Feed on Posts or Comments 22 October 2014

Christianity Admin on 29 Dec 2006 01:21 am

Should we elect a president who is delusional?

This article talks about the presidential aspirations of Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon:

The article contains this quote:

When asked about “the Mormon problem,” Romney says he is “a person of faith,” and talks about “common values” among Mormons and other denominations: “The great majority of people – Christian, non-Christian, and of different faiths – look for values, character, integrity and vision and don’t disqualify people on a religious test.”

The problem is that normal, intelligent people do celebrate values, character, integrity and vision, but they do not celebrate full-blown delusion. And there is no question that Mormons are completely delusional. Watch this video or read this article and it will be obvious that Mormons are delusional. Mormons firmly believe a number of things that are nonsensical:

  • Mormons believe that there was a giant civilization of Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago.
  • Mormons believe that there were so many of these people living in grand cities that they could have wars where more than a million men died on a single battlefield. For comparison, 15,000 men died at Gettysburg. This, of course, is ridiculous, as there are no ruins left of these gigantic cities nor any evidence of massive battlefields.

  • Mormons believe that this race of Jewish people wrote their history on golden plates and left the plates in the side of a hill in New York.
  • Mormons believe that an angel led a man named Joseph Smith to the plates.
  • Mormons believe that, by using two magical stones, Smith was able to translate the plates into English.
  • Mormons believe that the angel then carried the plates to heaven, never to be seen again.
  • And so on…

Do you believe any of this? Of course not. Every rational person knows that the cities, the battles, the golden plates, the magical stones and the angel are completely imaginary. And yet Mormons believe in all of these things completely. If you would like to learn more about Mormon beliefs, see this article and this article.

Should we elect someone who is this delusional to be president of the most powerful nation on planet earth? If a man cannot see that the beliefs of the Mormon faith are nonsense, how can we trust him with important national and international issues? That is the real question here.

The fascinating thing is that Christian beliefs are just as delusional. It is obvious to every rational person that Christianity harbors just as many delusions as Mormonism does. The difference is that 80% or so of American adults share the delusions of Christianity. This shared “bubble of delusion” leads Christians to reinforce each others’ delusions rather than to look rationally at them and discard them.

The problem for Mitt Romney is that only about 3% of Americans live inside the Mormon bubble of delusion. The number of people who harbor the Christian delsuion outweighs the number of people who harbor the Mormon delusion by a factor of 25 to 1. With luck, Christians will recognize and reject the delusions or the Mormon faith, and refuse to elect anyone who harbors these delusions. With extreme good fortune, many Christians will then look inside themselves and recognize the parallel delusions of the Christian faith, rejecting them also in order to preserve intellectual honesty. In the best case, Romney’s presidential bid allows us to openly discuss and debate the delusion of religion, and through that debate many Christians come to understand and reject their own delusions.

What is more likely to happen, unfortunately, is that Christians will turn a blind eye to the utter delusion of the Mormon faith. We never are able to have an open discussion and debate on the delusion of Romney’s religion. The reason is simple: Christians cannot afford to call the Mormons delusional. For if Christians openly state the obvious fact that Mormons are delusional, they must then acknowledge that Christians are delusional too.

28 Responses to “Should we elect a president who is delusional?”

  1. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:33 am 1.Mike said …

    Jacob Weisberg of Slate agrees with you. He says the following: “But if he gets anywhere in the primaries, Romney’s religion will become an issue with moderate and secular voters—and rightly so. Objecting to someone because of his religious beliefs is not the same thing as prejudice based on religious heritage, race, or gender.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2155902/

    How did Jacob get his Job at slate? Did someone ask him what religion he was, or did someone ask what experience he had? Perhaps someone asked to see his Resume.

    Jacob Weisberg said, “Such views are disqualifying because they’re dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.”

    Jacob can pre-judge religious people based solely on their religious beliefs? He does not need a Resume. He does not want to look at their IQ, ACT scores, or accomplishments to judge them. All he needs to know is what religion we belong to in order to classify us as “dogmatic, irrational, and absurd”. Jacob actually said, “by holding them (these beliefs), someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.”

    Is that how Jacob Weisberg got a job at slate? They asked him for a Resume, and he said, “don’t worry, I’m an atheist”. And the head-honcho at Slate, said, “Good, I don’t have enough time to look at people’s qualifications. I hate Résumé’s with all those stupid things like, ‘graduated from Harvard Business and Law School Cum Laude. Valedictorian. These don’t really mean anything. All I need to do is hear a profession of faith (testimony), or lack thereof, depending on what is fashionable in this day and time. By proclaiming your religious beliefs or lack there of you have told me everything I need to know about you. Welcome to Slate.’”

