On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote: This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps.
Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process.
But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go b
y.
It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though.
I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell?
Entertaining the possibility of there being multiple universes or multiple dimensions when theory says it is a possibility is not the same as believing in it.
There is absolutely no evidence or any scientific theory even remotely suggesting that your soul magically travels to heaven or hell after death and remains there for all eternity. That is simply absurd and ridiculous.
You're just making shit up to fill in our gaps in scientific knowledge. And yes, you would be a moron to believe this baseless fairy tale.
There is also no concrete evidence against it. Back in the Medieval period, someone could have said "The Sun, the Earth, and the planets are grouped with that band of light we call the Milky Way into a 'galaxy'", and a response could have been "I haven't seen evidence supporting this conclusion". Just because no evidence has been found yet does not imply that none will be found in the future. You are just as blind in your opposing of this as the people who believe they go to heaven. You are making things up to fill in gaps in scientific "knowledge"
Remember with science, people "knew" that kinetic energy was E=mv^2, but then some guy came along and said that is only accurate in a few cases. How can you be so arrogant as to "know" that this won't happen with any of the currently accepted theories? It is great to say "I think this theory is very likely", but terrible to say "I think this theory is correct".
Of course it is, because if a theory is correct its no longer a theory. Its a law.
A law is not something that is believed to be more true than a theory.
A theory is a general framework that explains a particular set of phenomena. A law is simply a mathematical equation that describes some aspect of that phenomena, i.e. a law is a (small) part of a theory. Laws, like theories, can be correct, merely approximations, or completely wrong.
DALLAS, Texas – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Thursday that President Obama wants more young adults to go to college so they can undergo “indoctrination” to a secular world view.
DALLAS, Texas – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Thursday that President Obama wants more young adults to go to college so they can undergo “indoctrination” to a secular world view.
-_- that man is not well.
It's not a very rare claim to make tho, anti-intellectualism has been part of the republican party for quite a while, and its part of almost all european populist right-wing organizations too. The Party for Freedom, the FN, the BNP, all make similar statements.
DALLAS, Texas – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Thursday that President Obama wants more young adults to go to college so they can undergo “indoctrination” to a secular world view.
-_- that man is not well.
It's not a very rare claim to make tho, anti-intellectualism has been part of the republican party for quite a while, and its part of almost all european populist right-wing organizations too. The Party for Freedom, the FN, the BNP, all make similar statements.
I just don't know how to respond to that claim. I mean, first what to think of the idea that education is some kind of plot to indoctrinate people to a secular world view. Second, what to think of the idea that Obama maliciously wants to reach that goal.
Education oftentimes leads to a secular world view. His logic has to be that "knowing more things" leads to a secular world view, and I don't like secular world views, therefore people should be kept ignorant.
DALLAS, Texas – Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Thursday that President Obama wants more young adults to go to college so they can undergo “indoctrination” to a secular world view.
-_- that man is not well.
It's not a very rare claim to make tho, anti-intellectualism has been part of the republican party for quite a while, and its part of almost all european populist right-wing organizations too. The Party for Freedom, the FN, the BNP, all make similar statements.
It´s so funny, I have been into Bill Hicks for quite a while now, may his soul rest wherever it went(probably hell where all the good music is :D), and NOTHING has changed. Same arguments are thrown around and his program was about Bush Sen. and the early Clinton. You might think people tend to learn and evolve, at least in a reasonable amount of time.
i decided i might shed some light on the rationale behind the "colleges are secularizing/liberalizing" argument made by many conservatives/republicans. please keep in mind that i am not trying to prove the argument as valid nor am i going to give my own position on it. i am simply trying to explain the rationale. feel free to disagree with it, but try to understand it.
it goes as such:
the fact is that most college professors are liberal/atheistic. whatever the reasons for this are, be it higher intelligence, more knowledge, whatever... it is a fact that they are indeed more liberal/atheistic than the general population. it is also a fact that the longer a student spends in the american collegiate system, the more likely they are to be atheistic/agnostic and liberal (there are some exceptions, but in general this is true).
now, and keep in mind that i am not condemning or casting judgement. in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view. you might say "well, those points of view are correct"; and that is certainly a valid argument to make, i am not trying to say that they aren't. but the fact is that one point of view is much more prevelant in the collegiate system and that point of view is often pushed as the valid and correct point of view.
so conservatives see this as a concerted effort by the professors and schools to promote their own point of view at the expense of the students. are conservatives correct? i don't know and i won't try to guess. imo dwelling on the motivations of people is not exactly constructive, and also, imo it doesn't really matter. one side argues that they are, the other argues that they aren't. at the end of the day it's not going to change anything. it is a fact that the general population is far more religious than the majority of academia. it is also a fact that the general population is far more conservative than academia. there could be hundreds of reasons for this, but the fact remains. that is why many conservatives lash out at schools, especially colleges. they see colleges as institutions of liberal/atheistic ideology, rather than institutions of education. it is not so much that they are anti-intellectual, as they are fighting against a percieved form of discrimination by intellectuals. i hope that helps illuminate the position that many conservatives, including Santorum, take.
i think both sides could do with a little more understanding and patience. it's hard though, because the two sides of the argument are often very opposed on fundamental ideas of reality and theology.
edit: regarding a reply, i think i should ellaborate more on this comment:
"in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view."
most of the times it is a very appropriate time, and in a very appropriate manner. i agree that i have never had the POV of religion pushed in any class where religion was not a part of the class discussion.
