follow some of the clips within it.

This woman has a chance - an outside one I'll admit, but a chance nonetheless - of being US President. If she wins, well, it's been nice knowing you all.

[steakbake]

It's one thing for a politician to have religious beliefs. Quite another that their policies are influenced by their superstitions. Have to say, the state v religion debate is one I'd never be afraid of fighting for. If you want to see how a theocracy works out, see Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi.

There is something predictably extreme but impotent about Islamic theocracies. They are at least, a known quantity. There is something however, that makes my blood run cold about the idea of a Christian fundamentalist coming to power in the States with that mix of unbridled patriotism.

I hope it never happens, or at least when it does, I'll be long gone.

[Bishop Hibee]

The recent "Church of Scotland" thread focussed on the impact of religion on personal morals and the potential of faith to impact on society in the UK.

In the USA it is altogether a more scary situation, and to me is the natural outcome of religion being preached and accepted. If you haven't heard of Michele Bachmann, you will. She is a Republican presidential candidate who makes Sarah Palin look like an agnostic leftie.

There is a really good article on her in "Rolling Stone" here. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?page=4) It's quite a long piece, but well worth the read. The summary however is the really scary bit:

Sorry, politics and faith have mixed, do mix and will always mix. You might as well ask the earth not to rotate round the sun. Just because someone is a right wing nut and also believes in God does not mean they shouldn't engage with the political system in a democracy. Not a hope that she'll get the Republican Party nomination btw.

If you are so certain that your 'rational' views will prevail, what do you have to worry about anyway?

[RyeSloan]

1]Sorry, politics and faith have mixed, do mix and will always mix.[/B] You might as well ask the earth not to rotate round the sun. Just because someone is a right wing nut and also believes in God does not mean they shouldn't engage with the political system in a democracy. Not a hope that she'll get the Republican Party nomination btw.

If you are so certain that your 'rational' views will prevail, what do you have to worry about anyway?

Really?...ODS wouldn't seem to agree. :wink: What goes in church, stays in church. :greengrin

Seriously though I agree with you...although I don't think TC meant that no one with a religious faith should ever engage in politics.

As for Bachmann...only seen her name for the first time recently but that was talking about how well she has done in the New Hampshire skirmishes that have started ahead of the defining first primary (it's a long long road to the whitehouse!) so maybe not quite the no hoper you describe...esp. if she pulls in the 'Sarah Palin' vote.

[Twa Cairpets]

Sorry, politics and faith have mixed, do mix and will always mix. You might as well ask the earth not to rotate round the sun. Just because someone is a right wing nut and also believes in God does not mean they shouldn't engage with the political system in a democracy. Not a hope that she'll get the Republican Party nomination btw.

I really and truly hope not.


If you are so certain that your 'rational' views will prevail, what do you have to worry about anyway?

I'm not sure my views will prevail, and thats why I worry. In the US, statisitics regularly show, for example, that more people believe in creation than accept evolution, and that really, really frightens the hell out of me.

When politics become the vehicle for a religious agenda, as is the case with Bachmann, the Tea Party and essentially the entire Republican right, then it's time to hide. Bachmann is a young earth creationist, a biblical literalist and a proponent of ID - I dont want anyone who views the rapture and the apocalypse as an inevitability having their hands anywhere near a big red button marked "nuclear bomb". Do you?

[hibsbollah]

I agree with bishop. The Republican party is still mostly urban, university educated, northern and conservative, and wouldnt tolerate a candidate who would ban the teaching of evolution in schools. The tea party are a noisy minority but they wont break out of the redneck states IMO. The WASP factory will churn out some suited 50 something to run against Obama.

[Twa Cairpets]

I agree with bishop. The Republican party is still mostly urban, university educated, northern and conservative, and wouldnt tolerate a candidate who would ban the teaching of evolution in schools. The tea party are a noisy minority but they wont break out of the redneck states IMO. The WASP factory will churn out some suited 50 something to run against Obama.

Maybe nit picking, but this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states)would suggest otherwise re-the north. I've always understood the heartland of the Republicans is the south and the bible belt. The liberal institutions of the likes of Yale and Hartford in the north are regarded as the enemy.

The leading contenders are:

Mitt Romney - Mormon (Massachusetts)
Tim Pawlenty - Baptist (Minnesota)
Newt Gingrich - RC (ex speaker)
Sarah Palin - certifiable loon

So in fairness two northern candidates, both of whom when you look at them in any detail are a mix of bland and stupid, Newt Gingrich, a real **** of a man, and Sarah "madeliene mcmad" Palin.

Good grief.

'mon the Democrats

[hibsbollah]

OK, youre right that the south tends to vote republican, but the republican PARTY has its power base in the educated urban cities (north AND south, admittedly).

Essentially the Republican party represents the rich, and is snobbish and waspish at its core. Palin, Bachmann etc are just so 'darned common', even to the neo cons down in Texas...i just cant believe the old republican hierarchy will allow itself to be taken over.

[Mixu62]

OK, youre right that the south tends to vote republican, but the republican PARTY has its power base in the educated urban cities (north AND south, admittedly).

Essentially the Republican party represents the rich, and is snobbish and waspish at its core. Palin, Bachmann etc are just so 'darned common', even to the neo cons down in Texas...i just cant believe the old republican hierarchy will allow itself to be taken over.

Not entirely true - some of the poorest states in the country are unshakably republican. Their higher echelons do tend to have a lot of links with the oil/coal industry, but do THOSE republicans still control the direction the party takes? Sarah Palins rise to fame in recent years would suggest not. I haven't heard of Bachmann until now, but if she and Palin are what's leading the US right wing, then god help us all if they ever take power.:panic:

[steakbake]

A lot of the editorials and so on I have been reading suggests that John Huntsman might be a serious contender.

[Bishop Hibee]

I really and truly hope not.



I'm not sure my views will prevail, and thats why I worry. In the US, statisitics regularly show, for example, that more people believe in creation than accept evolution, and that really, really frightens the hell out of me.

When politics become the vehicle for a religious agenda, as is the case with Bachmann, the Tea Party and essentially the entire Republican right, then it's time to hide. Bachmann is a young earth creationist, a biblical literalist and a proponent of ID - I dont want anyone who views the rapture and the apocalypse as an inevitability having their hands anywhere near a big red button marked "nuclear bomb". Do you?

I don't want any unstable individual/regime with their finger on the button. My personal worries at the moment are Iran, Israel or Pakistan going rogue.

I think it will be a close run thing between Obama and a (relatively) sane Republican presidential candidate but Obama as incumbent may pull a trick out two out the bag as he did with the assassination of Bin Laden.

Incidentally, just back from a weekend of religion and politics mixing!

http://www.solasfestival.co.uk Religion with centre-left political leanings.

For example a panel consisting of Rev Euan Aitken (Labour), Gerry Hassan (political commentator and academic) and Aileen Campbell MSP (SNP) discussed nationalism in Scotland this morning and took questions from the floor. Given the disengagement from politics of many people, often for very valid reasons, all the panelists were delighted to have a platform on which the debate about 21st century Scotland could take place.

[RyeSloan]

Some of Michele's more 'quirky' comments....LINK (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/)

[hibsbollah]

Some of Michele's more 'quirky' comments....LINK (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/)

Ive heard other intelligent design supporters say the same about 'hundreds of scientists including nobel prize winners' supporting intelligent design.

Utter, utter nonsense but its taken on a degree of truth because it keeps getting repeated.

[hibsbollah]

Not entirely true - some of the poorest states in the country are unshakably republican. Their higher echelons do tend to have a lot of links with the oil/coal industry, but do THOSE republicans still control the direction the party takes? Sarah Palins rise to fame in recent years would suggest not. I haven't heard of Bachmann until now, but if she and Palin are what's leading the US right wing, then god help us all if they ever take power.:panic:

I'd say theres definitely a battle on between two types of republican (probably not disimilar to the Tory party in the late 70s when Thatchers young turks took control of that Party)...but Id still say the Tea Party radicals have a long way to go before they
take over the asylum. Palin is becoming irrelevant except as a TV curiosity.

[Twa Cairpets]

Some of Michele's more 'quirky' comments....LINK (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/)

Jeezo. Does that not just want to make you go and sit in a corner and rock back and forward?

Seriously, the stupid, it hurts.

[magpie1892]

Jeezo. Does that not just want to make you go and sit in a corner and rock back and forward?

Seriously, the stupid, it hurts.

''I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go.'' - Barack Obama

[stoneyburn hibs]

''I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go.'' - Barack Obama


Maybe he was including the uk and others alike in that sum :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

''I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go.'' - Barack Obama


http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/57_states.htm

Obama's is a slip of the tongue, unless you genuinely believe the President of the US doesnt know how many States there are or is a secret Muslim deep cover agent.

Bachmanns quotes are all chillingly real. And she believes them.

[magpie1892]

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/57_states.htm

Obama's is a slip of the tongue, unless you genuinely believe the President of the US doesnt know how many States there are or is a secret Muslim deep cover agent.

Bachmanns quotes are all chillingly real. And she believes them.

Phew! There was me thinking that US front line politicians are all thick puppets.

Thanks for clearing that up, of course it's only Republicans that are wacky/weird/stupid.

A weight off my mind, I can tell you.

[Twa Cairpets]

Phew! There was me thinking that US front line politicians are all thick puppets.

Thanks for clearing that up, of course it's only Republicans that are wacky/weird/stupid.

A weight off my mind, I can tell you.

Oh yes, I had nearly forgotten how you employ sarcasm with such withering effect in your posts. Plenty of stupid genuine quotes from politicians of all varieties without having to resort to somewhat petty urban legends that say nothing whatsoever about their actual abilities, policies or beliefs.

And yes, Republicans do offer many more to choose from when it comes to stupid, ignorant, bigoted, exploitative and unpleasant individuals to point and laugh at.

[magpie1892]

''The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.'' — Barack Obama, 2010

Dammit, another slip of the tongue. This one puts you in mind of Bush Jr.

[magpie1892]

Oh yes, I had nearly forgotten how you employ sarcasm with such withering effect in your posts. Plenty of stupid genuine quotes from politicians of all varieties without having to resort to somewhat petty urban legends that say nothing whatsoever about their actual abilities, policies or beliefs.

And yes, Republicans do offer many more to choose from when it comes to stupid, ignorant, bigoted, exploitative and unpleasant individuals to point and laugh at.

I tend to agree, but that's irrelevant when they are all blunderstruck to greater or lesser degrees.

[Twa Cairpets]

I tend to agree, but that's irrelevant when they are all blunderstruck to greater or lesser degrees.

Actually, even with the likes of Bush, his "isms" were usually just gaffes of English usage. A quick google gives this top ten. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm) If you look at these they are all mildly amusing slips of the tongue. Yes, they may make him look like a buffoon, but they dont actually very often tell you anything about what his policies are. The same with the Obama ones you mention

What you are missing here is the point that not one of the Bachmann quotes are "verbal bloopers". The stoopid in the Bachmann "craziest things" link are all things she has said and meant as statements of her belief.

[magpie1892]

Actually, even with the likes of Bush, his "isms" were usually just gaffes of English usage. A quick google gives this top ten. (http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm) If you look at these they are all mildly amusing slips of the tongue. Yes, they may make him look like a buffoon, but they dont actually very often tell you anything about what his policies are. The same with the Obama ones you mention

What you are missing here is the point that not one of the Bachmann quotes are "verbal bloopers". The stoopid in the Bachmann "craziest things" link are all things she has said and meant as statements of her belief.

She's mental, but inconsequential. US politics has far bigger fish to fry and for that reason, she's not worth focusing on. That's the point you're missing...

[Twa Cairpets]

She's mental, but inconsequential. US politics has far bigger fish to fry and for that reason, she's not worth focusing on. That's the point you're missing...

I hope you're right, but the evidence would appear to suggest she is anything but inconsequential. She announced she is running for the Presidency today, and pretty much every poll and report has her running second or neck and neck with Romney. Maybe you'd be better actually reading or researching something before dismissing it as inconsequential.

Iowa Caucus (http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/)
Gallup polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148148/New-Hampshire-Debate-Fails-Shake-GOP-Presidential-Race.aspx)
AP report on Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/outspoken-bachmann-launches-white-house-bid-145543579.html;_ylt=Ar6oN8txOtFnRzOhc0dB1HuyFz4D;_ ylu=X3oDMTNhM29qY2R1BHBrZwNmZjc1MTE2MS0xNGYyLTNjY2 UtYjNmMy00YWU4M2FhMWQ3N2EEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhSnVt Ym90cm9uBHZlcgMwMTU3ODcyMC1hMGY1LTExZTAtYmVhNy0zZj gyNTllMjBmMjY-;_ylg=X3oDMTFtYmZwZDAzBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljcwRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw--;_ylv=3)

[PeeJay]

She's mental, but inconsequential. US politics has far bigger fish to fry and for that reason, she's not worth focusing on. That's the point you're missing...

Inconsequential?? Think you're doing TC an injustice in claiming he's 'focusing' on her: she's up and running and she's at the front of the field. It's early days yet granted, but 'apparently' she's smarter than Palin and she made it to Republican VP candidate, didn't she?

Mind you, I hope you are right and she is ultimately shown to be inconsequential!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/why-michele-bachmann-is-the-iowa-frontrunner/2011/06/26/AGEIWkmH_blog.html

[magpie1892]

I hope you're right, but the evidence would appear to suggest she is anything but inconsequential. She announced she is running for the Presidency today, and pretty much every poll and report has her running second or neck and neck with Romney. Maybe you'd be better actually reading or researching something before dismissing it as inconsequential.

Iowa Caucus (http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/)
Gallup polls (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148148/New-Hampshire-Debate-Fails-Shake-GOP-Presidential-Race.aspx)
AP report on Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/outspoken-bachmann-launches-white-house-bid-145543579.html;_ylt=Ar6oN8txOtFnRzOhc0dB1HuyFz4D;_ ylu=X3oDMTNhM29qY2R1BHBrZwNmZjc1MTE2MS0xNGYyLTNjY2 UtYjNmMy00YWU4M2FhMWQ3N2EEcG9zAzEEc2VjA01lZGlhSnVt Ym90cm9uBHZlcgMwMTU3ODcyMC1hMGY1LTExZTAtYmVhNy0zZj gyNTllMjBmMjY-;_ylg=X3oDMTFtYmZwZDAzBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANwb2xpdGljcwRwdANzZWN0aW9ucw--;_ylv=3)

In much the same way as you'd 'forgotten' about my sarcasm, I'd forgotten about your predilection to go straight to ad hominem when someone disagrees with you.

Based on my 'reading and research' I think it's highly unlikely that she'll get the Republican nomination. I think you concur. In the event that she achieves the nom., that would be a better foundation to rail against her 'stupid' and open a thread about the same.

Until then? You'd be as well starting threads on all your political betes noires or none at all!

[steakbake]

In much the same way as you'd 'forgotten' about my sarcasm, I'd forgotten about your predilection to go straight to ad hominem when someone disagrees with you.

Based on my 'reading and research' I think it's highly unlikely that she'll get the Republican nomination. I think you concur. In the event that she achieves the nom., that would be a better foundation to rail against her 'stupid' and open a thread about the same.

Until then? You'd be as well starting threads on all your political betes noires or none at all!

See you people and your Morningside pubs? :wink:

[hibsbollah]

Before we go off on a boring hypothetical pissing contest predicting the unpredictable ( I doubt Bachmann will be a serious contender, some may disagree but really noone knows what the outcome will be)...How about examining the OP? Should faith and politics NEVER mix? I would argue that Martin Luther King wouldnt have had the same ability to achieve political change without his personal religious convictions. It depends in the way the faith is interpretated, not on the faith itself. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, all hysterical murderous paranoid Nationalists, and all athiests.

But your central point, that Bachmann is a nutjob best suited to a role with Romanov/ Ukio Bankas™, im sure we'd all (?) agree with.

[Twa Cairpets]

In much the same way as you'd 'forgotten' about my sarcasm, I'd forgotten about your predilection to go straight to ad hominem when someone disagrees with you.

ad hominem: an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it

Just so you know what it means.


Based on my 'reading and research' I think it's highly unlikely that she'll get the Republican nomination. I think you concur. In the event that she achieves the nom., that would be a better foundation to rail against her 'stupid' and open a thread about the same.

Until then? You'd be as well starting threads on all your political betes noires or none at all!

Really? You can't flag something up for discussion as a concern until it happens? If you decide its a thread not worth posting on, then fine, don't post on it. Your comments on this thread have added nothing to it other than try (it would appear) to somehow defend the nonsense spouted by Bachmann by coming out with a couple of gaffes from Obama, and then having a pop at me for raising the subject in the first place.



Before we go off on a boring hypothetical pissing contest predicting the unpredictable ( I doubt Bachmann will be a serious contender, some may disagree but really noone knows what the outcome will be)...How about examining the OP? Should faith and politics NEVER mix? I would argue that Martin Luther King wouldnt have had the same ability to achieve political change without his personal religious convictions. It depends in the way the faith is interpretated, not on the faith itself. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, all hysterical murderous paranoid Nationalists, and all athiests.

But your central point, that Bachmann is a nutjob best suited to a role with Romanov/ Ukio Bankas™, im sure we'd all (?) agree with.

You're probably not surprised that I believe politics and religion should be completely divorced. Personal convictions driven by religion may give people the individual drive to force change as with MLK, sure, but as you say it is the nature of the intepretation that is the major danger.

As for the four dictators, none of them to my understanding were driven by their atheism to do what they did, and if you forgive me nitpicking, Hitler wasn't an atheist. He certainly wasn't what we'd understand now as a christian, but he did believe in a divine creator.

People believeing they are absolutely right and divinely inspired to take office and crusade for whatever set of belief they have been indoctrinated into is deeply dangerous. They can be deeply dangerous without that belief of course, but the addition of divine approval makes it, at least potentially, even more so. Unshakeable belief in the almighty doesnt lend someone, in my opinion, much of an option to take a step back and think about the effect of decisions when they are in position of global power, and this is scary. Even at local level, I dont think policy should ever be driven by religion.

In Texas, for example, a recent piece of legislation on abortion has been passed through by Republican senators. It a particualrly odius and cruel piece of legislation (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-texas-abortion-idUSTRE71H03G20110218). The telling line is this

"This is God's time to pass this bill," said the measure's author, Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican

In the US, there is example after example of this type. The fact that Bachmann is even in a position to be taken seriously is an indication of the acceptance in the most powerful nation in the world that religion should not only be part of politics, but a key consideration for a candidate. This is massively concerning.

[Hibrandenburg]

Faith has been used in politics since the dawn of time. Indeed you could argue that faith is politics.

[magpie1892]

ad hominem: an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it

Just so you know what it means.



I forgot to mention your predilection for being very selective in your citations also. I was, of course, accusing you of making statements 'directed against a person rather than against his arguments'which you did twice; but you knew that.

[Twa Cairpets]

I forgot to mention your predilection for being very selective in your citations also. I was, of course, accusing you of making statements 'directed against a person rather than against his arguments'which you did twice; but you knew that.

What is your problem?

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx)

Yes, I think Bachmann is an appalling loon, and I think the views that she holds are dangerous. Where the person and the views given are as one, then it is perfectly acceptable to raise concerns about the person holding them, as long as the attack is based on the views concerned.

I don't see what you're finding difficult about this, apart from you being a huge wind-up merchant.

[Dinkydoo]

I've only really heard small pieces of information on Bachmann and don't really know enough about her to question the credability of it.

Sarah Palin was/in a total nutter; if this Michelle Bachmann is anything like her then the thought of there being the slightest possibility that she may one day have the power to massively impact on another person's life, scares the **** out of me.






Really?...ODS wouldn't seem to agree. :wink: What goes in church, stays in church. :greengrin


Thanks for that; mouthful of soup, now everywhere! :faf:

[One Day Soon]

Really?...ODS wouldn't seem to agree. :wink: What goes in church, stays in church. :greengrin

Seriously though I agree with you...although I don't think TC meant that no one with a religious faith should ever engage in politics.

As for Bachmann...only seen her name for the first time recently but that was talking about how well she has done in the New Hampshire skirmishes that have started ahead of the defining first primary (it's a long long road to the whitehouse!) so maybe not quite the no hoper you describe...esp. if she pulls in the 'Sarah Palin' vote.

Seriously? You can't see the difference between the CoS having an internal debate about its own ideological contradictions on the one hand and some far right christian fundamentalist running an overtly political campaign to become president on the other?

Maybe we can revisit this discussion once the CoS starts running a candidate for First Minister....

[One Day Soon]

Faith has been used in politics since the dawn of time. Indeed you could argue that faith is politics.

That can't be right. Otherwise civilisation as we know it would surely have come to an end. Surely with dangerous faith people like Churchill and Kennedy in charge we would have been reduced back to the stone age.

How did we ever survive?

[One Day Soon]

What is your problem?

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx)

Yes, I think Bachmann is an appalling loon, and I think the views that she holds are dangerous. Where the person and the views given are as one, then it is perfectly acceptable to raise concerns about the person holding them, as long as the attack is based on the views concerned.

I don't see what you're finding difficult about this, apart from you being a huge wind-up merchant.

I thought that previously but now I don't. I think Magpie has sincerely held but spikey views and that his personal style can rub people up the wrong way.

Terrible thing that, having a style that can annoy some people. :hmmm:

[magpie1892]

I thought that previously but now I don't. I think Magpie has sincerely held but spikey views and that his personal style can rub people up the wrong way.

Terrible thing that, having a style that can annoy some people. :hmmm:

You see TC, me and ODS are best buds now. Amazing what a good tear up can do!

[EDIT] Actually, let me rephrase. It's amazing what making a dick of yourself and then finally apologising can do.

[magpie1892]

What is your problem?

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter another’s claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx)

Yes, I think Bachmann is an appalling loon, and I think the views that she holds are dangerous. Where the person and the views given are as one, then it is perfectly acceptable to raise concerns about the person holding them, as long as the attack is based on the views concerned.

I don't see what you're finding difficult about this, apart from you being a huge wind-up merchant.

I come into this thread saying that while I broadly agree (FFS, what reaction would I have got had I cheerled for MB?) with your sentiments, I said (implicitly and, latterly, explicitly) that I thought the OP was trivial and a little hypocritical.

For this I get a hat-trick of ad hominem attacks:

1) snide, irrelevant and off-topic comment about my previous posting 'style' (as you perceive it).
2) telling me I am ignorant of the topic, that I need to 'read and research' - patronising and presumptuous
3) the best one, this: I'm on the 'wind up'. I'd have to be, eh, as I couldn't riase an eyebrow at your direction from a serious standpoint? Rude, inaccurate and self-aggrandising.

What's my problem? Sheesh...

Poster handles criticism... POORLY!

[Twa Cairpets]

You see TC, me and ODS are best buds now. Amazing what a good tear up can do!

[EDIT] Actually, let me rephrase. It's amazing what making a dick of yourself and then finally apologising can do.