    No, I assume that Jacob had to show some qualifications maybe even a Resume. It would have been against federal law for his boss to ask him what religion he was, wouldn’t it? Jacob thinks that he should be able to disqualify individuals because of their religious beliefs when they run for president. I wonder if that is how he runs things at slate. Has Jacob ever hired someone who was not an atheist, or is that a pre-requisite at slate? You know, we don’t know what is going on over their at slate, but the rest of the world, Jacob, does not just look at a religious litmus test. There is at least some talk of qualifications. If that is all you need in order to be disqualified to be president, if it is that obvious that Mormons do not deserve any respect, no matter how hard they work or what they accomplish, why should they be allowed into college? All Mormons and the other religions that Jacob should be mentioned should be outlawed from college for the reasons that Jacob outlines. He says; “Such views are disqualifying because they’re dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.” Sorry Mitt, we are going to have to take away your degrees from Harvard Law and Business school. You are an irrational, dogmatic, and absurd Mormon. You do not deserve them.

    Jacob says, “By the same token, I wouldn’t vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.” Is that so Jacob? If you owned a business would you hire a Mormon? They have obviously proven to you that they are stupid. Do you want stupid people working for you? Do you feel comfortable admitting to the world that you are a bigot?

    Jacob says that Mitt Romney is an “Elder” in the church. If Jacob would have spent 30 seconds talking to someone from the church, he would have realized that Romney is not an Elder.

    I think it is great that Jacob wants America to be more like Northern Ireland and Iran were people are judged based on which religion they belong to.

    I’m glad that Jacob can take a short cut to intellectualism. He doesn’t have to debate Mitt Romney, he doesn’t have to read the Old Testament, New Testament, or Book of Mormon. He doesn’t have to do better in school, on the ACT’s, SAT’s or in life than Mitt Romney in order to be smarter than he is. All he has to do is reject Mormonism, and therefore he is smarter than Mitt Romney, and deserves more than Romney does, to be president. Forget that Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes; forget that he came up with a new way corralling people away from the emergency rooms and into insurance plans. None of that Matters. Jacob Weisberg is more qualified to be president, in his view, because he is not a Mormon.

    Then Jacob says about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It is his only argument that he brings to the table besides that Mormons are too stupid to be president. The rest of his article is him parading around in his naked bigotry. But here is the only argument that he bring to the table and it makes me wonder how he got a job working anywhere, even at slate magazine.

    He says, “Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same [transparent fraud]. But a few eons makes a big difference. The world’s greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor.” So according to Jacob every other time there was a religious movement were people left one church and joined another, it was healthy. It was good, because it was a reformation. But when my ancestor, George Laub, who was a Baptist preacher left his church to become a Mormon it was not part of this refining process? He does not think that Mormonism had anything to draw my grandparents to it? It was not a healthy splintering or moderation? Why are all the other new religions good, but Mormonism was bad? Jacob does not tell us. He wants us to judge mitt Romney, without looking at any of the details of his life, and he wants us to agree with him (that religious bigotry towards Mormons is good) without giving us any reason to agree with him. No substance. No reasons to come to his conclusion. No logic. No independent way of judging Mitt. No use of a Resume. No looking at his skills or experience. And Jacob gives us no reason to agree with him, except other religions have been around longer, and for some reason their leaders that started new churches were good, and our leaders were not. We are just supposed to jump to his side without any substance, without any reason besides his self righteous mockery.

    I would like to see Jacob Weisberg’s Resume, and I can get Mitt Romney’s resume, and we can see who America thinks is smarter.

    ~~~Mike

    This is kind of a rough draft. I got my degree in electrical engineering, and I don’t write very well. Could someone who can use words better than me take a stab at this?

    Mormons believe that there was a giant civilization of Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago.

    Why is this delusional? The Bible talks about lost tribes being led away, and being brought back…

  2. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:36 am 2.Courtney said …

    It makes no difference whether God “gives you hope.” That does not affect whether he exists one bit.

  3. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:38 am 3.Courtney said …

    What the hell? The reply I was responding to just disappeared.

  4. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:42 am 4.Mike said …

    About the population numbers you might want to read:

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

    Wikipedia gives the incas a population of 15,000,000

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

    And 19,000,000 is the estimated population of the Aztec.

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

    The wars in the book of Mormon were wars were Men, Wemon, and Children faught until one people were inhilated, which is much different than the book of Mormon…

  5. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:43 am 5.Admin said …

    Court,

    Apologies. Jimson had left the comment:

    “God gives people hope. If it helps Mitt Romney to lead a better life, it makes no difference if he is a Mormon.”

    Or something close to that.

    There were about 15 spam messages that needed to be deleted, and Jimson’s message was accidentally deleted in the process.

  6. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:46 am 6.Mike said …

    This, of course, is ridiculous, as there are no ruins left of these gigantic cities nor any evidence of massive battlefields?

