***OFFICIAL GOD DISCUSSION***

[a500lbgorilla]

Anyway, Im going star gazing tomorrow morning and I cant get to sleep. Imma go to bed though.

[boost]

meh.. Id have to disagree. I dont think people need religion. But to be fair thats simply how I feel from my experience in this world, just like your assertion that people do in fact need it.

Anyways, star gazing sounds awesome, is bigred going with you? That sure would be romantic..

[wufwugy]

Saying religion is our nature is misleading. A more accurate statement is that we have a biological drive that often results in being religious

Organized superstition was selected for by nature mainly due to the the community aspect, and how they were then more fit to acquire resources. It also gives a sense of purpose and comfort in the face of doubt, and this calms stress and is very important for survival. Studies have even shown that people who don't question things, but just take them for granted, have less stress than those who are unsure and analytical

Insecurities and the drive to abstract provoke superstition. The power of the collective in reaffirmation and control provokes organized superstition. Religion is a form of mind control, and mind control is very effective at perpetuating successful progeny. The nature of rationale is that it can be wrong yet still seem rational, and especially in ages before empiricism, religion was the vessel of 'critical' thinking. It still persists because people are inherently irrational over abstraction. Even our strongest of senses (like sight) are also extremely irrational. The abstractions of the brain are among the most irrational known things, yet because they seem correct, they get perpetuated as such

[wufwugy]

meh.. Id have to disagree. I dont think people need religion. But to be fair thats simply how I feel from my experience in this world, just like your assertion that people do in fact need it.

Here's a short excerpt from a lecture given by a linguist about the Amazonian Piraha tribe, and how they don't believe in superstition/religion because of their language. Quite fascinating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

[boost]

that was an awesome story. Where can I see these lectures in full? They always seem so intriguing but its always snippets that you post.

[wufwugy]

Subscribe to this channel. They upload about twenty new excerpts a week. The link to the full video is also in the description box.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ForaTv#play/all

Or just go straight to the site itself

http://fora.tv/

You can find pretty much anything on youtube. Do some searching and you'll come up with even more channels like this. I can only handle so much so the fora.tv one is the main one I use, and it's also the most user friendly and interesting.

meh.. Id have to disagree. I dont think people need religion. But to be fair thats simply how I feel from my experience in this world, just like your assertion that people do in fact need it.

Here's a short excerpt from a lecture given by a linguist about the Amazonian Piraha tribe, and how they don't believe in superstition/religion because of their language. Quite fascinating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNajfMZGnuo

lol'd

[BennyLaRue]

Saying religion is our nature is misleading. A more accurate statement is that we have a biological drive that often results in being religious

This is what I'm getting at. It's not that weak people need god or gods, but that they desire the structure and direction associated with religion and superstition. In history, this structure was literally key to survival thanks to safety in numbers. In modern Western society, satisfying these base needs is no longer a function religion fills, but the structure is still desired now as part of higher level needs, social and esteem needs among them.

I agree that organized religion has been destructive throughout history, both directly through its practices and by it providing easy access to power and resources to those who abused it for personal gain. This is without question, imo. However, I don't think wide-scale atheism will remove the need for people to gather and feel accepted and as people gather in other, non-religious groups, those groups are just as vulnerable to the same sort of faulty leadership and abuse that has been present in religion. Sure, some societies have gravitated toward atheism already but is that because their populations are confident, peaceful and just generally well-wired for it? Perhaps not all humans and societies are?

[Ltrain]

why is religion our biological nature? Am I biologically broken? Isnt it far more likely that curiosity is built into our nature and because we had no means to sate our curiosity in the past (and in any cases still dont) we fill these voids with religion?

Not broken, just different, like men and women are not just different sexes, their thought processes are very different and they will interpret the same event differently. You are what you are, so are they.

[Ltrain]

Religion can be a positive influence too.

Also, people like to confuse religion with normal society. We like to think that certain good that comes with religion wouldn't have come on its own.
Having said that, I was raised mega fundie, and part of me wishes that I still was. One thing I like about church is that it's a gathering of people getting together 'trying' to be good and friendly and happy, but because it is absolutely asinine, I can't put up with it.

I don't agree with the first statement even though I have discussed that point many times in the past and see both sides. I think you are taking for granted that most of the population thinks on your level and they don't. Without simple guidelines in the context of an organized religion (1st level), I it would be detrimental to society versus doing the right thing because it is the right thing (3rd level).

To lose your religion, you must have had it at one time, do you remember anything positive or was it dogma hell 24/7.

[Ltrain]

Saying religion is our nature is misleading. A more accurate statement is that we have a biological drive that often results in being religious

. Sure, some societies have gravitated toward atheism already but is that because their populations are confident, peaceful and just generally well-wired for it? Perhaps not all humans and societies are?

What would you classify as an atheist society or nation in the world right now? Affirmatively athiest or just predominantly non-practicing? How would you classify eastern religions like Taoism or Hinduism?

[wufwugy]

Sure, some societies have gravitated toward atheism already but is that because their populations are confident, peaceful and just generally well-wired for it?

Not really. Atheistic populations haven't always been atheistic. This change is basically just a product of education and progressive social policy. Places like Denmark and Switzerland have strong education systems with social policies that benefit equality more than the collective of a place like the US. If, however, the entire US was like those regions in Europe we would see a massive drop off in religion proliferation and intensity.

It's impossible for me to say specifically because I just don't know, and even the most progressive regions on the planet have their own idiosyncratic problems, but the fact of the matter is that education, urbanization, and social programs that promote equality correlate with increase in happiness and decrease in religion. Cocco bill may know more about this than me. IIRC, he lives somewhere up there, and seems like the type to keep up to date

[wufwugy]

Religion can be a positive influence too.

Also, people like to confuse religion with normal society. We like to think that certain good that comes with religion wouldn't have come on its own.
Having said that, I was raised mega fundie, and part of me wishes that I still was. One thing I like about church is that it's a gathering of people getting together 'trying' to be good and friendly and happy, but because it is absolutely asinine, I can't put up with it.

I don't agree with the first statement even though I have discussed that point many times in the past and see both sides. I think you are taking for granted that most of the population thinks on your level and they don't. Without simple guidelines in the context of an organized religion (1st level), I it would be detrimental to society versus doing the right thing because it is the right thing (3rd level).

To lose your religion, you must have had it at one time, do you remember anything positive or was it dogma hell 24/7.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that religion promotes morality? And if so, why is there no data to back this up? And why are atheists, you know all those pagans who hate god, more moral than than xtians (things like lower divorce rate, lower crime rate, etc)?

And yes I remember positive from my former religion, but what among those positives were from the religion specifically, and not a product of social and human nature?

[CoccoBill]

It's impossible for me to say specifically because I just don't know, and even the most progressive regions on the planet have their own idiosyncratic problems, but the fact of the matter is that education, urbanization, and social programs that promote equality correlate with increase in happiness and decrease in religion. Cocco bill may know more about this than me. IIRC, he lives somewhere up there, and seems like the type to keep up to date

The last time I checked the 2 least religious countries in the world were Sweden and Finland, why that is I'm not quite sure. I'm from Finland, and afaik religion in one form or another has existed here since the place was populated, estimates say around 10000 years ago right after the ice age ended. Finns had their own pagan religion until they were converted to christianity in the 12th century. That period actually has a nice story about an english Bishop Henry, who came here to spread the gospel, he was chopped to pieces with an axe by some local peasant. In the end christianity won however, and the old pagan deities were declared demonic. A common curse word used in Finland even today, "perkele", used to be the name of the head deity of the old paganism, but since the conversion it roughly translates to "satan".