I hope you're both very happy together.:wink:


I come into this thread saying that while I broadly agree (FFS, what reaction would I have got had I cheerled for MB?) with your sentiments, I said (implicitly and, latterly, explicitly) that I thought the OP was trivial and a little hypocritical.

Erm. No, you didn't. Your first post #18 was your "Obama 57" quote. You first made reference to the topic in your 4th post. If its trivial to you, dont post on it. And I dont see how its hypocritical, umless I've missed the thread where I put in a big cheer for the Tea Party?



For this I get a hat-trick of ad hominem attacks:

1) snide, irrelevant and off-topic comment about my previous posting 'style' (as you perceive it). Have a look at post #21 and tell me thats not sarcastic, or if you failed to employ any sarcasm th elast time we had a debate (which I think was the Enoch Powell thread)
2) telling me I am ignorant of the topic, that I need to 'read and research' - patronising and presumptuous maybe, but also accurate. You suggested that her standing was "inconsequential". I gave you lots of evidence that says that no, she really really isn't. The only conclusions that are sensible to reach are that you didnt know much or were coming to conclusions different to every pollster and political commentator in the US
3) the best one, this: I'm on the 'wind up'. I'd have to be, eh, as I couldn't riase an eyebrow at your direction from a serious standpoint? Rude, inaccurate and self-aggrandising. What a touchy chap you are. I don't believe I've been rude (certainly no more so than you), I haven't been inaccurate to the best of my knowledge, and as this is an anonymous forum where you put forward your view points, I think everyone is self aggrandising, don't you?
What's my problem? Sheesh...

Poster handles criticism... POORLY!

Actually, criticism is great, especially on message boards where you can think a minute before responding. Lots of posters here regularly give food for thought and make you challenge what you think, provide interesting and relevant links to allow you to go off and get a better understanding of topics that are of interest to you.

Pretty much everything you post, with the posting style you employ, suggests to me that you are not one of those people. This isn't an ad hominem attack, by the way, I've just not seen much evidence of you actually knowing much about a lot of the things you post on other than having a good line in bluster and outrage. I could be wrong, and you may just be on the wind-up - thats how I see it. You see me as "patronising and presumptuous" "Rude, inaccurate and self-aggrandising" "snide" "trival" (just from this post).

I think that earns me the right to describe you as ignorant.

If you want to actually debate anything about the topic (unless it is too trivial for you), great, please do. I'd be delighted to discuss it with you

[LiverpoolHibs]

A pretty minor point given the topic thread as a whole but it's worth noting that the Taibbi article has, rightly, annoyed a lot of people. Large parts of it are cribbed without attribution from the work of a few Minnesotan leftist bloggers and authors who've been covering Bachman for a while now and then he goes on to slander an entire city without ever having visted it. All of which is particularly stupid given that he writes about her working-class Democrat background, which includes labour organisers and gay rights activists in her immediate family.

There was an interesting discussion of her on Democracy Now the other day between Michelle Goldberg and Karl Bremer (one of the Minnesotan leftists Taibbi has pissed off), Goldberg pointed out something rather important that most of us over here would miss, although Two Carpets hints at it in an earlier post - as tempting as it is to view many of her utterances as ludicrous gaffes they really aren't. She's much brighter than Palin and rarely says anything she doesn't mean. Within her electoral base (what Goldberg calls the 'Christian nationalist' vote) her comments will be seen as incontrovertible, not radical or even unusual.

Dismissing her as inconsequential is, of course, seriously stupid - not least due to the ridiculous assumption that anything short of winning the Presidency is free of consequences. She sits on the Committee on Financial Services which just increases the monetary and organisational support she receives from the finance sector including huge amounts from Christian evangelicals involved in running Ponzi schemes. Another important thing that Goldberg points out is the absence of someone like McCain in the race. Mitt Romney picked up a lot of support from the proto-Tea Party in 2008, despite him being a Mormon, largely because McCain could be their hate figure. There's no-one like McCain in the - serious - running this time so it's quite likely Romney's (and his fellow Mormon Jon Huntsman's) popularity could atrophy and head to Bachman - as the swing between the New Hampshire poll and the Iowa caucus indicates.

On the upside these lunatics could end up tearing the Republican Party assunder, which would be nice.

[Twa Cairpets]

...There was an interesting discussion of her on Democracy Now the other day between Michelle Goldberg and Karl Bremer (one of the Minnesotan leftists Taibbi has pissed off), Goldberg pointed out something rather important that most of us over here would miss, although Two Carpets hints at it in an earlier post - as tempting as it is to view many of her utterances as ludicrous gaffes they really aren't. She's much brighter than Palin and rarely says anything she doesn't mean. Within her electoral base (what Goldberg calls the 'Christian nationalist' vote) her comments will be seen as incontrovertible, not radical or even unusual...

Interesting that in the papers today, there is focus on a gaffe by Bachmann when she (or rather some researcher) mixed up the home town of John Wayne the actor and John Wayne Gacy the serial killer (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hi5Fogk0lT6sA6BgtRlkmCtAstlA?docId=CNG.3963d 77bb5abed477d86934d03b2763e.1331). While it makes her look inept, this is totally inconsequential.

What is much more interesting, but registering much less by way of a concern, apparently, is the level of active lies she tells as opposed to passive gaffes. Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/27/fact-checking-michele-bachmann-face-nation/)identifed of her 23 recent accusations/statements regarding Obama, only one was totally true and 7 were partly true. Considering her evangelism, its interesting how flexible she is with the 9th commandment.

[RyeSloan]

Seriously? You can't see the difference between the CoS having an internal debate about its own ideological contradictions on the one hand and some far right christian fundamentalist running an overtly political campaign to become president on the other?

Maybe we can revisit this discussion once the CoS starts running a candidate for First Minister....

Or maybe a prime minister that had a Presbyterian minister as a father or maybe a prime minister who converted to Catholisim as soon as he could after leaving office...??

For CoS read an American Christian Fundamentalist Church...they are branches of the same religion are they not?

You previously seemed quite clear that what was discussed and preached in a church to the congregation had no impact on the world outside...you were also quite clear that religions had little in no political impact.....I'm simply struggling to reconcile those views with the Bachmann 'phenomenon' thats all.

[One Day Soon]

Or maybe a prime minister that had a Presbyterian minister as a father or maybe a prime minister who converted to Catholisim as soon as he could after leaving office...??

Not sure which two you are referring to here (or is it the same person)? Anyway where did their religious views dictate state policy?

For CoS read an American Christian Fundamentalist Church...they are branches of the same religion are they not?

'Christian' is broad enough to cover a very wide range of views in the same way that football encapsulates everything from Barcelona to my old Primary School team. Recognisably distantly related, but undeniably completely different.

You previously seemed quite clear that what was discussed and preached in a church to the congregation had no impact on the world outside...you were also quite clear that religions had little in no political impact.....I'm simply struggling to reconcile those views with the Bachmann 'phenomenon' thats all.

Actually I was quite clear that what was discussed and preached to the congregation within the CoS had little or no impact on the world outside. I was also clear more broadly that it is a big mistake to equate the capacity to issue press releases and stage photo opportunities with real influence - they are not the same thing.

Religion in the US context is an entirely different proposition.

[RyeSloan]

Actually I was quite clear that what was discussed and preached to the congregation within the CoS had little or no impact on the world outside. I was also clear more broadly that it is a big mistake to equate the capacity to issue press releases and stage photo opportunities with real influence - they are not the same thing.

Religion in the US context is an entirely different proposition.

OK so just to be clear UK religion..no influence. US religion...big influence.

Have I got it now?

The two I was referring to were the last two prime ministers before our current incumbent...who interestingly enough seems to be a bit of a church goer as well. Good to know thought that whatever they hear in their church is having no influence what so ever on them in their professional lives....if only they were American it would be oh so different!

[Dashing Bob S]

I would watch Pallin carefully in this Republican race. I agree that Liverpool Hibs that Bachman is the more intelligent of the two, which makes Pallin the more dangerous, she's being groomed by powerful figures for a real shot at this.

Her strategy (or her teams strategy- let's remember that they've been working on this for four years) will be to come in as late as possible while letting Bachman take all the lunatic name-calling exposing flack, while repositioning herself as a moderate and distancing herself from the more extreme stuff Bachman will come out with.

Then when Bachmans the busted out stalking horse, the way is clear for her to mop up the tea party votes which have nowhere else to go, while being the plain- talkin feisty folksy idiot gal (think George W in drag) standing up against them Washington suits.

What she'll want to avoid is throwing her hat in too early and getting dragged in the right-wing cat fight with Bachman that many, including me, would love to see happen.

[Betty Boop]

OK so just to be clear UK religion..no influence. US religion...big influence.

Have I got it now?

The two I was referring to were the last two prime ministers before our current incumbent...who interestingly enough seems to be a bit of a church goer as well. Good to know thought that whatever they hear in their church is having no influence what so ever on them in their professional lives....if only they were American it would be oh so different!

Blair was influenced by his faith in making key policy decisions, such as taking the country to war in Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

[One Day Soon]

OK so just to be clear UK religion..no influence. US religion...big influence.

Have I got it now?

Nearly. CoS next to no influence. Some other religions across the UK - Judaism, Islam, CofE and Catholic Church - varying degrees of mild influence extending to media sensitivity but little or no actual influence over policy. US religion - a completely different story.

The two I was referring to were the last two prime ministers before our current incumbent...who interestingly enough seems to be a bit of a church goer as well. Good to know thought that whatever they hear in their church is having no influence what so ever on them in their professional lives....if only they were American it would be oh so different!

I think if Brown or Blair had tried to railroad their Cabinets because of their faith that would have become obvious by now. I take it you are not active in politics?

[One Day Soon]

Blair was influenced by his faith in making key policy decisions, such as taking the country to war in Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

:faf:

The Telegraph, his election agent and the launch of a no doubt very dull book desperately in need of publicity. Hilarious.

Blair took Britain to war in Iraq because of his faith? Ma sides.

Still, its different from the usual cobblers about oil I suppose.

[Twa Cairpets]

:faf:

The Telegraph, his election agent and the launch of a no doubt very dull book desperately in need of publicity. Hilarious.

Blair took Britain to war in Iraq because of his faith? Ma sides.

Still, its different from the usual cobblers about oil I suppose.

Or of course there maybe truth in it. Do you think his faith had no inflence over his thought process/decision making process? He seems pretty devout to me.

[One Day Soon]

Or of course there maybe truth in it. Do you think his faith had no inflence over his thought process/decision making process? He seems pretty devout to me.

The Daily Telegraph running an anti-Blair story. There must be truth in it then.

[Bad Martini]

What we need, is mair politics, religion AND fitba, all mixed together for perfect combination and interesting, fruitful and friendly banterous chat.

It'd be just like an old firm match :rolleyes::aok:

[Bad Martini]

The Daily Telegraph running an anti-Blair story. There must be truth in it then.

Did it mention the fact he's a grade a, sneaky wee lying bawbag?

If so, the journalist on this one has defo done his hamework. :thumbsup:

[Twa Cairpets]

The Daily Telegraph running an anti-Blair story. There must be truth in it then.

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on whether or not it is true, but just because the Telegraph isn't your cup of tea (mine neither, I hasten to add) doesnt mean that there is no accuracy in the book upon which it is reporting.

Personally, I think it would be difficulty for a man with something of a messiah complex not to be influenced by his faith. Multiply this by a lot for Bachmann/Palin (especially if and when the scenario DBS lays out comes to pass) and see what the outcome is.

Worries me.

[Betty Boop]

:faf:

The Telegraph, his election agent and the launch of a no doubt very dull book desperately in need of publicity. Hilarious.

Blair took Britain to war in Iraq because of his faith? Ma sides.

Still, its different from the usual cobblers about oil I suppose.


Bush and Blair knelt in prayer together at the ranch in Crawford, Texas. :greengrin

[One Day Soon]

What we need, is mair politics, religion AND fitba, all mixed together for perfect combination and interesting, fruitful and friendly banterous chat.

It'd be just like an old firm match :rolleyes::aok:

A wee bit of class interest thrown in too would help.

[One Day Soon]

Did it mention the fact he's a grade a, sneaky wee lying bawbag?

If so, the journalist on this one has defo done his hamework. :thumbsup:

No, you weren't mentioned in the piece at all. Oh, you meant Blair....

[One Day Soon]

I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on whether or not it is true, but just because the Telegraph isn't your cup of tea (mine neither, I hasten to add) doesnt mean that there is no accuracy in the book upon which it is reporting.

Personally, I think it would be difficulty for a man with something of a messiah complex not to be influenced by his faith. Multiply this by a lot for Bachmann/Palin (especially if and when the scenario DBS lays out comes to pass) and see what the outcome is.

Worries me.

I see. Now you've added a messiah complex to him.

If the ragbag of nutters, ultra leftists, right wing 5h1tehawks and general 'the world would be just fine if everyone did what I told them' brigade were all correct on Blair he would be the greatest super villain of all time. A cross over between Pol Pot, a Bond baddie and The Joker.

[One Day Soon]

Bush and Blair knelt in prayer together at the ranch in Crawford, Texas. :greengrin

Which fantasy do you wish to keep and which ones are you prepared to discard?

Did he go to war because:

a) God told him to
b) He was Bush's poodle
c) He was after the oil
d) He wanted a war to cement his reputation like Thatcher
e) Some other paranoid theory of the hard left/hard right

[hibsbollah]

Which fantasy do you wish to keep and which ones are you prepared to discard?

Did he go to war because:

a) God told him to
b) He was Bush's poodle
c) He was after the oil
d) He wanted a war to cement his reputation like Thatcher
e) Some other paranoid theory of the hard left/hard right

None of the above. He just abandoned morality.

[One Day Soon]

None of the above. He just abandoned morality.

That's even more trite than the others. And wrong.

If he abandoned morality you would not have seen, for a start, the huge commitment to overseas aid that was evident during his leadership.

[hibsbollah]

That's even more trite than the others. And wrong.

If he abandoned morality you would not have seen, for a start, the huge commitment to overseas aid that was evident during his leadership.

Aid=Trade. You should know that.

Also, you pigeonhole those who disagreed with the war as the 'hard left/hard right' (quite a bizarre correlation, I didnt notice Benn and the BNP sharing many podiums but there you go.) The Times reported pre-war in the UK 86% of respondents wanted more time for weapons inspections and 51% declared Blair as Bush's 'poodle'. More results here
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx

Was the UK therefore a land of Blair-hating extremists?:greengrin

Apologies for the thread hijack.:taxi

[One Day Soon]

Aid=Trade. You should know that.

So by your logic we shouldn't give aid

Also, you pigeonhole those who disagreed with the war as the 'hard left/hard right' (quite a bizarre correlation, I didnt notice Benn and the BNP sharing many podiums but there you go.) The Times reported pre-war in the UK 86% of respondents wanted more time for weapons inspections and 51% declared Blair as Bush's 'poodle'. More results here
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/ca/287/Iraq-The-Last-PreWar-Polls.aspx

No I don't. I was quite explicitly referring to the weird and wonderful rainbow of Blair hating groups, not the war. Your notion that the hard left and the hard right have to share a platform in order conspire together is quaint, I doubt you have spent much time in trade union politics if you hold that opinion. If the British public wanted more time for weapons inspections and thought Blair was Bush's poodle then that must have been right. After all the public are always right - you know, liberal and tolerant, inclusive and welcoming, pro death penalty.....

Was the UK therefore a land of Blair-hating extremists?:greengrin

Since you have misread/misinterpreted what I was saying about Blair rather than war I don't think your question on the UK being a land of Blair hating extremists really stands.

Apologies for the thread hijack.:taxi


Under Blair Labour delivered the most sustained positive transformation of this country in my lifetime. Without him Alex Salmond would still be a Westminster backbencher. Pity he's not still PM.

[Sir David Gray]

I don't see anything wrong with a person's faith helping to guide them in their policy making. I don't know a lot about Michele Bachmann but what I have read about her, I haven't seen a lot to disagree with.

As someone has already said (Hibsbollah I think, jeez that will be three times in as many days that I have agreed with him! :greengrin) some of the most brutal regimes in the 20th/21st centuries have been/are led by atheist dictators.

Just because there are several Islamic theocracies throughout the world who have a shocking human rights record and are completely undemocratic, doesn't mean to say that the US would become like Saudi Arabia if Bachmann became President. For that to happen, a Christian theocratic nation would need to be like its Muslim counterpart and that is just not going to be the case as far as I'm concerned.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't see anything wrong with a person's faith helping to guide them in their policy making. I don't know a lot about Michele Bachmann but what I have read about her, I haven't seen a lot to disagree with.

As someone has already said (Hibsbollah I think, jeez that will be three times in as many days that I have agreed with him! :greengrin) some of the most brutal regimes in the 20th/21st centuries have been/are led by atheist dictators.

Lets just hit this on the head once and for all shall we.

Using the examples of the excesses of dictators who were not following a religious agenda is not a defence for the excesses or political stance of those who do. The actions of Stalin and Mao were not driven by their lack of belief on any particular God or Gods.

Hitler was christian. (http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm)
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

You could make the argument quite convincingly that the Holocaust was entirely driven by his religiously inspired loathing of Jews - I personally don't subscribe to this view, but I do think it is an element of his makeup.



Just because there are several Islamic theocracies throughout the world who have a shocking human rights record and are completely undemocratic, doesn't mean to say that the US would become like Saudi Arabia if Bachmann became President. For that to happen, a Christian theocratic nation would need to be like its Muslim counterpart and that is just not going to be the case as far as I'm concerned.

On what basis do you hold this conviction?

If - and it is a big if - the US becomes effectively a christian theocracy, it would not be a good place to be gay, to want an abortion, to have other different belief systems, to be an atheist, to want to forward the teaching of science over myth, to want to provide some type of basic sex education for children and any number of other areas of personal choice that is expressly forbidden in your holy book of choice. There are plenty of examples of religion driving policy in the US - just have a look at Texas to suggest that the wedge strategy beloved of AiG and creationist evangelism is slowly working.

But, given your input into pretty much this and every thread, you'd be delighted with all the above.

[hibsbollah]

Twocarpets, youre just wrong on this. Hitler HAD to appeal to a largely devout christian electorate in 1930s Germany, so he gave some speeches about Christianity which were wholly vacuous. He was in no way a christian. He was violently anti-church, because the church challenges the primacy of the Nazi state.

Dont want to get off an interesting topic.

[Twa Cairpets]

Twocarpets, youre just wrong on this. Hitler HAD to appeal to a largely devout christian electorate in 1930s Germany, so he gave some speeches about Christianity which were wholly vacuous. He was in no way a christian. He was violently anti-church, because the church challenges the primacy of the Nazi state.

Dont want to get off an interesting topic.

I think its fair that he wasn't a christian by any reasonable understanding of the phrase - maybe theist is a better way of describing him.

But to an extent it is unimportant. His use of religion as a weapon, whether or not he believed it, is important within the context of this thread.

Whether or not it is the state sponsored promulgation of concepts such as those espoused in, for example, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it is quite clearly a religiously driven justification for actions that is accepted by the masses as being acceptable.

While Bachmann is not Hitler, what she believes could have as big an impact on the globe. She does not believe in Global Warming, largely driven by a refusal to understand science on the basis of her belief. How many people will suffer and die if the most powerful nation in the world refuses to back any action that could counter climate change?

Also - came across this interesting article (http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/the-stealth-theology-of-michele-bachmann/)which describes her strategy as "stealth evangelism".

[Twa Cairpets]

And we think our politicians avoid answering questions.

Jeezo.

Bachmann wriggles on her accusation that Gays are directed by satan amongst other nonsense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9isbCdz43QU)

Oh well at leat Rick Perry has thrown his hat into the ring.

Oh wait...

[--------]

It's one thing for a politician to have religious beliefs. Quite another that their policies are influenced by their superstitions. Have to say, the state v religion debate is one I'd never be afraid of fighting for. If you want to see how a theocracy works out, see Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi.

There is something predictably extreme but impotent about Islamic theocracies. They are at least, a known quantity. There is something however, that makes my blood run cold about the idea of a Christian fundamentalist coming to power in the States with that mix of unbridled patriotism.

I hope it never happens, or at least when it does, I'll be long gone.



So it's OK for a politician's policies to be influenced by their beliefs, as long as those beliefs aren't religious?

The ideal situation, then, must be to have society organised by materialist atheists who adopt a rational scientific approach to all issues?

That's a rational thought. :rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

So it's OK for a politician's policies to be influenced by their beliefs, as long as those beliefs aren't religious?

The ideal situation, then, must be to have society organised by materialist atheists who adopt a rational scientific approach to all issues?
That's a rational thought. :rolleyes:

Yes - got it in one :greengrin

A rational scientific approach is only applicable when such an approach is valid. Science has nothing to say about the rights or wrongs of abortion, or the philosophy of capitalism for example. Where Bachmanns religiously driven dogma comes in is that she is a creationist, and therefore by default does not believe in great swathes of accepted science. That scares me because she is willing to fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - possibly worrying for foreign policy and military strategy maybe? Rick Perry believes that intercessionary prayer will work to end the Texas drought, despite the fact that it clearly hasnt, he still perseveres in prayer rallies for the economy. What type of action for a political decision maker is that?

People can take their moral stances from wherever they like. Its when it a believe that is unshakeable - possibly fanatical -due to its divine provenance that it becomes a concern for everyone else.

[--------]

[QUOTE=TwoCarpets;2851412]Lets just hit this on the head once and for all shall we.

Using the examples of the excesses of dictators who were not following a religious agenda is not a defence for the excesses or political stance of those who do. The actions of Stalin and Mao were not driven by their lack of belief on any particular God or Gods.

Hitler was christian. (http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm)
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

You could make the argument quite convincingly that the Holocaust was entirely driven by his religiously inspired loathing of Jews - I personally don't subscribe to this view, but I do think it is an element of his makeup.

I'm surprised at you, TC. First that speech was delivered in 1922, at a time when the NSDAP was a very small party among a number of extreme right-wing nationalist parties in Germany. Hitler was a politician, and he was 'drumming up' support (that was how he himself put it) for the Party by appealing to as large a segment of German society as possible. Politicians, as you well know, will say anything if they think it'll gain them votes - even atheist politicians will pretend to some vague form of 'belief' just so they don't offend the electorate.

There is nothing in that quotation that could be considered anything like a Biblical understanding of why Christ went to the Cross, or what was happening when he did so. If that was Hitler's understanding of the Christian faith in 1922 it's little wonder he ended up where he did.

Anti-Semitism has been endemic in the German Churches since the Middle Ages. In the 1520's Martin Luther attempted to make approached to German Jews in his treatise That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, with the idea of converting them to Christianity. When they proved unwilling to convert he turned against them - publishing two further treatises a few years before his death in 1546, Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ). It's absolutely clear that those last two writings provided a clear excuse for anti-Semitic hatred among his followers, and no serious church historian would doubt or deny that.