    No evidence of these giant cities? There were an estimated 19 million Aztecs, 15 million incas. Have you ever heard of the recent new york times best seller called “Collapse”? You might want to brush up on your ancient american peoples history…

  7. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:48 am 7.Mike said …

    http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=393

  8. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:49 am 8.Mike said …

    Lehi’s Jerusalem and Writing on Metal Plates
    William J. Adams, Jr.

    Lehi sent his sons back to Jerusalem to obtain scriptures engraved on “brass plates” (1 Nephi 3 and 4). Later we read that Lehi and his son, Nephi, kept records on metal “plates” (1 Nephi 6 and 9). These incidences raise the question: Did others in Lehi’s Jerusalem inscribe records on metal plates?

    The use of metal plates upon which records are inscribed is fairly well attested throughout the Middle and Far East from many centuries before to many centuries after Lehi, but none so far appear to be from Lehi’s seventh-century BC Judea.1

    This lack of metal inscriptions from Judea could be interpreted to mean that (1) Judeans did not write on metal plates, or (2) archaeology has not found artifacts which would support the practice of writing on metal plates in seventh-century BC Jerusalem. Alternative 2 seems to have been the problem, for inscribed silver plates have been excavated only recently.

    Dr. Gabriel Barkay of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, directed an excavation on a ridge behind modern Jerusalem’s railroad station and next to the Scottish Presbyterian Church of St. Andrew. The dig was begun in 1979, and in 1980 the team opened a tomb that dates to the end of the seventh-century and the beginning of the sixth (or about 600 BC). Dr. Barkay notes that “Among the rich finds in the repository were two small, rolled-up strips of silver. Similar artifacts are completely unknown elsewhere in the archaeology of this period.”2

    It took three years to unroll the strips of silver, which were about 1 inch by 4 inches. One of the exciting facts is that the strips of silver had been inscribed. In 1983 only the Divine Name could be read. This consists of the four Hebrew letters yod-hey-vav-hey, YHVH, which are translated as Jehovah or Lord.

    “The scribe who wrote on the strips in antiquity scratched them without much pressure, so the inscriptions sit only on the surface. It will take a long time before we are able to decipher these two texts. We can now say only that the texts are prayer-like or amuletic in nature.”3

    Since then Dr. Barkay has published tentative translations of the two silver plates.4 Here is his suggested translation for Plate I:

    1. JEHOV[AH]
    2. . . .
    3. love
    4. the covenant
    5. and the mercy
    6. for Aaron and for my obedience
    7. . . .
    8. eternity that . . .
    9. . . . from the grave
    10. and what (is) evil
    11. for . . . save
    12. will smite JEHOVAH
    13. that they be weary
    14. . . .
    15. may bless
    16. you JEHOVAH and
    17. watch over you May cause
    18. to shine JEHOVAH
    19. His face upon you and favor you.

    The suggested translation for Plate II is as follows:

    1. the blessing
    2. JEHOV[AH]
    3. . . . JE[HOVAH]
    4. evil
    5. that may bless you
    6. JEHOVAH and
    7. watch over you.
    8. May cause to shine JEHO-
    9. VAH His face
    10. upon you and
    11. give you pe
    12. ace.
    13. – 18. unreadable

    Plate I, lines 14–20 and Plate II, lines 5–12 are quotations from Numbers 6:24–26 and thus are quite readable on the plates. The other parts of the plates are not quotations and are more difficult to read.

    The conclusion for Book of Mormon studies is that the gap has been filled, and we can be certain that religious texts were written on precious metal plates in Lehi’s Jerusalem.

    Notes

    1. See, for example, John A. Widtsoe and Franklin S. Harris, Jr., Book of Mormon: Message and Evidences, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1961), 98–108.

    2. Gabriel Barkay, “The Divine Name Found in Jerusalem,” Biblical Archaeology Review 9/2 (1983): 14–19.

    3. Ibid.

    4. Gabriel Barkay, “Priestly Blessings on Silver Plates” (in Hebrew), Cathedra 52 (1989): 46–59.

  9. on 29 Dec 2006 at 11:06 am 9.Mike said …

    You can see Mormon scholars here:

    If you want to hear what we really believe:

    http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/bookofmormon.php?selection=bom&cat=bom

  10. on 29 Dec 2006 at 12:57 pm 10.RJ said …

    I guess everyone is “DELUSIONAL!”

    The FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and every military Intelligence Agency must have lost their collective minds and must be DELUSIONAL because they all actively recruit Mormons!

    The DEMOCRATIC members of the SENATE, including Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Clinton, must be DELUSIONAL because they just elected a MORMON as their leader.

    LARRY KING of CNN must be even more DELUSIONAL because he is married to a MORMON!

    I know GEORGE W. must be DELUSIONAL because he appointed a MORMON to be his HHS Secretary.

    And what about the PHILADEPHIA EAGLES organization–They hired a Mormon to be their head Coach!