On February 24 2012 22:16 Doublemint wrote: //edit: Though I should add that yes, I don´t see how the catholic church can "compromise" on the contraception/abortion issue, and therefore Santorum got a point. But seeing how much society changed after the 60s and the fact that catholics rather dismiss those rules nowadays gets the church in a very uncomfortable situation, and their only answer seems to get back to the "roots" and alienate themselves even more from believers. At least that´s mainly the case in Europe - can´t tell much about the US since Christians for the most part there have not been a part of the "club" for quite some time^^. I should read up more on evangelicals etc.
The actual Bible says nothing about abortion and there is plenty of scripture to indicate that a newborn <1 year old does not have the same worth as a normal person.
On February 25 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: i decided i might shed some light on the rationale behind the "colleges are secularizing/liberalizing" argument made by many conservatives/republicans. please keep in mind that i am not trying to prove the argument as valid nor am i going to give my own position on it. i am simply trying to explain the rationale. feel free to disagree with it, but try to understand it.
it goes as such:
the fact is that most college professors are liberal/atheistic. whatever the reasons for this are, be it higher intelligence, more knowledge, whatever... it is a fact that they are indeed more liberal/atheistic than the general population. it is also a fact that the longer a student spends in the american collegiate system, the more likely they are to be atheistic/agnostic and liberal (there are some exceptions, but in general this is true).
now, and keep in mind that i am not condemning or casting judgement. in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view. you might say "well, those points of view are correct"; and that is certainly a valid argument to make, i am not trying to say that they aren't. but the fact is that one point of view is much more prevelant in the collegiate system and that point of view is often pushed as the valid and correct point of view.
so conservatives see this as a concerted effort by the professors and schools to promote their own point of view at the expense of the students. are conservatives correct? i don't know and i won't try to guess. imo dwelling on the motivations of people is not exactly constructive, and also, imo it doesn't really matter. one side argues that they are, the other argues that they aren't. at the end of the day it's not going to change anything. it is a fact that the general population is far more religious than the majority of academia. it is also a fact that the general population is far more conservative than academia. there could be hundreds of reasons for this, but the fact remains. that is why many conservatives lash out at schools, especially colleges. they see colleges as institutions of liberal/atheistic ideology, rather than institutions of education. it is not so much that they are anti-intellectual, as they are fighting against a percieved form of discrimination by intellectuals. i hope that helps illuminate the position that many conservatives, including Santorum, take.
i think both sides could do with a little more understanding and patience. it's hard though, because the two sides of the argument are often very opposed on fundamental ideas of reality and theology.
I have only ever once encountered a professor who openly admitted to being an atheist, and it was in a course-material discussion about the existence of god in an intro to philosophy class, where it is a very appropriate place to bring it up.
I have never, ever had a professor talk about the existence of god when in a calculus, chemistry, biology, or economics course. In my experience, this is patently false.
Okay you do realize that saying that intellectuals are conspiring to indoctrinate your children through college is by definition anti-intellectual. The argument you just posted is blatantly anti-intellectual. Why are you claiming otherwise?
It's like saying "I'm not a homophobe but i think homosexuality is immoral" or "I'm not racist but I think black people need a stronger work ethic." Blatant contradiction.
DETROIT--In what his campaign billed as a major economic speech, Mitt Romney sought to boost his conservative credentials by pledging "more jobs, less debt and smaller government" if he is elected president.
Criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, Romney said in a speech delivered from the 30-yard line of Ford Field, the home of the NFL's Detroit Lions, that he is "offering more than just a change in policy" from the current administration.
"I am offering a dramatic change in perspective and philosophy," Romney said.
The speech largely summarized and reiterated the economic message that Romney has put forward during his presidential campaign. He proposed cutting individual marginal income tax rates by 20 percent; reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, from 35 percent; eliminating capital gains taxes for people with incomes below $200,000; abolishing the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax; indexing the eligibility age for Medicare to longevity; allowing private insurers to compete with Medicare; eliminating the Affordable Care Act, Obama's health care law; and reducing federal spending to 20 percent of the national economy by making "hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts," including to programs like Amtrak and Planned Parenthood.