What neither Luther nor those who shared his hatreds didn't seem to take on board, however, was that since the Christian faith isn't a religious set of rules and rituals, but a personal discipleship and submission to the Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and since the New Testament leaves us in no doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ was born in Judea, of the tribe of Judah, of the lineage of King David, and that the entire New Testament was written by men who shared his background and race, a Christian who harbours hatred of "the Jews" the way Hitler and Luther did really needs to take a hard look at his Christianity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that anti-Semitism is totally incompatible with genuine Christianity.

I can't follow and serve the greatest man ever born into the Jewish nation if I hate all Jews. In fact, I'm not following Him at all if I hate anyone.

That paragraph of garbage you've quoted doesn't prove Hitler was a Christian - quite the contrary. It proves conclusively that even in 1922, even while still a nominal member of the Catholic Church, he had't the first clue about what being a Christian was all about, and that he had totally and completely misunderstood everything significant there is to understand about Jesus of Nazareth.

I'd guess that in 1922 Hitler was still a nominal Catholic - though on the basis of your quotation, a dangerously mixed-up, angry and resentful one. By the time he became a major player in German politics in the late 1920's however, he had formulated the Nazi ideology much more fully - a hodge-podge of ancient German mythology, evolutionary eugenics, the cult of the Hero come to deliver the German Volk from their supposed slavery to the Jewish world conspiracy, and a whole lot more.

[--------]

Yes - got it in one :greengrin

A rational scientific approach is only applicable when such an approach is valid. Science has nothing to say about the rights or wrongs of abortion, or the philosophy of capitalism for example. Where Bachmanns religiously driven dogma comes in is that she is a creationist, and therefore by default does not believe in great swathes of accepted science. That scares me because she is willing to fly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - possibly worrying for foreign policy and military strategy maybe? Rick Perry believes that intercessionary prayer will work to end the Texas drought, despite the fact that it clearly hasnt, he still perseveres in prayer rallies for the economy. What type of action for a political decision maker is that?

People can take their moral stances from wherever they like. Its when it a believe that is unshakeable - possibly fanatical -due to its divine provenance that it becomes a concern for everyone else.


"A society organised by materialist atheists who adopt a rational scientific approach to all issues" - isn't that what the November Revolution was supposed to bring about in Russia?

Didn't work very well, did it? :rolleyes:

The Nazi program to murder people with Downes' Syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and so on, to kill patients in psychiatric hospitals, and ultimately to remove from society all "degenerates" like Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and anyone else who came to mind was based on the then valid and accepted scientific principle of eugenics, which has its roots in evolutionary biology.

It's as convenient to hang one's prejudices on a scientific principle as it is to do so on a religious one, TC.

And if I'm not mistaken, much of modern scientific knowledge has its origins in scientists NOT believing in "great swathes of accepted science", but actually working and investigating and testing "accepted truth" and finding it to be unmitigated bull****.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm surprised at you, TC. First that speech was delivered in 1922, at a time when the NSDAP was a very small party among a number of extreme right-wing nationalist parties in Germany. Hitler was a politician, and he was 'drumming up' support (that was how he himself put it) for the Party by appealing to as large a segment of German society as possible. Politicians, as you well know, will say anything if they think it'll gain them votes - even atheist politicians will pretend to some vague form of 'belief' just so they don't offend the electorate.

There is nothing in that quotation that could be considered anything like a Biblical understanding of why Christ went to the Cross, or what was happening when he did so. If that was Hitler's understanding of the Christian faith in 1922 it's little wonder he ended up where he did.

Anti-Semitism has been endemic in the German Churches since the Middle Ages. In the 1520's Martin Luther attempted to make approached to German Jews in his treatise That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, with the idea of converting them to Christianity. When they proved unwilling to convert he turned against them - publishing two further treatises a few years before his death in 1546, Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ). It's absolutely clear that those last two writings provided a clear excuse for anti-Semitic hatred among his followers, and no serious church historian would doubt or deny that.

What neither Luther nor those who shared his hatreds didn't seem to take on board, however, was that since the Christian faith isn't a religious set of rules and rituals, but a personal discipleship and submission to the Master, the Lord Jesus Christ, and since the New Testament leaves us in no doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ was born in Judea, of the tribe of Judah, of the lineage of King David, and that the entire New Testament was written by men who shared his background and race, a Christian who harbours hatred of "the Jews" the way Hitler and Luther did really needs to take a hard look at his Christianity. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that anti-Semitism is totally incompatible with genuine Christianity.

I can't follow and serve the greatest man ever born into the Jewish nation if I hate all Jews. In fact, I'm not following Him at all if I hate anyone.

That paragraph of garbage you've quoted doesn't prove Hitler was a Christian - quite the contrary. It proves conclusively that even in 1922, even while still a nominal member of the Catholic Church, he had't the first clue about what being a Christian was all about, and that he had totally and completely misunderstood everything significant there is to understand about Jesus of Nazareth.

I'd guess that in 1922 Hitler was still a nominal Catholic - though on the basis of your quotation, a dangerously mixed-up, angry and resentful one. By the time he became a major player in German politics in the late 1920's however, he had formulated the Nazi ideology much more fully - a hodge-podge of ancient German mythology, evolutionary eugenics, the cult of the Hero come to deliver the German Volk from their supposed slavery to the Jewish world conspiracy, and a whole lot more.

I did go on to say in a later post that
I think its fair that he wasn't a christian by any reasonable understanding of the phrase - maybe theist is a better way of describing him.

Your point is a good one though, from both sides of the fence. Your view of what constitutes being a good christian is going to be different from other peoples interpretation.

A very topical example is the Norwegian murderer Brevik. He claims he's a christian. You, I'd imagine don't think he is. Even the appalling Bill O'Reilly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=A8wC6DNWnlI)doesn't. But he believes he is, and he is driven (to an extent at least) to act upon the righteousness of his claim.

Your view of what is "genuine christinity" is, I'm sure, widespread. But I'm guessing lots of what Catholics believe in you may not view as being "genuine christianity", or at least as being less genuine than the way in which you choose to have faith. Their is surely a danger in this?

On a theological side note, you say Jesus was born of the line of David. Is this not only the case in Matthew and Luke, with the other two gospels having a divine fathering of Jesus? (And the lineage is very different in the two where it is listed, wlthough even going back two or three generations with any accuracy is pretty impressive 2000 years ago?)

[Twa Cairpets]

"A society organised by materialist atheists who adopt a rational scientific approach to all issues" - isn't that what the November Revolution was supposed to bring about in Russia?

Didn't work very well, did it? :rolleyes:
I was trying to be make a joke here, honest....


The Nazi program to murder people with Downes' Syndrome, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and so on, to kill patients in psychiatric hospitals, and ultimately to remove from society all "degenerates" like Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and anyone else who came to mind was based on the then valid and accepted scientific principle of eugenics, which has its roots in evolutionary biology.

It's as convenient to hang one's prejudices on a scientific principle as it is to do so on a religious one, TC.

And if I'm not mistaken, much of modern scientific knowledge has its origins in scientists NOT believing in "great swathes of accepted science", but actually working and investigating and testing "accepted truth" and finding it to be unmitigated bull****.

Eugenics is the human application of a misunderstading (and deliberate political warping) of evolutionary biology. People think "survival of the fittest" means survival of the most strong. It doesnt. It means survival of those most fit to thrive in a given environment and set of circumstances. Eugenics is a wilful misinterpretation to tie it in with human prejudice. What people believe does not affect the accuracy of the biological evolutionary process.

Evolution underpins the facts about how biological science works, about how we understand antibiotics and vaccines, about GM crops and hereditaty illness. It has been modified and challenged as understanding progresses. Without wanting to start a theological god v science row, the development of the theory of evolution in biology, and the work of the likes of James Hutton in geology, were challenges to what turned out to be the entirely fallacious explanation of nature as put forward by, for the most part, religion and superstition.

When science is wrong it usually self corrects. It is a dispassionate discipline - something (excepting Schroedinger and Heisenberg) either is or isn't. What people, with all their flaws and prejudices do with that knoweldge, does not affect the very fundamental and demonstrable truth of something.

[--------]

I did go on to say in a later post that I think its fair that he wasn't a christian by any reasonable understanding of the phrase - maybe theist is a better way of describing him.

Your point is a good one though, from both sides of the fence. Your view of what constitutes being a good christian is going to be different from other peoples interpretation.

A very topical example is the Norwegian murderer Brevik. He claims he's a christian. You, I'd imagine don't think he is. Even the appalling Bill O'Reilly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=A8wC6DNWnlI)doesn't. But he believes he is, and he is driven (to an extent at least) to act upon the righteousness of his claim.

Your view of what is "genuine christinity" is, I'm sure, widespread. But I'm guessing lots of what Catholics believe in you may not view as being "genuine christianity", or at least as being less genuine than the way in which you choose to have faith. Their is surely a danger in this?

On a theological side note, you say Jesus was born of the line of David. Is this not only the case in Matthew and Luke, with the other two gospels having a divine fathering of Jesus? (And the lineage is very different in the two where it is listed, wlthough even going back two or three generations with any accuracy is pretty impressive 2000 years ago?)



My view of what being a Christian is is based on the Word of the New Testament - John 3 and Ephesians 2 would be the core passages, though there's plenty of corroboration elsewhere.

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3)

It's not about what we call ourselves, or even about what we do to achieve God's favour. It's about what God has already done for us in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. You can accept this or reject this, but this is the one foundation set out in the Bible for the Christian life - what God did in Jesus' coming into the world, and what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did for us in His death and sacrifice of Himself on the Cross. It's not about bums in Church pews - it's about saved souls in the Kingdom of God when Christ returns in glory.

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do..." Paul in Ephesians 2 pretty well sums it up completely.

​What you believe is your business, but that's what the New Testament tells us a Christian is. In Acts 16, when a guy in Philippi asked Paul what he had to do to be saved, the answer he got was, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..." Not, "Join the Church and become very very respectable..." Not, "Go to the mosque on Fridays and pray five times a day facing Mecca..." Not, "Come to the Kingdom Hall and we'll give you packs of magazines to sell round the doors..." Just, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ..." - and God will do the rest.

Of course, there IS more - 2 Corinthians 5:17 tells us that if anyone is in Christ, he (or she) is a new creation, the old person has gone, and a new person has come into being (I'm paraphrasing here). But yes, Christians ARE called to live lives dedicated to the service of Christ - to be His disciples, which means living according to His commandments and in imitation of Him. That's the hard bit - I know I don't do very well at it, but I know a lot of folks who do much, much better. Most of them don't get their names in the papers or on the internet - the media's only interested in Christians when we foul up and make fools of ourselves, or when we go wrong and end up in court.

But I've had good reason lately to know just how loving and caring a Christian fellowship can be, and how close God comes to us when we're going through hard times.



What I'm reading in this thread seems to me to be coming very close to the thin end of a very nasty wedge, the thick end of which is a consensus banning religious believers from political life simply because they're believers.

Michelle Bachmann may or may not be everything she's been accused of being, but she has the right to stand as a candidate for the acceptance or rejection of the voters.

Are you going to apply a set of test questions before allowing a candidate to stand for office?

Do you believe in global warming? What's your position on abortion? Same-sex marriage? Capital punishment? Sex education in schools? And then reject everyone who disagrees with the acceptable position defined by you and those who agree with you?

Who sets the questions? Who decides what's politically acceptable or unacceptable? I think that in the brave new world some of the posters on this thread want to see, I would be a political undesirable with a big mouth - so what do you do with me?

Nine grams, or the cheesewire?

If the American voters want Michelle Bachmann, they'll vote for her, which is their right under their Constitution. But I don't think they do, and I don't think they will. But it'll be a far more dangerous situation if political candidates have to conform to the opinions of a self-selected caucus before they're allowed to stand.

[Twa Cairpets]

My view of what being a Christian is is based on the Word of the New Testament - John 3 and Ephesians 2 would be the core passages, though there's plenty of corroboration elsewhere.

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3)

It's not about what we call ourselves, or even about what we do to achieve God's favour. It's about what God has already done for us in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. You can accept this or reject this, but this is the one foundation set out in the Bible for the Christian life - what God did in Jesus' coming into the world, and what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did for us in His death and sacrifice of Himself on the Cross. It's not about bums in Church pews - it's about saved souls in the Kingdom of God when Christ returns in glory.

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do..." Paul in Ephesians 2 pretty well sums it up completely.

​What you believe is your business, but that's what the New Testament tells us a Christian is. In Acts 16, when a guy in Philippi asked Paul what he had to do to be saved, the answer he got was, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..." Not, "Join the Church and become very very respectable..." Not, "Go to the mosque on Fridays and pray five times a day facing Mecca..." Not, "Come to the Kingdom Hall and we'll give you packs of magazines to sell round the doors..." Just, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ..." - and God will do the rest.

Of course, there IS more - 2 Corinthians 5:17 tells us that if anyone is in Christ, he (or she) is a new creation, the old person has gone, and a new person has come into being (I'm paraphrasing here). But yes, Christians ARE called to live lives dedicated to the service of Christ - to be His disciples, which means living according to His commandments and in imitation of Him. That's the hard bit - I know I don't do very well at it, but I know a lot of folks who do much, much better. Most of them don't get their names in the papers or on the internet - the media's only interested in Christians when we foul up and make fools of ourselves, or when we go wrong and end up in court.

But I've had good reason lately to know just how loving and caring a Christian fellowship can be, and how close God comes to us when we're going through hard times.



What I'm reading in this thread seems to me to be coming very close to the thin end of a very nasty wedge, the thick end of which is a consensus banning religious believers from political life simply because they're believers.

Michelle Bachmann may or may not be everything she's been accused of being, but she has the right to stand as a candidate for the acceptance or rejection of the voters.

Are you going to apply a set of test questions before allowing a candidate to stand for office?

Do you believe in global warming? What's your position on abortion? Same-sex marriage? Capital punishment? Sex education in schools? And then reject everyone who disagrees with the acceptable position defined by you and those who agree with you?

Who sets the questions? Who decides what's politically acceptable or unacceptable? I think that in the brave new world some of the posters on this thread want to see, I would be a political undesirable with a big mouth - so what do you do with me?

Nine grams, or the cheesewire?

If the American voters want Michelle Bachmann, they'll vote for her, which is their right under their Constitution. But I don't think they do, and I don't think they will. But it'll be a far more dangerous situation if political candidates have to conform to the opinions of a self-selected caucus before they're allowed to stand.





Thanks Doddie - passionate and well constructed reply as always.

I absolutely dont think that people should be banned from standing for office, or indeed go through any pre-selection criteria. I agree also that it will be up to the voters to decide who they want and what type of person they want to represent them.

There exists however in the US a what amounts to a de facto pre-selection. The chances of an avowed atheist gaining office is minimal - I think I'm right that only one member of the Senate/House of Representatives is openly atheist.

But again, what you describe as the clear way of understanding the teachings of the bible are different to what others believe. I know for example you dont believe in young earth creationism, and im guessing youre skeptical about the evangelical understanding of the rapture. Bachmann (amongst others) do believe in these things, and will believe them with every bit as much fervour and passion as you believe in your understanding.

Its not so much the the fact that people believe, but the zeal with which they believe which means that no alternative can be brooked despite any evidence or advice to the extraordinary.

[(((Fergus)))]

Thanks Doddie - passionate and well constructed reply as always.

I absolutely dont think that people should be banned from standing for office, or indeed go through any pre-selection criteria. I agree also that it will be up to the voters to decide who they want and what type of person they want to represent them.

There exists however in the US a what amounts to a de facto pre-selection. The chances of an avowed atheist gaining office is minimal - I think I'm right that only one member of the Senate/House of Representatives is openly atheist.

But again, what you describe as the clear way of understanding the teachings of the bible are different to what others believe. I know for example you dont believe in young earth creationism, and im guessing youre skeptical about the evangelical understanding of the rapture. Bachmann (amongst others) do believe in these things, and will believe them with every bit as much fervour and passion as you believe in your understanding.

Its not so much the the fact that people believe, but the zeal with which they believe which means that no alternative can be brooked despite any evidence or advice to the extraordinary.

All you're afraid of is other people like you. I wouldn't worry though as you balance each other out.

[down-the-slope]

:coffee: required after reading......interesting thread though

[--------]

Thanks Doddie - passionate and well constructed reply as always.

I absolutely dont think that people should be banned from standing for office, or indeed go through any pre-selection criteria. I agree also that it will be up to the voters to decide who they want and what type of person they want to represent them.

There exists however in the US a what amounts to a de facto pre-selection. The chances of an avowed atheist gaining office is minimal - I think I'm right that only one member of the Senate/House of Representatives is openly atheist.

But again, what you describe as the clear way of understanding the teachings of the bible are different to what others believe. I know for example you dont believe in young earth creationism, and im guessing youre skeptical about the evangelical understanding of the rapture. Bachmann (amongst others) do believe in these things, and will believe them with every bit as much fervour and passion as you believe in your understanding.

Its not so much the the fact that people believe, but the zeal with which they believe which means that no alternative can be brooked despite any evidence or advice to the extraordinary.


I think some folks do, though, and since neither religion nor politics exist in a vacuum - both are human activities - the only way of keeping religion out of politics at the end of the day is to exclude religious people.

I take your point about the US electoral system - I don't like Bachmann, Palin, Pat Robertson and their ilk any more than you do. I'd just keep voting against them because they're flakes, not because they're religious. Should Wilberforce (slavery), Shaftesbury (Factory Acts) or Martin Luther King (Civil Rights) have been kept out of politics because of their religion?

Young earth creationism - taking the chronology calculated by the late Archbishop Ussher for example - no. It begs huge questions regarding the exact meaning of certain Hebrew expressions, entirely misunderstands just how the genealogies of the TO worked in terms of ancient Jewish culture, and doesn't, to my understanding, ring true with a whole lot of the descriptions of God in later books of the OT, not to mention the NT. Intelligent design, though - yup.

The "rapture" is a doctrine which only came into anything like prominence in the early 19th century - less than 200 years ago. A guy called Darby decided that he had found what had escaped the attention of something like 60 generations of Biblical scholars - men like Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, not to mention Wesley, Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards - namely, the idea that Christ was going to come to remove all the believers from the world before instituting a seven-year tribulation involving extreme suffering for everyone who hadn't been removed. Another guy called Schofield picked it up and ran a bit farther with it, and both Darby and Schofield published their very own "Study Bibles" which touted their teachings to the faithful. They weren't above tweaking the translation to fit their line - not unlike the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

In our present day a couple of American right-wing conservatives, a wee guy called LaHaye and a big guy called Jenkins, jumped on the bandwagon and produced a series of mind-numbingly boring books called "The Left Behind Series", with commentaries on the books, a video, various films, a series of books for kids, more novels, more commentaries on the novels and on and on and on like Ariston... Out of all this they have made millions. laHaye was "spiritual adviser" to George W Bush, among other things. The mind boggles.

What seems to me most mind-boggling is that there is literally NOTHING in the Bible to support this idea. They cobble together bits of OT prophecy, a couple of Jesus' sermons in the Synoptic Gospels, the passage in John 14 ('In My Father's house are many rooms; I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and take you to Myself, that where I am there you may be also...' - you see how they can twist the meaning to fit the idea of a rapture?) and a passage in 1 Thessalonians 4 which relates to the general resurrection from the dead at the end of time. The John 14 verses relate simply to Christ's promise that those who die in the faith will find a place in heaven, a place prepared and set apart for them by the Saviour Himself. 1 Thessalonians has no reference to tribulation or a further triumphant return to earth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Book of Revelation is a gold-mine for these guys - the Four Horsemen, the various plagues of locusts, boils, water turned to blood, and so on. It would be a wee bit more credible if every dispensationist commentary (that's what these guys are called - dispensationists) didn't disagree in many details with every other dispensationist commentary. Revelation is a VERY complex book.

I personally believe that there's a rational way to understand Revelation without getting into futurist end-time prophecy games. However, I'm thinking of putting it into a commentary of my own entitled 'Apocalyptic in Seven Easy Lessons', so I'm saying NO MORE! Buy the book when it comes out. (That was a joke, btw.)

Revelation was written by the same John who wrote the Gospel. It was written around AD 60, not long before the first major Roman persecution of the Church by the Emperor Nero. It was written to the congregations of the seven main churches in what's now western Turkey, and the main visions and symbolism are understandable in terms of OT apocalyptic found in the major prophets and in the Book of the Twelve (the 'minor prophets like Daniel, Zechariah, Joel and Habbakuk). These prophecies were fulfilled in the Neronian persecution of the Church in the late 60's AD and in Vespasian's destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The book ends with a vision of the Final Judgement to come at the end of time, when Christ will return in glory to bring in the Kingdom, when the righteous will receive their reward and the unrighteous their punishment. There are warnings and encouragement in the book for the present-day church, but the idea that one can somehow map out future history from the details of the visions is nonsense. Occam's Razor applies here - in spades.

I'd say it's that simple.

BTW - Christ's disciples asked Him when the Last Judgement would happen, and His reply was that even HE didn't know - only God the Father, Who would announce it in His own good time. I find it hard to believe that the Father would withhold the information from the Son, then put it into a coded prophecy at the end of the NT for Messrs Darby, Schofield, LaHaye and Jenkins and their pals to work out. Or that intelligent men like Augustine or Calvin wouldn't have spotted it long before Darby and Co - if it were there, which it isn't.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think some folks do, though, and since neither religion nor politics exist in a vacuum - both are human activities - the only way of keeping religion out of politics at the end of the day is to exclude religious people.

I take your point about the US electoral system - I don't like Bachmann, Palin, Pat Robertson and their ilk any more than you do. I'd just keep voting against them because they're flakes, not because they're religious. Should Wilberforce (slavery), Shaftesbury (Factory Acts) or Martin Luther King (Civil Rights) have been kept out of politics because of their religion?

Young earth creationism - taking the chronology calculated by the late Archbishop Ussher for example - no. It begs huge questions regarding the exact meaning of certain Hebrew expressions, entirely misunderstands just how the genealogies of the TO worked in terms of ancient Jewish culture, and doesn't, to my understanding, ring true with a whole lot of the descriptions of God in later books of the OT, not to mention the NT. Intelligent design, though - yup.

The "rapture" is a doctrine which only came into anything like prominence in the early 19th century - less than 200 years ago. A guy called Darby decided that he had found what had escaped the attention of something like 60 generations of Biblical scholars - men like Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, not to mention Wesley, Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards - namely, the idea that Christ was going to come to remove all the believers from the world before instituting a seven-year tribulation involving extreme suffering for everyone who hadn't been removed. Another guy called Schofield picked it up and ran a bit farther with it, and both Darby and Schofield published their very own "Study Bibles" which touted their teachings to the faithful. They weren't above tweaking the translation to fit their line - not unlike the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

In our present day a couple of American right-wing conservatives, a wee guy called LaHaye and a big guy called Jenkins, jumped on the bandwagon and produced a series of mind-numbingly boring books called "The Left Behind Series", with commentaries on the books, a video, various films, a series of books for kids, more novels, more commentaries on the novels and on and on and on like Ariston... Out of all this they have made millions. laHaye was "spiritual adviser" to George W Bush, among other things. The mind boggles.