    STEVE YOUNG must have been DELUSIONAL when he won the SUPER BOWL for San Francisco!

    Finally, the good people of the states of Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Idaho must be DELUSIONAL for they all voted for Mormon Congressmen and Congresswoman.

    Your Right! Everyone is DELUSIONAL–did you miss your meds this morning??????????????????????????????????

  11. on 29 Dec 2006 at 7:57 pm 11.Matt Starrs said …

    Well I just came back for a second day. I got such a kick out of reading your junk yesterday. I think the reason I find it so amusing is that word “delusional”.

    You love having a shot at everyone elses “delusions” when you are probably more deluded than any of them.

    (we are probably all deluded to some degree).

    I bet you believe in things that the overwhelming majority of people (either today or in history)would reject. For example, I suspect you would be an evolutionist. Please forgive me this assumption if I am wrong, but the odds are in my favour.

    When I did my psychology degree we were taught that our research question had to have a 95% probability of being right or we had to reject it. (Alpha level of 0.05)

    In the same school we were taught that the evolution of the human eye (just the eye) had a probability of just one in several billion.

    I can’t even imagine the probability of evolution being responsible for all life as we know it.

    Yet we unquestioningly accept the explanation despite the obvious leap of faith required.

    Couldn’t this be seen as just as delusional as any religious belief?

  12. on 29 Dec 2006 at 8:00 pm 12.aqiles said …

    I don’t understand where you stand, RJ… that’s the point: they ARE delusional!!!

    I’m just being sarcastic, RJ. As long as their religios views are not imposed to the rest of us, why not? Let them be… I’m not homosexual but that does not mean I would not work for one, hire one or vote for one. I know this is a loose analogy, but this is it in lieu of sufficient gray matter.

    Of course, we all know: power corrupts. And their views will be imposed upon all of us. Look at the current administration and the kidnapping of the Constitution.

  13. on 29 Dec 2006 at 10:47 pm 13.B Truman said …

    May I quote something from one of your links?

    “I wish to make it very clear that the LDS people whom I know and with whom I work (I am also the chaplain for the Home Health\Hospice in St. George.) are wonderful people! They are nice. They are zealously mission-minded. They are family oriented. At times, I have even found that many of our own Lutheran members secretly and not so secretly envy the LDS missionary and family practices. “Why can’t we be more like the Mormons?” (See sidebar topic #1) I have heard, especially when I travel to the Midwest.”

    The family and missionary values of the Mormons are commendable. The fact that their beliefs are unconventional is irrelevant. We need a president with strong values.

  14. on 30 Dec 2006 at 8:51 pm 14.AAA said …

    You are completely wrong! Romney is a good, decent man and deserves our respect!

  15. on 30 Dec 2006 at 9:36 pm 15.Loi P said …

    Alright, so I’ll say that Mormans are nice people but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re delusional.

  16. on 01 Jan 2007 at 3:11 am 16.Mattstarrs said …

    Oh man!

    Hey Loi P, Nice mormons are nice people. Nasty ones are nasty. Just like all other groups. Narrow, shallow, intellectually challenged people need to use sweeping generalisations about groups because they are struggling to convince themselves that their own group is all that. Get over it man. Some people that agree with you are smarter than you and some are dumber than you, some that disagree are smarter than you and some are dumber than you.

    If Romney is a Mormon it doesn’t make him good or bad. Whether his beliefs are true or false is far less important (in terms of his ability to do the job well) than his reasons for holding those beliefs (for example, does he profess in order to get the Mormon vote, or, Does he believe that this belief system will help him to maintain his integrity).

    If I were to use your rationale I should never vote for an aetheist, because in my opinion you have to be deluded to believe that there is no God.

    I would rather look at the policies myself.

  17. on 01 Jan 2007 at 4:04 pm 17.MrMiyagi said …

    Me again, Matt

    I’m sorry if I appear to be singling you out, it is not my intention. c.f. other posts :-)

    You said “I can’t even imagine the probability of evolution being responsible for all life as we know it.” You’ll need to qualify that a little. I know what you are saying, but ‘biogenesis’ or the origin of life is an issue outside of evolution.

    Be that as it may, and assuming your comment combines both biogenesis and evolution, I have to take issue with you. The only way you can imagine this improbable existance of ours is by imagining an even more improbable entity to create it all with some purpose? Puh-leaze.

    Kind regards,
    Mike

  18. on 03 Jan 2007 at 7:49 am 18.Mattstarrs said …

    No offence taken!
    I meant the statistical numerical representation.

    It’s way outside the boundaries for rejecting a null hypothesis. Sure, the concept of a world outside of our world, in which our world is merely a subset is at least equally improbable in a statistical analysis. But it’s not science. I personally don’t claim it to be. I recognise that science is no good for verifying those kind of concepts. But I also recognise that the same goes for all alternate theories of ontology of life, the universe and everything. After all, we know for sure that the universe is finite, and at some point it had a beginning. After that it is all guess work.