Even as recently as with my grandparents' generation, christian beliefs (specifically evangelical-lutheran) were common and going to church every sunday was pretty much the norm. My grandmother, who's still is alive, I'd describe as a devout christian. Who knows what happened, starting with my parents generation there's been a massive decrease, and the younger generations are basically all atheist. Religion in general is not all that prevalent in every day life here, religious studies exist as part of the basic curriculum for all kids, I think most kids are still baptized and confirmed, but for a while now it seems like most registered christians are so in name only. Nowadays someone is considered a religious nut if they go to church more often than on christmas, weddings and funerals. I believe still over 80% of the population is registered with the church, but the number is slowly going down. However, to offer some perspective, in 2005 when the study that declared Finns as the 2nd most godless bunch was released, this is what it found:

* 41% of Finnish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".
* 41% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
* 16% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force".

We as a planet have a while to go before we shake off this fad.

[BennyLaRue]

Sure, some societies have gravitated toward atheism already but is that because their populations are confident, peaceful and just generally well-wired for it?

Not really. Atheistic populations haven't always been atheistic. This change is basically just a product of education and progressive social policy.

And what allowed this evolution toward a focus on education and progressive social policy? It's possible that the macro societal attitudes that lead to these policies being implemented aligns well the same, separate socialogical path that leads to atheism. But the same evolution will happen in different manners in different environments, perhaps not leading to a peaceful place. A rampant, pure, capitalist mindset will not lead to a peaceful place, I assure you, if that becomes the driving force of a society replacing the place religion has today. The reality is we can't know. We've not seen societies evolve in this time, with these resources at hand and these world issues about us. This is what gives me pause. That isn't to say we can't learn from studies of small societies, but there are too many variables to model this sort of thing with certainty.

[Ltrain]

Religion can be a positive influence too.

Also, people like to confuse religion with normal society. We like to think that certain good that comes with religion wouldn't have come on its own.
Having said that, I was raised mega fundie, and part of me wishes that I still was. One thing I like about church is that it's a gathering of people getting together 'trying' to be good and friendly and happy, but because it is absolutely asinine, I can't put up with it.

I don't agree with the first statement even though I have discussed that point many times in the past and see both sides. I think you are taking for granted that most of the population thinks on your level and they don't. Without simple guidelines in the context of an organized religion (1st level), I it would be detrimental to society versus doing the right thing because it is the right thing (3rd level).

To lose your religion, you must have had it at one time, do you remember anything positive or was it dogma hell 24/7.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that religion promotes morality? And if so, why is there no data to back this up? And why are atheists, you know all those pagans who hate god, more moral than than xtians (things like lower divorce rate, lower crime rate, etc)?

And yes I remember positive from my former religion, but what among those positives were from the religion specifically, and not a product of social and human nature?

Yes, in a very basic sense (rules of dues and donts) it promotes an idea of right versus wrong, which is the definition of morality; other than the definition of morality, I don't know what statistics you are looking for. You don't have to believe the bible literally to take something educational from the concepts of the stories, whether you believe it is the word of god or not.

Your next sentence is contradictory, paganism is a religion (arguably current christianity is more pagan than true christianity since the merger of the two), athiests I guess are people who don't believe in a higher being (although I don't personally know any true athiests). On your argument of athiests being more moral, I could explain your statistics based upon higher education, earnings, etc. Looking at divorce, my understanding is that lack of education and marrying young are the largest factors in divorce rates; better educated people marrying later in life have very low divorce rates.

Yes, as described before, positives from religion can be a product of social and human nature, but organized religion can be a good vehicle for the experience.

Also, I don't understand the defensive, attacking nature of some of these posts, I am not attacking athiesm, believe what you want to believe, although I find it interesting that there are so many posts about religion and a god thread, all from what professes to be a very non-religious group. If we were on a fox news blog it would be the same level of justification for their position but from the other side .

I will admit I don't know a lot about what it means to be truly athiest and if someone wants to post an understanding of what it means, I would appreciate it. Are their any structures that would be similar to an organized religion? Is there a central athiest body? Do you do get together and talk about what it means to be athiest? Do you consider non-practicing people to be athiest (CocoBill's email indicates that around 82% in Finland at least a have belief in a higher being, even if the people surveyed do not practice their religion)? Is athiesm understood to include being agnostic?

[wufwugy]

We've not seen societies evolve in this time, with these resources at hand and these world issues about us.

We actually have, and it all points towards education, particularly for women.

There are no striking innate differences between populations. It's very well documented that the more educated a population, the more peaceful and less fundie they are. It's not about the kind of people that allows this education to take place, but more about circumstances ala Jared Diamond's theory of inequality

There are other factors as well like the significance each person puts on his role in society, but this is also something that is largely affected by education.

[BennyLaRue]

We've not seen societies evolve in this time, with these resources at hand and these world issues about us.

We actually have, and it all points towards education, particularly for women.

There are no striking innate differences between populations. It's very well documented that the more educated a population, the more peaceful and less fundie they are.

Can you explain the United States then? Have you not become more educated over time but at the same time, more violent, at least in terms of international conflicts, both direct and through proxies?

[JKDS]

united states? smart?

http://www.continental-philosophy.or...eficit-dragon/

[kevster]

Late to this thread sadly.

Peeps, you don't have to be as clever, erudite or even as wordy as Wuf to realise that the whole idea is utterly preposterous. Start thinking about it and you shouldn't have to think for very long.

FWIW, I'm worshipping at the alter of BennyLaRue and Rilla has posted some good stuff too.

[surviva316]

If we were on a fox news blog it would be the same level of justification for their position but from the other side .

actually funny that you should use the word justification because it's kinda damning to the truth value of the sentence. i've seen plenty of episodes of fox and friends where they have an atheist as a guest or they talk about the war on christmas and secularization and stuff and what people e-mail in with is things along the lines of "what this man needs is the bible (or jesus)" and i've seen many a comment quipping about how the guest on the show will be going to hell and so forth and the hosts actually read these emails. and the hosts all kinda smirk at each other and are like "well, that man says jesus isn't our lord and savior. that's QUITE a claim" (not those exact words but it's along the same lines). so my point is it that you WOULD get the other side if religion were discussed on fox news but you WOULD NOT get justifications, just a whole bunch of sneering at atheists.

people on that channel (and religious people in general) feel that it is like sinful to ask for someone to justify their faith and take on a "i believe in the word of god and that's all you need to know" attitude.

as for the questions you ask in your final paragraph, it is very obvious that you really don't know about atheism at all. you're prolly just better off reading about it on wikipedia or osmething rather than have me answer each individual question

[BennyLaRue]

FWIW, I'm worshipping at the alter of BennyLaRue and Rilla has posted some good stuff too.