What seems to me most mind-boggling is that there is literally NOTHING in the Bible to support this idea. They cobble together bits of OT prophecy, a couple of Jesus' sermons in the Synoptic Gospels, the passage in John 14 ('In My Father's house are many rooms; I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and take you to Myself, that where I am there you may be also...' - you see how they can twist the meaning to fit the idea of a rapture?) and a passage in 1 Thessalonians 4 which relates to the general resurrection from the dead at the end of time. The John 14 verses relate simply to Christ's promise that those who die in the faith will find a place in heaven, a place prepared and set apart for them by the Saviour Himself. 1 Thessalonians has no reference to tribulation or a further triumphant return to earth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Book of Revelation is a gold-mine for these guys - the Four Horsemen, the various plagues of locusts, boils, water turned to blood, and so on. It would be a wee bit more credible if every dispensationist commentary (that's what these guys are called - dispensationists) didn't disagree in many details with every other dispensationist commentary. Revelation is a VERY complex book.

I personally believe that there's a rational way to understand Revelation without getting into futurist end-time prophecy games. However, I'm thinking of putting it into a commentary of my own entitled 'Apocalyptic in Seven Easy Lessons', so I'm saying NO MORE! Buy the book when it comes out. (That was a joke, btw.)

Revelation was written by the same John who wrote the Gospel. It was written around AD 60, not long before the first major Roman persecution of the Church by the Emperor Nero. It was written to the congregations of the seven main churches in what's now western Turkey, and the main visions and symbolism are understandable in terms of OT apocalyptic found in the major prophets and in the Book of the Twelve (the 'minor prophets like Daniel, Zechariah, Joel and Habbakuk). These prophecies were fulfilled in the Neronian persecution of the Church in the late 60's AD and in Vespasian's destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The book ends with a vision of the Final Judgement to come at the end of time, when Christ will return in glory to bring in the Kingdom, when the righteous will receive their reward and the unrighteous their punishment. There are warnings and encouragement in the book for the present-day church, but the idea that one can somehow map out future history from the details of the visions is nonsense. Occam's Razor applies here - in spades.

I'd say it's that simple.

BTW - Christ's disciples asked Him when the Last Judgement would happen, and His reply was that even HE didn't know - only God the Father, Who would announce it in His own good time. I find it hard to believe that the Father would withhold the information from the Son, then put it into a coded prophecy at the end of the NT for Messrs Darby, Schofield, LaHaye and Jenkins and their pals to work out. Or that intelligent men like Augustine or Calvin wouldn't have spotted it long before Darby and Co - if it were there, which it isn't.

Interesting stuff. You're right about "Left Behind". Appalling.

The concept of the rapture as you describe it is as I understand it too - essentially completely made up, even from a biblical pespective. Which is kind of my point. I agree with you that its mind boggling that people believe in it, and believe in it with a passion and a fervour. That is absolutely their right, and I wouldn't deny that or their right to stand for office or to vote for someone with the same belief system, because that is completely undemocratic. We can agree on this although we are at diametrically opposite ends of the belief spectrum.

However, it is equally the right of people to wish to dissuade people from supporting them, or flagging up the inconsistencies in their politics, or highlight what I see as deeply dangerous possible outcomes if they come to power. A woman who believes in the apocalypse as something to be welcomed as it fulfils a prophecy and will allow her to ascend to heaven is not an individual I would want in charge of the miltary. Whether it is religion in a form of christianity (in line with your definition or otherwise), or muslim, or any other faith based on the certainty of a divine scripture, this absolutism of belief is an irrational basis on which to form and frame policy.

I didnt know about the fulfillment of prophecy in AD60/70 - I'll look that up. Revelation is a great read. Disturbing and (without being intentionally blasphemous or inflamatory) it does read as being unhinged or written by someone who is a bit trippy. It is so hugely different to the rest of the Bible it is astonishing.

I'll not go down the route of discussing the merits or otherwise of ID on this thread. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

All you're afraid of is other people like you. I wouldn't worry though as you balance each other out.

Sorry Fergus once more you have completely lost me. I haven't a clue what this means.

I'm afraid of other people like me? Erm. Noo.....

[Hibrandenburg]

Live and let live. So long as one group doesn't try and enforce its values upon the other there is no problem. Or in other words as soon as religious people stop trying to convert me then I'll stop telling them to piss-off.

[twiceinathens]

Michele Bachmann is merely the latest even more right wing woman than the last. On visits to North Carolina over the last couple of years I have observed with a mixture of amusement and fascination the presentation of politics in the American media and publications. The amazing Fox "News", presenters and authors such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. I normally purchase a couple of "current affairs" books - the latest from a political pundit and author called Ann Coulter. Her reaction to 9/11? "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. We should invade their countries,kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". Senator McCarthy? Misjudged. Abu Graib? Exaggerated. Global warming? Nonsense."The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century,So imagine a summer afternoon when it's 63 degrees and the next thing you know it's 64 degrees. Run for your lives" How to stop shootings? Carry a gun. Democrats=liberals=crypto-communists=traitors.
In order to trump Sarah Palin with a certain section of the electorate it is necessary to move even further right. Fortunately the Republicans found sarah Palin over the top so they are unlikely to go for Bachmann on a national level.

[hibsbollah]

Michele Bachmann is merely the latest even more right wing woman than the last. On visits to North Carolina over the last couple of years I have observed with a mixture of amusement and fascination the presentation of politics in the American media and publications. The amazing Fox "News", presenters and authors such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. I normally purchase a couple of "current affairs" books - the latest from a political pundit and author called Ann Coulter. Her reaction to 9/11? "We know who the homicidal maniacs are. We should invade their countries,kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". Senator McCarthy? Misjudged. Abu Graib? Exaggerated. Global warming? Nonsense."The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century,So imagine a summer afternoon when it's 63 degrees and the next thing you know it's 64 degrees. Run for your lives" How to stop shootings? Carry a gun. Democrats=liberals=crypto-communists=traitors.
In order to trump Sarah Palin with a certain section of the electorate it is necessary to move even further right. Fortunately the Republicans found sarah Palin over the top so they are unlikely to go for Bachmann on a national level.

If youve been to North Carolina you might have visited Asheville, a great place and a great antidote to tea partyism :-) Sometimes watching Glenn Beck, Fox News and the rest of the hysterical propaganda you could be forgiven for thinking America is a neo-fascist cultural desert. I think its more optimistic than that.

[Twa Cairpets]

Rick Perry. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/18/7407124-perry-to-child-on-creationism-vs-evolution-youre-smart-enough-to-figure-out-which-is-right)

A man who believes the Earth is 6000 years old, and a very, very credible candidate for being President. Whether or not this is religion/christianity in the Doddie-mould, it is a scary prospect.

[Betty Boop]

Rick Perry. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/18/7407124-perry-to-child-on-creationism-vs-evolution-youre-smart-enough-to-figure-out-which-is-right)

A man who believes the Earth is 6000 years old, and a very, very credible candidate for being President. Whether or not this is religion/christianity in the Doddie-mould, it is a scary prospect.

Rick Perry proposes Universal Haircare. :greengrin

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28856.htm

[--------]

Interesting stuff. You're right about "Left Behind". Appalling.

The concept of the rapture as you describe it is as I understand it too - essentially completely made up, even from a biblical pespective. Which is kind of my point. I agree with you that its mind boggling that people believe in it, and believe in it with a passion and a fervour. That is absolutely their right, and I wouldn't deny that or their right to stand for office or to vote for someone with the same belief system, because that is completely undemocratic. We can agree on this although we are at diametrically opposite ends of the belief spectrum.

However, it is equally the right of people to wish to dissuade people from supporting them, or flagging up the inconsistencies in their politics, or highlight what I see as deeply dangerous possible outcomes if they come to power. A woman who believes in the apocalypse as something to be welcomed as it fulfils a prophecy and will allow her to ascend to heaven is not an individual I would want in charge of the miltary. Whether it is religion in a form of christianity (in line with your definition or otherwise), or muslim, or any other faith based on the certainty of a divine scripture, this absolutism of belief is an irrational basis on which to form and frame policy.

I didnt know about the fulfillment of prophecy in AD60/70 - I'll look that up. Revelation is a great read. Disturbing and (without being intentionally blasphemous or inflamatory) it does read as being unhinged or written by someone who is a bit trippy. It is so hugely different to the rest of the Bible it is astonishing.

I'll not go down the route of discussing the merits or otherwise of ID on this thread. :wink:


You might find a couple of books by Hank Hanegraaff interesting - "Christianity in Crisis - 21st Century" in which he discusses (exposes, rather) the Prosperity Preachers like Benny Hinn. Morris Cerrullo, Kenneth Copeland and the like, and "The Apocalypse Code", which deals with Revelation and the Prophecy writers like LaHaye. He makes the point that LaHaye and Bachmann and their ilk are more concerned to concentrate as many Jews in Israel as quickly as possible (to accelerate the onset of Armageddon - which will, according to them, result in the gruesome and agonising deaths of millions of those Jews) than they are to see them being converted a to faith in Jesus as the true Messiah - which, in terms of the historic Christian faith, would lead to their inheriting eternal life in heaven.

Now I KNOW you're not a believer, TC, but if you were, wouldn't you be more concerned to see as many Jews as possible saved from the wrath to come than encouraging them to emigrate to Israel to serve as cannon-fodder in the Last Battle in Human History? I would go so far as to say that these people aren't Christians in any sense of the word coformable to either the Bible or the mainstream churches of the past 2 millennia.

[CFC]

Theres nothing wrong with religious faith impacting ones decision making. Its the fundamentalists in all religions in fact extremists in all walks of life that are the problem. all things in moderation is a good mantra, in fact being a moderate is i believe an honourable trait for someone to have, the ability to see things from multiple standpoints.

[Twa Cairpets]

You might find a couple of books by Hank Hanegraaff interesting - "Christianity in Crisis - 21st Century" in which he discusses (exposes, rather) the Prosperity Preachers like Benny Hinn. Morris Cerrullo, Kenneth Copeland and the like, and "The Apocalypse Code", which deals with Revelation and the Prophecy writers like LaHaye. He makes the point that LaHaye and Bachmann and their ilk are more concerned to concentrate as many Jews in Israel as quickly as possible (to accelerate the onset of Armageddon - which will, according to them, result in the gruesome and agonising deaths of millions of those Jews) than they are to see them being converted a to faith in Jesus as the true Messiah - which, in terms of the historic Christian faith, would lead to their inheriting eternal life in heaven.

Now I KNOW you're not a believer, TC, but if you were, wouldn't you be more concerned to see as many Jews as possible saved from the wrath to come than encouraging them to emigrate to Israel to serve as cannon-fodder in the Last Battle in Human History? I would go so far as to say that these people aren't Christians in any sense of the word coformable to either the Bible or the mainstream churches of the past 2 millennia.

And I would tend to agree with you, although the fragmented nature of christian faith (something like 34,000 different denominations claiming they're each correct in their interpretation) is why I said "Politics and Faith" rather than "Politics and christianity" shouldnt mix. If the Scientologists suddenly had a surge in popularity and became an important religious force then they would be seen, rightly, to be dangerous and untrustworthy people to be in charge, to a large extent because of what they believe. They are entirely at liberty to believe that we are the remnants of the Thetans and the space traveller Xenu, but I strongly believe that people who believe this are a bit unhinged. They have, I am sure the same depth of belief and certainty as you, Bachmann and any other devout person of any faith. Notwithstanding the fact that at most only one faith system can actually be entirely correct, just because your interpretation is benign and essentially good by any reasonable standard, other people driven by the same certainty have less pleasant aspirations. To quote yourself : Bachmann and their ilk are more concerned to concentrate as many Jews in Israel as quickly as possible (to accelerate the onset of Armageddon - which will, according to them, result in the gruesome and agonising deaths of millions of those Jews), that sends a cold shiver up my spine.

As for your question, I dont want anyone killed in any wrath, which to me would be a far better way for a deity to comport himself.

And thanks for the book tips - I will try to get round to them amongst my growing stack of unread books and Kindle downloads...

[--------]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/elected-president-rick-perry-could-still-jog-gun-190824495.html
(http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html)

What about THIS guy? :cool2:


Seems fair enough to me... :devil:

[PeeJay]

I've read more than I've contributed to this interesting thread, for me personally R. Dawkins in his Washington Post Blog expresses my feelings pretty accurately and better than I ever could:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-perry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html

[Twa Cairpets]

Had to happen - Bachmann claims Hurricane Irene is from God (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2011/08/bachmann-god-politicians), apparently to warn about over-spending.

The crazy, dangerous zealot.

(And yes, she did claim she was joking, but then also reclaimes she wasnt takin ganything lightly. She meant it, and she is crazy).

[hibsbollah]

Had to happen - Bachmann claims Hurricane Irene is from God (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2011/08/bachmann-god-politicians), apparently to warn about over-spending.

The crazy, dangerous zealot.

(And yes, she did claim she was joking, but then also reclaimes she wasnt takin ganything lightly. She meant it, and she is crazy).

The ubiquitous Glenn Beck said the same thing the other day. Repetition makes even mad things seem respectable.

[--------]

Had to happen - Bachmann claims Hurricane Irene is from God (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/star-spangled-staggers/2011/08/bachmann-god-politicians), apparently to warn about over-spending.

The crazy, dangerous zealot.

(And yes, she did claim she was joking, but then also reclaimes she wasnt takin ganything lightly. She meant it, and she is crazy).


I think you can relax, TC. It appears she's sinking fairly rapidly now.


BTW - I google-imaged "Tommy Carcetti" - remember him from "The Wire"? - the other day, and got a bunch of pictures of Barak Obama....

Odd. :rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

I think you can relax, TC. It appears she's sinking fairly rapidly now.




Yep, but we now have the delightful prospect of those intellectual heavyweights Mitt Romney and Rick Perry slugging it out. Ye Gods.

[--------]

Yep, but we now have the delightful prospect of those intellectual heavyweights Mitt Romney and Rick Perry slugging it out. Ye Gods.


The political equivalent of Joe Bugner and Brian London - if you're old enough to remember? :wink:


However, they may very well all cut one another's throats long before the primaries:

http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-gop-foes-seek-cracks-perrys-record-071520872.html (http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-gop-foes-seek-cracks-perrys-record-071520872.html)

I particularly like the comment, "If you're saying I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended..."

It reminds me of the story of the man who walks into a bar.

He sits down beside an absolutely stunning woman and asks if he can buy her a drink.

She says, Yes, thank you, and the evening progresses from there.

A while later, the guy asks her, "If I paid you a million dollars, would you have sex with me?"

"Well," she replies, "for a million dollars, I suppose I would."

"How about fifty bucks and a Chinese take-out?" he asks.

The woman's outraged.

"What do you think I am? A prostitute?"

"Well, says the guy, "I thought we'd already established that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

Mr Perry is almost certainly dirty - VERY dirty. He couldn't be where he is if he wasn't. All his response to Bachmann proves is that he's an expensive crook who thinks he's one of the good guys.

[Twa Cairpets]

The political equivalent of Joe Bugner and Brian London - if you're old enough to remember? :wink:

Bugner yes, London - oh come on...

I suspect strongly that both had a better grasp on reality than either Romney or Perry though.

[--------]

Bugner yes, London - oh come on...

I suspect strongly that both had a better grasp on reality than either Romney or Perry though.


OK - what about Ruud Lubbers? Or Jack Bodell?


(Now do you see why I'm such a twisted, cynical, tortured, dysfunctional person? All those hellish memories from my teenage years?

The horror... The horror...)

[cabbageandribs1875]

michele bachmann and sarah palin could talk politics to me for years to come :drool::yum yum: (might even listen to what they were saying) :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

michele bachmann and sarah palin could talk politics to me for years to come :drool::yum yum: (might even listen to what they were saying) :greengrin

I'm now feeling nauseous.

[RyeSloan]

I think you can relax, TC. It appears she's sinking fairly rapidly now.


BTW - I google-imaged "Tommy Carcetti" - remember him from "The Wire"? - the other day, and got a bunch of pictures of Barak Obama....

Odd. :rolleyes:

Two sides of the same coin that's why....did they not even have very similar election slogans?

Kind of ambitious wanna be do gooder gets turned by the establishment into yet another self serving politician?

[--------]

Two sides of the same coin that's why....did they not even have very similar election slogans?

Kind of ambitious wanna be do gooder gets turned by the establishment into yet another self serving politician?


I really didn't know there was any other kind....

[ballengeich]

OK - what about Ruud Lubbers? Or Jack Bodell?


(Now do you see why I'm such a twisted, cynical, tortured, dysfunctional person? All those hellish memories from my teenage years?

The horror... The horror...)

I'm lost. How did a former Prime Minister of the Netherlands get into a list of mediocre English boxers? Your teenage years must have been even worse than mine:greengrin

[--------]

I'm lost. How did a former Prime Minister of the Netherlands get into a list of mediocre English boxers? Your teenage years must have been even worse than mine:greengrin



Sorry. Got mixed up there. It was RUDI Lubbers I was thinking of.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Rudi_Lubbers

He went professional around 1969. His main, indeed only memorable quality was an uncanny ability to remain upright while his opponent knocked seven bells out of him.

I have to admit that my recollection of things that happened while I was at Uni in the 60's can be slightly garbled at times. Can't think why.




I suppose this shows that politics and sport don't mix either.... :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

I really didn't know there was any other kind....

:greengrin Fair point!

[greenlex]

The recent "Church of Scotland" thread focussed on the impact of religion on personal morals and the potential of faith to impact on society in the UK.In the USA it is altogether a more scary situation, and to me is the natural outcome of religion being preached and accepted. If you haven't heard of Michele Bachmann, you will. She is a Republican presidential candidate who makes Sarah Palin look like an agnostic leftie. There is a really good article on her in "Rolling Stone" here. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622?page=4) It's quite a long piece, but well worth the read. The summary however is the really scary bit: I am new to this thread but does she really have 28 kids?

[Twa Cairpets]

I am new to this thread but does she really have 28 kids?

It includes those she has fostered.

[BEEJ]

Its not so much the the fact that people believe, but the zeal with which they believe which means that no alternative can be brooked despite any evidence or advice to the extraordinary.


All you're afraid of is other people like you. I wouldn't worry though as you balance each other out.


Sorry Fergus once more you have completely lost me. I haven't a clue what this means.

I'm afraid of other people like me? Erm. Noo.....
I believe the point Fergus was making was concerning your own zeal to promote atheism. :greengrin

I've rarely seen anyone quite so enthusiastic to advance their particular belief system, usually by taking every possible opportunity to undermine other 'faiths'. You appear at times to want to trample them down with an unseemly relish.

And on that score I have to say post #67 on this thread is a low-point in this crusade of yours.

You claimed that you were going to "hit this on the head once and for all" and then launched into the argument that Hitler was a Christian. You would quite gladly have left that there without retraction had other posters not made a point of correcting you.

Poor by your own standards, TC. You may not believe in a God but I thought you had more respect for other faiths than to come out with that nonsense and present it as factual evidence. Hardly a scientific approach to the issue. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

I believe the point Fergus was making was concerning your own zeal to promote atheism. :greengrin

I've rarely seen anyone quite so enthusiastic to advance their particular belief system, usually by taking every possible opportunity to undermine other 'faiths'. You appear at times to want to trample them down with an unseemly relish.

I hope not too unseemly in my relish. I certainly enjoy these threads and the debates they create.

I'm not promoting a belief system either - maybe a lack of belief system :wink:.As for undermining peoples faith, maybe that's a fair accusation. I hope for the most part it could also be described as challenging people to think about their own belief system. I actually rather hope I can be accused of this - I am certainly more than happy to discuss and defend why I think the way I do.

I have virtually no respect for religion, nor the way it affects people, but I've not got a problem with people believing what they want. I think very few atheists proselytise about it - within the "atheist movement" such as it is there is little attempt to "convert" people, mostly because there isnt a tangible thing to convert people to. It's different in the US to the UK because of the prevalence and influence of christian evangelism, discrimination against atheists and the (to my mind) danger of the close links with the Republicans/Tea Party.

It's a largely pointless exercise trying to convert someone away from a belief system to a non-belief system anyway - I think its something that people have to come to themselves by rational reflection on what they think. For myself, I never had any belief in the first place, and was entirely free to believe what I wanted, and as Ive got older and more interested in the subject I've become massively more convinced that atheism can be the only correct stance. Having said that, I'm absolutely open to being converted if the evidence presents itself. Just one little miracle would do.


And on that score I have to say post #67 on this thread is a low-point in this crusade of yours.

You claimed that you were going to "hit this on the head once and for all" and then launched into the argument that Hitler was a Christian. You would quite gladly have left that there without retraction had other posters not made a point of correcting you.

Poor by your own standards, TC. You may not believe in a God but I thought you had more respect for other faiths than to come out with that nonsense and present it as factual evidence. Hardly a scientific approach to the issue. :wink:

Bit unfair I think.

The post was a specific response to FalkirkHibee, who brought out the canard about atheist leaders/states of the 20th century. The argument "I launched into" was a direct quote from a Hitler speech, with link to the source. Two posts later I also stated this (and with apologies for quoting myself):


I think its fair that he wasn't a christian by any reasonable understanding of the phrase - maybe theist is a better way of describing him.

But to an extent it is unimportant. His use of religion as a weapon, whether or not he believed it, is important within the context of this thread.

Whether or not it is the state sponsored promulgation of concepts such as those espoused in, for example, "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it is quite clearly a religiously driven justification for actions that is accepted by the masses as being acceptable.

As for respect for faiths, I'm sorry if you had the impression I have respect for them. I can have respect for individuals who hold the beliefs, because having faith doesnt make someone a bad person. I think they're wrong in what they believe, but they're perfectly entitiled to hold this beliefs and I'm delighted to discuss it with them. But faith itself and the institutions that promote them? - no, I dont have respect for that, which is one of the reasons I started the thread. Fervent belief in the mystical and executive political power is not a good combination. Having respect for the former of these gives it a credibility and validity that can be easily mistaken for approval.

[BEEJ]

I hope not too unseemly in my relish. I certainly enjoy these threads and the debates they create.

I'm not promoting a belief system either - maybe a lack of belief system :wink:.As for undermining peoples faith, maybe that's a fair accusation. I hope for the most part it could also be described as challenging people to think about their own belief system. I actually rather hope I can be accused of this - I am certainly more than happy to discuss and defend why I think the way I do.
There is a suggestion in there that those who hold belief in a deity never consider or think about their faith. A misguided perspective, if I may say so. And to present yourself as the champion of reason bringing otherwise mind-dull believers to account for themselves smells faintly of arrogance.


I have virtually no respect for religion, nor the way it affects people, but I've not got a problem with people believing what they want.
This much I have learned from your post. Apologies for misunderstanding where you were coming from previously.


I think very few atheists proselytise about it - within the "atheist movement" such as it is there is little attempt to "convert" people, mostly because there isnt a tangible thing to convert people to.
Why not? It's a belief system like any other. After all, to believe that there is absolutely nothing there except the wit and will of humanity and the natural earth that somehow has formed around us by happy accident over the course of hundreds of millions of years, takes a great deal of faith. :wink:


For myself, I never had any belief in the first place, and was entirely free to believe what I wanted, and as Ive got older and more interested in the subject I've become massively more convinced that atheism can be the only correct stance.
One thing we have in common then on this topic. I was not forced to believe in anything in particular either, through family upbringing or schooling. However, we have reached radically different conclusions.



Bit unfair I think.

The post was a specific response to FalkirkHibee, who brought out the canard about atheist leaders/states of the 20th century. The argument "I launched into" was a direct quote from a Hitler speech, with link to the source. Two posts later I also stated this (and with apologies for quoting myself):
As someone who appears to investigate most things thoroughly (as a 'scientist' would do) you didn't take any time to think through or investigate that nonsensical and irrelevant quote before presenting it to the world as fact. Your subsequent 'climbdown' only emerged as a result of a couple of posters taking you to task for it.

You are someone who will spend ages setting out complex arguments that seek to undermine faith in God, for example, by highlighting what you believe to be contradictions in scripture. You will go to great lengths to correct folks who appear, in your opinion, to have misunderstood some aspect of scientific thinking.

But you didn't give a second thought to this claim about Hitler before presenting it as some kind of factual evidence in support of your crusade. Convenient for you maybe; but pretty shoddy in the final analysis.

[One Day Soon]

I really didn't know there was any other kind....

Nelson Mandela

[Twa Cairpets]

There is a suggestion in there that those who hold belief in a deity never consider or think about their faith. A misguided perspective, if I may say so. And to present yourself as the champion of reason bringing otherwise mind-dull believers to account for themselves smells faintly of arrogance.

No, I think a great many people of faith question it regularly, particularly in times of stress and anguish. It is clear some people - many people - derive comfort from that faith, and if that works for them, fine. It doesn't make what they believe "true", in the sense of being accurate and correct.

There is however much unthinking acceptance of religious dogma though across all religions, and in the context of this thread this worries me. Organised religious faith is designed explcitly to minimise divergence from a common set of beliefs, and where schism occurs within a faith it's seldom pretty. Challenging that acceptance might be arrogant, in which case guilty m'lud.

I like the idea of being "The Champion of Reason". I may have a t-shirt made...:greengrin


Why not? It's a belief system like any other. After all, to believe that there is absolutely nothing there except the wit and will of humanity and the natural earth that somehow has formed around us by happy accident over the course of hundreds of millions of years, takes a great deal of faith. :wink:

Smiley notwithstanding, it takes no faith at all to be an atheist. It's not a belief system because we don't have to accept things as being true on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. If you're saying "oh but you believe science", well, yes, because its demonstrable, consistent, doesnt claim to have all the answers, and its fundamental correctness doesnt change depending on when or where you happen to be born. Thats not faith though.


As someone who appears to investigate most things thoroughly (as a 'scientist' would do) you didn't take any time to think through or investigate that nonsensical and irrelevant quote before presenting it to the world as fact. Your subsequent 'climbdown' only emerged as a result of a couple of posters taking you to task for it.

Its nothing to do within scientific analysis or investigation.

The quote is a fact. Hitler did say it.

Its nonsensical because Hitler said it. It's relevant because it is a direct claim by Hitler to being a christian. What you see as a climbdown was to me a pretty civilised discussion, at the centre of which was the fact that ultimately it didnt matter if he lied about his faith or not as long as he used religion to justify his actions - i.e. the use of religion as a justification for extreme political actions by a powerful leader. The reason for the quote was to show that the oft-touted line about Hitler doing what he did because of his atheism is just not true.


You are someone who will spend ages setting out complex arguments that seek to undermine faith in God, for example, by highlighting what you believe to be contradictions in scripture. You will go to great lengths to correct folks who appear, in your opinion, to have misunderstood some aspect of scientific thinking.

Yes, because when youre discussing interesting, important and complex issues I think that it is often important to be structrued and detailed. One of the good things about internet forums is that you can answer after doing a bit of research, or set out your thoughts in a bit more detail than you might otherwise be able to do. If people want to respond likewise then great, if not then its fair game to be challenged. Isnt that what debates are about?

But you didn't give a second thought to this claim about Hitler before presenting it as some kind of factual evidence in support of your crusade. Convenient for you maybe; but pretty shoddy in the final analysis.

Not surprisingly I disagree, and your take on the matter I think is just wrong. It is nothing to do with any crusade, it was a very specific response to a very specific point within the wider context of the thread.

[One Day Soon]

No, I think a great many people of faith question it regularly, particularly in times of stress and anguish. It is clear some people - many people - derive comfort from that faith, and if that works for them, fine. It doesn't make what they believe "true", in the sense of being accurate and correct.

There is however much unthinking acceptance of religious dogma though across all religions, and in the context of this thread this worries me. Organised religious faith is designed explcitly to minimise divergence from a common set of beliefs, and where schism occurs within a faith it's seldom pretty. Challenging that acceptance might be arrogant, in which case guilty m'lud.

I like the idea of being "The Champion of Reason". I may have a t-shirt made...:greengrin

You have seen scientists disagreeing right? You think that's pretty? You do realise that science is also designed to 'minimise divergence from a common set of beliefs'? It would be pointless otherwise.



Smiley notwithstanding, it takes no faith at all to be an atheist. It's not a belief system because we don't have to accept things as being true on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. If you're saying "oh but you believe science", well, yes, because its demonstrable, consistent, doesnt claim to have all the answers, and its fundamental correctness doesnt change depending on when or where you happen to be born. Thats not faith though.

Like nothing can travel faster than the speed of light you mean? Oh, wait a minute....



Its nothing to do within scientific analysis or investigation.

The quote is a fact. Hitler did say it.

Its nonsensical because Hitler said it. It's relevant because it is a direct claim by Hitler to being a christian. What you see as a climbdown was to me a pretty civilised discussion, at the centre of which was the fact that ultimately it didnt matter if he lied about his faith or not as long as he used religion to justify his actions - i.e. the use of religion as a justification for extreme political actions by a powerful leader. The reason for the quote was to show that the oft-touted line about Hitler doing what he did because of his atheism is just not true.

Once upon a time eminent members of the Edinburgh medical establishment used the advancement of science as justification for paying body snatchers and murderers to bring them corpses, warm or cold. Does that make an equivalent argument about the use of science as a justification for extreme actions by establishment figures? Or did Nazi claims on eugenics experimentation as scientific advancement in the concentration camps mean that science is bad? If you truly believe that Hitler was motivated by religion then you need to read some history.

Not surprisingly I disagree, and your take on the matter I think is just wrong. It is nothing to do with any crusade, it was a very specific response to a very specific point within the wider context of the thread.

Crusade is such a loaded religious term. I think you have more of an obsession.

[Twa Cairpets]

You have seen scientists disagreeing right? You think that's pretty? You do realise that science is also designed to 'minimise divergence from a common set of beliefs'? It would be pointless otherwise.

At the risk of another accusation of arrogance, you are miles off the mark - in fact diametrically wrong in your description of how the scientific method works. Scientific theories and hypotheses stand to be challenged, queried, and tested. If they weren't all advancement and development would just stop. What it does do is provide a common set of rules and principles which people can use. These rules are based on evidence, not dogma or faith.

As for disagreements, they tend to be argued in scientific journals rather than from the pulpit. Very seldom do they condemn those they disagree with to damnation or blow them up on the basis of their opinion.


Like nothing can travel faster than the speed of light you mean? Oh, wait a minute....
Never mind the fact that this directly contradicts your first statement in the way I suspect it was meant, but its not quite right yet and if does show that some theories are wrong - Great. A theory will have been tested and shown to be wrong, and if the evidence supports it, everyone within the scientific community will come to the conclusion that the paradigm in which they have operated is wrong. Religious faith just doesnt allow that option of evidential review and modification.


Once upon a time eminent members of the Edinburgh medical establishment used the advancement of science as justification for paying body snatchers and murderers to bring them corpses, warm or cold. (1) Does that make an equivalent argument about the use of science as a justification for extreme actions by establishment figures? (2) Or did Nazi claims on eugenics experimentation as scientific advancement in the concentration camps mean that science is bad? If you truly believe that Hitler was motivated by religion then you need to read some history.

This is just tripe.
In answer to your questions:
1) No, of course it doesnt. I cant think of anyone who would say it would.
2) No, it doesnt mean that science is bad. It does mean that people with warped ideas in a society with extreme views can commit vile acts (which is where the thread started).

I'm pretty happy with knowledge of history, thanks. For the purposes of clarity for the thread, which was, you may recall, about why faith and politics are not good bedfellows, the point about whether or not Hitler was a christian is a moot point. I believe the historical evidence suggests he was, others don't - I suspect we will not know definitively. What is important is that the use of religion and religious bigotry in the form of extreme anti-semitism was a core element of his regime. Because they were equally appalling to other groups such as gypsies and mentally handicapped doesnt mean that the anti-semitism was therefore not religiously based.


Crusade is such a loaded religious term. I think you have more of an obsession.[/B]
I think you'll notice I didnt use the word crusade. As for obsession, nah not really. Its a topic I find fascinating and its good fun to discuss, but you won't find me on street corners reading allowed from Principia.

[--------]

I would suggest that 'religion' is a term applicable to ANY set of beliefs, rational or irrational, that mould the believer's behaviour and relationships.

Hitler (like a great many people) believed the scientific theory of eugenics - a theory which at the time was touted as fact by those who had 'studied' it, based their scientific careers on it, and derived their position in the scientific world, their academic status, and their income from it.

Today' 'scientific facts' are tomorrow's 'discredited theories', and some of those discredited theories (like eugenics, for example, or the existence of the wonderful substance phlogiston) have turned out to be more relevant to the scientists' personal hang-ups or incompetence than to any basis in reality. It's worth remembering that the astronomers who opposed Galileo were themselves the scientists of THEIR day - another misconstrued scientific theory formulated and defended in agreement with the prevailing ideology of a particular culture and society.

It's fortunate (for them) that scientists don't live any longer than the rest of us - otherwise they might live long enough to be embarrassed by the collapse of their own certainties.

What I cannot comprehend, however, is the way in which the monstrous crimes attributable to scientific racism in the 19th and 20th centuries should always be laid at the door of religion. Or why the tens of millions of deaths encompassed by Communist regimes overtly and stridently atheist should be glossed over while the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are routinely gone over and over and over as examples of the uniquely corruptive influence of a belief in God.

It seems to me that fanaticism of any kind is the real problem - and the nasty habit the human being has of seeing anyone who disagrees with him as somehow inferior and therefore ripe for insult, mockery, punishment, and (eventually) extermination.

[Twa Cairpets]

I would suggest that 'religion' is a term applicable to ANY set of beliefs, rational or irrational, that mould the believer's behaviour and relationships.


I would disagree - religion to me requires faith in the supernatural, offers after-death continuance of the soul and requires worship. Your beliefs (as in I believe there is a God/isnt a God) can shape someones behavioiur, sure - I think it's wrong to conflate the two).


Hitler (like a great many people) believed the scientific theory of eugenics - a theory which at the time was touted as fact by those who had 'studied' it, based their scientific careers on it, and derived their position in the scientific world, their academic status, and their income from it.

Eugenics was (or at least certainly became) the pseudoscientific mis-application of science used for political means. Bad science does not stand the test of time because the success or failure of a theory (the scientific element of it) stands solely on its repeatability and demonstrability. Eugenics was as much an unleasnat philosophy a sit was a science.


Today' 'scientific facts' are tomorrow's 'discredited theories', and some of those discredited theories (like eugenics, for example, or the existence of the wonderful substance phlogiston) have turned out to be more relevant to the scientists' personal hang-ups or incompetence than to any basis in reality. It's worth remembering that the astronomers who opposed Galileo were themselves the scientists of THEIR day - another misconstrued scientific theory formulated and defended in agreement with the prevailing ideology of a particular culture and society.

It's fortunate (for them) that scientists don't live any longer than the rest of us - otherwise they might live long enough to be embarrassed by the collapse of their own certainties.

For me, the ability (and indeed requirement) for science to self correct is fantastic. The ability for people to look at the current set of knowledge in any given field, challenge it and for the entire working paradigm to shift as a result is great. It is this very mutability that is its strength, and one of the most important facets that differentiates it from religion (which is essentially unchangebale and unchallengeable).


What I cannot comprehend, however, is the way in which the monstrous crimes attributable to scientific racism in the 19th and 20th centuries should always be laid at the door of religion. Or why the tens of millions of deaths encompassed by Communist regimes overtly and stridently atheist should be glossed over while the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are routinely gone over and over and over as examples of the uniquely corruptive influence of a belief in God.

It seems to me that fanaticism of any kind is the real problem - and the nasty habit the human being has of seeing anyone who disagrees with him as somehow inferior and therefore ripe for insult, mockery, punishment, and (eventually) extermination.[/QUOTE]

I dont think it should all be laid at the door of religion - far from it. But the atrocities committed have never, as fas as I know, been committed in the name of atheism. Undoubtedly many deaths have been caused in the name of religion, with the name of whichever deity people believe in invoked as righteous justification. I think you're right, fanaticsm and extremism does drive the most extreme acts, be they state sponsored or individual, religious, political or racial.

The last few posts were something of a hijack off-topic that I felt the need to respond to, but in an attempt to bring it back, the last line of your post is important. Earlier in the thread, you stated that the likes of Bachmann weren't christians. They would clearly disagree, and I think it would be fair to state that they would be at an extreme end of the spectrum of religion, if you believe they fall off the radar of christianity.

Mainstream religion can create a bedrock of credibility for extremism, and in the western world, there is a strong interlink between fundamentalist religion and right wing politics. The rise of Bachmann, Palin and The Tea Party is a dangerous mix of divine direction and political influence, supported uncritically by a huge number of people because they are used to accepting what they are fed uncritically, predominantly I believe because they are part of a culture of unquestioning acceptance of doctrine. Its not hard to find examples of them insulting, mocking and seeking to punish their idealogical opponents. How long until their extermination is on the cards and seen as justified?

[--------]

[QUOTE=TwoCarpets;2930489]

Eugenics was (or at least certainly became) the pseudoscientific mis-application of science used for political means. Bad science does not stand the test of time because the success or failure of a theory (the scientific element of it) stands solely on its repeatability and demonstrability. Eugenics was as much an unleasnat philosophy a sit was a science.

But how do we know which is the bad science and which is the good science - us laymen, I mean, being talked down to by the experts? We have to wait for the nice scientists to own up that they've been codding us for the past fifty years?

Whatever scientific (or pseudo-scientific) world-view happens to be fashionable at a particular time moulds the politics of that time. Scirntists aren't the starry-eyed searchers after truth you're making them out to be - they're hard-headed careerists competing for grants, fellowships and influence. Politicised science IS a religion - or the idol that people who claim to be non-religious worship.



For me, the ability (and indeed requirement) for science to self correct is fantastic. The ability for people to look at the current set of knowledge in any given field, challenge it and for the entire working paradigm to shift as a result is great. It is this very mutability that is its strength, and one of the most important facets that differentiates it from religion (which is essentially unchangebale and unchallengeable).

Like the scientific community of the 17th century was so ready to self-correct when Galileo came along? I know that in the end the correction was made, but that didn't help the heretics at the time - and I remind you, the scientific community was just as intolerant of GG as was the Roman Church.



I dont think it should all be laid at the door of religion - far from it. But the atrocities committed have never, as fas as I know, been committed in the name of atheism. Undoubtedly many deaths have been caused in the name of religion, with the name of whichever deity people believe in invoked as righteous justification. I think you're right, fanaticsm and extremism does drive the most extreme acts, be they state sponsored or individual, religious, political or racial.

The Soviet government was overtly atheist from its inception in 1917. It spawned similar atheist regimes throughout Eastern Europe and Asia. How many did they imprison, torture, starve or brutalise? Are the present rulers of the People's Republic of China religious believers? What about their human rights record? Ideology IS religion under another name.




The last few posts were something of a hijack off-topic that I felt the need to respond to, but in an attempt to bring it back, the last line of your post is important. Earlier in the thread, you stated that the likes of Bachmann weren't christians. They would clearly disagree, and I think it would be fair to state that they would be at an extreme end of the spectrum of religion, if you believe they fall off the radar of christianity.

Mainstream religion can create a bedrock of credibility for extremism, and in the western world, there is a strong interlink between fundamentalist religion and right wing politics. The rise of Bachmann, Palin and The Tea Party is a dangerous mix of divine direction and political influence, supported uncritically by a huge number of people because they are used to accepting what they are fed uncritically, predominantly I believe because they are part of a culture of unquestioning acceptance of doctrine. Its not hard to find examples of them insulting, mocking and seeking to punish their idealogical opponents. How long until their extermination is on the cards and seen as justified?


I could argue that the problem with Bachmann and Co. lies in the areas of their lives and thought where they've drifted away from Biblical Christianity and accepted the falsehoods of the godless philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism. (Or 'Manifest Destiny, or whatever.)

Just as the farther Hitler and Stalin drifted from Christianity, the nastier and more brutal THEY became. (Although I think the closest they ever got to Christianity was Roman or Orthodox religiosity, myself.)

I've never denied that the Religious Right in America is both unpleasant and dangerous. But you seem to think that the answer is to exclude 'religion' - I think this will ultimately mean 'religious believers' - from the political process, and to build a political culture founded on 'sound scientific principles' that exclude any belief in God. You seem to think that true morality lies with the disengaged atheist free-thinker, fearlessly going where no one has gone before, and openly and honestly self-correcting all his errors as he goes. (I'm sorry if that seems a bitty sarcastic, but I'm simply trying to apply my mind to interpreting the data available to me.)

Well, that's been tried, and it doesn't work, because it doesn't take into account the fact that everyone, including the supposedly well-balanced scientists and philosophers and politicians who don't believe in God, is motivated by pride and self-interest, and in the last analysis will feed that pride and pursue that self-interest before anything and everything else in the world...

The disengaged atheist free-thinker, fearlessly going where no one has gone before, and openly and honestly self-correcting all his errors as he goes doesn't exist. Or if he does, an atheist totalitarian kills him.

The atheist philosopher Mikhail Bakhunin wrote that freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. Nice thought, but it won't work. Human nature won't let it.

What would the atheist Stalin have done with the atheist Bakhunin, I wonder... :chop:

[Twa Cairpets]

But how do we know which is the bad science and which is the good science - us laymen, I mean, being talked down to by the experts? We have to wait for the nice scientists to own up that they've been codding us for the past fifty years?

Why are you talked down to? I dont buy that. I've been trying not to justify the credentials of science by saying "well look at religion", but the arch proponets of talking down to - preaching, one might even call it - are the leaders of religions surely.

Lots of science is very complex, and therefore not open to understanding by the majority of people - this doesnt make it elitist by design, just by capacity to understand. I've got a postgraduate degree in a scientific discipline but I dont pretend to understand quantum mechanics, microelectronics or astrophysics. I also dont feel patronised when people who do understand this stuff talk about it or try to explain it in lay terms. Why should I?

And when you look at this idea of "theyve changed their mind, what do they know" - examples out there, certainly in the modern era, are very few. The development of knowledge is incremental rather than dramatic. What is often referred to as "Darwinism", for example, doesn't exist - the science of evolutionary biology has developed, discovered where Darwin was wrong in detail, and amended thinking accordingly.

Where ideas have been wrong, theyve been challenged and proven to be so. Cold Fusion is a great example.


Whatever scientific (or pseudo-scientific) world-view happens to be fashionable at a particular time moulds the politics of that time. Scirntists aren't the starry-eyed searchers after truth you're making them out to be - they're hard-headed careerists competing for grants, fellowships and influence. Politicised science IS a religion - or the idol that people who claim to be non-religious worship.

I do not think that science guides world views. I certainly dont think it should, other than as a basis upon which to make decisions. I cant think of a single state or regime that has been elected or come to power on the basis of a devotion to science. Without a doubt the prevailing political climate or religious belief system has a dramtaically greater impact. The last line is just not true. Nobody worships science. Nobody prays to science. Nobody has religious faith in science.

And youre right, people involved in science are subject to exactly the same human flaws as everyone. What is different though is that ultimately the claims they make can be challenged and tested. If they're wrong, they will be shown to be so. Thats not something that can be done with any religion.



[/I]Like the scientific community of the 17th century was so ready to self-correct when Galileo came along? I know that in the end the correction was made, but that didn't help the heretics at the time - and I remind you, the scientific community was just as intolerant of GG as was the Roman Church.

This is an odd example. Galileo was right. Geocentrism was a thought process based on biblical teaching, and a valid hypothesis for the knowledge extant at the time (a valid hypothesis does not make for a valid theory). His work showed that the evidence didnt support this, and he was condemned by the establishment, primarily on the grounds of heresy. The scientific community of the time were also people of religion. There's lots of other examples of this type of outrage, much closer to home with Hutton and Lyell.



The Soviet government was overtly atheist from its inception in 1917. It spawned similar atheist regimes throughout Eastern Europe and Asia. How many did they imprison, torture, starve or brutalise? Are the present rulers of the People's Republic of China religious believers? What about their human rights record? Ideology IS religion under another name.

I'm not defending anything people have done in the name of God or in the name of politics. Yes, the Communist regime were avowedly atheist, yes they were appalling, yes they were evil. I dont agree with ideology being religion unless it is a personality cult where a leader is revered and worshipped - such as the Nazis maybe? - but it is a moot point.

Even allowing for the argument that "ah, if they'd been religious and believed in a God they wouldnt have done it" as being 100% correct, it does not make that belief system correct. It does not mean that the tenets and morals and creation myths and teachings and devotional requirements of that religion are correct or that they make make one jot of difference. Elements of it might, sure, but if you have to swallow the whole package that doesnt make it all right. If you have to agree that everything that is written down in a book is correct now, was correct then and will be correct for ever despite whatever we may learn or discover, then I'm sorry, but that is just obscene. A theocracy is designed to keep its citizens subjugated, cowed and ignorant every bit as much as a totalitarian regime.


I could argue that the problem with Bachmann and Co. lies in the areas of their lives and thought where they've drifted away from Biblical Christianity and accepted the falsehoods of the godless philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism. (Or 'Manifest Destiny, or whatever.)

Just as the farther Hitler and Stalin drifted from Christianity, the nastier and more brutal THEY became. (Although I think the closest they ever got to Christianity was Roman or Orthodox religiosity, myself.)