    My reasons for my beliefs don’t hang on science in the technical sense. However, I haven’t come across too much science that gives me reason to pause.

    The fact that so many zealous ignorants want to get all frenzied about my faith actually plays into some very well trodden ground for Christians, and reinforces our faith in a positive way. That’s not why I believe what I believe, but it’s one of the reasons that I am not unwilling to look at opposing arguements. It has been my experience for more than 20 years that all opposing arguements ultimately either fail,or cannot be conclusively substantiated. There are certainly some grey areas. But nothing that negates orthodox Christianity. Even in my short lifetime we are seeing archeological discoveries that both support the bible (such as the unearthing of Jericho that was previously said to have never existed)and also those that either refute common evolutionary beliefs,or show that formerly accepted evidence was fraudulent (such as the fabrication of evidence for various “species” of prehistoric man).

    But thanks for asking.

    Matt.

  19. on 03 Jan 2007 at 4:19 pm 19.Mushinronjya said …

    matts –

    It doesn’t make sense to say that people questioning your belief therefore “reinforces” your belief. That is not logical. The fact that it *is* questioned is what should tear down the belief. Only through logic and reasoning are you capable of arriving at the truth. The fact that your mythology is not supported by such is enough to show that it should not be seriously considered as truth in any way.

    Why *would* we accept something as truth without evidence, anyhow? It’s impossible. You cannot avoid using logic and reasoning. Until you get some, then anything you say in support of your mythology is ridiculous.

    You can say you look at “opposing arguments” all you want, but that doesn’t mean you know how to think properly enough in order to effectively weigh the information. You need to first learn how to think, *then*, and only then, will you be capable of analyzing why you are wrong – and to look at the truth.
    Because I tell you this.. you *are* wrong when you posit imaginary friends. It’s up to *you* to discover *why* you’re wrong.

    Where is the evidence for seas parting?
    or for people walking on water?
    or for burning bushes talking?
    or for angels?
    or people coming back from the dead?
    or for afterlife?
    You have nothing.
    You lose before you even can begin.

  20. on 04 Jan 2007 at 3:09 pm 20.MrMiyagi said …

    Hi, Matt and Mushi,

    Interesting little spat between you two over in the Grand Canyon:-) Quite entertaining.

    I find it fascinating that you would describe science as a ‘cult’ and a ‘belief’ and be prepared to toss the lot down an abandoned mineshaft. And then write about it on a computer, using the internet, both of which are directly descended from this same science. No doubt you and your family enjoy good health and nutrition, medical care, efficient transport, television, electricity, running water, and every other convenience civilisation has to offer. If science is a cult, I’m a believer.

    As for religion? I understand it clearly when you say that your faith has had a positive effect on your life, and I’m pleased for you. For me, it’s been the other way around. My loss of faith has brought me freedom from bigotry, a thirst for knowledge, self-reliance, and a healthy skepticism for the positions of both science and religion.

    As for the comment of science changing it’s mind as often as the JWs, you are perfectly correct. The difference is that science never said that the previous theory was the absolute truth worth dying for. It has always said only that the evidence suggests that a certain theory is a possible explanation of certain observations. It’s conclusions are always open to debate and change. The Watchtower, on the other hand, has the monopoly on “Absolute Truth(tm)”

    I hope you and your family have a great 2007.

    Regards,
    Mike

  21. on 04 Jan 2007 at 3:37 pm 21.Mattstarrs said …

    Well said Mike.
    Actually, I do not oppose science. I enjoy science and it’s benefits as much as the next guy. I just don’t want to blindly rubber stamp every theory just because some scientific school of thought thinks it is rational (you know, like the way many universities teach evolution relying soley on phenotypes and use the weight of popular opinion in the industry to get them over the line).
    My point is that I don’t see how this is any different than the major criticisms of religion made on this blog site.
    People like Mushinronjya to me are no different to the worst examples of religious zealots. I can imagine him rubbing his hands with glee as those that reject his dogma are burned at the stake.
    The things that motivate that kind of zealotry have nothing to do with science or knowledge. They are just the things used to justify hatred. That’s how bigotry works. Truth is selective. What’s important is maintaining the “us” and “them” dynamic.
    Mushinronjya links to his myspace site. Click on his name, read his blogs and tell me he is no bigot.
    When you factor in this human dynamic to the pursuit of truth it becomes apparent that motives must be taken into account. Why else would we take the time to see who funded research when deciding whether we should take it seriously.
    I am actually glad for you that you have found “freedom from bigotry, a thirst for knowledge, self-reliance, and a healthy skepticism” by rejecting a religion that denied you those things. My “religion” (I hate calling it that. Too many bad associations.The word actually comes from a latin root meaning to bind)actually gave me the things that yours denied you.
    One of the shortfalls of the hard sciences that the arts (like sociology,anthropology, psych) like to point out is the massive failure of its participants to come to terms with the complexities of the human dynamic, particularly the egocentric blindness endemic to our race. We see it clearly in religion throughout history. But it doesn’t come from religion. It’s just obvious there. It shows up in every area of life.
    Cheers!

