Would you vote for a Creationist for president?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Quite correct. Huckabee knows the first rule of politics (which Bill Maher seems to be ignorant of): "Don't lead with your chin."

???

Need I point out that Bill Maher is not a politician?

Originally posted by duecer
Would you vote for a Creationist for president?



absolutely, one has nothing to do with the other

Anyone who believes fairy tales are reality is unqualified to lead a country. It's not more complicated than this.

We need leaders who are ahead of the times, not 2000 years behind!

Originally posted by The Dude 84
Anyone who believes fairy tales are reality is unqualified to lead a country. It's not more complicated than this.

We need leaders who are ahead of the times, not 2000 years behind!

who said it is a fairy tale? It's no harder to believe than the cosmos was created by a big unexplainable bang. It causes no one any harm to believe it, and like I said, one has nothing to do with the other. religious beliefs should be checked at the door to the oval office. Most Presidents have been able to safely do that (current president excepted).

Originally posted by duecer
who said it is a fairy tale? It's no harder to believe than the cosmos was created by a big unexplainable bang. It causes no one any harm to believe it, and like I said, one has nothing to do with the other. religious beliefs should be checked at the door to the oval office. Most Presidents have been able to safely do that (current president excepted).

Do you think you could find anyone on this forum with strong beliefs who could say they could function separately from these beliefs?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Do you think you could find anyone on this forum with strong beliefs who could say they could function separately from these beliefs?

yes

Originally posted by duecer
who said it is a fairy tale? It's no harder to believe than the cosmos was created by a big unexplainable bang. It causes no one any harm to believe it, and like I said, one has nothing to do with the other. religious beliefs should be checked at the door to the oval office. Most Presidents have been able to safely do that (current president excepted).

Firstly I've only started posting today, so hello everyone.

True that it causes no harm to believe one or the other. I couldn't give a rats ass what people believe in.
However the "big unexplainable bang" is based on currently available data and a proven unbiased scientific approach.
The " Fairy tale" is based on faith.
I'm not saying one is more valid than the other, people should believe whatever makes them and those around them comfortable and happy.

However

Using science to influence peoples voting, opinions and actions has limited if any effectiveness. Due to the very nature of science which doesn't even believe in itself without proof.

But using peoples faith to gain votes and general control when the majority of those people will believe nearly unquestioningly in what the practitioners of that faith tell them. Thats a very very scary thought. And its happened before.

The marrying of Church and State in europe in the middle (Dark) ages; terrifying.
The fundamentalist middle eastern states; worrying.
The enforced Atheism of the nastier communist states; down right evil at times.

And, sorry to those of you who believe otherwise, but look at the path the U.S.A. is on, its not pretty. You have far less civil liberties than most of you know (hell there's enough red flags in this post that it's probably going to be read by some intelligence agency) and in certain areas some of the blind flag waving patriotism that goes on is reminiscent of Nazi Germany. All on the back of the Religious right wing.

To make a point No I wouldn't vote for anyone who has publicly uses strong religious beliefs to get into power. because it has never never lead to anything but trouble

Originally posted by Mexico
Firstly I've only started posting today, so hello everyone.

True that it causes no harm to believe one or the other. I couldn't give a rats ass what people believe in.
However the "big unexplainable bang" is based on currently available data and a proven unbiased scientific approach.
The " Fairy tale" is based on faith.
I'm not saying one is more val ...[text shortened]... us beliefs to get into power. because it has never never lead to anything but trouble

"...is based on currently available data and a proven unbiased scientific approach."

You know someone who is unbiased?
Kelly

Agreed People will never be unbiased its not in our nature everyones got an ego and nobody likes being wrong.
However the scientific community is renowned for arguing with its self, science rarely presents a united front, take newtonian physics for example this was thought to have explained comprehensively much of the current observed physical world, thus for a short time physicists thought there was little left to discover. Then a few people looked a bit deeper and realized it doesn't always work.
Thats why its irrelevant whether on not the person presenting the data is unbiased the end result is an unbiased answer based on the input of most of the scientific community. Who despite what people seem to think aren't some elitist intellectual group, but actually an extremely large group of people form all sorts of backgrounds who love to poke holes in everybody's theories.
Thats why only the most logically sound and robust theories, such as relativity, evolution, and quantum mechanics survive within science. Any theory with a lot of holes in it always gets ripped apart very very quickly. And even the accepted theories are a patch work of many peoples work who've found holes and had to sort it out. But the end result is that most established theories cover as much (and sometimes all) of the observed and experimental data as they can.

Once a theory covers all the observed data it can be taken as true, until someone comes along and observes something new.

And this is the principal all the modern science, technology, medicine etc. you take for granted today is based on.

Sorry that got a bit rambly

Originally posted by Mexico
Agreed People will never be unbiased its not in our nature everyones got an ego and nobody likes being wrong.
However the scientific community is renowned for arguing with its self, science rarely presents a united front, take newtonian physics for example this was thought to have explained comprehensively much of the current observed physical world, thus fo ...[text shortened]... nology, medicine etc. you take for granted today is based on.

Sorry that got a bit rambly

🙂 No worries on the rambly. The trouble with some theories we can
accept a lot of things about them, and get a lot out of them, but
that does not mean everything believed about them are true. I think
that was part of your point.
Kelly

Originally posted by Mexico
True that it causes no harm to believe one or the other.