I've never denied that the Religious Right in America is both unpleasant and dangerous. But you seem to think that the answer is to exclude 'religion' - I think this will ultimately mean 'religious believers' - from the political process, and to build a political culture founded on 'sound scientific principles' that exclude any belief in God. You seem to think that true morality lies with the disengaged atheist free-thinker, fearlessly going where no one has gone before, and openly and honestly self-correcting all his errors as he goes. (I'm sorry if that seems a bitty sarcastic, but I'm simply trying to apply my mind to interpreting the data available to me.)

Well, that's been tried, and it doesn't work, because it doesn't take into account the fact that everyone, including the supposedly well-balanced scientists and philosophers and politicians who don't believe in God, is motivated by pride and self-interest, and in the last analysis will feed that pride and pursue that self-interest before anything and everything else in the world...

The disengaged atheist free-thinker, fearlessly going where no one has gone before, and openly and honestly self-correcting all his errors as he goes doesn't exist. Or if he does, an atheist totalitarian kills him.[/B]

The atheist philosopher Mikhail Bakhunin wrote that freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. Nice thought, but it won't work. Human nature won't let it.

What would the atheist Stalin have done with the atheist Bakhunin, I wonder...:chop:

I do think that it is a very bad route for religion to govern any policy, because the basis for that decision being made is, to my mind, wrong.

I dont want a "scientocracy". I want decisions made about scientific issues to be based on analysis of facts, not potentially clouded by interpretation of scripture. I only think science has a role in areas where it is applicable - Global Warming, alternative energy solutions, travel, telecomms, pharmacetical medicine etc. I dont want it to have a role in areas of morality or areas where it is irrelevant - abortion policy, capital punishment, local council budgets, socialism v capitalism etc.

I'm not suggesting that there are legions of brave atheist souls fighting the good fight. I'm not suggesting that morality comes from science, and I've been completely consistent on this point and other threads (it's just not relevant, but is an accusation frequently levelled) but I do not believe for an instant it comes from religion, or God, or Allah. Why? Because there are countless interpretations of what that morality is. If you believe that people of religion are any less guided by "pride and self-interest" I'd disagree.

To re-emphasise, when religion does play a part in politics, it is that religions particular set of morals that govern what is and what isnt acceptable. This cannot be right.

[Twa Cairpets]

Rick Perry is a fundamentalist.

He believes in literal creationism and that the earth is 10,000 years old

He believes that we are in End Times.

He is now the front runner for the Republican nomination

Have a look at this link (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/rick-perry) (go to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th topics in particular), and tell me that it is a good thing for his brand of fundamentalism to have a shot at power? Tell me his campaign team dont scare the crap out of you?

[Dinkydoo]

Rick Perry is a fundamentalist.

He believes in literal creationism and that the earth is 10,000 years old

He believes that we are in End Times.

He is now the front runner for the Republican nomination

Have a look at this link (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/individuals/rick-perry) (go to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th topics in particular), and tell me that it is a good thing for his brand of fundamentalism to have a shot at power? Tell me his campaign team dont scare the crap out of you?

Mentalists; I can find no other word to describe them.

What really annoys me is the claim that natural disasters are some sort of aggressive act by god, in light of the world becoming more accepting of homosexuality. Just because something is difficult to understand or predict, that doesn't mean that we can all start making up bull**** to fit our own agenda - what fun you could have though. :greengrin

Some things, like the weather for instance, are difficult to predict. This is because they are part of a massive "system" with millions of variables constantly changing and subsequently affecting the forecast for the following day, never mind week, month....

Now if Olsen really has cracked it, and she can work out that some of these floods, fires and earthquakes are the cause of gay marriage. Then maybe she could be so kind as to lend the world a bit of her time in solving some of the other problems reeking of nonlinearity, that have plagued our brightest and best minds for centuries.

Im personally looking forward to her and Bachman's spin on chaos theory, and whether such a thing really does exist in the sense that we've defined thus far.

The comments about Oprah being the "harbinger of the antichrist" and Olsen maybe being able to raise the dead as an End Time prophet were absolute belters though. :faf:

A great tea-time read.

[BEEJ]

Smiley notwithstanding, it takes no faith at all to be an atheist. It's not a belief system because we don't have to accept things as being true on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. If you're saying "oh but you believe science", well, yes, because its demonstrable, consistent, doesnt claim to have all the answers, and its fundamental correctness doesnt change depending on when or where you happen to be born. Thats not faith though.
Until science or some other discipline proves that God does not and could not ever have existed, atheism is indeed a belief system.


Its nothing to do within scientific analysis or investigation.

The quote is a fact. Hitler did say it.

Its nonsensical because Hitler said it. It's relevant because it is a direct claim by Hitler to being a christian. What you see as a climbdown was to me a pretty civilised discussion, at the centre of which was the fact that ultimately it didnt matter if he lied about his faith or not as long as he used religion to justify his actions - i.e. the use of religion as a justification for extreme political actions by a powerful leader. The reason for the quote was to show that the oft-touted line about Hitler doing what he did because of his atheism is just not true.
It is very easy for anyone to 'claim' to be of a particular religious faith. It doesn't mean that its true or genuine. There are several instances of the criminally insane professing devout faith and how God led them to commit their heinous crimes. It is patently untrue that such people know God in their lives.


I'm pretty happy with knowledge of history, thanks. For the purposes of clarity for the thread, which was, you may recall, about why faith and politics are not good bedfellows, the point about whether or not Hitler was a christian is a moot point. I believe the historical evidence suggests he was, others don't - I suspect we will not know definitively.
Your insistence on this point merely demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about in this realm. And neither should you as you have not experienced it.

[hibsbollah]

Two Carpets, I think you would have been better off just saying 'fair cop, I overreached myself with the 'Hitler was a Christian' thing in a fit of enthusiasm/dogmatism, it doesnt really impact upon the validity of my overall argument'. Sometimes you just have to accept your foot went into your mouth and move on.

[Twa Cairpets]

Two Carpets, I think you would have been better off just saying 'fair cop, I overreached myself with the 'Hitler was a Christian' thing in a fit of enthusiasm/dogmatism, it doesnt really impact upon the validity of my overall argument'. Sometimes you just have to accept your foot went into your mouth and move on.

I hereby recant fully my statement that Hitler was unquestionably a christian, despite his claims to be so.

I accept utterly that I cannot know this for sure.

I would (as per my post only two after the initial one) maintain that his belief system was theistic rather than atheistic.

I acknowledge that it it doesnt impact on the validity of my argument.

Thank you Hibsbollah.

[hibsbollah]

You see? I bet you feel better now :-)

[One Day Soon]

Arrrr

[Twa Cairpets]

Until science or some other discipline proves that God does not and could not ever have existed, atheism is indeed a belief system.

Oh for Petes sake.

It is not a belief system. It is not a thing in which faith without evidence is bestowed. It is not a thing worshipped. It is not a thing within which there is any suggestion of eternal salvation or damnation. There is no dogma. There is no message. It is not in the remit of science or any other discipline to disprove that which is impossible to disprove.


It is very easy for anyone to 'claim' to be of a particular religious faith. It doesn't mean that its true or genuine. There are several instances of the criminally insane professing devout faith and how God led them to commit their heinous crimes. It is patently untrue that such people know God in their lives.

According to you. Do people who "have God in their lives" have to conform to your interpretation of the divine. Is it only the Christian God people are allowed to hear for it to be valid?

Anyway, if you'd bothered to read any of the posts I've made since the original one I've said that it is the complicity of religion in tolerating the extreme when it is couched in religious justification that is as dangerous as zealotry itself.


Your insistence on this point merely demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about in this realm. And neither should you as you have not experienced it.

Jings, and I'm accused of being the arrogant one! You highlighted very selectively. What I said was: "...the point about whether or not Hitler was a christian is a moot point. I believe the historical evidence suggests he was, others don't - I suspect we will not know definitively." which is hardly rabid insistence now is it?

What precisely is it that I havent experienced and therefore. if I have read your post correctly, that I'm not in a position to comment on? Having God in my life? The history of WW2? Being alive during the reign of Hitler?

[One Day Soon]

Oh. Not Arrrr after all.

[(((Fergus)))]

Vaguely on topic some you might be interested in the BBC programme "What's the Point of Religion?" with R. Jonathan Sachs (30 mins)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b015d4pt/Whats_the_Point_of_Religion/

And since Rosh HaShanah starts now - here's a Happy New Year from Jerusalem:

(http://www.youtube.com/user/AishVideo?v=T_M5-qthA8w)http://www.youtube.com/user/AishVideo?v=T_M5-qthA8w

[BEEJ]

Oh for Petes sake.

It is not a belief system. It is not a thing in which faith without evidence is bestowed. It is not a thing worshipped. It is not a thing within which there is any suggestion of eternal salvation or damnation. There is no dogma. There is no message. It is not in the remit of science or any other discipline to disprove that which is impossible to disprove.
You’re either deliberately confusing the concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘belief system’ or you’re in denial. I suspect the latter as the thought of an association with belief makes most atheists very uncomfortable.

Until science has proven beyond doubt the origins of the universe and of life on this planet, atheism is founded on belief. The latest scientific theories are just that, theories. They do not provide incorrigible proof such that atheists can rely on them as fact. These theories are likely to change through time as scientists continue their search for answers to such complex mysteries. And not necessarily in an incremental or progressive way either; the theories upon which science depends today might well have to give way entirely to fundamentally new forms of scientific understanding in the years to come.

Atheism doesn’t have an entity at its centre and there is no worship involved. So in that respect it may not be a religion as such. But until that rock-solid evidence becomes available, atheism is clearly a ‘belief system’.

And despite what you say, atheism even appears to have its own doctrine and moral code! This excerpt is taken from www.atheists.org:


The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools.

“Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows.


An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

Atheists resent the word ‘belief’ as they see themselves as somehow above all that. Belief is for the simple-minded, or so they would argue. However, to that extent they are merely in denial if we are using any normal definition of the word ‘belief’.

Interesting too, how atheist churches are springing up in different places.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought
http://churchofatheism.webs.com/otheratheistchurches.htm

Strange concept this. If all that atheists hold to was truly rooted in fact and truth perhaps they wouldn’t feel the need to meet together seeking reassurance from one another in sharing their commonly held opinions and beliefs.

Atheists can’t point to the different faith groups and say to them ‘prove that God exists’ and then simply wave away the counter argument of “prove that there is no God”. There is no basis for doing so as there is no starting point based in fact that would point to the absence of a deity.

So for Pete’s sake (whoever he is) face up to it. Until you can prove categorically that there is no God, atheism is a belief system. A belief system that is entrusting itself to science that it will one day come through with the concrete evidence to back up its beliefs.

[hibsbollah]

Vaguely on topic some you might be interested in the BBC programme "What's the Point of Religion?" with R. Jonathan Sachs (30 mins)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b015d4pt/Whats_the_Point_of_Religion/

And since Rosh HaShanah starts now - here's a Happy New Year from Jerusalem:

(http://www.youtube.com/user/AishVideo?v=T_M5-qthA8w)http://www.youtube.com/user/AishVideo?v=T_M5-qthA8w

I've always liked Johnathan Sachs, hes on Thought for the Day quite a lot. As i've said many times on here, despite not being religious I recognise that in the 21st century it is religious people in Western civilisation that still have something to say about moral and ethical issues that mainstream politicians have generally abandoned.

He makes a good argument about whats wrong with 21st century West... Breakdown of the family, the triumph of materialism and commercialism and the nice metaphor of Nash's Victorian Urban Park.

[GhostofBolivar]

Honestly.

We're not going to know for sure that God doesn't exist until we discover the babel fish.

Endof.

[Twa Cairpets]

You’re either deliberately confusing the concepts of ‘religion’ and ‘belief system’ or you’re in denial. I suspect the latter as the thought of an association with belief makes most atheists very uncomfortable.

Until science has proven beyond doubt the origins of the universe and of life on this planet, atheism is founded on belief. The latest scientific theories are just that, theories. They do not provide incorrigible proof such that atheists can rely on them as fact. These theories are likely to change through time as scientists continue their search for answers to such complex mysteries. And not necessarily in an incremental or progressive way either; the theories upon which science depends today might well have to give way entirely to fundamentally new forms of scientific understanding in the years to come.

Atheism doesn’t have an entity at its centre and there is no worship involved. So in that respect it may not be a religion as such. But until that rock-solid evidence becomes available, atheism is clearly a ‘belief system’.

And despite what you say, atheism even appears to have its own doctrine and moral code! This excerpt is taken from www.atheists.org:



Atheists resent the word ‘belief’ as they see themselves as somehow above all that. Belief is for the simple-minded, or so they would argue. However, to that extent they are merely in denial if we are using any normal definition of the word ‘belief’.

Interesting too, how atheist churches are springing up in different places.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought
http://churchofatheism.webs.com/otheratheistchurches.htm

Strange concept this. If all that atheists hold to was truly rooted in fact and truth perhaps they wouldn’t feel the need to meet together seeking reassurance from one another in sharing their commonly held opinions and beliefs.


And you were getting so close.

I'm happy to agree with you on "belief" if you disengage it from "faith" and religion, but the general thrust of the theist in such discussions is a triumphal "aha, so you do have faith, you do believe, atheism is just a religion etc etc blah blah blah".

As for "just theories", yep. Guilty as charged. But they do tend to work. I always struggle to get my head round the fact that the burden of proof is put on those of a secular bent, that because science cannot (and never will, by the way) prove everything beyond the merest shadow of a doubt it is flawed. On the other hand, the belief in whichever deity you choose, with the multiple contradictions and impossibilities that are in all of the holy books is just fine and dandy. Doesn't that strike you as just a tad odd?

You seem to be suggesting that "rock solid evidence" which abounds in massive amounts in pretty much every scientific discipline (but which is always subject to challenge) is a pre-requisite for a belief system. Hmmmmm.

As for the churches of atheism, to me they are ludicrous. No problem with atheist groups or societies - its exactly the same as any group of people with common interests. As ive mentioned before, in the US it is more critical to have an organised opposition to the church, the worrying levels of evangelism, the constant attempt to introduce concepts like ID into schools etc.


Atheists can’t point to the different faith groups and say to them ‘prove that God exists’ and then simply wave away the counter argument of “prove that there is no God”. There is no basis for doing so as there is no starting point based in fact that would point to the absence of a deity.

So for Pete’s sake (whoever he is) face up to it. Until you can prove categorically that there is no God, atheism is a belief system. A belief system that is entrusting itself to science that it will one day come through with the concrete evidence to back up its beliefs

The latter is not a counter argument to the former. It's the "flying spaghetti monster" argument, which Im more than happy to go through in detail but you seem to object to me going into detail so I'll leave it. Do you really think there "is no starting point based in fact that would point to the absence of a deity"? That is an extraordinary statement to make. How about all of astrophysics? How about evolution countering every creation theory in every religion?

Neither I nor anyone else will never ever be able to prove to you (or anyone else, or indeed me) that there is no God, so repeating it is pointless. You're right, I do not believe that there is a God as there is zero evidence of one of any variety. Absolutely zero.

[One Day Soon]

And you were getting so close.

I'm happy to agree with you on "belief" if you disengage it from "faith" and religion, but the general thrust of the theist in such discussions is a triumphal "aha, so you do have faith, you do believe, atheism is just a religion etc etc blah blah blah".

As for "just theories", yep. Guilty as charged. But they do tend to work. I always struggle to get my head round the fact that the burden of proof is put on those of a secular bent, that because science cannot (and never will, by the way) prove everything beyond the merest shadow of a doubt it is flawed. On the other hand, the belief in whichever deity you choose, with the multiple contradictions and impossibilities that are in all of the holy books is just fine and dandy. Doesn't that strike you as just a tad odd?

You seem to be suggesting that "rock solid evidence" which abounds in massive amounts in pretty much every scientific discipline (but which is always subject to challenge) is a pre-requisite for a belief system. Hmmmmm.

As for the churches of atheism, to me they are ludicrous. No problem with atheist groups or societies - its exactly the same as any group of people with common interests. As ive mentioned before, in the US it is more critical to have an organised opposition to the church, the worrying levels of evangelism, the constant attempt to introduce concepts like ID into schools etc.



The latter is not a counter argument to the former. It's the "flying spaghetti monster" argument, which Im more than happy to go through in detail but you seem to object to me going into detail so I'll leave it. Do you really think there "is no starting point based in fact that would point to the absence of a deity"? That is an extraordinary statement to make. How about all of astrophysics? How about evolution countering every creation theory in every religion?

Neither I nor anyone else will never ever be able to prove to you (or anyone else, or indeed me) that there is no God, so repeating it is pointless. You're right, I do not believe that there is a God as there is zero evidence of one of any variety. Absolutely zero.

Fine. In that case do you think you could shut up about it now? It's like having Jehova's Witnesses at the door every time you open it.

[BEEJ]

I'm happy to agree with you on "belief" if you disengage it from "faith" and religion, but the general thrust of the theist in such discussions is a triumphal "aha, so you do have faith, you do believe, atheism is just a religion etc etc blah blah blah".
Good. We've established then that atheism is a belief system.


As for "just theories", yep. Guilty as charged. But they do tend to work. I always struggle to get my head round the fact that the burden of proof is put on those of a secular bent, that because science cannot (and never will, by the way) prove everything beyond the merest shadow of a doubt it is flawed. On the other hand, the belief in whichever deity you choose, with the multiple contradictions and impossibilities that are in all of the holy books is just fine and dandy. Doesn't that strike you as just a tad odd?
That scientific theories 'tend to work' is neither here nor there. They wouldn't become established if they didn't. But inevitably they do so based on current scientific understanding. There is every chance that a new scientific discovery some way down the line will blow a theory out of the water and an entirely new theory will take its place based on a revised understanding as human knowledge advances.

Not suggesting that the burden of proof should be based either one way or the other. Atheism is a belief system which is unlikely ever to be 100% proven in this life and in that respect is in much the same boat as the different faith systems. The burden of proof is a shared burden. Atheists have as much responsibility to prove their position as Christians (or other believers) do.


You seem to be suggesting that "rock solid evidence" which abounds in massive amounts in pretty much every scientific discipline (but which is always subject to challenge) is a pre-requisite for a belief system. Hmmmmm.
You miss the point. I'm saying that until rock solid evidence is provided, atheism falls within the same category as other belief systems. A fundamentally different point.


As for the churches of atheism, to me they are ludicrous. No problem with atheist groups or societies - its exactly the same as any group of people with common interests. As ive mentioned before, in the US it is more critical to have an organised opposition to the church, the worrying levels of evangelism, the constant attempt to introduce concepts like ID into schools etc.
I'm sure they're a huge disappointment to you.


The latter is not a counter argument to the former. It's the "flying spaghetti monster" argument, which Im more than happy to go through in detail but you seem to object to me going into detail so I'll leave it.
Thanks for the offer but I am familiar with that particular parody. And I'm not averse to detailed exposition when it is meaningful.


Do you really think there "is no starting point based in fact that would point to the absence of a deity"? That is an extraordinary statement to make. How about all of astrophysics? How about evolution countering every creation theory in every religion?
We've established that we both have belief systems. They offer vastly contradictory explanations as to how the universe was formed and how humanity got where it is today.

As such, neither can take the high ground and declare that the burden of proof for their belief lies uniquely with the other.


Neither I nor anyone else will never ever be able to prove to you (or anyone else, or indeed me) that there is no God, so repeating it is pointless. You're right, I do not believe that there is a God as there is zero evidence of one of any variety. Absolutely zero.
That is indeed the case.

Ultimately God is discovered when you seek Him with your heart, not solely by means of your intellect, reasoning and the use of your God-given critical faculties. If you resort to the latter approach then reading of the Bible will never be anything other than a sterile academic exercise.

This is why the self-declared 100% rational approach of atheists will always make them critics of its contents.

[IndieHibby]

Michelle would be so proud. :devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

Fine. In that case do you think you could shut up about it now? It's like having Jehova's Witnesses at the door every time you open it.

If you dont like the thread, dont read it or dont contribute to it.

[Twa Cairpets]

Good. We've established then that atheism is a belief system.



That scientific theories 'tend to work' is neither here nor there. They wouldn't become established if they didn't. But inevitably they do so based on current scientific understanding. There is every chance that a new scientific discovery some way down the line will blow a theory out of the water and an entirely new theory will take its place based on a revised understanding as human knowledge advances.

Not suggesting that the burden of proof should be based either one way or the other. Atheism is a belief system which is unlikely ever to be 100% proven in this life and in that respect is in much the same boat as the different faith systems. The burden of proof is a shared burden. Atheists have as much responsibility to prove their position as Christians (or other believers) do.

You miss the point. I'm saying that until rock solid evidence is provided, atheism falls within the same category as other belief systems. A fundamentally different point.

Beej, Im sorry, but you really are missing the point. I'm not claiming anything which doesnt have evidence to support it. All atheism is is an absence of belief in a God or Gods - I'm not making any claims of the existence of a deity, I'm not claiming science as a religion. The things within science I believe to be true in the areas where those of religious faith have differing views such as evolution or the creation of the Universe have masses of evidence whoch is constantly being challenged and updated.

The burden of proof is not shared - only one "belief system" as you put it has its basis in evidence.


I'm sure they're a huge disappointment to you.

Nah, I just suspect that they're fannies.


Thanks for the offer but I am familiar with that particular parody. And I'm not averse to detailed exposition when it is meaningful.

I woudl have thought it is extremely relevant when discussing burden of proof, but no problem.


We've established that we both have belief systems. They offer vastly contradictory explanations as to how the universe was formed and how humanity got where it is today.

As such, neither can take the high ground and declare that the burden of proof for their belief lies uniquely with the other.

Not a question of high ground, a question of evidence. See above.


That is indeed the case.

Ultimately God is discovered when you seek Him with your heart, not solely by means of your intellect, reasoning and the use of your God-given critical faculties. If you resort to the latter approach then reading of the Bible will never be anything other than a sterile academic exercise. This is why the self-declared 100% rational approach of atheists will always make them critics of its contents.

This last paragraph is one of the reasons why politics and religion dont mix (to try to get it back on thread). It can always be claimed that us rationalists are literally soulless automatons, basing decisions on facts and evidence rather than the revealed word of God that has been shown to us through allowing God into our hearts. What one persons revealed word of God is another persons dangerously mental zealotry. Why is it worrying? Because it can never be disproved and it can never be challenged because of all the arguments you have made.

[IndieHibby]

This last paragraph is one of the reasons why politics and religion dont mix (to try to get it back on thread). It can always be claimed that us rationalists are literally soulless automatons, basing decisions on facts and evidence rather than the revealed word of God that has been shown to us through allowing God into our hearts. What one persons revealed word of God is another persons dangerously mental zealotry. Why is it worrying? Because it can never be disproved and it can never be challenged because of all the arguments you have made.

This is why secular states are more successful that theocracies.

[BEEJ]

Beej, Im sorry, but you really are missing the point. I'm not claiming anything which doesnt have evidence to support it. All atheism is is an absence of belief in a God or Gods - I'm not making any claims of the existence of a deity, I'm not claiming science as a religion.