  22. on 04 Jan 2007 at 9:31 pm 22.Mushinronjya said …

    Matts-

    Theories are supported by facts.
    We use the facts we obtain in science in order to create theories based on those facts.
    Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth. You cannot know truth in any other way. It’s just not possible.

    Whether you “accept theories” or not is irrelevant. Firstly, you have to explain what theory you are referring to. Secondly, you have nothing else to go on other than what science provides. Lastly, any alternatives you offer *have to be scientific*.

    Theories aren’t good just because some science school says so. It’s good because of the EVIDENCE PROVIDED. You obviously have never looked into what evidence is provided for whatever theory you have a problem with (unless you are trying to have a problem with *any* theory at all in general). If you have, you would know all of this… and I wouldn’t have to sit here explaining it to you.

    Evolution is science. You learn it, you don’t believe in it.

    I’m not a religious zealot. I’m not religious at all. I know reality. I know science, apparently a bit better than you do. You probably can’t even give me the definition of evolution.
    What dogma do I have?
    So you say you benefit from science, but you call it “dogma”? Not very “educated” of you at all. Apparently you slept during those classes.

    Don’t presume to know why I’m interesting in topics such as religion. I haven’t told you. You are only looking like a fool for trying to say you know. But apparently you want to try to come across like you know a thing or two by trying this pop-psychology. And I think it has something to do with the fact that you can’t defend your incredibly ignorant assertions on this board (like science being a religion, as you have said).

    Religion is evil. If you would like to call me a bigot you may do so. But that doesn’t change the fact that religion is evil and bad for mankind, and that it needs to be educated out of our societies.

    Being intolerant of the belief in imaginary friends and peoples’ want to change this country into a theocracy is by far not a bad thing at all. It’s actually a good thing. Show me, one example, how it is bad? I’d love to see your rational.

    I do not want to kill religious people, as you have assumed (making yourself look like an ass).
    I want to kill religion itself.
    Big difference.
    Get that? Don’t create another strawman, got it?

    It’s not the “who” of the funding of research that should decide whether you should take information seriously. It’s the information found out, and how it was found out, that should determine if it should be taken seriously. This is simple logic.

  23. on 04 Jan 2007 at 10:32 pm 23.Mattstarrs said …

    “We use the facts we obtain in science in order to create theories based on those facts”. – Actually, we test theories in science by replicable experimentation. Theories can be supported by the data or give us cause to reject the theory. Scientifically speaking, “facts” are not in the equation as science does not have the ability to prove anything, only to disprove. That’s why we say that our findings “support” a hypothesis. We allow space for the unknown. We draw conclusions, but it is with the understanding that future research my provide alternate explanations.

    “Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth”. – That’s why I equate your science with religious bigotry. I “know” that you will respond with an unpleasant outburst of hysteria, but it ain’t science.

    “Firstly, you have to explain what theory you are referring to. Secondly, you have nothing else to go on other than what science provides. Lastly, any alternatives you offer *have to be scientific*.
    – So the there is no place for historical evidence. How about eyewitness testimony? If you don’t accept eyewitness testimony don’t waste your money on a scientific journal, you have to do all of the research yourself (BTW, where would you get the funding for that research – oh yeah, only from someone with a vested interest).

    “Theories aren’t good just because some science school says so. It’s good because of the EVIDENCE PROVIDED.” – Which of course raises another red flag, ie: evidence not provided. You seem to be of the point of view that merely declaring yourself aethiest and “scientific” will at once turn you into a paragon of virtue! I am saying that there is good science AND bad science out there, and you better know how to tell the difference. Apparantly you don’t, and you are upset that I should raise the question.

    “If you have, you would know all of this… and I wouldn’t have to sit here explaining it to you.” – All talk and no listen makes Ted a dull boy.

    “Don’t presume to know why I’m interesting in topics such as religion. I haven’t told you. You are only looking like a fool for trying to say you know. But apparently you want to try to come across like you know a thing or two by trying this pop-psychology”. – I looked at your MYSPACE site that your name is linked to. You didn’t tell me your name was Ted either, but I guess us asses are good guessers. Where the heck did you think I got that deplorable quote from?

    “So you say you benefit from science, but you call it “dogma”?” – I wasn’t calling science dogma, I was calling your freaky abuse of it dogmatic.

    “Being intolerant of the belief in imaginary friends and peoples’ want to change this country into a theocracy is by far not a bad thing at all. It’s actually a good thing. Show me, one example, how it is bad? I’d love to see your rational”.
    - 100 million corpses thanks to communism, just for starters.