Romney received an instant avalanche of criticism on Twitter after the speech for saying of his wife's affection for American cars, "Ann drives a couple Cadillacs, actually." (A Cadillac SRX, a campaign spokesman later confirmed. She has one at their home in California and another in Massachusetts. Mitt, for his part, owns a Ford Mustang and a Ford truck.)
On February 24 2012 22:16 Doublemint wrote: //edit: Though I should add that yes, I don´t see how the catholic church can "compromise" on the contraception/abortion issue, and therefore Santorum got a point. But seeing how much society changed after the 60s and the fact that catholics rather dismiss those rules nowadays gets the church in a very uncomfortable situation, and their only answer seems to get back to the "roots" and alienate themselves even more from believers. At least that´s mainly the case in Europe - can´t tell much about the US since Christians for the most part there have not been a part of the "club" for quite some time^^. I should read up more on evangelicals etc.
The actual Bible says nothing about abortion and there is plenty of scripture to indicate that a newborn <1 year old does not have the same worth as a normal person.
Taking snippets of the gospel and interpreting them literally is not the way it´s done (it´s actually the same way fundamentalists do it as well), and I am not a theologian by any means. So please don´t take it personally when I don´t accept this blunt form of criticism. Maybe we got someone here who can shed more light here(philosophy/theology major)
On February 25 2012 04:00 DoubleReed wrote: Okay you do realize that saying that intellectuals are conspiring to indoctrinate your children through college is by definition anti-intellectual. The argument you just posted is blatantly anti-intellectual. Why are you claiming otherwise?
It's like saying "I'm not a homophobe but i think homosexuality is immoral" or "I'm not racist but I think black people need a stronger work ethic." Blatant contradiction.
Personally I am proud to be what Hans Herman Hoppe calls an anti-intellectual intellectual. In today's society intellectuals have replaced the clergy as chief apologists for the state. They serve as intellectual bodyguards who shield government intervention from criticism. In return, they share in the plunder.
On February 25 2012 03:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: i decided i might shed some light on the rationale behind the "colleges are secularizing/liberalizing" argument made by many conservatives/republicans. please keep in mind that i am not trying to prove the argument as valid nor am i going to give my own position on it. i am simply trying to explain the rationale. feel free to disagree with it, but try to understand it.
it goes as such:
the fact is that most college professors are liberal/atheistic. whatever the reasons for this are, be it higher intelligence, more knowledge, whatever... it is a fact that they are indeed more liberal/atheistic than the general population. it is also a fact that the longer a student spends in the american collegiate system, the more likely they are to be atheistic/agnostic and liberal (there are some exceptions, but in general this is true).
now, and keep in mind that i am not condemning or casting judgement. in my own experience, and it seems to be a common experience: many college professors will try to push these points of view. you might say "well, those points of view are correct"; and that is certainly a valid argument to make, i am not trying to say that they aren't. but the fact is that one point of view is much more prevelant in the collegiate system and that point of view is often pushed as the valid and correct point of view.
so conservatives see this as a concerted effort by the professors and schools to promote their own point of view at the expense of the students. are conservatives correct? i don't know and i won't try to guess. imo dwelling on the motivations of people is not exactly constructive, and also, imo it doesn't really matter. one side argues that they are, the other argues that they aren't. at the end of the day it's not going to change anything. it is a fact that the general population is far more religious than the majority of academia. it is also a fact that the general population is far more conservative than academia. there could be hundreds of reasons for this, but the fact remains. that is why many conservatives lash out at schools, especially colleges. they see colleges as institutions of liberal/atheistic ideology, rather than institutions of education. it is not so much that they are anti-intellectual, as they are fighting against a percieved form of discrimination by intellectuals. i hope that helps illuminate the position that many conservatives, including Santorum, take.
i think both sides could do with a little more understanding and patience. it's hard though, because the two sides of the argument are often very opposed on fundamental ideas of reality and theology.
I have only ever once encountered a professor who openly admitted to being an atheist, and it was in a course-material discussion about the existence of god in an intro to philosophy class, where it is a very appropriate place to bring it up.
I have never, ever had a professor talk about the existence of god when in a calculus, chemistry, biology, or economics course. In my experience, this is patently false.
I've had an econ prof challenge peoples faith in an economic law class. I don't see anything wrong with that though. University should be a place for our beliefs, morals, and principles to be challenged. Universities are a place to mature as a person, not just to learn skills that might be applicable in a professional career.
On February 25 2012 04:00 DoubleReed wrote: Okay you do realize that saying that intellectuals are conspiring to indoctrinate your children through college is by definition anti-intellectual. The argument you just posted is blatantly anti-intellectual. Why are you claiming otherwise?
It's like saying "I'm not a homophobe but i think homosexuality is immoral" or "I'm not racist but I think black people need a stronger work ethic." Blatant contradiction.