The things within science I believe to be true in the areas where those of religious faith have differing views such as evolution or the creation of the Universe have masses of evidence whoch is constantly being challenged and updated.
And changed. So your 'evidence' remains theoretical until it becomes proven scientific fact which is beyond doubt.


The burden of proof is not shared - only one "belief system" as you put it has its basis in evidence.
Since when did 'theories' become solid 'fact'?

Perhaps one day they will be proven by the scientific community. Until that day dawns atheism is not a superior belief system, even although you would doubtless wish it to be so.


This last paragraph is one of the reasons why politics and religion dont mix (to try to get it back on thread). It can always be claimed that us rationalists are literally soulless automatons, basing decisions on facts and evidence rather than the revealed word of God that has been shown to us through allowing God into our hearts. What one persons revealed word of God is another persons dangerously mental zealotry.

Why is it worrying? Because it can never be disproved and it can never be challenged because of all the arguments you have made.
Worrying? We live in a free country where folks are entitled to believe what they wish and if they have no desire to explore matters of the heart, soul and spirit then they have no need to. This is the proper exercising of God-given freewill. No one is going to impose their beliefs upon you and if they tried I would imagine they would end up regretting it.

I would suggest that what is unnerving and frustrating to atheists and other like-minded individuals is that in a world in which they are taught and encouraged to process everything only with the mind, the topic of faith lies well outside their comfort zone.

[BEEJ]

This is why secular states are more successful that theocracies.
A soundbite!

Vladimir Lenin would have been so proud. :whistle:

[Twa Cairpets]

And changed. So your 'evidence' remains theoretical until it becomes proven scientific fact which is beyond doubt.

Since when did 'theories' become solid 'fact'?

Perhaps one day they will be proven by the scientific community. Until that day dawns atheism is not a superior belief system, even although you would doubtless wish it to be so.

BEEJ, with apologies in advance if Im off the mark here, but I suspect strongly that you are basing your view on an incorrect view of what the definition of scientific terms are and how they are used. Hypotheses, Theories and Laws are all ways of describing or explaining observation (Or, if you prefer, facts).

If you look at your first sentence, a theory is the acceptance of a hypothesis that hs been postulated to explain an observation. In broad terms, a hypothesis is accepted into a theory because it is repeatable, demonstrable and predictive. Lots of hypotheses are tested and discarded. Laws describe theories, but dont explain them (like the Laws of Thermodynamics and Newtonian physics).

No matter how much you exclaim "its only a theory" or "its not a fact" doesnt change the evidence one way or the other. The classic is the claim of creationists about evolution being "only a theory". Why? Because, they will claim, there are for example "no intermediate fossils" (there are, and there are thousands of them. The problem is that with each discovery two new gaps are created. Guess hpw much that is leapt on...). Yes it is a theory, but a theory with an incredibly robust body of evidence with absolutely consistent findings, and one that is adaptable to new discoveries. This is a good thing, and is as close to being a fact as you'll get. If you dont accept this, thats your choice. But one would have to ask what level of proof would you look to get as being incontovertible?

Also, you're misquoting me or being selective in your interpretation. I said one system is based in evidence, the other one isn't.


Worrying? We live in a free country where folks are entitled to believe what they wish and if they have no desire to explore matters of the heart, soul and spirit then they have no need to. This is the proper exercising of God-given freewill. No one is going to impose their beliefs upon you and if they tried I would imagine they would end up regretting it.

We do live in a free country, and I hope it remains essentially secular in its outlook. I object to religion having any influence in public life, sure, and I would be loud in my opposition to it, you're correct, but the thread wasn't necessarily about the UK, hence Bachmann (and the inclusion of Perry later on). That is/they are hugely worrying - why wouldnt you be worried about the possibility of evangelical, right wing, young-earth creationists with a fervently anti-science and terrifyingly pro-"End Times" outlook having significant or ultimate power in the worlds most powerful nation?

Its bugger all to do with exploring matters of the heart, soul and spirit. its to do with matters or power and coercion underwritten by religious belief


I would suggest that what is unnerving and frustrating to atheists and other like-minded individuals is that in a world in which they are taught and encouraged to process everything only with the mind, the topic of faith lies well outside their comfort zone.

It not unnerving in the slightest - at least not to me. It is frustrating I suppose because it does seem odd to me that people who are otherwise rational and sensible in all other areas of their lives are entirely happy to rid themselves of critical faculties when it comes to religion of whichever variety they choose. By the way, how else are you meant to process anything if not with the mind, and what does "outside a comfort zone" actually mean? If I was to take what your statement at face value, you are seeming to suggest that people make decision without thinking. Surely that cant be what you mean?

[BEEJ]

BEEJ, with apologies in advance if Im off the mark here, but I suspect strongly that you are basing your view on an incorrect view of what the definition of scientific terms are and how they are used. Hypotheses, Theories and Laws are all ways of describing or explaining observation (Or, if you prefer, facts).

If you look at your first sentence, a theory is the acceptance of a hypothesis that hs been postulated to explain an observation. In broad terms, a hypothesis is accepted into a theory because it is repeatable, demonstrable and predictive. Lots of hypotheses are tested and discarded. Laws describe theories, but dont explain them (like the Laws of Thermodynamics and Newtonian physics).

No matter how much you exclaim "its only a theory" or "its not a fact" doesnt change the evidence one way or the other. The classic is the claim of creationists about evolution being "only a theory". Why? Because.they will claim, there are for example, "no intermediate fossils" (there are, and there are thousands of them. The problem is that with each discovery two new gaps are created. Guess hpw much that is leapt on...). Yes it is a theory, but a theory with an incredibly robust body of evidence with absolutely consistent findings, and one that is adaptable to new discoveries. This is a good thing, and is as close to being a fact as you'll get. If you dont accept this, thats your choice. But one would have to ask what level of proof would you look to get as being incontovertible?

Also, you're misquoting me or being selective in your interpretation. I said one system is based in evidence, the other one isn't.
Look, we're going round in circles here. Let's just accept that whilst you have a firm belief in what science tells you today about the origins of the universe, I feel that that is just as likely to give way to new and different theories and new understandings in times to come as knowledge advances.

In that respect, science is interesting (even fascinating) but what is says today does not necessarily provide the definitive answer to these complex mysteries.


We do live in a free country, and I hope it remains essentially secular in its outlook. I object to religion having any influence in public life, sure, and I would be loud in my opposition to it, you're correct,

but the thread wasn't necessarily about the UK, hence Bachmann (and the inclusion of Perry later on). That is/they are hugely worrying - why wouldnt you be worried about the possibility of evangelical, right wing, young-earth creationists with a fervently anti-science and terrifyingly pro-"End Times" outlook having significant or ultimate power in the worlds most powerful nation?
The chances of Bachmann finding herself in the Whitehouse were always fairly remote and not worthy of losing sleep over or getting one's knickers in a twist.

And when we consider some of the very powerful world leaders of all persuasions both today and down through history who were or are borderline lunatics, quite why someone like Bachmann should bring a sudden urgent dread of the onset of armageddon escapes me.

But then again, no matter how unlikely the scenario, it did offer another opportunity to start a thread having a go at the Christian faith by highlighting some of the more extreme aspects of it.


Its bugger all to do with exploring matters of the heart, soul and spirit. its to do with matters or power and coercion underwritten by Religions Belief
Matters of power and coercion result from the less savoury aspects of human nature in general; they are not the sole preserve of those with a religious belief.

I do wonder whether the likes of Nicolae Ceaușescu incurred your outspoken wrath to the same extent when he was in power.


By the way, how else are you meant to process anything if not with the mind, and what does "outside a comfort zone" actually mean? If I was to take what your statement at face value, you are seeming to suggest that people make decision without thinking. Surely that cant be what you mean?
At the risk of being repetitive, here's what I said a few posts ago. I've highlighted a couple of key parts which you seem to have missed:


Ultimately God is discovered when you seek Him with your heart, not solely by means of your intellect, reasoning and the use of your God-given critical faculties. If you resort to the latter approach then reading of the Bible will never be anything other than a sterile academic exercise.

This is why the self-declared 100% rational approach of atheists will always make them critics of its contents.

I hope that sets the matter straight on that score.

TC, I know that you won't be able to resist having the last word and therefore you will post again. However, for the reasons outlined by us both above, we will continue to be at cross purposes. Therefore I think we have exhausted this topic.

I do wish you all the best. :aok: Meantime, have no fear of religious conversion. It certainly won't happen if you don't want it to.

[Twa Cairpets]

Look, we're going round in circles here. Let's just accept that whilst you have a firm belief in what science tells you today about the origins of the universe, I feel that that is just as likely to give way to new and different theories and new understandings in times to come as knowledge advances.

In that respect, science is interesting (even fascinating) but what is says today does not necessarily provide the definitive answer to these complex mysteries.

The chances of Bachmann finding herself in the Whitehouse were always fairly remote and not worthy of losing sleep over or getting one's knickers in a twist.

And when we consider some of the very powerful world leaders of all persuasions both today and down through history who were or are borderline lunatics, quite why someone like Bachmann should bring a sudden urgent dread of the onset of armageddon escapes me.

But then again, no matter how unlikely the scenario, it did offer another opportunity to start a thread having a go at the Christian faith by highlighting some of the more extreme aspects of it.

Matters of power and coercion result from the less savoury aspects of human nature in general; they are not the sole preserve of those with a religious belief.

I do wonder whether the likes of Nicolae Ceaușescu incurred your outspoken wrath to the same extent when he was in power.

At the risk of being repetitive, here's what I said a few posts ago. I've highlighted a couple of key parts which you seem to have missed:

I hope that sets the matter straight on that score.

TC, I know that you won't be able to resist having the last word and therefore you will post again. However, for the reasons outlined by us both above, we will continue to be at cross purposes. Therefore I think we have exhausted this topic.

I do wish you all the best. :aok: Meantime, have no fear of religious conversion. It certainly won't happen if you don't want it to.

A few wee points.

The thread was quite polite and was covering points that were actively and deliberately not going down the "science v religion" until you weighed in (post #110 to be precise). Since then I have tried to continue to be polite, and tried to respond point by point to your posts. You, on the other hand, have been extremely selective, and where you appear not to have an answer ignore it completely, argue by assertion of opinion, and couch a fair whack of your responses in borderline unpleasantness.

You clearly understand very little about what science actually is, how it works, or what it is about. It is hard therefore hard to discuss it when you refuse to do anything other than assert what your incorrect interpetation is. I've not received any God into my life, so I cant begin to claim what its like to be saved, and I dont.

I specifically titled the thread "religion" not "christianity" and have emphasised that repeatedly, so you have something of a persecution complex it would seem.

I have never said that power and coercion are the sole preserve of religious belief - you can add that argument to your ever increasing collection of straw men.

Its a very typical action of anyone of faith to throw assertions about then claim a topic is exhausted. You hijacked the thread, and now you choose to end it? Fine by me, but as someone who has been accused of arrogance the irony isn't lost me.

But the thing that really p!sses me off, on both a personal and general level, is your nasty, snide little comment about Ceaușescu. It is absolutely typical of people like you to try to link atheism or rationalism with the likes of him. It shows the paucity of your argument when you come out with trite crap like that. I have good friends in Bucharest who were jailed and tortured by Ceaușescu, and suffered horribly under his regime. These are people both of faith and none (whose faith was both abandoned and strengthened during their incarceration), and unlike people with your world outlook, I dont value any of them more or less for what they choose to privately believe.

You're right, by the way. I'm not going to be converted any day soon, I suspect. So if it turns out I'm wrong and it's the big fire for me, you just sit up on your cloud (assuming of course you've made the right choice of deity to worship, in the correctly prescribed way, during your short lifetime on Earth) and think, well, that showed TwoCarpets right enough. And right now you're sitting there believing that that is what is going to happen, and I'm guessing metaphorically shrugging your shoulders in a kind of "dont really care" kinda way.

I can think of nothing more immoral. And I sure as **** don't want a political leader imposing that type of immorality on me.

[One Day Soon]

A few wee points.

The thread was quite polite and was covering points that were actively and deliberately not going down the "science v religion" until you weighed in (post #110 to be precise). Since then I have tried to continue to be polite, and tried to respond point by point to your posts. You, on the other hand, have been extremely selective, and where you appear not to have an answer ignore it completely, argue by assertion of opinion, and couch a fair whack of your responses in borderline unpleasantness.

You clearly understand very little about what science actually is, how it works, or what it is about. It is hard therefore hard to discuss it when you refuse to do anything other than assert what your incorrect interpetation is. I've not received any God into my life, so I cant begin to claim what its like to be saved, and I dont.

I specifically titled the thread "religion" not "christianity" and have emphasised that repeatedly, so you have something of a persecution complex it would seem.

I have never said that power and coercion are the sole preserve of religious belief - you can add that argument to your ever increasing collection of straw men.

Its a very typical action of anyone of faith to throw assertions about then claim a topic is exhausted. You hijacked the thread, and now you choose to end it? Fine by me, but as someone who has been accused of arrogance the irony isn't lost me.

But the thing that really p!sses me off, on both a personal and general level, is your nasty, snide little comment about Ceaușescu. It is absolutely typical of people like you to try to link atheism or rationalism with the likes of him. It shows the paucity of your argument when you come out with trite crap like that. I have good friends in Bucharest who were jailed and tortured by Ceaușescu, and suffered horribly under his regime. These are people both of faith and none (whose faith was both abandoned and strengthened during their incarceration), and unlike people with your world outlook, I dont value any of them more or less for what they choose to privately believe.

You're right, by the way. I'm not going to be converted any day soon, I suspect. So if it turns out I'm wrong and it's the big fire for me, you just sit up on your cloud (assuming of course you've made the right choice of deity to worship, in the correctly prescribed way, during your short lifetime on Earth) and think, well, that showed TwoCarpets right enough. And right now you're sitting there believing that that is what is going to happen, and I'm guessing metaphorically shrugging your shoulders in a kind of "dont really care" kinda way.

I can think of nothing more immoral. And I sure as **** don't want a political leader imposing that type of immorality on me.

WTF? You set up this paper tiger to knock it down. Who is imposing their morality on you?

There was nothing snide about the Ceausescu question. You ascribe the potential for unfathomable evil to the irrationality that you believe travels with religion and faith. But you run a mile from the fact that the same thing can manifest perfectly happily where there is no religion or faith involved.

[Twa Cairpets]

WTF? You set up this paper tiger to knock it down. Who is imposing their morality on you?


Nope. The whole thread started through my concern about religious fundamentalist or extremists being (potentially) on the verge of political power. No-one is imposing their morality on me, and I haven't said that. I'm saying I dont want them too, and that the risk of it happening in the USA is closer than we might think. I think its worth being aware of. Don't you?

The sentence you've highlighted needs to be read in context of the rest of the paragraph and indeed the rest of the exchanges with BEEJ. You appear to be choosing to quote-mine.


There was nothing snide about the Ceausescu question. You ascribe the potential for unfathomable evil to the irrationality that you believe travels with religion and faith. But you run a mile from the fact that the same thing can manifest perfectly happily where there is no religion or faith involved.

You're just making stuff up now. I'd be interested to see where I've suggested either of these extremes you describe, or where I've "run a mile" from saying what you suggest. Both secular and religious regimes have an opportunity to be incredibly evil. Happy? The difference is that only one has the underwritten authority of the almighty. Ceacescu was evil beyond belief, but his actions were not committed in the name of atheism citing reference to The Bumper Book of Atheist Dogma as justification for them.

If you can only argue against the danger of fundamentalists becoming powerful by whinging that "atheists can be bad too", then I'm sorry, thats pretty weak.

[BEEJ]

(I guess it was always going to be folly to state that you feel the debate has ended when there was the strong chance that the other side would insist on responding with a flourish populated by some false and misplaced arguments and a bit of rant for good measure. )


A few wee points.

The thread was quite polite and was covering points that were actively and deliberately not going down the "science v religion" until you weighed in (post #110 to be precise).
Ah, indeed. A positive afternoon tea party it was, as evidenced by posts #22, 27, 29 and 32….

But I think my personal favourite on the politeness front was post #42, this bit in particular:


“I think that earns me the right to describe you as ignorant.

If you want to actually debate anything about the topic (unless it is too trivial for you), great, please do. I'd be delighted to discuss it with you.”

One of yours, I believe!


Since then I have tried to continue to be polite, and tried to respond point by point to your posts. You, on the other hand, have been extremely selective,
Really? I’ve been focussing on the key points, I would suggest rather than succumbing to your debating style which often seeks either to swamp with a number of counter-arguments or to shift the basis of the debate on to other ground.


and where you appear not to have an answer ignore it completely, argue by assertion of opinion, and couch a fair whack of your responses in borderline unpleasantness.
Odd that you should mention this unpleasantness only now, after I had stated that the discussion had reached a natural conclusion. You wouldn't, would you be trying to round up this discussion by painting me in a particular light to others who may not bother to go back through a five page thread to read it for themselves?

And anyway relative to post #42 I’m not sure that I’ve managed to achieve quite that level of invective and personal insult.


You clearly understand very little about what science actually is, how it works, or what it is about. It is hard therefore hard to discuss it when you refuse to do anything other than assert what your incorrect interpetation is.
Nice.

(At this point am I meant to get as angry as you do when I state that just because someone has read the whole Bible doesn’t mean that they have a good handle on Christianity?)

Actually I have deliberately kept my arguments to broad principles. In summary (one last time):


Science is unable to prove your understanding of the origins of the universe; it only provides theories and hypotheses to that end. That there is evidence to support those theories and hypotheses is neither here nor there if one day, as is quite possible, the current theories are swept away by new scientific discoveries on this subject, with their own supporting evidence. It means what you are relying on today for your understanding of this complex subject matter may well, in the fullness of time, prove not to be factual or true. The new scientific understanding will also be theories and hypotheses and so on …. until science comes up with the concrete proof that we discussed earlier. Which it might do.

We established earlier that until that day atheism remains a belief system. So this is quite straightforward, really.

Quite then how you arrive at the assertion above escapes me. Particularly since in making my points I have deliberately not strayed into the detailed realms of science. In that respect I show more respect for it as a subject than you show (by your own admission) for the different faiths.

As an example, you seem to work on the principle that the Bible is open to individual interpretation and therefore once anyone has read it (or even if they’ve only read parts of it) their comments on it are as valid as anyone else’s.


I've not received any God into my life, so I cant begin to claim what its like to be saved, and I dont.
Fair enough and I wouldn’t expect you to.

But if you even appreciated what it meant you would understand that faith is more than simply making a mental assent to a basis of doctrine. It is not like joining a political party by signing on to its manifesto or joining a society by signing your name in agreement to its constitution.

If you had appreciated that we would not have had you stating confidently in post #67 that Hitler was a Christian. Mind you, in post # 69 you thought a theist was a better way of describing him. But then in post #116 you believed that the historical evidence showed that he was indeed a Christian. But then in post #125 you changed it again to the view that Hitler’s belief system was simply theistic.

(Oh and for good measure in post # 75 you threw in the point that the Norwegian murderer, Breivick, claimed to be a Christian.)

None of this mattered to the central point you were making, of course. But you ought to have realised that to come out with this stuff was actually insulting to those who hold to the Christian faith. Contrary to your stated position, this was not showing respect for them.

The fact is that Hitler making the statement you quoted is as relevant to the claims of his Christian belief as it would be if you were to come out with a similar declaration on a public website. Anyone can simply read the Bible and come out with something like this to suit their own ends. It is meaningless as a measure of their Christian faith and the motivation for their subsequent acts.

But it’s very easy to cite these simple examples to add to your underlying argument that faith and religion are a sham.


I specifically titled the thread "religion" not "christianity" and have emphasised that repeatedly, so you have something of a persecution complex it would seem.
Not really.

But you do make direct link to the Church of Scotland thread in your OP and the subject matter is a Christian example to illustrate your general point, so it’s quite clear where you’re going with it. I would imagine you could have broken in at points with some detail of, for example, the religious extremism in Iran to add weight to your argument. There is the odd reference, right enough, but no detailed critique.


I have never said that power and coercion are the sole preserve of religious belief - you can add that argument to your ever increasing collection of straw men.
Well you shouldn’t couch your posts in absolutes such as the one I highlighted. Phrased that way they just invite a response (which I think is your intent).


Its a very typical action of anyone of faith to throw assertions about then claim a topic is exhausted. You hijacked the thread, and now you choose to end it? Fine by me, but as someone who has been accused of arrogance the irony isn't lost me.
Oh not the "come back and fight, you coward!" line!

If indeed I hijacked the thread then it has always been your prerogative to get it back on track. And by definition I’m not ending the thread – just the side street off it that you and I have ventured down.

And I choose to end that because we are going round in circles to no end and (coming back to my apparently deeply offensive opening post) I don’t appear to have the same amount of time and relish to pursue this topic as you clearly do.


But the thing that really p!sses me off, on both a personal and general level, is your nasty, snide little comment about Ceaușescu. It is absolutely typical of people like you to try to link atheism or rationalism with the likes of him. It shows the paucity of your argument when you come out with trite crap like that. I have good friends in Bucharest who were jailed and tortured by Ceaușescu, and suffered horribly under his regime. These are people both of faith and none (whose faith was both abandoned and strengthened during their incarceration)
You led with another absolute statement and I challenged it with an obvious example of the other extreme. It was not a direct link with atheism, as well you know. You well understand how debate works. And to suggest that somehow I should have known not to use this example due to your personal experiences is ridiculous.

Perhaps if as a counter-balance to your arguments elsewhere on this thread you also reflected on the failings of regimes like this from your own personal experience, it would lend much more weight to the fundamental point you are making about the risks of religious excess mixed with politics.


and unlike people with your world outlook, I dont value any of them more or less for what they choose to privately believe.
That really is outstanding! You have surpassed even your own previous high standards with this insult.

As we have never met, your understanding of my ‘world outlook’ is merely your limited understanding of my faith. You have no other basis from which to make that statement.

So actually you have branded not only me but others (some even on this thread) with this appalling slight. You don’t owe me an apology, but you certainly owe it to others.

[BEEJ]

You're right, by the way. I'm not going to be converted any day soon, I suspect. So if it turns out I'm wrong and it's the big fire for me, you just sit up on your cloud (assuming of course you've made the right choice of deity to worship, in the correctly prescribed way, during your short lifetime on Earth) and think, well, that showed TwoCarpets right enough. And right now you're sitting there believing that that is what is going to happen, and I'm guessing metaphorically shrugging your shoulders in a kind of "dont really care" kinda way.
Both presumptious and wrong.

My faith in God is not through anything I have done or because I have achieved anything in that realm. Ultimately it is His doing and the same is available to anyone who is open to seeking it. Therefore I have nothing to feel spiritually superior about in relation to anyone, regardless of their faith or belief system. This is the fundamental Christian message - which again you don’t appear to have picked up.