    “want to change this country into a theocracy” – Is that what you are afraid of? It’s not on my agenda.

    “I do not want to kill religious people, as you have assumed (making yourself look like an ass)”. – It was a word picture used to make a point and not meant to be taken literally. Notice in said picture you are a passive not active participle. You seem to have had a different picture in your mind. If you think I am being too dramatic take a look at Milgrams experiment, post WWII. It was conducted with subjects that were probably not nearly as aggressive as you (look at your language – the number of times you tell me “don’t”! This is agressive language – although I confess that I have had some fun with your aggression and inability to comprehend by being provocative).

    “It’s not the “who” of the funding of research that should decide whether you should take information seriously. It’s the information found out, and how it was found out, that should determine if it should be taken seriously”.
    - the former is a strong determinant in the latter.

    “This is simple logic”.
    I agree. Very simple . . . VERY SIMPLE!

  24. on 05 Jan 2007 at 1:28 pm 24.Mushinronjya said …

    “[quote]Actually, we test theories in science by replicable experimentation. Theories can be supported by the data or give us cause to reject the theory. Scientifically speaking, “facts” are not in the equation as science does not have the ability to prove anything, only to disprove.[/quote]”

    No, we look at the data (facts) that we have, and we construct theories based on those facts. Theories are *always* supported by data, not “can be”. What are you smoking?

    [quote]“Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth”. – That’s why I equate your science with religious bigotry. I “know” that you will respond with an unpleasant outburst of hysteria, but it ain’t science.[/quote]

    Religious bigotry?
    Are you freakin *STUPID*?!?!?!?!
    How *ELSE* are you going to know ANYTHING AT ALL *WITHOUT SCIENCE*?!?! Without using logic and reasoning??!?! You’re a total mental case.
    Give me *one* way you can obtain knowledge of something that exists without using such.. just *one*… comon boy. You think your religion is going to give you information? Hell I’d *love* to hear that one! haha

    [quote]- So the there is no place for historical evidence. How about eyewitness testimony?[/quote]

    Eyewitness testimony != evidence.
    Having people tell you that “they saw an angel” is not evidence whatsoever to any degree.
    -we have no evidence of an angel
    -we don’t know what an angel is
    -someone saying they saw something doesn’t mean what they saw was an angel
    -the word angel is mostly a meaningless word

    Yes, for extra-ordinary claims, we need extra-ordinary evidence. People saying they saw a unicorn doesn’t mean that there are any, Einstein. :)
    But then again, logic isn’t your forte, is it?

    [quote]If you don’t accept eyewitness testimony don’t waste your money on a scientific journal[/quote]

    Scientific journals don’t rely on eyewitness stories in order to substantiate claims in the scientific community. What’s relied upon is evidence and the procedures that lead up to the person(s) findings.

    [quote]I am saying that there is good science AND bad science out there, and you better know how to tell the difference. Apparantly you don’t, and you are upset that I should raise the question.[/quote]

    I’m sure there is “bad science” out there, but that’s why whenever science produces something for scrutiny, they also provide us, believe it or not, the steps to replicate what they have concluded! Did you know that? So if we want to know if it’s bad science, we merely look at the data they provide in order to replicate it.

    Evolution is a science where the data we have on it is up for scrutiny and testing. It has been tested and proven to be accurate. The age of the planet is ages old. This is all successfully tested information. This is what we refer to as “good science”. Bad science doesn’t last too long in the scientific community.

    I don’t get upset over any questions raised.

    [quote]“So you say you benefit from science, but you call it “dogma”?” – I wasn’t calling science dogma, I was calling your freaky abuse of it dogmatic.[/quote]

    Science is not used as a religion, like you have attempted to assert.
    I do not molest it whatsoever, even though you’d like to think so.

    [quote]“want to change this country into a theocracy” – Is that what you are afraid of? It’s not on my agenda.[/quote]

    It’s something that’s being attempted, and it shouldn’t happen, yes. But the mere fact that you attempt to fight against science shows that you contribute to this.

    [quote]“I do not want to kill religious people, as you have assumed (making yourself look like an ass)”. – It was a word picture used to make a point and not meant to be taken literally.[/quote]

    Again, you say one thing and then attempt to interpret it to mean another.
    This seems to be a common thing with you.

  25. on 05 Jan 2007 at 1:29 pm 25.Mushinronjya said …

    Can someone tell me the code to properly quote what people type?

  26. on 05 Jan 2007 at 6:33 pm 26.Mattstarrs said …

    Honestly, this is my last post in this spat. You simply refuse to even try to see where I am coming from and either ignore, misrepresent or misunderstand far too much to keep my interest. Your arguments have more holes than swiss cheese. You tell me not to build strawmen, but you do in every post (like the rant about angels). You ask me to offer examples and I do convincingly but you are as dead to them and they slip under your radar.