That is a popular claim but nevertheless false. Every belief a person has, has some effect on his behavior and as such will almost invariably cause some harm and some benefit to both him and those he interacts with. The question of whether a given belief has a net benefit or not is difficult to determine and depends on many factors and will often vary considerably from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance.
However it can be argued, very convincingly, that beliefs that have the effect of causing their followers to discourage science and actively engage in misinformation campaigns have a net negative impact on humanity as a whole.

In response to Kelly

Granted that parts of some theories may not be true. And that some theories are based on assumptions that some people aren't entirely comfortable with.
However as more data becomes available these assumptions gain credibility or get modified to fit the new data. Its rare that a theory thats been 50 or 60 percent proven, with the rest based on educated assumptions and interpolation, will ever end up being completely incorrect.
Einstein dealt nearly entirely with theoretical work which fitted observed data. It took several years and many people to devise an experiment to prove/disprove his work.
I hate to bring up evolution directly as I've been trying to avoid it and simply maintain that the premise and methods its based on are sound, however I will.
Darwin put forward a theory which was based on his observations within Zoology and geology. However at the time there was insufficient data to conclusively prove much of his theory. With the advancement of the disciplines of genetics and microbiology combined many discoveries within the fossil record. Much of Darwins theory actually got tossed out the window, however the basic principal at the core of it has gained positive reinforced proof.

There are still many many questions being asked, and experimental proof on a macro scale is a long way off. But the current evolutionary theories are based on good science and certainly fit all the currently observed information an awful lot better than anything anyone else can put forward.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is a popular claim but nevertheless false. Every belief a person has, has some effect on his behavior and as such will almost invariably cause some harm and ............{ Text Shortened } ..........beliefs that have the effect of causing their followers to discourage science and actively engage in misinformation campaigns have a net negative impact on humanity as a whole.

Although your correct in that people with beliefs, particularly strong unquestioning ones can cause an awful lot of trouble. To blame this on their beliefs is flawed. Many people have those same strong beliefs and still continue to be reasonable people. It's the particular person and the extremes they go to in with the Idea that everyone must believe what they believe.

I have no problem with anyone's beliefs as long as I'm entitled to mine also. I'll discuss/argue the point with someone I believe is intelligent enough to think about it and not just spout drivel and rhetoric that been told to believe, but I never expect anyone who doesn't already have a similar way of thinking to me, to convert to my way.

Just because you firmly believe your right, doesn't make you right. It does however make it easy to convert someone who for whatever reason fails to think about it themselves and will quite happily believe and do as their told. Thats why having someone with strong religious beliefs in power is quite dangerous.

Religions have an awful tenancy to prey on those who refuse to think, if they can then get these people into places of power we as a species will end up in serious trouble.

Oh and if anyones wondering, I do believe in God, it's any organized religion which tries to stop me thinking for myself that I have a major problem with.

Originally posted by Mexico
Although your correct in that people with beliefs, particularly strong unquestioning ones can cause an awful lot of trouble. To blame this on their beliefs is flawed.

Religions have an awful tenancy to prey on those who refuse to think, if they can then get these people into places of power we as a species will end up in serious trouble.

Cant you see that you essentially contradicted yourself within the course of the post?

Many people have those same strong beliefs and still continue to be reasonable people.
Almost all theists I know are unreasonable in some way. The vast majority of them - you included - have an unreasonable tendency to give a greater allowance to extremists due, I believe, to a fear of criticizing other believers.
In addition to that, 'reasonable' behavior actually contradicts your stated beliefs.

Thats why having someone with strong religious beliefs in power is quite dangerous.
Is there such a thing as 'weak' religious beliefs? Surely that implies they are lying? Or are they simply agnostic (ie don't want to think about it)?

And another major reason why religious beliefs are a bad thing is that they are a major cause of division in society. People have a tendency to only associate with people of similar beliefs. This results in division and sometimes genocide, war etc.

Trust me, I have no problem in criticizing others beliefs, so let me rephrase myself; just because you believe something doesn't mean you shove it down someone else's throat. Thats what I meant by strong beliefs.
None of us have any answers to those big questions until you do you cant criticize someone's else's Ideals. We'll never have all the answers therefore there'll always be thing way beyond our comprehension. And this is what I mean by a God; something way beyond what we even vaguely think possible, not some all powerful guy with a beard saying (to quote Mr. Hicks) "Go to church or ill spank you".
Having studied science (Geology to be specific) for several years and working as an industry scientist since finishing I have to admit that pushing Creation/Intelligent Design as any kind of science in utter and complete nonsense. If you want to teach it, teach it in religion classes because it's certainly not any kind of science.

As to creating divisions in society I would tend to agree with you in many ways. However I have come across many people from these various divisions and a lot of them are intelligent, reasonable people. In fact over Christmas there I had one of the interesting discussions I've ever had about the meaning of the word God with a Jesuit Priest, we disagree, but he had extremely well thought out and intelligent Ideas, and never once tried to push them on me. However I will agree the bulk of people who follow blindly any organized religion, tend to associated only with their "own" and even worse try to convert people.

Originally posted by Mexico
And this is what I mean by a God;

And I think that is a bad idea as it will be frequently (if not almost always) be misinterpreted by everyone else. I believe Einstein used a similar definition leading many people to think he was a Christian.

As to creating divisions in society I would tend to agree with you in many ways. However I have come across many people from these various divisions and a lot of them are intelligent, reasonable people.
So doesn't that make it even more clear that it is the religion and faith that is to blame and not, as you earlier implied, the people? Surely you would agree with me that the world would be a better place if those people were not suffering from a delusion?