You like chips, do ya?

[BooG690]

Ugh @ Fox News being brought into this.

[Ltrain]

If we were on a fox news blog it would be the same level of justification for their position but from the other side .

actually funny that you should use the word justification because it's kinda damning to the truth value of the sentence. i've seen plenty of episodes of fox and friends where they have an atheist as a guest or they talk about the war on christmas and secularization and stuff and what people e-mail in with is things along the lines of "what this man needs is the bible (or jesus)" and i've seen many a comment quipping about how the guest on the show will be going to hell and so forth and the hosts actually read these emails. and the hosts all kinda smirk at each other and are like "well, that man says jesus isn't our lord and savior. that's QUITE a claim" (not those exact words but it's along the same lines). so my point is it that you WOULD get the other side if religion were discussed on fox news but you WOULD NOT get justifications, just a whole bunch of sneering at atheists.

people on that channel (and religious people in general) feel that it is like sinful to ask for someone to justify their faith and take on a "i believe in the word of god and that's all you need to know" attitude.

as for the questions you ask in your final paragraph, it is very obvious that you really don't know about atheism at all. you're prolly just better off reading about it on wikipedia or osmething rather than have me answer each individual question

So what you are saying is, as you smirk to the other posters and sneer at my simple questions, I should wikipedia athiesm since it is absurd that I would ask for some further explaination of what athiesm is?

As I said, my understanding of what it means to be athiest is a belief that there is no god, higher being or larger power. Just born, live, die; by all means not purposeless, evil or immoral as you are implying above, just that when you die, that's it. Since I am curious and will follow your advice, Wikipedia states it is, "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]" So unless someone has something to add, it looks like my understanding is correct.

[bigred]

WHERE ALL THE WHITE WIMENZ AT

[Ltrain]

^^^^^

C-C-C Combobreaker!

Edit: (Of course a new page starts right after bigred's comment)

[bigred]

sup guys, jesus saves

[surviva316]

So what you are saying is, as you smirk to the other posters and sneer at my simple questions, I should wikipedia athiesm since it is absurd that I would ask for some further explaination of what athiesm is?

that's not what i meant at all. sorry if it came out wrong. i think it's great that you wanna understand what this atheism crap is. i just meant that based on your questions, there's prolly a lot for you to learn about it and me answering the few individual questions you asked is gonna kinda be beside the point and you'll get more from getting a more general sense of how it works (and essentially taht it doesn't "work" in anyway, it's just an idea).

anyway, i could care less about fox news' snickers and jeers and i only used them as an example because you introduced it in the first place. my point was that atheism tends to be far more discussion-based whereas christianity tends to be much more assumption-based

As I said, my understanding of what it means to be athiest is a belief that there is no god, higher being or larger power. Just born, live, die; by all means not purposeless, evil or immoral as you are implying above, just that when you die, that's it. Since I am curious and will follow your advice, Wikipedia states it is, "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]" So unless someone has something to add, it looks like my understanding is correct.

this is not quite correct

atheism is the LACK OF belief a god exists
lack of belief of existence =/= belief that god doesn't exist
you can further break it down into weak atheism (I don't have a belief in god, but there is no evidence he doesn't exist) and strong atheism (I have a belief that god, as described by some of the religions, doesn't exist because it is logically contradictory)

[BennyLaRue]

sup guys, jesus saves

This is dumb because they'd never make the goalie the Captain. As a Canadian, I'm offended.

[surviva316]

This is dumb because they'd never make the goalie the Captain. As a Canadian, I'm offended.

you don't think they'd make an exception for jesus? he should at least get the little "C" patch for being captain of your soul

[a500lbgorilla]

Jesus wouldn't play goal. He'd man point on the flying-V, lining up knuckle pucks left and right.

[BennyLaRue]

This is dumb because they'd never make the goalie the Captain. As a Canadian, I'm offended.

you don't think they'd make an exception for jesus? he should at least get the little "C" patch for being captain of your soul

I said never!

[wufwugy]

We've not seen societies evolve in this time, with these resources at hand and these world issues about us.

We actually have, and it all points towards education, particularly for women.

There are no striking innate differences between populations. It's very well documented that the more educated a population, the more peaceful and less fundie they are.

Can you explain the United States then? Have you not become more educated over time but at the same time, more violent, at least in terms of international conflicts, both direct and through proxies?

The US is large and dynamic, and as a whole, we are one of the least educated of all modern countries. Education is not only absolute, but relative, and its positive effects are seen mainly due to increases in equality and role significance. US is going to be a very difficult structure to examine due to huge polarities; pockets of the country are largely able to live in their own bubbles.

But even then, crime rate in regions in the US inversely correlates just fine with education. Social policy does as well. It's no coincidence that progressives are more educated.

Not to mention that this is documented all across the globe and throughout history. Liberalism wasn't even much of a real thing until recent centuries, and we can thank it for pretty much all of the increases of peace and well being we've seen since. Rwanda is a great example as well. Not too long ago it was a slaughterhouse, but now it is one of the most peaceful regions in Africa, and this has correlated with massive increases with education and equality

Explain this to me about the US: On the one hand, educated citizens want universal health insurance because the data shows that when the entire population is covered and administrative costs are adequately controlled, cost dramatically decreases and efficiency dramatically increases; while OTOH, antagonists don't want universal health insurance because they're afraid of the boogeyman. Who in this example is likely to be more educated, more understanding, and more tolerant?

[JL]

sup guys, jesus saves

This is dumb because they'd never make the goalie the Captain. As a Canadian, I'm offended.

epic fail
who's the captain of the Canucks?

"progressives" are more educated because education has a left bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

[BennyLaRue]

epic fail
who's the captain of the Canucks?

Luongo offends me too though.

[wufwugy]

Yes, in a very basic sense (rules of dues and donts) it promotes an idea of right versus wrong, which is the definition of morality; other than the definition of morality, I don't know what statistics you are looking for. You don't have to believe the bible literally to take something educational from the concepts of the stories, whether you believe it is the word of god or not.

Your next sentence is contradictory, paganism is a religion (arguably current christianity is more pagan than true christianity since the merger of the two), athiests I guess are people who don't believe in a higher being (although I don't personally know any true athiests). On your argument of athiests being more moral, I could explain your statistics based upon higher education, earnings, etc. Looking at divorce, my understanding is that lack of education and marrying young are the largest factors in divorce rates; better educated people marrying later in life have very low divorce rates.

Yes, as described before, positives from religion can be a product of social and human nature, but organized religion can be a good vehicle for the experience.

Also, I don't understand the defensive, attacking nature of some of these posts, I am not attacking athiesm, believe what you want to believe, although I find it interesting that there are so many posts about religion and a god thread, all from what professes to be a very non-religious group. If we were on a fox news blog it would be the same level of justification for their position but from the other side .

I will admit I don't know a lot about what it means to be truly athiest and if someone wants to post an understanding of what it means, I would appreciate it. Are their any structures that would be similar to an organized religion? Is there a central athiest body? Do you do get together and talk about what it means to be athiest? Do you consider non-practicing people to be athiest (CocoBill's email indicates that around 82% in Finland at least a have belief in a higher being, even if the people surveyed do not practice their religion)? Is athiesm understood to include being agnostic?

I wanted to provide a comprehensive response to this, but I'm just tired and out of it right now. I may come back to certain points later, but for now I'll leave you with a video explaining some of the common misconceptions about atheism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf3_JGgj4h4

[boost]

"progressives" are more educated because education has a left bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

why does it have a left bias though? Probably because the people who have been highly educated have gravitated towards the left and typically the best teacher is going to be one who is highly educated..

Unless you are implying that there is some massive global conspiracy to brainwash our children..

[Ltrain]

^^^

Wuf, I watched the video, it reminded me of the 60's films paradies ("Billy was a good, upstanding boy, until he wandered across the tracks and found himself in a group of...ATHIESTS!"). Yes, he is correct, you can have moral qualities outside of a religious context, (although he completely disregards education, income and environment as characteristics of people less likely to murder and go to jail). However, to ignore the role of religion in teaching morality is not correct and not even a logical conclusion; morality in athiests does not equal lack of morality in religion or religious people.

So if athiesm is just the lack of a belief god exists, not a group or movement, is the whole point then basically, "leave me alone, I will believe whatever I want?"

[wufwugy]

^^^

(although he completely disregards education, income and environment as characteristics of people less likely to murder and go to jail).

He doesn't. Like I have, he demonstrated correlative relationships, not causal ones.

However, to ignore the role of religion in teaching morality is not correct and not even a logical conclusion;

If this were true then data would back it up. There is no statistical significance of morality amongst the religious, and in fact, the a-religious demonstrate a statistical significance with regards to morality

So if athiesm is just the lack of a belief god exists, not a group or movement, is the whole point then basically, "leave me alone, I will believe whatever I want?"

No, atheism is not a 'thing'. It's not a belief, it's not a culture, it's not a congregation, it's virtually nothing. Atheism is a label projected by those who don't understand logic and empiricism. Do you believe that cells exist and fabricate ideologies based on whatever it is you want or do you acknowledge that cells exist and base your acknowledgment and understanding on the data then go about your merry way?

Being an atheist is like being an a-the-earth-is-carried-on-a-turtle's-back-ist. It is an inappropriate label given by uneducated people

[a500lbgorilla]

I would bet that atheists have a strong aversion to authority figures and a sensitivity to being controlled. Much, much more so than those who have a personal god.

[a500lbgorilla]

Oh, Ltrain. I saw the word morality in one of wuf's quotes of you.

Just like I don't believe in absolutes, I feel pretty sure there is no such thing as morals.

[wufwugy]

"progressives" are more educated because education has a left bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

why does it have a left bias though? Probably because the people who have been highly educated have gravitated towards the left and typically the best teacher is going to be one who is highly educated..

Unless you are implying that there is some massive global conspiracy to brainwash our children..

I'm unsure about the purposes of his video, but the 'bias' towards liberalism among the educated is because liberalism is more about doing what works instead of making stuff up. The health insurance example I gave fits just fine. Liberalism approaches it based on data, conservatism approaches it based on imagination. Because education is itself data based, it's not surprise that it has a 'liberal bias'

And like Jon Stewart likes to say, 'reality has a liberal bias'. This can't be understated. While liberalism and conservatism have meant many different things over time and in different contexts, in current US context, liberalism is the more fact and humanities based approach while conservatism is the vestige of trickery, fallacious rhetoric, and unsupported ideology.

[a500lbgorilla]

"progressives" are more educated because education has a left bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

iopq please respond.

You're serious that education has a left bias?

[BennyLaRue]

The US is large and dynamic, and as a whole, we are one of the least educated of all modern countries.

I'd be interested in seeing the measure you're using to support that view. From what I've seen, and it varies depending on the definition of education you're using, the US isn't at such an enormous disadvantage to explain why it is so relatively less peaceful* than other modern countries.

Regardless, we're talking about a single society evolving, not comparing across societies. You're suggesting that as a country gets more educated, it's destined to become more peaceful, are you not? Take the last 100 years in the US alone. Did you become more educated as a nation? Significantly so. I ask again, did you become more peaceful*?

* = As for crime rates in regions of the US as part of this discussion...are these crimes perpetrated for religious reasons or are they primarily due to socio-economic reasons? Because I'm not sure that point furthers your argument that there is a correlation between education, atheism and peace. There's a clear correlation between money and education and then an inverse correlation with crime but if we're talking about religion in history as it relates to violence, the measure should be war, both civil and those between nations. This is where religion has been a real incendiary force. As for the case of Rwanda, the cause and effect is backwards. Peace enabled massive increases in education and equality. Education and equality didn't lead to peace.

[a500lbgorilla]

And like Jon Stewart likes to say, 'reality has a liberal bias'. This can't be understated. While liberalism and conservatism have meant many different things over time and in different contexts, in current US context, liberalism is the more fact and humanities based approach while conservatism is the vestige of trickery, fallacious rhetoric, and unsupported ideology.

Cool paragraph, but I'd say it this way.

Think of the pyramids in Egypt. Conservatism fights for the structure and liberalism fights for the blocks. As you go up, you find more interest by blocks in securing the structure. But the number of blocks at the bottom, that feel the weight of it all, far exceeds those blocks with good views. So yah, if every block has 1 vote. The pyramid has a liberal bias.

Man am I out of it. I really need sleep.

haha on re-read I sound high. Sleep deprivation FTW!

[a500lbgorilla]

re wuf liberals use facts, conservs use figments.

You've gotta convince those blocks to bear the load some how. Telling them the truth won't work! Assuming all blocks were created equal.

[wufwugy]

I'd be interested in seeing the measure you're using to support that view. From what I've seen, and it varies depending on the definition of education you're using, the US isn't at such an enormous disadvantage to explain why it is so relatively less peaceful* than other modern countries.

A decent amount of data here showing US averages below the median

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/edu-education

Also, US literacy rates look pretty bad. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to find accurate comparisons with other nations, but the numbers at least give an impression of being kinda awful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literac..._United_States

Regardless, we're talking about a single society evolving, not comparing across societies. You're suggesting that as a country gets more educated, it's destined to become more peaceful, are you not? Take the last 100 years in the US alone. Did you become more educated as a nation? Significantly so. I ask again, did you become more peaceful*?

This is far more elaborate than I want to get into, but one very important thing to note in your link is that higher education, while it increased, is still dramatically lower than the collective. In order to evaluate any correlation between education and peace correctly it would need to be done on the small scale.

Also, the high school diploma numbers are really skewed. That goes without saying, but in order to evaluate exactly how much and why, I would need a much deeper understanding of the history of education statistics.

* = As for crime rates in regions of the US as part of this discussion...are these crimes perpetrated for religious reasons or are they primarily due to socio-economic reasons? Because I'm not sure that point furthers your argument that there is a correlation between education, atheism and peace.

But the correlation is still there. I haven't said anything about causation, though. Correlation != causation

As for the case of Rwanda, the cause and effect is backwards. Peace enabled massive increases in education and equality. Education and equality didn't lead to peace.

It's sort of chicken and egg, and a feedback cycle. Also, when I say 'education' I don't mean exclusively formal education. Informal education is at least just as important, and the education gathered from a 100 days of genocide likely provided amazing perspective from which Rwandans could build.

This is similar to how the humanities see vastly more atheists than other professions. Apparently, experiencing humanitarianism really changes somebody's superstition levels. Also, this correlation is shown to show up later in life, and has been controlled for upbringing.

Anyways, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. We know that education is integral in perpetuating peace. Just google 'role of education and peace', and you'll come up with a ton of shit. The entire sector of humanities is largely focused on education. Here's one example

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal...accno=ED477152

From the paper...

Since the role of education has been stressed in every moment of crisis in South Korean history, it was only natural to think about what education could do to focus the world on peace, to reduce social conflicts, and to seek a more secure life.

"progressives" are more educated because education has a left bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

why does it have a left bias though? Probably because the people who have been highly educated have gravitated towards the left and typically the best teacher is going to be one who is highly educated..

Unless you are implying that there is some massive global conspiracy to brainwash our children..

no I'm just saying that the culture of the educational system leans to the left

this is because the left wants to increase funding for education so most teachers lean to the left

this is not rocket science, you're going to support people who say you should have more money
teachers and professors vote predominantly democrat

searching around on the web I found a quote

Last year UCLA's Higher Education Research institute polled 32,000 full-time undergraduate professors. It found that 48 percent identified as "liberal" or "far left" while only 18 percent described themselves as "conservative" or "far right."

While liberalism and conservatism have meant many different things over time and in different contexts, in current US context, liberalism is the more fact and humanities based approach while conservatism is the vestige of trickery, fallacious rhetoric, and unsupported ideology.

lol partisan logic
let me guess, liberals = good, conservatives = bad

[BennyLaRue]

Atheistic populations haven't always been atheistic. This change is basically just a product of education and progressive social policy. Places like Denmark and Switzerland have strong education systems with social policies that benefit equality more than the collective of a place like the US. If, however, the entire US was like those regions in Europe we would see a massive drop off in religion proliferation and intensity.

This suggests causation to me.

A decent amount of data here showing US averages below the median

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/edu-education

No, it doesn't. I looked at that earlier.

Average Years of Schooling of Adults: USA #1 of 100
Duration of Compulsory Education: USA #7 (or, rather, tied for #2) of 171
Educational Attainment (Tertiary): USA #2 of 18
Tertiary Enrollment: USA #1 of 150
Proportion of 20 year olds in tertiary education: #4 of 28
Adults at High Literacy level: 19%, is the median and mean
Universities Top 500 (per capita): #16 of 38

What else there is relevant to this discussion?

Anyways, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. We know that education is integral in perpetuating peace. Just google 'role of education and peace', and you'll come up with a ton of shit.

Yeah, but it's a ton of shit that is out of context. Remember how my argument started out...I'm not sure that atheism will necessarily lead to a positive effect on humanity (but I'm not convinced it will be negative either, the point is I'm just unsure). Religion satisfies a higher level human need for structure and social/esteem needs and that need will still have to be satisfied, perhaps through groups with just as detrimental effect on humanity as religion. You're suggesting that atheism will no doubt lead a to peaceful society and that this atheism will come about through education and an increase in social liberalism.

I understand there is a general correlation between basic level education and peace. I do not debate this. But here's the problem: much of what you'll read on education perpetuating peace is in the context of nations dealing with poverty, poor infrastructure, poor human rights, little education already in place etc. Any amount of education at all, in a relative sense, is a massive step. You cannot take those scenarios, where people are worried about basic needs like food, shelter and physical safety, and use them as a model to prognosticate what would happen to a complex and relatively educated society like the US if social liberalism and education did happen to rise. Further to that, if atheism does correlate well with those things, there is no guarantee that this will necessarily mean peace. The missing variables are money, resources and history. You could have a nation of 300 million who, domestically, all get along well and share and don't believe in any gods and all that business. But what happens when a resource issue hits and some other weak nation has what you need?

[wufwugy]

...

Wrong. Come back when you've done some research on politics in America. The evidence is OVERWHELMING that conservatism fucks nearly everything up while liberalism is almost exclusively responsible for the beneficial policy we've seen for long time

[wufwugy]

This suggests causation to me.

Sorry, I meant that atheism only correlates with peace and education, it doesn't cause it, but it seems to be effected. Education is, however, widely believed to effect in reduced superstitions. What I'd like to see is what other explanations you will give for why more modern and equal societies experience less superstition.

Average Years of Schooling of Adults: USA #1 of 100
Duration of Compulsory Education: USA #7 (or, rather, tied for #2) of 171
Educational Attainment (Tertiary): USA #2 of 18
Tertiary Enrollment: USA #1 of 150
Proportion of 20 year olds in tertiary education: #4 of 28
Adults at High Literacy level: 19%, is the median and mean
Universities Top 500 (per capita): #16 of 38

The first five don't matter because they're highly relative. Like US may spend longer in school and put more into school, but if the product is worse then....

The sixth is a somewhat relevant number, but it has nothing to do with median.

I'm not exactly sure what the seventh means, but it looks like it's also rather irrelevant.

Much more important numbers are mathematical, scientific, and reading literacy rates, which show US at and below median. Numbers like this don't give even close to the whole picture though. Like I claimed before, informal education is super important as well, and US most certainly entertains a very large 'know nothing, do nothing' culture. How else do you explain why approximately half of the population thinks evolution is a fraud and voted for a propaganda machine that can see Russia from its house?

You're suggesting that atheism will no doubt lead a to peaceful society

Well, I don't actually believe this, but when a much larger percentage of violence comes from theism than atheism, one can only wonder. This is, however, a complicated issue, and something like battle over resources trumps the atrocities of religion.

I understand there is a general correlation between basic level education and peace. I do not debate this. But here's the problem: much of what you'll read on education perpetuating peace is in the context of nations dealing with poverty, poor infrastructure, poor human rights, little education already in place etc. Any amount of education at all, in a relative sense, is a massive step. You cannot take those scenarios, where people are worried about basic needs like food, shelter and physical safety, and use them as a model to prognosticate what would happen to a complex and relatively educated society like the US if social liberalism and education did happen to rise.

I like this. Being able to point out irrelevant comparisons is a very valuable trait.

While you are absolutely right, it is not completely correct that the US doesn't have a humanitarian problem. Remote Area Medical is an example of humanitarian health care that started in third world countries, yet has shifted to the US due to the humanitarian situation within. It's much more broad than this though. Simply eliminated the ability for xtians to lobby against proper sex-ed would help humanitarian issues among US middle class.

But this doesn't negate the fact that higher education tends towards peace as well. Scientists are vastly more liberal than conservative. And liberals are vastly more anti-war, etc

Further to that, if atheism does correlate well with those things, there is no guarantee that this will necessarily mean peace. The missing variables are money, resources and history. You could have a nation of 300 million who, domestically, all get along well and share and don't believe in any gods and all that business. But what happens when a resource issue hits and some other weak nation has what you need?

Either I misstated or you misread. I'll go back to my first statement on this topic

"Well the effects that have caused an increase in atheism have been major boons to society. Forced atheism is something else entirely, and is retarded"

However, I don't see a problem with promoting atheism for the sake of peace. Lots of bad stuff is done in the name of religion, but very little bad is done in the name of atheism. Like 9/11; the terrorists were good guys in the eyes of their ideology if they killed Americans.

And like I said earlier, when you posit that weak people need something to cling to I'll just posit that giving weak people something false to cling to may be even worse. We've already seen a whole lot of the atrocities that weak minded Americans do when given collective power.

[wufwugy]

this is because the left wants to increase funding for education so most teachers lean to the left

Uh

When idiot politicians and parents and board members are rallying against their ability to teach THE TRUTH then vote for the hypocritical family-values fundie fuckbags it's no wonder that teachers try to vote for liberals who want to actually promote education. It's not just funding, but ideological backing. Believe it or not, teachers find it important to be able to teach science, history, sex-ed, etc in a fact-based manner instead of being hindered by the retards who think their sky daddy made the earth in six days and one day he's gonna come back and smite the gays

[UG]

this is because the left wants to increase funding for education so most teachers lean to the left

Uh

When idiot politicians and parents and board members are rallying against their ability to teach THE TRUTH then vote for the hypocritical family-values fundie fuckbags it's no wonder that teachers try to vote for liberals who want to actually promote education. It's not just funding, but ideological backing. Believe it or not, teachers find it important to be able to teach science, history, sex-ed, etc in a fact-based manner instead of being hindered by the retards who think their sky daddy made the earth in six days and one day he's gonna come back and smite the gays

QFT

lol @ "conservatism fucks nearly everything up"
conservatives are evil, liberals are good

sure is partisan in here
half of the country thinks the same thing, but instead thinks the other way

and you're both as fucking stupid as either side you just don't realize it yet

[CoccoBill]

"progressives" are more educated because education has a left bias
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU

why does it have a left bias though? Probably because the people who have been highly educated have gravitated towards the left and typically the best teacher is going to be one who is highly educated..

Unless you are implying that there is some massive global conspiracy to brainwash our children..

no I'm just saying that the culture of the educational system leans to the left

this is because the left wants to increase funding for education so most teachers lean to the left

this is not rocket science, you're going to support people who say you should have more money
teachers and professors vote predominantly democrat

searching around on the web I found a quote

Last year UCLA's Higher Education Research institute polled 32,000 full-time undergraduate professors. It found that 48 percent identified as "liberal" or "far left" while only 18 percent described themselves as "conservative" or "far right."

Wait, are you saying that conservative teachers and professors vote democrats just to get more funding, or that conservatives are less likely to become teachers and professors?

[Ash256]

I had a look around for things to support the USA Is Retarded argument and I found these (using completely neutral search terms):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-science.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120400730.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/...0221227104776/

[a500lbgorilla]

He's saying that his dad listens to Glenn Beck.

[wufwugy]

lol @ "conservatism fucks nearly everything up"
conservatives are evil, liberals are good

sure is partisan in here
half of the country thinks the same thing, but instead thinks the other way

and you're both as fucking stupid as either side you just don't realize it yet

You could have just said that you've decided to not know what the hell you're talking about. This is very simple and very well documented stuff, and there is no excuse for remaining clueless

Apparently you've never heard of slavery, segregation, Great Depression, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, income distribution, the list goes on and on. It's is very well documented that conservative interests have been the primary adversary to the beneficial side of each of these issues. All you gotta do is look them up

Somebody had to wanna keep their slaves. Do you know who those somebodys were? Half the fucking nation! And they embodied bigoted, ignorant, propagandized, wealthy interests American conservatism to a T. Just look up the damned definitions to conservatism and liberalism. The former focuses on maintaining status quo, while the latter focuses on civil and economic equality. Just look up the ideologies and political backing of those who supported either side. Realize that conservatism rallied against nearly everything that would benefit the populous, then after decades those things they lost became status quo for which they then claimed credit.

It baffles my fucking mind that somebody can breathe air and not see the MASSIVE negative policies of conservatism. I guess people are so stupid that they succumb to the frauds of trickle-down economics, religious purity, and corporate power. I mean Jesus fucking Christ we're in the middle of the worst goddamn economic recession of our lifetime, the evidence is VERY clear that it was completely caused by conservative policy, yet so many dumbfucks still can't tell the difference between toilet paper and elephants banging in the woods. But because they've been duped by false rhetoric and are afraid of libruls and welfare cadillac queens, they keep voting for dickshits who continue to deregulate and oppress and create shit storms then blame the other guys and get away with it

And before you get your panties in a ruffle, keep in mind that a huge chunk of Democrats are not liberals. Real liberals are people like Russ Feingold, the only current long term senator with a true liberal rating and the ONLY SENATOR TO VOTE AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT and yet now the vast majority of the country doesn't like the Patriot Act, yet they disregard the people and ideologies responsible for it, and meanwhile conservatism thinks that its because of the libruls and der big gubmint that the guys they conveniently have forgotten they voted for gave them warrantless wire tapping and false imprisonment and every other thing they say they don't like because it's what they were told to think and it aligns with their utterly baseless philosophy

Say hello to your conservative movement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMj...er_profilepage

Isn't it so great to see so many people protesting policies that not only benefit them, but that they unknowingly voted the opposite of what they say they did? Maybe if they could cite a fact to save their lives, but alas

A problem here is that people think that there are different opinions about policies. There's not, there's only facts and fallacies. Social science is not opinion based, but data and logic based, and people need to stop thinking they know what they fuck they're talking about if they don't examine the data. Conservatism regularly has been on the wrong side of the data, and liberalism regularly has been on the right side. It's just like how flat-earthers have regularly been on the wrong side of the geological data, and geologists have regularly been on the right side of the geological data. There's nothing partisan going on here. That would be like there being a debate about whether or not nuking the sun was a good idea, and claiming that people on the side of logic were being partisan.

[a500lbgorilla]

I had a look around for things to support the USA Is Retarded argument and I found these (using completely neutral search terms):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-science.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120400730.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/...0221227104776/

Because we're just a nation of good old christian boys. Reading, writing and arithmetic are the Devil's playthings!

I think this might be the funniest political stance I've ever heard of. That someone might be against increased education because learning things has a liberal tilt.

Iopq might not know what an education looks like, but i cant recall any of my engineering or math professors indoctrinating me with anything other than the right-hand rule or significant figures.

Though, my college experience left me left. I only moved to the liberal side because I was such a conservative tool who knew nothing but what I could glean from talk radio.

So yah, when I learned a little bit about the world, I became more liberal.

[BennyLaRue]

You're suggesting that atheism will no doubt lead a to peaceful society

Well, I don't actually believe this, but when a much larger percentage of violence comes from theism than atheism, one can only wonder. This is, however, a complicated issue, and something like battle over resources trumps the atrocities of religion.

Good, I'm glad you acknowledge this.

While you are absolutely right, it is not completely correct that the US doesn't have a humanitarian problem.

True, but I had crisis humanitarian issues in mind. In a relative sense, liberty is something already freely offered to Americans vs. the places where education has its greatest initial impact, like our Rwanda example.

And like I said earlier, when you posit that weak people need something to cling to I'll just posit that giving weak people something false to cling to may be even worse. We've already seen a whole lot of the atrocities that weak minded Americans do when given collective power.

I don't argue with this. There's just nothing stopping these weak minded people from clinging to something else just as false as religion. You can provide as much education as you can to the masses but there is only so much that can sink in, you know? There will always be a weak-willed percentage of the population, vulnerable to the whims of those in power. I get the sense you'd like America to be 300 million scientists. It's just not realistic.

That was a silly statement, I know, but I'm using the extreme to highlight that a fully educated society is only most impactful on some. They'll still have to drag the stupid ones along.

[BennyLaRue]

I had a look around for things to support the USA Is Retarded argument and I found these (using completely neutral search terms):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-science.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120400730.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/...0221227104776/

Yeah, what I was showing above is that there is easy access to education in the US. Quality of those programs is another matter and active participation is yet another (ability being a fourth consideration with certain limitations). Offering more education or even simply improving curriculum is not necessarily the answer if some significant percentage of people are instead are content with complacency/topping out by working at Wal-Mart.

It's a Catch 22. At a macro level, if people were more educated, they would understand the value of education and then want more. But they don't want more because they don't understand the value of education. So, if the path is education = social liberalism, with atheism and peace as potential offshoots, I guess the argument about whether or not the path is correct becomes moot without getting the education part off the ground first.

I want to point out that in varying degrees, these are issues in Canada as well, and from what I can gather, the UK and some other nations too. I'm not picking on America because you're Americans, but because you're so big and I think you can all relate to the American example (whereas you don't know much about Canada, probably).

[BooG690]

Good to see a man use his power over blind religious morons to preach a retarded message:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTp_atr2G9E

[BooG690]

Scientology and the power of Scientology.

Discuss.

[a500lbgorilla]

I would bet that atheists have a strong aversion to authority figures and a sensitivity to being controlled. Much, much more so than those who have a personal god.

For all the willingness to piss on God around here, there is no one that wants to say anything about my post?

[Ash256]

I would bet that atheists have a strong aversion to authority figures and a sensitivity to being controlled. Much, much more so than those who have a personal god.

For all the willingness to piss on God around here, there is no one that wants to say anything about my post?

As an agnostic (formerly a super-spiritual hippified agnostic) I'd say this was spot-on about myself, however I'd speculate that you'll find many more who feel that way about themselves on a poker forum than you would on an atheists' forum.

[Ash256]

I wonder what % of North American/European Jewish people are closet atheists?

[a500lbgorilla]

I would bet that atheists have a strong aversion to authority figures and a sensitivity to being controlled. Much, much more so than those who have a personal god.

For all the willingness to piss on God around here, there is no one that wants to say anything about my post?

As an agnostic (formerly a super-spiritual hippified agnostic) I'd say this was spot-on about myself, however I'd speculate that you'll find many more who feel that way about themselves on a poker forum than you would on an atheists' forum.

I dunno. I feel like you're right that us poker players are ahead of the curve. But I think the jump between us and normal atheists is close enough to consider 0 when compared to the jump from us to real believers.

[a500lbgorilla]

I wonder what % of North American/European Jewish people are closet atheists?

If we're saying people who, unprompted, would identify themselves as Jews? I'm thinking small. 10%?

[Ltrain]

[quote="wufwugy"]

^^^

So if athiesm is just the lack of a belief god exists, not a group or movement, is the whole point then basically, "leave me alone, I will believe whatever I want?"

No, atheism is not a 'thing'. It's not a belief, it's not a culture, it's not a congregation, it's virtually nothing. Atheism is a label projected by those who don't understand logic and empiricism. Do you believe that cells exist and fabricate ideologies based on whatever it is you want or do you acknowledge that cells exist and base your acknowledgment and understanding on the data then go about your merry way?

Being an atheist is like being an a-the-earth-is-carried-on-a-turtle's-back-ist. It is an inappropriate label given by uneducated people

So Athiesm is nothing, its simply a label by the public given to people who understand the logical and empirical conclusion that god doesn't exist, that's the way it is. However, the human condition is not strictly logical and empirical; we are not robots, we are HUMANS. Humans can be irrational, emotional, and experience things like faith, hope and love that don't have a firm explanation. To my point made before, I can explain and prove these emotions through biology, but it does not change the subjective point of view of the person that they believe and feel these things for themselves. The discussion here is not in proving god exists, but looking at the subjective belief in god. Some believe, some do not.

Also, let's explore a little more the idea of needing or not needing a group to learn and experience something like morality (if you don't like this word, how about learning how to act in society not just for your good but for the good of society as a whole) versus having or learning the experience on your own.

I can exercise on my own, I can also join a health club, class or hire a trainer. I certainly don't need the group to experience exercise, but studies have shown that joining a group will help a person keep to an exercise plan versus just exercising on their own. Some don't need it, they can exercise on their own and not have a problem. Most won't do it without a group.

To accomplish a goal, I can simply think about what I need to do and do it. However, I am more likely to accomplish that goal if I state it in public, or to others, as a commitment I am making to accomplish that goal.

In college, greek organizations certainly have caused lots of problems, deaths and issues for colleges. So why are they permitted to continue? Because studies show greek graduates show a significantly higher satisfaction rating with their college education and donate significantly more money to the university after graduation. Certainly, you can enjoy your experience and donate money without a greek organization, however, universities know that the greek experience enhances the college experience versus not joining a greek organization.

As to the belief in god, here are some things to consider:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/

I know Pascal's Wager was mentioned before, but what was not stressed is that a belief is not as simple as a choice, you believe or you don't. To get the benefits, you need to truly believe and potentially practice that belief socially.

So if the argument is that we can't prove objectively that god exists and that's the way it is, my response is, who cares?

Thanks for all the participation by the way, I am enjoying this discussion.

[surviva316]

And before you get your panties in a ruffle, keep in mind that a huge chunk of Democrats are not liberals. Real liberals are people like Russ Feingold, the only current long term senator with a true liberal rating and the ONLY SENATOR TO VOTE AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT

this is a REALLY REALLY important point, which i'll talk about.

A problem here is that people think that there are different opinions about policies. There's not, there's only facts and fallacies. Social science is not opinion based, but data and logic based, and people need to stop thinking they know what they fuck they're talking about if they don't examine the data. Conservatism regularly has been on the wrong side of the data, and liberalism regularly has been on the right side. It's just like how flat-earthers have regularly been on the wrong side of the geological data, and geologists have regularly been on the right side of the geological data. There's nothing partisan going on here. That would be like there being a debate about whether or not nuking the sun was a good idea, and claiming that people on the side of logic were being partisan.

this paragraph simply balls non-stop, and ties into the point i'm gonna make about the US government.

is anyone else baffeled by the fact that, as far as our representation goes and as far as election-time debates go, there is only one side to issues that could at least be considered somewhat debatable: corporations deserve the same rights as people (literally); the patriot act; capitalism is perfect and there is NOTHING desirable about communism, welfare states, "The Third Way," etc. and to merely say something along the lines of "well i don't think Denmark is a complete shithole that has nothing that we can admire" would be the end of someone's career; there is a god and the purpose to our entire life is to do whatever he says or whatever we interpret that he said by decoding some cryptic mythology that was written millenia ago; even being "a liberal" is kind of unanomously perceived as a bad thing if the election rhetoric of the past few presidential cycles is any indication, etc and so forth.

YET, there are two sides to issues (and this ties into wuf's final paragraph) that don't really seem to have two reasonable sides to defend: evolution, human-caused global warming, whether or not homosexuals are going to burn in hell, etc.

as for the inconsistency of conservative ideology, did anyone else feel like they were taking crazy pills when big american corporations started going bankrupt and all the sudden the side that is supposedly the "no spending party" was like OMG LET'S GIVE THEM BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS?!?! well, i shouldn't've been surprised because in my very young politically-aware lifetime (which is probably only like 5 years), i've seen this same party rally for war for little reason, write an act that is straight outta 1984 (how someone can claim to be afraid of big government, yet support the patriot act is lolwtf), talk endlessly about how much money we need to invest in getting all these damn mexicans outta here, and so on and so forth. i'm startin' to see that the conservative party isn't against spending money at all, they're against spending it for things that we need like health care, infrastructure, government programs that help the needy, etc.

if there were TRUE liberalism representing this country (TRUE liberalism not the slightly less mentally handicapped democratic party), we wouldn't be spending all this money in iraq (i mean i know we have to now, i mean if we never fucked that up in the first place), we wouldn't've written all those checks to AIG and GM and all that crap (i mean, isn't this a supposedly free market? at least it is whenever conservatives talk about worker's rights and corporate taxes and environmental regulations and so forth, yet once corporations start going bankrupt, we turn into the friggin' USSR), we wouldn't be wasting all this money on subsidizing coal and nuclear plants and the list goes on.

INSTEAD, we would've gotten people jobs by investing this money in things we need like redoing bridges that are near the end of their time (i mean, you need to hire people to do these things) and fixing the overall infrastructure of a lot of the public road systems and all. instead of investing all this money on keeping people outta the country, we could be changing our system to make it more LEGAL immigrant friendly (we used to have ellis island, now we have 7-year visas and all these regulations and restrictions and ceilings for immigration from certain countries and so forth). instead of investing in coal plants, we could be having government work programs to build wind and solar facilities (more jobs) and SELLING it to corporations or share holders (more money for the government) and all this other crap that ACTUALLY HELPS THIS COUNTRY. instead of fighting a war, we could be helping the sick in our own country.

omg, doesn't the us just sound like such a better place if we spent less time being scared of mexicans and more time improving our country?!?!?!

[surviva316]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMj...er_profilepage

oh man, i'm still ROFL'ing from the part about the czars:

interviewer: "well it seems like the main problem you have with their position is actually the terminology that is tied with them, and that terminology was started by ronald reagan"

lady: "well, well, yeah, i didn't know this, and i've always considered myself a republican, but i think now i need to start to question that"

lol wtf how retarded can you be. that was like story of american voters right there: changing parties based on the fact that there are government officials called "czars." no, don't even bother changing your own beliefs about how using that term isn't completely evil and doesn't make obama the anti-christ, just change your entire political orientation, so that you can stubbornly stick by this ridiculous thesis you have goin'

You could have just said that you've decided to not know what the hell you're talking about. This is very simple and very well documented stuff, and there is no excuse for remaining clueless

Apparently you've never heard of slavery, segregation, Great Depression, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, income distribution, the list goes on and on. It's is very well documented that conservative interests have been the primary adversary to the beneficial side of each of these issues. All you gotta do is look them up

Somebody had to wanna keep their slaves. Do you know who those somebodys were? Half the fucking nation! And they embodied bigoted, ignorant, propagandized, wealthy interests American conservatism to a T. Just look up the damned definitions to conservatism and liberalism. The former focuses on maintaining status quo, while the latter focuses on civil and economic equality. Just look up the ideologies and political backing of those who supported either side. Realize that conservatism rallied against nearly everything that would benefit the populous, then after decades those things they lost became status quo for which they then claimed credit.

It baffles my fucking mind that somebody can breathe air and not see the MASSIVE negative policies of conservatism. I guess people are so stupid that they succumb to the frauds of trickle-down economics, religious purity, and corporate power. I mean Jesus fucking Christ we're in the middle of the worst goddamn economic recession of our lifetime, the evidence is VERY clear that it was completely caused by conservative policy, yet so many dumbfucks still can't tell the difference between toilet paper and elephants banging in the woods. But because they've been duped by false rhetoric and are afraid of libruls and welfare cadillac queens, they keep voting for dickshits who continue to deregulate and oppress and create shit storms then blame the other guys and get away with it

And before you get your panties in a ruffle, keep in mind that a huge chunk of Democrats are not liberals. Real liberals are people like Russ Feingold, the only current long term senator with a true liberal rating and the ONLY SENATOR TO VOTE AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT and yet now the vast majority of the country doesn't like the Patriot Act, yet they disregard the people and ideologies responsible for it, and meanwhile conservatism thinks that its because of the libruls and der big gubmint that the guys they conveniently have forgotten they voted for gave them warrantless wire tapping and false imprisonment and every other thing they say they don't like because it's what they were told to think and it aligns with their utterly baseless philosophy

Say hello to your conservative movement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMj...er_profilepage

Isn't it so great to see so many people protesting policies that not only benefit them, but that they unknowingly voted the opposite of what they say they did? Maybe if they could cite a fact to save their lives, but alas

A problem here is that people think that there are different opinions about policies. There's not, there's only facts and fallacies. Social science is not opinion based, but data and logic based, and people need to stop thinking they know what they fuck they're talking about if they don't examine the data. Conservatism regularly has been on the wrong side of the data, and liberalism regularly has been on the right side. It's just like how flat-earthers have regularly been on the wrong side of the geological data, and geologists have regularly been on the right side of the geological data. There's nothing partisan going on here. That would be like there being a debate about whether or not nuking the sun was a good idea, and claiming that people on the side of logic were being partisan.

slavery: democrats wanted to keep slaves, a Republican president freed them in the South (although not in the North)
segregation/civil rights: sure have that one
Great Depression: have you heard of the Great Depression of 1920? that's because it never happened, when the stock market crashed in 1920 and we handled it the right way

Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922. Federal taxes fell from $6.6 billion in 1920 to $5.5 billion in 1921 and $4 billion in 1922. Harding's policies started a trend. The low point for federal taxes was reached in 1924; for federal spending, in 1925. The federal government paid off debt, which had been $24.2 billion in 1920, and it continued to decline until 1930.

With Harding's tax and spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, GNP rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million— a reported 6.7 percent of the labor force— in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring Twenties were underway. The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching an extraordinary low of 1.8 percent in 1926. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.

income distribution: total bullshit, it's like distributing rake to fish
current economic crisis: it's caused in part by dumb fuck interventionist foreign policy that Obama plans on continuing with in Afghanistan because for the left, war is not war without Bush

And before you get your panties in a ruffle, keep in mind that a huge chunk of Republicans are not conservatives. Most Republicans are Neoconservatives, aka big government types.