Personally I am proud to be what Hans Herman Hoppe calls an anti-intellectual intellectual. In today's society intellectuals have replaced the clergy as chief apologists for the state. They serve as intellectual bodyguards who shield government intervention from criticism. In return, they share in the plunder.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Intellectuals criticize the state all the time. What magical world do you live in?
DETROIT--In what his campaign billed as a major economic speech, Mitt Romney sought to boost his conservative credentials by pledging "more jobs, less debt and smaller government" if he is elected president.
Criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, Romney said in a speech delivered from the 30-yard line of Ford Field, the home of the NFL's Detroit Lions, that he is "offering more than just a change in policy" from the current administration.
"I am offering a dramatic change in perspective and philosophy," Romney said.
The speech largely summarized and reiterated the economic message that Romney has put forward during his presidential campaign. He proposed cutting individual marginal income tax rates by 20 percent; reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, from 35 percent; eliminating capital gains taxes for people with incomes below $200,000; abolishing the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax; indexing the eligibility age for Medicare to longevity; allowing private insurers to compete with Medicare; eliminating the Affordable Care Act, Obama's health care law; and reducing federal spending to 20 percent of the national economy by making "hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts," including to programs like Amtrak and Planned Parenthood.
Romney received an instant avalanche of criticism on Twitter after the speech for saying of his wife's affection for American cars, "Ann drives a couple Cadillacs, actually." (A Cadillac SRX, a campaign spokesman later confirmed. She has one at their home in California and another in Massachusetts. Mitt, for his part, owns a Ford Mustang and a Ford truck.)
It's completely anecdotal, but I've never had a professor in university attempt to push a religious or political view on me, even subtly. Even economic history courses gave the viewpoints of all major schools of economic thought in as an objective manner as possible, and classes like the existence of god (philosophy) were based around discussing the merits of arguments from thinkers far more intelligent than the professor and students.
On February 25 2012 04:00 DoubleReed wrote: Okay you do realize that saying that intellectuals are conspiring to indoctrinate your children through college is by definition anti-intellectual. The argument you just posted is blatantly anti-intellectual. Why are you claiming otherwise?
It's like saying "I'm not a homophobe but i think homosexuality is immoral" or "I'm not racist but I think black people need a stronger work ethic." Blatant contradiction.
Personally I am proud to be what Hans Herman Hoppe calls an anti-intellectual intellectual. In today's society intellectuals have replaced the clergy as chief apologists for the state. They serve as intellectual bodyguards who shield government intervention from criticism. In return, they share in the plunder.
DETROIT--In what his campaign billed as a major economic speech, Mitt Romney sought to boost his conservative credentials by pledging "more jobs, less debt and smaller government" if he is elected president.
Criticizing President Barack Obama's handling of the economy, Romney said in a speech delivered from the 30-yard line of Ford Field, the home of the NFL's Detroit Lions, that he is "offering more than just a change in policy" from the current administration.
"I am offering a dramatic change in perspective and philosophy," Romney said.
The speech largely summarized and reiterated the economic message that Romney has put forward during his presidential campaign. He proposed cutting individual marginal income tax rates by 20 percent; reducing the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, from 35 percent; eliminating capital gains taxes for people with incomes below $200,000; abolishing the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax; indexing the eligibility age for Medicare to longevity; allowing private insurers to compete with Medicare; eliminating the Affordable Care Act, Obama's health care law; and reducing federal spending to 20 percent of the national economy by making "hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts," including to programs like Amtrak and Planned Parenthood.
Romney received an instant avalanche of criticism on Twitter after the speech for saying of his wife's affection for American cars, "Ann drives a couple Cadillacs, actually." (A Cadillac SRX, a campaign spokesman later confirmed. She has one at their home in California and another in Massachusetts. Mitt, for his part, owns a Ford Mustang and a Ford truck.)
When you try to act like a Middle Class Candidate it doesn't help to say your wife owns a couple of luxury cars. Also doesn't help that you wrote a piece saying let the Car companies go bankrupt while supporting the Bank Bailouts. All in Michigan no less.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Intellectuals criticize the state all the time. What magical world do you live in?
Yes, intellectuals criticize the state. But they also justify it. They preach statism. And in exchange they share in the plunder. The reality is the state is nothing more than a vast criminal conspiracy. It is at war with society. And in return for promoting statism ivory tower intellectuals enjoy a very luxurious existence. How many hours a week does your typical university professor teach for? How much money does the government give universities every year? To say nothing of the fact that the entire system of college subsidies is just another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Really I don't see how anyone can suggest that the system of wealth redistribution is moral... it's nothing short of theft, we are all constantly robbing each other imaging that we can get everyone else to pay for everything. But there's no free lunch and the result of such a system is economic chaos.
EPT