    So here is one last example to seal my case.

    In an earlier post you said:
    “Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth”.

    To which I responded:
    – That’s why I equate your science with religious bigotry. I “know” that you will respond with an unpleasant outburst of hysteria, but it ain’t science.

    This was a simple test that any moron could have understood. It is certainly not science in any technical sense. However I made a prediction based on my understanding of “the truth”. I said that you would respond to my logic for equating your application of science in a bigoted way to the way some religious people apply their religion in a bigoted way. I told you that you would have an “unpleasant outburst of hysteria”.

    Was I correct? Did I know the truth or not? Let’s look at your response:

    Religious bigotry?
    Are you freakin *STUPID*?!?!?!?!
    How *ELSE* are you going to know ANYTHING AT ALL *WITHOUT SCIENCE*?!?! Without using logic and reasoning??!?! You’re a total mental case.

    Looks like I nailed it.

    I do love your challenge that you followed with when you say:

    Give me *one* way you can obtain knowledge of something that exists without using such.. just *one*… comon boy.

    But of course, I have given you many, and then I set the stage for you to give me the capstone. Well done. I couldn’t have made my point so well without you.

    I would like to say touche, checkmate, game, set and match but you are very unreasonable . . . and you say you honour reason? You break your own rules of engagement. You criticise “religion” as if it were a singular entity. You make blanket statements with no supporting evidence. You refuse to look at ideas that challenge your beliefs. You are so nieve that you cannot see your own egocentrism. You think you are educated because you selectively read books by those that agree with you. And all of this blindness is undergirded by your hysterical anger. Why is that? Is it because your parents abused you as a child? (I am not guessing, you put this in the public domain on your myspace site). Is this not something that you should examine to see if your bias is in fact not as “rational and logical” as you would like us to believe?

    So know I will desist from trying to help a blind man understand colour.

    I will respond to you no more.

    Matt.

  27. on 06 Jan 2007 at 12:06 pm 27.Mushinronjya said …

    When a fool like yourself asserts something like science being a religion, and then goes off the deep end and asserts that evolution is not a science, and that it requires “beliefs”.

    And then you go and talk about how you think you have “predicted” how someone will react to something? As if that matters at all? What matters here is your education – or lack thereof. Why don’t you stop hiding behind your imaginary friends and learn a few things?

    “Give me *one* way you can obtain knowledge of something that exists without using such.. just *one*… comon boy.

    But of course, I have given you many, and then I set the stage for you to give me the capstone. Well done. I couldn’t have made my point so well without you.”

    You have given us nothing at all.
    I’ll give you one more chance: Give us a way of obtaining knowledge where we don’t use logic and reasoning. Thanks.
    Don’t just say you have done it already, without doing it, you must actually give it. Until you do, saying you have won’t make it that you did.
    Do you stomp your feet when you’re mad?

    I’m unreasonable? I’m the one that is well grounded, doesn’t have imaginary friends, doesn’t say that it’s not fair to call someone deluded when they are, doesn’t say science is a religion and is dogma. I’m the one that uses logical progression.. what have you done? You just play on words, and attempt to re-interpret what you’ve already written when you’re boxed in a corner.

    No, son, you’ve been checkmated and laughed at by more than myself in these forums.

    Criticizing religion because it is “one entity” (it is when you consider it theistic religion), is not “unreasonable”. Any religion which touts imaginary friends and asks you to believe in them and to follow their rules is unhealthy for mankind. If you think I’m unreasonable for this, then you have no idea what the word “reason” means.

    I’ve debated wanna-bes like you for years. You have nothing extra you have brought to this table here, and attempting to think you can have the last word and look good will never do you good, because no matter how much you xians attempt to have a last word, even if you get it, you never, ever look smarter or more intelligent than the atheist that just tore you a new one. Why? Because the words speak for themselves, and everyone can see that all you can do is play on them.

    I find it very funny you would call me naive. Oh wait, you didn’t even spell it right.

    What statements did I make that required supporting evidence – that I have not backed up? Oh wait, all you can do is say I have, again, without giving any examples whatsoever. Why am I not surprised? Typical theistic behavior on your part. Thanks for not being any different than the other xians, makes it easier to defeat you in what could have been a debate but never was – because you are not properly armed.

    It’s also funny you attempt to use pop-psychology on me. This is a sorry debate tactic. You have nothing to defend, so the sorry xian resorts to any attack he can, because he doesn’t have anything else. Well let’s see here, I’m well grounded and have a love for reality and science. You are not, you have imaginary friends, think that magic exists, and that you’ll live forever.

    Who’s the one with the better mental health? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not you. :)

  28. on 08 Jan 2007 at 4:06 pm 28.Mushinronjya said …

    I’ve been talking to John Edwards. He says that he fully supports the separation of church and state.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply