Jon Huntsman' big idea

[Akhlut]

Secondly: while one can believe whatever the hell one can, I'm rather averse to idiots trying to wrest education away from people who actually know about the subject. And, the fact of the matter is that evolution is, far and away, one of the most well-documented and well-supported facets of modern science. There is no debate, and to pretend that there is at this juncture is, frankly, irresponsible. It's like humoring alchemists or astrologists.

It is generally a good idea, however, to humor several billion people when it comes to discussing what are ultimately matters of faith. Because again, the backlash is pretty counter-productive.

Good thing there are only ~300 million people in the US, total, then.

Also: 26% of US adults believe astrology works, while a further 22% are unsure; 23% believe in the existence of witches, with an additional 17% being unsure; and 32% believe in UFOs with 29% being unsure. Yet, we consistently deny those idiots access to school curricula, despite representing large minorities with substantial numbers of people being on the fence. We don't include astrology, witches, or UFOs in school curricula, nor would we dare countenance to, and we shouldn't do that with religious idiocy, either. We do not humor astrologers, we should not humor creationists.

[Zinegata]

Secondly: while one can believe whatever the hell one can, I'm rather averse to idiots trying to wrest education away from people who actually know about the subject. And, the fact of the matter is that evolution is, far and away, one of the most well-documented and well-supported facets of modern science. There is no debate, and to pretend that there is at this juncture is, frankly, irresponsible. It's like humoring alchemists or astrologists.

It is generally a good idea, however, to humor several billion people when it comes to discussing what are ultimately matters of faith. Because again, the backlash is pretty counter-productive.

Good thing there are only ~300 million people in the US, total, then.

Also: 26% of US adults believe astrology works, while a further 22% are unsure; 23% believe in the existence of witches, with an additional 17% being unsure; and 32% believe in UFOs with 29% being unsure. Yet, we consistently deny those idiots access to school curricula, despite representing large minorities with substantial numbers of people being on the fence. We don't include astrology, witches, or UFOs in school curricula, nor would we dare countenance to, and we shouldn't do that with religious idiocy, either. We do not humor astrologers, we should not humor creationists.

I am pointing out that there are a couple of billion Christians all over the world. Pointing out that there are only 300 million people in the US ain't really relevant when trying to portray religion in general as the domain of pure nutcases affects all those people and not just Americans.

Moreover, you're doubly silly for continuing this tangent, because there are much fewer astrologers than there are Christians, and the people who believe in astrology (and who are not astrologers) is still pretty darn low. Plus the fact that most people do not consider astrology a core belief.

Again, you can dismiss religion all you want and think it's on the same level as astrology. That would only make you a fool and an insensitive prick in most settings.

My point is that it's counter-productive to call all religious people bible thumper because - if you'd actually learn to interact with people - most people can hold religious beliefs and still be perfectly sane.

But hey, apparently you're such a genius on human relations that you've solved the age-old problem of religion. Go to your local church, tell everyone there that their belief system is just as silly as astrology, and let's see how many will not simply ignore you for being a real life troll or be even outright hostile and decide that atheists are just assholes just because of you :p.

[open_sketchbook]

I would argue that holding religious beliefs is pretty close to the definition of insanity; taking pride in the fact what you believe is empirically wrong is pretty fucked up. However, saying such to the crazy people holding those beliefs will not endear you to them and, surprise, they will be hostile to your agenda. Better to try and effect change with the help of as many religious people as we can manage and expose them to different ideas by proximity than to try to change their minds by calling them stupid, even when it is true.

[Keevan_Colton]

I would argue that holding religious beliefs is pretty close to the definition of insanity;

It would be except for the appeal to popularity clause that somehow made it into the DSM where if it's napoleon you hear you're delusional, but if it's jesus/allah/buddah/xenu you're fine. It's interesting that appeal to popularity is apparently not a logical fallacy when it comes to delusions.

taking pride in the fact what you believe is empirically wrong is pretty fucked up. However, saying such to the crazy people holding those beliefs will not endear you to them and, surprise, they will be hostile to your agenda. Better to try and effect change with the help of as many religious people as we can manage and expose them to different ideas by proximity than to try to change their minds by calling them stupid, even when it is true.

That doesn't really address the issue that he flat out say he personally does not accept evolution and claims there is some kind of doubt over its validity. It would be one thing to say that there is doubt, but that he personally accepts it...that puts him on the politely pandering side (something I'm not in favour of, but which at least I'm willing to accept as the price that must be paid to do business with fuckwits at the polls), what he actually said puts him in the one step away from his invisible friend regaling him about his ill advised invasion of Russia side of things.

[Akhlut]

I am pointing out that there are a couple of billion Christians all over the world. Pointing out that there are only 300 million people in the US ain't really relevant when trying to portray religion in general as the domain of pure nutcases affects all those people and not just Americans.

And several hundred million of those two billion have no problems with evolution (and the largest body of Christians, the Roman Catholic Church with 1.2 billion congregants, officially sanctions theistic evolution as true), while several hundred million Christians are generally in situations where they don't really give a shit about science because they're too damn poor and just want something to eat.

Moreover, you're doubly silly for continuing this tangent, because there are much fewer astrologers than there are Christians,

You're assuming there isn't significant overlap there; over 70% of the US is Christian, while roughly 25% believes in astrology. A number of those Christians think astrology is fine and dandy and think it works. We still don't cater to that.

Again, you can dismiss religion all you want and think it's on the same level as astrology. That would only make you a fool and an insensitive prick in most settings.

In most settings, I don't bring up religion and I don't care if someone prays before a meal or otherwise does whatever rituals they care to do. Does me no harm. However, if they try to inject their ancient mythologies into school, it becomes problematic. Or if they simply try to dismiss something that is about as factual as something can be.

[qutoe]My point is that it's counter-productive to call all religious people bible thumper because - if you'd actually learn to interact with people - most people can hold religious beliefs and still be perfectly sane. [/quote]

Except for creationism; I've literally argued with people over the course of 3 years, all while being kind, considerate, and generally not calling their beliefs total bullshit. Guess what: didn't work at all. For three years, the same people were saying the same bullshit. Turns out that being nice to them doesn't do shit! So why not call a spade a spade if the outcome doesn't change?

But hey, apparently you're such a genius on human relations that you've solved the age-old problem of religion. Go to your local church, tell everyone there that their belief system is just as silly as astrology, and let's see how many will not simply ignore you for being a real life troll or be even outright hostile and decide that atheists are just assholes just because of you :p.

And see how little has changed in 150 years of treating them with kid's gloves? The fact of the matter is that we simply need to keep their myths out of school and teach the children the correct facts, and if they try to inject their superstitions into the curricula, tell them to shut the hell up and let the educators educate instead of indoctrinate.

[Zinegata]

I would argue that holding religious beliefs is pretty close to the definition of insanity; taking pride in the fact what you believe is empirically wrong is pretty fucked up. However, saying such to the crazy people holding those beliefs will not endear you to them and, surprise, they will be hostile to your agenda. Better to try and effect change with the help of as many religious people as we can manage and expose them to different ideas by proximity than to try to change their minds by calling them stupid, even when it is true.

I am not arguing about the validity of religious beliefs (though really, when you realize that religion is essentially a placebo against the fear of death, it's really easy to understand why so many people turn to religion and hence less "insanity" and more a way of dealing with fear).

I am pointing out it's a much bigger issue than simple astrology and it best be handled with a level of care and sensitivity, instead of calling everyone who is even partially religious a nutcase (like you just did), as it will likely just create more enemies than converts.

[Zinegata]

And several hundred million of those two billion have no problems with evolution (and the largest body of Christians, the Roman Catholic Church with 1.2 billion congregants, officially sanctions theistic evolution as true), while several hundred million Christians are generally in situations where they don't really give a shit about science because they're too damn poor and just want something to eat.

And my point is that you shouldn't call them all Bible Thumpers. If you're cool with that, then stop going around in circles.

As for Paul... like I said he's not explicitly denying evolution - which isn't as bad as the bible thumpers who seriously think God created the universe in 7 days. You may not give a shit about these kinds of distinctions, but they're still well worth pointing out in a field of Republicans defined by trying to figure out who is the least insane aside from Huntsman.

[Keevan_Colton]

As for Paul... like I said he's not explicitly denying evolution - which isn't as bad as the bible thumpers who seriously think God created the universe in 7 days. You may not give a shit about these kinds of distinctions, but they're still well worth pointing out in a field of Republicans defined by trying to figure out who is the least insane aside from Huntsman.

How do you spin "I do not accept evolution" into not explicitly denying evolution?

[Zinegata]

As for Paul... like I said he's not explicitly denying evolution - which isn't as bad as the bible thumpers who seriously think God created the universe in 7 days. You may not give a shit about these kinds of distinctions, but they're still well worth pointing out in a field of Republicans defined by trying to figure out who is the least insane aside from Huntsman.

How do you spin "I do not accept evolution" into not explicitly denying evolution?

Because he didn't actually say "I do not accept evolution"

I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all.

The first part of the statement's vague as crap. He says he THINKS it's a theory but he doesn't accept it as a theory (so he contradicts himself there) but the second part...

I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.

Indicates he's fence-sitting. Now, again, you can go scream BUT ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN WILL BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, but that's seriously not the fucking point. The point is that it's still less extreme than the bible-thumpers who scream GOD CREATED THE WORLD IN SEVEN DAYS.

Unless of course you can provide a quote that isn't contradictory and he says outright "I deny evolution totally!". And no, the one you keep pointing to does not count - for the reasons already outlined above.

[Keevan_Colton]

Ah, so the spin is he isnt denying the existence of the theory of evolution, merely personally rejecting it.

[Zinegata]

Ah, so the spin is he isnt denying the existence of the theory of evolution, merely personally rejecting it.

I have already attempted to show several times where I'm coming from. If you will insist on calling me a liar - give an actual fucking argument instead of continuing this ad-hominem crap.

As I already pointed out, your evidence of his "rejection" is contained in a very contradictory statement. Again, how can you think it's a theory and in the very same sentence also reject that it's a theory? Note that he didn't even say I reject the theory. He said that he rejects it as a theory.

If we take this literally, he's saying he thinks it's a theory and not a theory at the same time. That's called "contradictory", and it's kinda hard to figure out a person's position from a statement like that.

Since you have NOT provided any other soundbytes, we thus have to look at the rest of the statement. And lo and behold, what does Dr Paul say?

I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.

A fence-sitting statement. If he totally denies evolution, why would he even bother to conclude his statement with a fence-sit?

You can accuse Ron Paul of being vague as shit, and of dangerous currency ideas, but you have not proven that he sits firmly on the side of denying evolution in favor of GOD CREATED THE WORLD IN 7 DAYS. If you have other proof, show it instead of being a lazy ass debater relying on ad-hominem.

[SCRawl]

Here's the thing about Ron Paul's statement:

I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory.

Let me try another, similar statement for comparison:

I think it's a theory...the theory of gravity and I don't accept it as a theory.

Do you see what I did there? Aside from the subject matter, both statements are identical. To dismiss evolution as a theory is to be ignorant of what that means. If it isn't ignorance -- and let's face it, for all his misguided bullshit Paul is not an ignorant man -- then I can only think of zealous ideological opposition to explain it.

While we're at it, let's have a look at this other gem:

I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.

So he's willing to take a book of allegories on one hand and give it equal weight with the mountain of evidence on the other, and then demand not only the mountain, but the earth and the moon and the sun and the stars as well? No one asks for proof in science: we ask for evidence. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection is the best theory we have, because all of the evidence supports it, and none of the evidence contradicts it. If there were any evidence falling into that latter category, then we wouldn't have a theory of evolution by means of natural selection, we'd have something else.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that Representative Paul is (in this small sample of quotes) talking out of his ass with respect to evolution. Judging by its context, he may have been taken by surprise by the question, and gave an ill-considered answer. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and leave him with enough rope to (hopefully not) hang himself.

[Duckie]

I would argue that holding religious beliefs is pretty close to the definition of insanity; taking pride in the fact what you believe is empirically wrong is pretty fucked up. However, saying such to the crazy people holding those beliefs will not endear you to them and, surprise, they will be hostile to your agenda. Better to try and effect change with the help of as many religious people as we can manage and expose them to different ideas by proximity than to try to change their minds by calling them stupid, even when it is true.

I am not arguing about the validity of religious beliefs (though really, when you realize that religion is essentially a placebo against the fear of death, it's really easy to understand why so many people turn to religion and hence less "insanity" and more a way of dealing with fear).

I am pointing out it's a much bigger issue than simple astrology and it best be handled with a level of care and sensitivity, instead of calling everyone who is even partially religious a nutcase (like you just did), as it will likely just create more enemies than converts.

How does your grand theory of religious belief explain religions that have almost precisely zero to say about death and situations after death, or which unlike the Abrahamic religions generally suppose a crappy afterlife of wasting away as a ghost or nothing at all?

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Secondly: while one can believe whatever the hell one can, I'm rather averse to idiots trying to wrest education away from people who actually know about the subject.

He's not running for goddamn Education Dictator. What the fuck does his belief or non-belief in Evolution have to do with Education?

[Simon_Jester]

He's running for president, which places him in a powerful position to muddy the waters on educational policy.

Moreover, if he were elected, his position would have the effect of providing covering fire for creationists trying to roll back the teaching of evolution in schools: to force the biology books to lie and say evolution is not a well-proven theory, and so forth, using all the tactics we're so familiar with from the past several decades.

This is like the global warming issue. Powerful men who say "I think the science on global warming is inconclusive" are, in practice, actively favoring the idea that global warming does not exist. Because they are denying the significance of the existing body of research, demanding 'more studies' without setting any clear guidelines for how many is enough. And while those studies go on they advocate taking no action and accomplishing nothing significant to fight global warming... because they're "not sure" it exists.

Expressing deep ambiguity about the truth of a scientific theory long after the scientific theory is well and truly nailed in place by decades of careful effort is anti-science.

[Battlehymn Republic]

I would argue that holding religious beliefs is pretty close to the definition of insanity;

It would be except for the appeal to popularity clause that somehow made it into the DSM where if it's napoleon you hear you're delusional, but if it's jesus/allah/buddah/xenu you're fine. It's interesting that appeal to popularity is apparently not a logical fallacy when it comes to delusions.

Maybe what the DSM puts or doesn't put as "mental illness" doesn't matter because human beings aren't machines of logic, and are all insane to some degree, and most world religions have had enough cultural inertia to not be immediately considered as insane? The "oh you have religious/spiritual beliefs, hence you are insane" view may be true to some extent, but functionally it's useful as fuck-all since the majority of humanity does not care about your level of sanity.

That said, on a functional level it is useful to distinguish between levels of religious belief, insofar how they affect day to day actions, such as matters of public policy.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

He's running for president, which places him in a powerful position to muddy the waters on educational policy.

No it doesn't. Education is not within the purview of the Federal Government. I might also add that Huntsman is a Mormon, not an Atheist. Last time I checked, Evolution via God is considered to either be akin to Intelligent Design or is expressly Intelligent Design.

[Duckie]

You should probably tell the Department of Education that because they've been existing under the mistaken believe they're real for the past 40 years.

[Bakustra]

You should probably tell the Department of Education that because they've been existing under the mistaken believe they're real for the past 40 years.

30, but they were part of HEW for 30 years prior, and the initial non-Cabinet Department was established in 1867, so there has actually been a federal role in education for 144 years now! But hey! It's still unconstitutional because it takes nebulously-defined state's rights away!

[Panzersharkcat]

You should probably tell the Department of Education that because they've been existing under the mistaken believe they're real for the past 40 years.

I'm pretty sure he means that education should not be under the purview of the federal government, as it is not authorized under Article 1, Section 8.

[Bakustra]

You should probably tell the Department of Education that because they've been existing under the mistaken believe they're real for the past 40 years.

I'm pretty sure he means that education should not be under the purview of the federal government, as it is not authorized under Article 1, Section 8.

provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

I would think that ensuring that education is generally available and studying the way in which education is conducted, the two primary duties of DoED, would be part of that whole "general Welfare" thing.

[VarrusTheEthical]

You should probably tell the Department of Education that because they've been existing under the mistaken believe they're real for the past 40 years.

I'm pretty sure he means that education should not be under the purview of the federal government, as it is not authorized under Article 1, Section 8.

*cough* Commerce Clause! *cough*

[UnderAGreySky]

Does EVERYTHING in the US have to go through the commerce clause?

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds this "not in the constitution! Can't hear you! La-La-La-La" point of view imbecilic. I'm sure there are enough Americans who believe the same. Education and healthcare are not in the constitution? WELL PUT THEM THE FUCK IN THERE AND JOIN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY YOU RETARDS. And if you play well, you might even make it into the twenty-first.

[D.Turtle]

You want to change the holy word of the glorious founders of God's favorite country and only source of light and hope on this Earth? Are you crazy?

[UnderAGreySky]

I'm not American.

Which probably is the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, I like the US Constitution. It's the idolatry that I cannot stand.