It might make you feel better to believe that statement of yours and give justification to your anger, but it’s a complete fallacy.

There’s a big difference between ‘not caring’ and not wishing to waste any further time in a debate which is going nowhere.


I can think of nothing more immoral. And I sure as **** don't want a political leader imposing that type of immorality on me.
Quite a tirade, TC.

You are obviously very angry about this general subject matter. Which is presumably why you keep bringing it up on here.


(I can only apologise to other posters fed up to the back teeth with this tete a tete between TC and myself. Time we let it go.)

[Twa Cairpets]

You're right. Circles are being gone around. But as I clearly have an insistence on a flourish I'll conform to expectation and just put a few one-liner comments in, while congratulting you on your master class of selecitivism, which while I'll admit might not be polite at least will have the merit of being true.


(I guess it was always going to be folly to state that you feel the debate has ended when there was the strong chance that the other side would insist on responding with a flourish populated by some false and misplaced arguments and a bit of rant for good measure. )

Ah, indeed. A positive afternoon tea party it was, as evidenced by posts #22, 27, 29 and 32….

Quote Mine. In context pretty fairInterestinggly I'd forgotten that I'd noted in post #32:
"Hitler wasn't an atheist. He certainly wasn't what we'd understand now as a christian, but he did believe in a divine creator." and that waaaaay before my later shameful recantation..

But I think my personal favourite on the politeness front was post #42, this bit in particular:

One of yours, I believe!

quote mine. Quite a doozy as well. You only chose to quote the bit that could be taken as insulting on its own. Odd that, as the full text changes the entire meaning.

Really? I’ve been focussing on the key points, I would suggest rather than succumbing to your debating style which often seeks either to swamp with a number of counter-arguments or to shift the basis of the debate on to other ground.
no, youve been asserting stuff repeatedly. My "style" is to try to respond to points made. yours isn't.

Odd that you should mention this unpleasantness only now, after I had stated that the discussion had reached a natural conclusion. You wouldn't, would you be trying to round up this discussion by painting me in a particular light to others who may not bother to go back through a five page thread to read it for themselves?

And anyway relative to post #42 I’m not sure that I’ve managed to achieve quite that level of invective and personal insult.

Not odd, really, at all.

Nice.

Quote mine

(At this point am I meant to get as angry as you do when I state that just because someone has read the whole Bible doesn’t mean that they have a good handle on Christianity?)

Actually I have deliberately kept my arguments to broad principles. In summary (one last time):

Assertion. There are lots of different posts where Ive tried to explain how science works. I've clearly failed.

We established earlier that until that day atheism remains a belief system. So this is quite straightforward, really.

False Premise. I chuckled at this as it was pretty predictable. Semantics is the friend of the believer...

Quite then how you arrive at the assertion above escapes me. Particularly since in making my points I have deliberately not strayed into the detailed realms of science. In that respect I show more respect for it as a subject than you show (by your own admission) for the different faiths.

As an example, you seem to work on the principle that the Bible is open to individual interpretation and therefore once anyone has read it (or even if they’ve only read parts of it) their comments on it are as valid as anyone else’s.

Respect? what on earth has that got to do with it? I know quite a lot about science, I know quite a lot about atheist philosophy, I know quite a lot about religion and comparative religion, so Im comfy talking about it. The bible is open to individual interpretation. Thats why there are 34,000 christian denominations.

Fair enough and I wouldn’t expect you to.

But if you even appreciated what it meant you would understand that faith is more than simply making a mental assent to a basis of doctrine. It is not like joining a political party by signing on to its manifesto or joining a society by signing your name in agreement to its constitution.
At last we agree on something. I dont think it is that either.

If you had appreciated that we would not have had you stating confidently in post #67 that Hitler was a Christian. Mind you, in post # 69 you thought a theist was a better way of describing him. But then in post #116 you believed that the historical evidence showed that he was indeed a Christian. But then in post #125 you changed it again to the view that Hitler’s belief system was simply theistic.

(Oh and for good measure in post # 75 you threw in the point that the Norwegian murderer, Breivick, claimed to be a Christian.) [b] Quote mine. He did. I also immediately said it wasnt what Doddie would recognise as a christian - or for the record what I think a chrisitian is either. The context made it a very relevant point

None of this mattered to the central point you were making, of course. But you ought to have realised that to come out with this stuff was actually insulting to those who hold to the Christian faith. Contrary to your stated position, this was not showing respect for them.
Precious rubbish. If I'd said all christians are like Breivik or all kill in the name of God then aye, fair enough. But I didnt and any insult is purely in your mind

The fact is that Hitler making the statement you quoted is as relevant to the claims of his Christian belief as it would be if you were to come out with a similar declaration on a public website. Anyone can simply read the Bible and come out with something like this to suit their own ends. It is meaningless as a measure of their Christian faith and the motivation for their subsequent acts.
Straw Man. One last time - it is the use of religion as a tool of extreme states that is the concern, not necessarily the beliefs of the individual

But it’s very easy to cite these simple examples to add to your underlying argument that faith and religion are a sham.

I think they are a sham, but the samples given were not presented to provide evdience of this. They were directly related to the topic. You're arguing against things I've not stated. Again.

Not really.

But you do make direct link to the Church of Scotland thread in your OP and the subject matter is a Christian example to illustrate your general point, so it’s quite clear where you’re going with it. I would imagine you could have broken in at points with some detail of, for example, the religious extremism in Iran to add weight to your argument. There is the odd reference, right enough, but no detailed critique.

I have more knowledge of christianity, I have in interest in US politics and the example was Bachmann. I can offer more on christian extremism than I can on Islamic extremism, but for the record, both are equally appalling, and in the case of the latter has effectively blocked development for 700-odd years.


Well you shouldn’t couch your posts in absolutes such as the one I highlighted. Phrased that way they just invite a response (which I think is your intent).
The highlight was a quote mine.


Oh not the "come back and fight, you coward!" line!

If indeed I hijacked the thread then it has always been your prerogative to get it back on track. And by definition I’m not ending the thread – just the side street off it that you and I have ventured down.
118, 120, 121, 125, 139, 143, 145, 147 all had at least some attempt so to do
And I choose to end that because we are going round in circles to no end and (coming back to my apparently deeply offensive opening post) I don’t appear to have the same amount of time and relish to pursue this topic as you clearly do.
Making stuff up, and somehow having a dig at me being able to spend some time posting some stuff on a topic Im interested in. Odd dig from a man with 6000+ posts

You led with another absolute statement and I challenged it with an obvious example of the other extreme. It was not a direct link with atheism, as well you know. You well understand how debate works. And to suggest that somehow I should have known not to use this example due to your personal experiences is ridiculous.
Utter nonsense. All of it. The quote mined "absolute" doesnt exist. I never suggested or hinted for a moment that you could or should have known anything about my experience, for that would stupid. Straw Man. Again.

Perhaps if as a counter-balance to your arguments elsewhere on this thread you also reflected on the failings of regimes like this from your own personal experience, it would lend much more weight to the fundamental point you are making about the risks of religious excess mixed with politics.
Maybe, but as it is an argument explicitly not linking religion with power it would be a bit odd for me to do so.

That really is outstanding! You have surpassed even your own previous high standards with this insult.

As we have never met, your understanding of my ‘world outlook’ is merely your limited understanding of my faith. You have no other basis from which to make that statement.

Gies a break. Its not an insult. People who believe in God believe I am not going to go to heaven when I die, and they are for the most part perfectly content to look upon this as being entirely correct. As a christian, I'm guessing that this is your world view, and that you view those of the same religious faith - the ones who will be joining Jesus and the Angels when they die - as better, certainly by the standards of God. If Ive got this wrong then you are in the minority

So actually you have branded not only me but others (some even on this thread) with this appalling slight. You don’t owe me an apology, but you certainly owe it to others.
I dont owe anyone an apology

[Twa Cairpets]

Both presumptious and wrong.

My faith in God is not through anything I have done or because I have achieved anything in that realm. Ultimately it is His doing and the same is available to anyone who is open to seeking it. Therefore I have nothing to feel spiritually superior about in relation to anyone, regardless of their faith or belief system. This is the fundamental Christian message - which again you don’t appear to have picked up. see above

It might make you feel better to believe that statement of yours and give justification to your anger, but it’s a complete fallacy.

There’s a big difference between ‘not caring’ and not wishing to waste any further time in a debate which is going nowhere.
Quite a tirade, TC.

You are obviously very angry about this general subject matter. Which is presumably why you keep bringing it up on here.
thats a handy wee tool, saying that I'm angry. Nice work

(I can only apologise to other posters fed up to the back teeth with this tete a tete between TC and myself. Time we let it go.)

If posters are fed up then they wont read the thread (there are plenty of threads I dont read), so there is no need to patronise anyone else as well as myself.

[Hibrandenburg]

****s sake. Hope I never get stuck in a lift with you two!

:-)

[Twa Cairpets]

****s sake. Hope I never get stuck in a lift with you two!

:-)

How about if we were joined by magpie1892 and LiverpoolHibs as mediators?

[RyeSloan]

How about if we were joined by magpie1892 and LiverpoolHibs as mediators?

Depends if you took the far left lift or the far right lift....or would that actually be the same lift? :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

How about if we were joined by magpie1892 and LiverpoolHibs as mediators?

That's by far the most convincing argumentation of there being an afterlife so far on this thread. It sounds like hell!

;-)

[IndieHibby]

A soundbite!

Vladimir Lenin would have been so proud. :whistle:

Is that a reference to my earlier post? If so, explain to me why Lenin would have been proud? Did he say that communism was inspired by secularism?

Or have I missed something?

[Betty Boop]

Documentary made by Nick Broomfield 'Sarah Palin You Betcha', on More 4 at 10.

[ballengeich]

Documentary made by Nick Broomfield 'Sarah Palin You Betcha', on More 4 at 10.

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I'd realised that her obvious intellectual limitations made her a danger to the world, but the documentary showed just what a petty, spiteful woman she is. Fortunately, I think she's now had enough public exposure for the Republicans to realise she's unelectable.

[Eyrie]

The downside to being unelectable is that she can have a lucrative career as a speaker by being intellectually limited. The world would be a better place if she went back to waving at the Russians from her window.

[Twa Cairpets]

Documentary made by Nick Broomfield 'Sarah Palin You Betcha', on More 4 at 10.

Thanks for this - just caught up with it on 4od.

The things that were frightening, and kind of referred back to the original thread topic:

1) The fact that an utterly committed religious fundamental driven by her faith actively disparages and disapproves of intelligience, learning and knowledge
2) How close she got to the White House.
3) Her terrifying plausibility to those without critical faculties

[Greentinted]

****s sake. Hope I never get stuck in a lift with you two!

:-)

Au Contraire

A runaway winner for non-football orientated thread of 2011. :cup:

[Twa Cairpets]

Now that Bachmann and Perry would appear to be yesterdays people, the latest ultra conservative Republican is Rick Santorum, a man who overtly and proudly wants policy to be driven by religion. I realise that the Iowa caucus is small, but this man was seven votes from winning it.

Hear his views on the separation of church and state here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urxWHCKDPiM)

From the "Sunshine State News" (http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/rick-santorum-takes-break-iowa-and-new-hampshire-speak-sarasota?page=2)


Marking the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association where he said that his Catholicism would not shape his policies in the White House, Santorum spoke in Houston in September to challenge JFK’s point. Santorum said that his faith and beliefs can -- and should -- guide his public actions.

Views on homosexuality and same sex marriage


“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

- Speaking to the Associated Press, April 2003

Views on abortion


Sunday, on Meet the Press, former senator and GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, described his absolutist position on abortion -- life begins at conception, no exceptions for incest or rape, and doctors performing abortions should be criminally charged.
QUESTION: Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?

SANTORUM: I believe that life begins at conception, and that that life should be guaranteed under the Constitution. That is a person.

QUESTION: So even in the case of rape or incest, that would be taking a life?

SANTORUM: That would be taking a life, and I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.

Views on Intelligent Design


The Santorum Amendment was a proposed amendment to the 2001 education funding bill which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act, proposed by then-Republican United States Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania, which promotes the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools. Though the amendment only survives in modified form in the Bill's Conference Report and does not carry the weight of law, as one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns it became a cornerstone in the intelligent design movement's "Teach the Controversy" campaign


"There are many on the left and in the scientific community, so to speak, who are afraid of that discussion because oh my goodness you might mention the word, God-forbid, 'God' in the classroom, or 'Creator,' that there may be some things that are inexplainable by nature where there may be, where it's actually better explained by a Creator, and of course we can't have that discussion," Santorum said in an editorial interview with the Nashua Telegraph. "It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."

Santorum has long expressed frustration with -- and tried to combat -- the whole "science only allows science to be taught in science class" scenario. He attempted to append the self-titled "Santorum Amendment" to the No Child Left Behind Act back when he was a senator in 2001. The amendment, which failed, served the dual purposes of promoting the inclusion of intelligent design teachings in classrooms, while simultaneously undercutting the academic merits of evolution.


Views on climate change


Rick Santorum thinks the concept of man-made climate change is both “patently absurd” and part of a “scheme” by the left to get more government regulation.

Santorum was on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show Wednesday, where he was asked whether he agrees with Mitt Romney’s comments from last Friday, embracing the universally accepted science of man-made climate change.

Santorum replied:

I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the manmade part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd.Santorum continued that the idea of man-made climate change may be part of a liberal conspiracy: “To me this is an opportunity for the left to create — it’s really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm. It’s been on a warming trend so they said, ‘Oh, let’s take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it’s getting warmer.’”

“It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life,” he added, “and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”

And if any more reason were needed to be wary, the odious, vile, appalling Glenn Beck likes him (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/glenn-beck-rick-santorum_n_1094779.html):


Glenn Beck on his Monday radio show suggested Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum could be "the next George Washington."

"If there is one guy out there that is the next George Washington, the only guy that I could think of is Rick Santorum. I would ask that you would take a look at him," said Beck. He prefaced his comments by saying that he doesn't endorse candidates, make donations or get "involved in politics." He also clarified that he doesn't "trust" any of the candidates, but if he had to pick one, it would be Santorum"

Maybe we should all start being just a little afraid.

[magpie1892]

Told you she wouldn't get anywhere near the Rep. Nom.

Told you, told you, told you!

[Twa Cairpets]

Told you she wouldn't get anywhere near the Rep. Nom.

Told you, told you, told you!

:not worth

I'm very pleased you were correct, although from what I've read and heard about Rick Santorum he makes Bachmann look a bit of a wishy washy liberal.

Gonnae wave you predictive magic with him please?:greengrin

[HibsMax]

Very interesting thread, the parts of it I have read. I wish I had the time to respond to every single point and counter point but I don't.

The only point I will make is that it always amazes me how people of faith are happy to accept so many things as facts without evidence but have such an issue with scientific matters which are dripping with evidence. I have no idea what science will prove next. Perhaps science will prove there IS a God - I don't believe there is an agenda out there to disprove God as some might think. The fact is the universe is huge, much more huge than anyone of us here can imagine* so the idea of us understanding it is quite fantastical but I am very thankful that many men and women haven't let that discourage them.

* - as an example, if you were to drive your car from one side of our galaxy to the other at 60mph, it would take something like 1.6 trillion years.....and that's just out little galaxy.

I personally don't believe in God. That doesn't mean I never will, it means that I don't right now. I don't have the same blind faith as others have and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that there is a Creator...which could mean there is no evidence or that there is but we just haven't found it (or can't understand it).


Anyway, back to the original point, I don't think we should be mixing religion with politics because if we do then we have to include all religions and treat them equally. But given the inconsistencies, that simply cannot be allowed to happen. Who gets to choose the "correct" religion?

[hibsbollah]

:not worth

I'm very pleased you were correct, although from what I've read and heard about Rick Santorum he makes Bachmann look a bit of a wishy washy liberal.

Gonnae wave you predictive magic with him please?:greengrin


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/04/rick-santorum-iowa-mitt-romney

Excellent article from Gary Younge. The Tea Party has tied its colours to a poor candidate. The real winner from Sanitorium's victory will be Obama.

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/04/rick-santorum-iowa-mitt-romney

Excellent article from Gary Younge. The Tea Party has tied its colours to a poor candidate. The real winner from Sanitorium's victory will be Obama.

Thanks Hibsbollah - its a good article.

I hope you're right about Obama.

[--------]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/04/rick-santorum-iowa-mitt-romney

Excellent article from Gary Younge. The Tea Party has tied its colours to a poor candidate. The real winner from Sanitorium's victory will be Obama.



Long way to go yet. Plenty of opportunity for GOP dirty tricks.



Remember a certain geriatric B-movie 'actor', the Iranian Embassy, the ayatollahs and Oliver North?

[GlesgaeHibby]

Just been reading up on santorum, what a complete nut job.

Climate change is junk science, enough oil for centuries-drill drill drill, hates privacy laws and would like to outlaw adultery, sodomy, abortion, homosexuality etc, will more than likely start another war in the middle east against Iran and potentially Syria, supporter of "teach the controversy".

Surely if he can win the nomination it's Obamas election to lose?

[hibsbollah]

Newt Gingrich in Florida yesterday "By the end of my second term(confident or what?!) we will have a permanant base on the moon. And it will be AMERICAN!" (to ecstatic applause).

[Dinkydoo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9040155/US-election-2012-Newt-Gingrich-calls-for-base-on-the-moon.html

[GlesgaeHibby]

What a total toss pot. The American economy is still a mess, yet he wants to invest heavily to have a base on the moon? Get real.

[Twa Cairpets]

And just to show Romneys a total Tosspot too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A

(Nowt to do with religion, just cowardly)

[RyeSloan]

What a total toss pot. The American economy is still a mess, yet he wants to invest heavily to have a base on the moon? Get real.

Mess or not I very much doubt they will continue to watch on as the Chinese make more and more strides into Space...can you imagine the symbolism of the Chinese replacing the stars n stripes on the moon with one of the PRC...this scenario is maybe not as far way as many would think as China has already started outline plans for a manned mission and has invested heavily in it's space programmes.

China also combines it's civilian and miltary space programmes so any advance they make (own space station, manned missions, rocket developments) can only be seen as threatening from a US perspective.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Mess or not I very much doubt they will continue to watch on as the Chinese make more and more strides into Space...can you imagine the symbolism of the Chinese replacing the stars n stripes on the moon with one of the PRC...this scenario is maybe not as far way as many would think as China has already started outline plans for a manned mission and has invested heavily in it's space programmes.

China also combines it's civilian and miltary space programmes so any advance they make (own space station, manned missions, rocket developments) can only be seen as threatening from a US perspective.

True, but from a personal point of view I don't mind who is winning the 'space race' these days, China has the money just now so they can invest in space exploration, and if in doing so they can advance our knowledge and explore new boundaries, great. America is broke just now, and if I was an American citizen I'd be mightily hacked off at increased investment in NASA when the country is in an economic mess and people are struggling.


On another note, interview here with Piers Morgan interviewing Santorum regarding abortion and rape. Santorum has some pretty backward views- abortion wrong in rape, even though rape is horrible the kid is still a gift from God.

Not a fan of Piers Morgan, but he owned Santorum with a question on the sanctity of life asking why If Santorum is so pro life he supports the death penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L62KzPF8c8

[HibsMax]

True, but from a personal point of view I don't mind who is winning the 'space race' these days, China has the money just now so they can invest in space exploration, and if in doing so they can advance our knowledge and explore new boundaries, great. America is broke just now, and if I was an American citizen I'd be mightily hacked off at increased investment in NASA when the country is in an economic mess and people are struggling.


On another note, interview here with Piers Morgan interviewing Santorum regarding abortion and rape. Santorum has some pretty backward views- abortion wrong in rape, even though rape is horrible the kid is still a gift from God.

Not a fan of Piers Morgan, but he owned Santorum with a question on the sanctity of life asking why If Santorum is so pro life he supports the death penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L62KzPF8c8

"Oh, what a beautiful baby. Where's the father?"

"Oh, he's in jail for raping me"




For the record, I don't think there is a fundamental difference between a baby that was conceived willingly and through rape BUT there is a massive difference to the rest of the family. The baby / child would be a constant reminder of that horrific incident in the woman's life. And what about the simple fact that a woman should be allowed to choose the father of her child? If the rapist has some hereditary medical condition that was passed onto the child, who is responsible for paying the medical bills? The unwilling mother?

[Twa Cairpets]

Santorum wins 3 states (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/07/politics/gop-tuesday-contests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Surely, surely this creature cant win?

[Future17]

Santorum wins 3 states (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/07/politics/gop-tuesday-contests/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Surely, surely this creature cant win?

It's the Republican nomination - of course he can win it. Whether he would beat Obama (despite all his problems) is another matter.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's the Republican nomination - of course he can win it. Whether he would beat Obama (despite all his problems) is another matter.

For months the polling has been

- Obama vs "generic republican", easy win for the republican
- Obama vs any of the actual candidates, easy win for Obama

[Future17]

For months the polling has been

- Obama vs "generic republican", easy win for the republican
- Obama vs any of the actual candidates, easy win for Obama

:agree:

The problem they have is the paradox in the reasoning for those statements being true and the likelihood of those situations occuring. By which I mean:

The country picks the President and the majority of people are (apparently) crying out for a "moderate" Republican to replace Obama.

Republicans pick the Republican nominee and they are extremely polarised, not only in "values" and their importance (which they are always polarised in relation to), but also in terms of opinions and policy support. Therefore, they are unlikely to end up with a "generic Republican".

The irony is, if they had a candidate who was sufficiently vacuous as to be non-commital on partisan issues, that person would likely win the nomination and the election. Where's George W Bush when you need him?!? :wink:

[One Day Soon]

:agree:

The problem they have is the paradox in the reasoning for those statements being true and the likelihood of those situations occuring. By which I mean:

The country picks the President and the majority of people are (apparently) crying out for a "moderate" Republican to replace Obama.

Republicans pick the Republican nominee and they are extremely polarised, not only in "values" and their importance (which they are always polarised in relation to), but also in terms of opinions and policy support. Therefore, they are unlikely to end up with a "generic Republican".

The irony is, if they had a candidate who was sufficiently vacuous as to be non-commital on partisan issues, that person would likely win the nomination and the election. Where's George W Bush when you need him?!? :wink:

We could send them Nick Clegg?

[steakbake]

We could send them Nick Clegg?

Mr Powderpuff himself. Where is he these days?

[hibsbollah]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sL9Jq6za6ePAPSkOd_cicLg/view.m?id=15&gid=world/2012/apr/10/rick-santorum-quits-republican-race&cat=top-stories

Santorum out now. So we have the 'generic republican', can his money make the difference...

[--------]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sL9Jq6za6ePAPSkOd_cicLg/view.m?id=15&gid=world/2012/apr/10/rick-santorum-quits-republican-race&cat=top-stories

Santorum out now. So we have the 'generic republican', can his money make the difference...


Now is the time for Raymond Shaw to pass the time by playing a little solitaire .... :devil: