Rumsfeld aka Ratbastard

[Axis Kast]

This isn't about the validity of Creationism. It's about whether George W. Bush's private embrace of the religious notion is an indication of universal lack of intelligence. The answer is an abject no.

You're attempting to demonize the man for what is essentially a religious belief. And none of this bullshit about scientific theories. You and I might hold science in esteem over the Bible. George Bush does not. It makes him susceptible to criticism on that issue specifically; it does not however speak to his whole person.

Remember that religion is uniquely irrational. It's one of few things in this world that the analytical can cling to without reservation or deep reasoning. It's partially indoctrination; start at a young age and the person in question is virtually assured to be influenced later in life. I'm not defending the theory, just the intelligence of the man you're attempintg to deride because of it.

[SirNitram]

This isn't about the validity of Creationism. It's about whether George W. Bush's private embrace of the religious notion is an indication of universal lack of intelligence. The answer is an abject no.

An unsupported insistance. As usual.

You're attempting to demonize the man for what is essentially a religious belief. And none of this bullshit about scientific theories. You and I might hold science in esteem over the Bible. George Bush does not. It makes him susceptible to criticism on that issue specifically; it does not however speak to his whole person.

Just his intelligence and gullibility.

Remember that religion is uniquely irrational. It's one of few things in this world that the analytical can cling to without reservation or deep reasoning. It's partially indoctrination; start at a young age and the person in question is virtually assured to be influenced later in life. I'm not defending the theory, just the intelligence of the man you're attempintg to deride because of it.

It's just one more peice of the pile. You apologists, however, demand we ignore common sense just because he's your golden boy.

[Axis Kast]

An unsupported insistance. As usual.

Your argument:

“George Bush is a complete moron because of his belief in Creationism, which was proven clearly faulty by modern science.”

My argument:

“It is a dangerous overreach to label a man a complete fool on the basis of religious beliefs alone – especially when that man had the savvy to put himself in the Presidency, and considering that religion is a rather subjective issue on which human beings are widely reputed to have illogical positions. Your argument is incomplete; you cannot quantify the intellectual capability of a human being on the basis of one belief with which you personally disagree.”

Just his intelligence and gullibility.

Not his complete intelligence. And I’d be careful lest you call Creationists “gullible.” You’re implying that they’re swallowing whatever has been spoon fed them without a second thought. While it’s partially true, that’s not always the case.

t's just one more peice of the pile. You apologists, however, demand we ignore common sense just because he's your golden boy.

You’ve yet to describe this “pile” beyond religion (which we’ve already established is illogical regardless of your objections on the basis of science) and grammar (which you somehow insist is a legitimate indicator of his complete intellectual capability despite the stress of live television broadcast in which every word is national policy). You’ve not properly supported your argument.

[Sir Sirius]

Your argument:

“George Bush is a complete moron because of his belief in Creationism, which was proven clearly faulty by modern science.”

Yes, a man that holds something that has decidedly been shown to be untrue true is either a moron or delusional.

My argument:

“It is a dangerous overreach to label a man a complete fool on the basis of religious beliefs alone – especially when that man had the savvy to put himself in the Presidency, and considering that religion is a rather subjective issue on which human beings are widely reputed to have illogical positions.

And that is why creationist are stupid. They knowingly and willingly rejecy reason and the scientific method and replace them with religious dogma based on the writings of some primitive tribals thousands of years a go. The fact that this is fairly common practice in the U.S. doesn't mean that doing so isn't stupid.

Your argument is incomplete; you cannot quantify the intellectual capability of a human being on the basis of one belief with which you personally disagree.”

Personaly disagree? No, no and no! It is not just that we disagree with creationists, it's that their beliefs have time and a time again show to be false and yet the cling to them for dear life.

Not his complete intelligence.

? What are you saying? His "complete intelligence" my ass, he has show decisive lack of critical thinking and over reliance on silly superstitions beliefs. The mans a moron.

And I’d be careful lest you call Creationists “gullible.” You’re implying that they’re swallowing whatever has been spoon fed them without a second thought. While it’s partially true, that’s not always the case.

Their either swallowing what has been spoon fed to the with out a second though, meaning that they are credilous and ignorant, or they actualy take some time to consider their position and still continue to be creationists, meaning that they are either stupid or delusional.

You’ve yet to describe this “pile” beyond religion (which we’ve already established is illogical regardless of your objections on the basis of science)...

Holding a position know to be illogical and patently false is stupid. I don't quite understand why you insist that religion is an excuse for lack of critical thought in any way.

You position appears to be: Doing something stupid is O.K. is the reason for doing it is illogical enough?
What kind of a train of though is that?

...and grammar (which you somehow insist is a legitimate indicator of his complete intellectual capability despite the stress of live television broadcast in which every word is national policy).

Overwhelming majority of politicians do far better then King Bush the Second and while not being a skilled speakers is not a demonstration of lack of intelligence in it self, Bush butchers the English language in a manner I have never heard before from any English speaking politician.

You’ve not properly supported your argument.

LOL! No, it's just that it appears lenghty explanations are required to make you understand our arquments.

Waits for Axis to repeat his previous arqument largely un-altered.

[Axis Kast]

You’re ignoring the basis of my argument, Sir Sirius. Religious opinions – including Creationism – are quite subjective, often colored by illogical beliefs generally acquired during the impressionable years of childhood and hammered home again and again as an “institution apart” from both modern science and conventional reason. Certainly some of the most religious regard the clash between Biblical and Darwinian concepts as a test of faith – does the accepted Word of God maintain power over one’s actions and beliefs even in face of the labor of man? It is too abrupt to label George W. Bush a complete “moron” who flies blithely and without introspection in the face of science based on your understanding of his belief in Creationism alone. In fact, the roots of your argument go only so far as: “He who believes in what the majority does not is a fool.” On that basis, I could easily declare you a complete and abject idiot because you have once or twice in your life stuck to an analysis or opinion even in the face of accepted proof. You insist that George Bush didn't critically analyze his own adoption of Creationism. That is an uninformed assumption based on bias.

Once more, you ignore everything about George W. Bush save for his belief in Creationism. You’re condemning the intellectual capability of a man you haven’t stopped for a moment to inspect very closely (making, of course, ad-hominem arguments all the while).

[Sir Sirius]

You’re ignoring the basis of my argument, Sir Sirius. Religious opinions – including Creationism – are quite subjective...

No, there is nothing subjective about creationism, it has been shown to be false, period. Or do you not acknowladge the difference between science and religious dogma?

...often colored by illogical beliefs generally acquired during the impressionable years of childhood and hammered home again and again as an “institution apart” from both modern science and conventional reason.

And if a man in his fifties who has had the benefits of a good education hasn't discarded his bible blinders he can rightly be called a moron.

Certainly some of the most religious regard the clash between Biblical and Darwinian concepts as a test of faith – does the accepted Word of God maintain power over one’s actions and beliefs even in face of the labor of man?

And anyone who accepts the word of a book writen by ignorant tribals thousands of years a go over empirical observations and science is stupid.

Do you belief that doing something stupid is O.K. is the reason for doing it is illogical enough? Because that sure appears to be what you are saying.

It is too abrupt to label George W. Bush a complete “moron” who flies blithely and without introspection in the face of science based on your understanding of his belief in Creationism alone.

Why he beliefs in creationism is irrelevant, there is no excuse for some one living in 1st world country, particulary since Bush has undoubtetly had the advantage of good education, to belief in creationism.

In fact, the roots of your argument go only so far as: “He who believes in what the majority does not is a fool.”

I did NOT commit an appeal to popularity in my last post, if you belief otherwise post a quote.

My arqument was "He who beliefs what is know to false is stupid." Or is it that you do not understand the difference between an established fact and blind faith?

On that basis, I could easily declare you a complete and abject idiot because you have once or twice in your life stuck to an analysis or opinion even in the face of accepted proof.

I can't really remeber an instance where I would have know that the position I am holding is incorrect and yet continued to advocate my position unaltered. There is a difference between once or twice making a mistake and continuosly considering something to be true when it is known to be false.

You insist that George Bush didn't critically analyze his own adoption of Creationism. That is an uninformed assumption based on bias.

If Bush criticaly analyzed his position on creationism and yet continued to be a creationst he is most definately a moron.

Once more, you ignore everything about George W. Bush save for his belief in Creationism.

His creationism is the most clear and definitive example of his intelligence or rather lack of intelligence, why should I ignore it? It's not like he has shown him self to be a man of great intellect in any other manner.

You’re condemning the intellectual capability of a man you haven’t stopped for a moment to inspect very closely (making, of course, ad-hominem arguments all the while).

Some one doesn't know what an Ad-hominem is.

Was I right or wasn't I?

[Axis Kast]

No, there is nothing subjective about creationism, it has been shown to be false, period. Or do you not acknowladge the difference between science and religious dogma?

It has been shown to be scientifically unlikely in the extreme, but not false. That’s an important distinction.

I don’t believe in it, but many of its proponents remain convinced of various explanations as to why evolution isn’t valid in the face of the Bible.

And anyone who accepts the word of a book writen by ignorant tribals thousands of years a go over empirical observations and science is stupid.

Do you belief that doing something stupid is O.K. is the reason for doing it is illogical enough? Because that sure appears to be what you are saying.

George Bush doesn’t believe that the Bible was written by “ignorant tribals” alone, but passed down directly from God or his spokespersons on the Earth (as Muslims believe that Muhammed is responsible for the Koran).

You’re purposely skirting my point to avoid having to contend with it, Sirius. Religion is a very testy issue, at the center of a huge controversy - there are however intelligent people who believe in Creationism. Thus your criticism of George Bush on these grounds is invalid.

Why he beliefs in creationism is irrelevant, there is no excuse for some one living in 1st world country, particulary since Bush has undoubtetly had the advantage of good education, to belief in creationism.

… Except for strong faith of a kind against which you clearly have a rabid bias.

I did NOT commit an appeal to popularity in my last post, if you belief otherwise post a quote.

My arqument was "He who beliefs what is know to false is stupid." Or is it that you do not understand the difference between an established fact and blind faith?

You’ve committed it in every post thus far.

As for this “what he knows to be false” argument, Creationists don’t acknowledge the scientific validity of evolution. It’s less a group of people embracing errors than rejecting arguments antithetical to their personal beliefs.

Again, while I believe in the theory of evolution, you cannot make a complete argument that Creationism did not occur as per the Bible. No matter your virtual certainty, loopholes remain.

I can't really remeber an instance where I would have know that the position I am holding is incorrect and yet continued to advocate my position unaltered. There is a difference between once or twice making a mistake and continuosly considering something to be true when it is known to be false.

George W. Bush doesn’t acknowledge it as false. You are implying he knows and acknowledges somewhere deep down that Creationism is false and yet clings to it for some arbitrary, unexplained cause. That’s patently ridiculous.

If Bush criticaly analyzed his position on creationism and yet continued to be a creationst he is most definately a moron.

Only in your opinion. Again, you’ve yet to defend the problem of analyzing the man based on one very subjective element of his character.

His creationism is the most clear and definitive example of his intelligence or rather lack of intelligence, why should I ignore it? It's not like he has shown him self to be a man of great intellect in any other manner.

Again, opinion. I sure appreciated his handling of the crisis with China and North Korea.

Some one doesn't know what an Ad-hominem is.

You refer to Bush in disparaging terms. That is an ad-hominem assault.

Was I right or wasn't I?

No, you weren’t. You’re the one repeating yourself.

[SirNitram]

No, there is nothing subjective about creationism, it has been shown to be false, period. Or do you not acknowladge the difference between science and religious dogma?

It has been shown to be scientifically unlikely in the extreme, but not false. That’s an important distinction.

Since you are claiming there's a distinction, you'd better show us one.

I don’t believe in it, but many of its proponents remain convinced of various explanations as to why evolution isn’t valid in the face of the Bible.

And they're morons for remaining so convinced. Evolution need not be valid in the Bible, it's vaild in the real world.

And anyone who accepts the word of a book writen by ignorant tribals thousands of years a go over empirical observations and science is stupid.

Do you belief that doing something stupid is O.K. is the reason for doing it is illogical enough? Because that sure appears to be what you are saying.

George Bush doesn’t believe that the Bible was written by “ignorant tribals” alone, but passed down directly from God or his spokespersons on the Earth (as Muslims believe that Muhammed is responsible for the Koran).

Look, kiddo, I can beleive Garfield is the word of God himself, that doesn't mean the cat is real.

You’re purposely skirting my point to avoid having to contend with it, Sirius. Religion is a very testy issue, at the center of a huge controversy - there are however intelligent people who believe in Creationism. Thus your criticism of George Bush on these grounds is invalid.

Show me some intelligent person who beleives Creationism who isn't delusional. If you haven't noticed, no one here cares that religion can be a 'testy issue'.

Why he beliefs in creationism is irrelevant, there is no excuse for some one living in 1st world country, particulary since Bush has undoubtetly had the advantage of good education, to belief in creationism.

… Except for strong faith of a kind against which you clearly have a rabid bias.

Yea, we're biased against things that suck and/or are stupid. Same with things that propagate stupidty. (That line is far more quotable when it doesn't have to be spelled out for the apologists)

I did NOT commit an appeal to popularity in my last post, if you belief otherwise post a quote.

My arqument was "He who beliefs what is know to false is stupid." Or is it that you do not understand the difference between an established fact and blind faith?

You’ve committed it in every post thus far.

And of course he doesn't back up this claim.

As for this “what he knows to be false” argument, Creationists don’t acknowledge the scientific validity of evolution. It’s less a group of people embracing errors than rejecting arguments antithetical to their personal beliefs.

That's what makes them stupid.

Again, while I believe in the theory of evolution, you cannot make a complete argument that Creationism did not occur as per the Bible. No matter your virtual certainty, loopholes remain.

Show me one, asscrack.

I can't really remeber an instance where I would have know that the position I am holding is incorrect and yet continued to advocate my position unaltered. There is a difference between once or twice making a mistake and continuosly considering something to be true when it is known to be false.

George W. Bush doesn’t acknowledge it as false. You are implying he knows and acknowledges somewhere deep down that Creationism is false and yet clings to it for some arbitrary, unexplained cause. That’s patently ridiculous.

If Bush criticaly analyzed his position on creationism and yet continued to be a creationst he is most definately a moron.

Only in your opinion. Again, you’ve yet to defend the problem of analyzing the man based on one very subjective element of his character.

His creationism is the most clear and definitive example of his intelligence or rather lack of intelligence, why should I ignore it? It's not like he has shown him self to be a man of great intellect in any other manner.

Again, opinion. I sure appreciated his handling of the crisis with China and North Korea.

Some one doesn't know what an Ad-hominem is.

You refer to Bush in disparaging terms. That is an ad-hominem assault.

Was I right or wasn't I?

No, you weren’t. You’re the one repeating yourself.

[Iceberg]

Dammit, I wanted Bush to have been telling the truth. I wanted there to have been CBWs in Iraq, because it would have justified the death of 200 American servicemen and women, and a couple thousand Iraqis.

But the possibility of there being any there grows increasingly remote with each passing day, and each failed inspection of yet another weapons stockpile. So I'm angry, because Bush lied. He lied to all of us. He lied knowing that he was lying, and probably knowing full well that the alleged WMD stockpiles didn't actually exist. But we accepted the lies, believing (or perhaps only hoping) they were true.

I can no longer believe in this president. I can no longer believe in this Administration. And that is why next fall I will cast my vote against this President and this Administration.

[MKSheppard]

Dammit, I wanted Bush to have been telling the truth. I wanted there to have been CBWs in Iraq, because it would have justified the death of 200 American servicemen and women, and a couple thousand Iraqis.

You really are grasping for straws here - We have removed Iraq as a possible
threat to us in the future, liberated millions from an oppressive dictator
who tortured and shot his people by the thousands, and have pretty much
ended the rationale keeping our forces in Saudia Arabia, fundie shithole
completely now that Saddam is no longer a threat.

Certainly a much greater accomplishment in the humanist
and geopolitical view than Bill Clinton's "solving" of the Kosovo
mess by bombing Serbia over mass graves that don't exist,
and have yet to be discovered, and also allowing the KLA, a
known terrorist organization to continue to terrorize the people
of Kosovo.

As for the people who whine that we're in a quagmire, just pull
a fucking MAP out, and look where the attacks are all taking place;
for fucks sake, about 4~ soldiers have been killed on the fucking
highway from Baghdad International Airport to Baghdad alone!

The british aren't having any problems in Basra, and neither are our
troops in the north, and just because a bunch of Saddam die hards
still are infesting his fucking hometown of Tikrit and the surrounding area,
you're running around wailing that it's another vietnam!

Sheesh, get your heads back on right and take some Thorazine for
god's sake.

[Axis Kast]

Since you are claiming there's a distinction, you'd better show us one.

From where did the universe come?

And they're morons for remaining so convinced. Evolution need not be valid in the Bible, it's vaild in the real world.

See above.

And, once more, you need to realize that religion is an unusual creature that regularly contradicts the laws of modern, practical society. That George W. Bush is a Creationist leaves him open to criticism on that particular issue; it does not however validate theories that he lacks intelligence.

Show me some intelligent person who beleives Creationism who isn't delusional. If you haven't noticed, no one here cares that religion can be a 'testy issue'.

You’ve never met a religious leader in your community who agreed with Creationism as set out in the Bible but was still an intelligent, capable human being?

My arqument was "He who beliefs what is know to false is stupid." Or is it that you do not understand the difference between an established fact and blind faith?

This was from one of your posts. You made a typo. But it’s so easy to double-check. Moron!

And of course he doesn't back up this claim.

Back up the fact that the argument is becoming circular? You can read it yourself and figure that much out.

That's what makes them stupid.

Unfortunately for your argument, it doesn’t rob them of total intellectual ability.

Show me one, asscrack.

How did the universe begin?

“Asscrack?” We’re having a debate, you feel upset that you’re not winning, so you call me an “asscrack?” Wow.

[SirNitram]

Since you are claiming there's a distinction, you'd better show us one.

From where did the universe come?

A Big Bang Event. Something we've derived from empirical observation, not a five thousand year old collection of myths desert dwellers pulled out of their ass.

And they're morons for remaining so convinced. Evolution need not be valid in the Bible, it's vaild in the real world.

See above.

And, once more, you need to realize that religion is an unusual creature that regularly contradicts the laws of modern, practical society. That George W. Bush is a Creationist leaves him open to criticism on that particular issue; it does not however validate theories that he lacks intelligence.

And this makes me give a shit why?

Show me some intelligent person who beleives Creationism who isn't delusional. If you haven't noticed, no one here cares that religion can be a 'testy issue'.

You’ve never met a religious leader in your community who agreed with Creationism as set out in the Bible but was still an intelligent, capable human being?

I've never met anyone, religious leader or not, in my community or not, who beleived in Creationism and was an intelligent, capable human being. I've met some competent Intelligent Designers, but that's a magnitude or two less stupid than Creationism.

My arqument was "He who beliefs what is know to false is stupid." Or is it that you do not understand the difference between an established fact and blind faith?

This was from one of your posts. You made a typo. But it’s so easy to double-check. Moron!

And of course he doesn't back up this claim.

Back up the fact that the argument is becoming circular? You can read it yourself and figure that much out.

And I can see how you keep claiming things without doing a thing to back it up, IE, being a dipshit.

That's what makes them stupid.

Unfortunately for your argument, it doesn’t rob them of total intellectual ability.

Show me one, asscrack.

How did the universe begin?

“Asscrack?” We’re having a debate, you feel upset that you’re not winning, so you call me an “asscrack?” Wow.

Big Bang Event.

I call you an asscrack because you're demonstrating the intelligence of one. It has nothing to do with the fact I know you're flailing wildly.

[Axis Kast]

A Big Bang Event. Something we've derived from empirical observation, not a five thousand year old collection of myths desert dwellers pulled out of their ass.

Explain to me how “A Big Bang Event” could have occurred spontaneously, and how it was initiated.

Also try to keep in mind that, like many Muslims, George W. Bush believes that the Bible was transcribed rather than merely “produced”. Are you implying that all Muslims who believe the Koran came directly from Allah are now complete morons?

And this makes me give a shit why?

Because the center of the argument is whether Bush is a complete idiot, not whether his belief in Creationism is silly from our points of view.

I've never met anyone, religious leader or not, in my community or not, who beleived in Creationism and was an intelligent, capable human being. I've met some competent Intelligent Designers, but that's a magnitude or two less stupid than Creationism.

Try, “The Koran came directly from Allah,” then.

And I can see how you keep claiming things without doing a thing to back it up, IE, being a dipshit.

You can see for yourself that we’re covering old ground.

Big Bang Event.

I call you an asscrack because you're demonstrating the intelligence of one. It has nothing to do with the fact I know you're flailing wildly.

See my first reponse.

As for the “asscrack” and “flailing wildly” comment, you wouldn’t have said the one unless you weren’t certain of the other.

[Sir Sirius]

Explain to me how “A Big Bang Event” could have occurred spontaneously, and how it was initiated.

Oh, I see. It's the old "Since we don't know everything, we actualy know nothing, therefor the bible is the absolute literal truth and there is no such thing as Evolution." arqument again.

Oh, and while were at it could you tell me what the big bang has to do with Theory of Evolution?

Also try to keep in mind that, like many Muslims, George W. Bush believes that the Bible was transcribed rather than merely “produced”.

So now your bact to the "Believing in something stupid is O.K. is the reason for doing it is illogical enough." arqument. There is no reason to belief that the bible came straight from god, believing that it did is quite silly on it's own and once again demonstrates lack of critical thinking and credulity. When combined with creationism it pretty clearly shows that Bush is not all that smart.

BTW Axis are a broken record or what.

Are you implying that all Muslims who believe the Koran came directly from Allah are now complete morons?

I'd say that they are credilous, but you once again miss the difference between believing something silly and unfalsifiable and believing know to be false.

Because the center of the argument is whether Bush is a complete idiot, not whether his belief in Creationism is silly from our points of view.

You are seriuosly starting to bore me. How many times am I going to have to say this until it sinks in? Only a total moron would belief in creationism.

Try, “The Koran came directly from Allah,” then.

No more or less stupid the "the bible came straight from YHWH." Believing that shows a distinct lack of critical thinking and credulity.

You can see for yourself that we’re covering old ground.

Yes, you are yet again using your standard arquing tactic. Ignore all that has been said and restate previuos arqument un-altered. VI behaviour I say.

Finaly.
You have accused me of committing an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Care to present a quote from this thread of the instance in which I did so?
You have also accused me of comitting an Ad-hominem fallacy. Care to present a quote from this thread of the instance in which I did so?

Please, don't pull the Darkstar trick of claiming that the evidence is there for all to see, just produce a simple quote. Not so hard is it?

[Sir Sirius]

You refer to Bush in disparaging terms. That is an ad-hominem assault.

Look the moron doesn't even know what on Ad Hominem is...

Had out arqument gone like this...
You: "Bush isn't stupid."
Me: "Of course you would say that, you're a right-wing loon"
You: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Me: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a right-wing loon, so you have to say that Bush isn't stupid."
...I would have committed an Ad Hominem fallacy by claiming that you were wrong simply because you are a right-wing loon. I have not done that.

Using disparaging terms to refer to King Shrubby the Second is simply an insult, one not even directed at you. It is not an Ad Hominem fallacy and neither is calling you a moron.

[SirNitram]

A Big Bang Event. Something we've derived from empirical observation, not a five thousand year old collection of myths desert dwellers pulled out of their ass.

Explain to me how “A Big Bang Event” could have occurred spontaneously, and how it was initiated.

Explain how God was created, and who made Him.

See, there are theories for how a Big Bang Event will fire off. No one can tell me where God comes from.

Also try to keep in mind that, like many Muslims, George W. Bush believes that the Bible was transcribed rather than merely “produced”. Are you implying that all Muslims who believe the Koran came directly from Allah are now complete morons?

You do realize that you're committing a moronic 'appeal to popularity', right? That's a fallacy, moron. As for the Muslims, if they honestly beleive, after getting a first world education, that things in the Koran are literal, yes, they are stupid.

And this makes me give a shit why?

Because the center of the argument is whether Bush is a complete idiot, not whether his belief in Creationism is silly from our points of view.

And I've shown Bush has had a 1st world, high class education, and, much like you, can't fathom that empirical observsion is superior to the myths of desert dwellers five thousand years ago.

I've never met anyone, religious leader or not, in my community or not, who beleived in Creationism and was an intelligent, capable human being. I've met some competent Intelligent Designers, but that's a magnitude or two less stupid than Creationism.

Try, “The Koran came directly from Allah,” then.

Oh, the Koran came from someone. They can call the author Allah all they want. If they beleive it's a literal accounting of events including Creation, that's different. And again, if they had receiving a 1st world, high class education like Shrubbery, and still beleived that, then yes, something is seriously wrong.

Perhaps I need to bold it.

APPEALS TO POPULARITY ARE FALLACIES

And I can see how you keep claiming things without doing a thing to back it up, IE, being a dipshit.

You can see for yourself that we’re covering old ground.

Big Bang Event.

I call you an asscrack because you're demonstrating the intelligence of one. It has nothing to do with the fact I know you're flailing wildly.

See my first reponse.

So where did God come from, Axis?

Oh wait.

Christians can't even try and answer, whereas a scientist can list the theories for why a Big Bang will occour.

As for the “asscrack” and “flailing wildly” comment, you wouldn’t have said the one unless you weren’t certain of the other.

I say what I want, and I enjoy insulting you. It's not like replying to you takes effort; you're now just spewing the same old tired shit every creationist does.

[Axis Kast]

Oh, I see. It's the old "Since we don't know everything, we actualy know nothing, therefor the bible is the absolute literal truth and there is no such thing as Evolution." arqument again.

Oh, and while were at it could you tell me what the big bang has to do with Theory of Evolution?

No, it’s the argument that even science in which you place all your faith has its strong critics.

The “Big Bang Theory” can be linked with the Theory of Evolution because Creationists’ beliefs address both issues at the same time. We treat the beginning of the known universe and human development as two very separate issues; for most of the extremely faithful, that’s unusual.

You wanted to know on what grounds Bush might find fault with modern science. I provided one example.

So now your bact to the "Believing in something stupid is O.K. is the reason for doing it is illogical enough." arqument. There is no reason to belief that the bible came straight from god, believing that it did is quite silly on it's own and once again demonstrates lack of critical thinking and credulity. When combined with creationism it pretty clearly shows that Bush is not all that smart.

Define “O.K.” Once again, you’re condemning a man as completely unintelligent when he is one of billions in this world to believe in events as told by the Bible rather than modern science. It’s too broad a determination on your part. It’s one thing to say Bush’s opinion is at fault. It’s quite another to argue that he’s perpetually out to lunch.

Wait! We’re backtracking now! From totally loony and “a complete moron” to “not all that smart.” That’s my argument. Right there. You can fairly criticize him as being “not that smart,” but not for being utterly stupid.

I'd say that they are credilous, but you once again miss the difference between believing something silly and unfalsifiable and believing know to be false.

Once again, you need to provide proof that George Bush understands Creationism to be false. Your finding it “loony” doesn’t exactly mean he does, too. You are attempting to take your own personal viewpoint and assume he shares it, too.

You are seriuosly starting to bore me. How many times am I going to have to say this until it sinks in? Only a total moron would belief in creationism.

But George W. Bush is not “a total moron.” The man displays obvious signs of intelligence (ranging from having gotten himself acknowledged as President of the United States to handling issues such as the Chinese Spy Plane debacle with competence). You want to claim that he’s at the center of “Daddy’s conspiracy?” Fine – that still doesn’t absolve him from having to play the part. You want to claim that it’s all Cheney and his aides? Fine – that still means he’s got to green-light them.

No more or less stupid the "the bible came straight from YHWH." Believing that shows a distinct lack of critical thinking and credulity.

Again, this is your opinion. From what I can tell of your position, you find the world’s millions of devout Muslims to be as “loony” – in addition to George W. Bush. That’s ridiculous.

You have accused me of committing an Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Care to present a quote from this thread of the instance in which I did so?

You ignore the fact that people find loopholes in science – and that the most popular thinking is undeniably correct.

You have also accused me of comitting an Ad-hominem fallacy. Care to present a quote from this thread of the instance in which I did so?

You said it yourself. You called the man “King Bush the Second.” If you can’t argue without resorting to name-calling to devalue the man, then don’t.

Explain how God was created, and who made Him.

See, there are theories for how a Big Bang Event will fire off. No one can tell me where God comes from.

There are theories for how a Big Bang Event could come about, yes. Just because you believe one doesn’t make it any more than patent speculation.

You do realize that you're committing a moronic 'appeal to popularity', right? That's a fallacy, moron. As for the Muslims, if they honestly beleive, after getting a first world education, that things in the Koran are literal, yes, they are stupid.

I’m not justifying George W. Bush’s personal belief in Creationism on the basis of Muslim faith. I’m simply asking whether you also believe the one billion or so Muslims in the world (or rather, those among them who believe the Koran came from Allah directly) are all complete and utter morons.

And I've shown Bush has had a 1st world, high class education, and, much like you, can't fathom that empirical observsion is superior to the myths of desert dwellers five thousand years ago.

Once more, you assume that a proper education somehow implies agreement with your secular point of view. If anyone’s committing an appeal to popularity, it is you.

Oh, the Koran came from someone. They can call the author Allah all they want. If they beleive it's a literal accounting of events including Creation, that's different. And again, if they had receiving a 1st world, high class education like Shrubbery, and still beleived that, then yes, something is seriously wrong.

Perhaps I need to bold it.

APPEALS TO POPULARITY ARE FALLACIES

There’s a difference between criticizing these people and then claiming they’re complete write-offs. That’s the point of my argument.

So where did God come from, Axis?

Oh wait.

Christians can't even try and answer, whereas a scientist can list the theories for why a Big Bang will occour.

Many Christians argue that God has always existed and that the situation is beyond the scope of human capacity to properly consider.

Just because scientists put forth theories doesn’t mean they’re automatically correct.

I say what I want, and I enjoy insulting you. It's not like replying to you takes effort; you're now just spewing the same old tired shit every creationist does.

I’m hardly a Creationist. I’m simply pointing out the fault of declaring Bush a complete moron on the basis of his belief in Creationism. Get that through your head.

[SirNitram]

You're spouting, verbatim, nonsense Creationism answers, Axis. That you think these are valid rebuttals frightens me; while I knew you were jingoistic and close minded, I didn't think you stupid. However, since all your posts here have been appeals to popularity(Dur, lots of people beleive it! Are they are all stupid!), or just rehashing bullshit that was squashed decades ago, I've had enough. Be sure to let know if you have an argument that wasn't done to death before you were born.

[Sir Sirius]

No, it’s the argument that even science in which you place all your faith has its strong critics.

Science has it's critics, yes. Fundie morons like Hovind and his ilk, they are not all that strong however.

The “Big Bang Theory” can be linked with the Theory of Evolution because Creationists’ beliefs address both issues at the same time. We treat the beginning of the known universe and human development as two very separate issues; for most of the extremely faithful, that’s unusual.

Yep, that is what makes them ignoramuses. It doesn't excuse their behaviour.

You wanted to know on what grounds Bush might find fault with modern science. I provided one example.

If Shrubby uses that arqument to criticise modern science he is as stupid as you are and that's plenty stupid.

Define “O.K.”

O.K. in this case = excuse for being a creationist. You continuously arque that holding strong faith that the bible is divinely inspired and therefor innerrant is an excuse for being a creationist, it is not. You are just adding extra hoops of illogic in to loop of stupidity. It doesn't change anything.

Once again, you’re condemning a man as completely unintelligent when he is one of billions in this world to believe in events as told by the Bible rather than modern science. It’s too broad a determination on your part.

Half the worlds population has below averige intelligence, that is a matter of simple statistics. Bush is definately falls far below the half-way marker.

It’s one thing to say Bush’s opinion is at fault. It’s quite another to argue that he’s perpetually out to lunch.

Bushes opinion is in conflict with reality, that's a bit more then just being at fault. Only a moron would be creationist.

Wait! We’re backtracking now! From totally loony and “a complete moron” to “not all that smart.” That’s my argument. Right there. You can fairly criticize him as being “not that smart,” but not for being utterly stupid.

Nitpicking brought to by Axis Kast!

Once again, you need to provide proof that George Bush understands Creationism to be false.

If he doesn't understand creationism to be false despite living in a 1st world country he's entire life and having gone to good schools he is most definately stupid. There just is no other possible explanation.

Your finding it “loony” doesn’t exactly mean he does, too. You are attempting to take your own personal viewpoint and assume he shares it, too.

No, no and no. It is not just my personal viewpoint that creationism is bunk, it is a fact. If you belief otherwise please present an arqument to defend your view.

But George W. Bush is not “a total moron.”

He is a creationist is he not?

The man displays obvious signs of intelligence (ranging from having gotten himself acknowledged as President of the United States to handling issues such as the Chinese Spy Plane debacle with competence).

Considering that 44% Americans are creationist, I don't hold getting elected to be POTUS in much esteem. As for the China thing, I don't really don't know what Bush did that was so brilliant.

Again, this is your opinion.

No, it is the inevitable conclusion of aplicating some critical thinking and Ockham's razor.

From what I can tell of your position, you find the world’s millions of devout Muslims to be as “loony” – in addition to George W. Bush. That’s ridiculous.

Now that is a text book example of an Appeal to Popularity fallacy Axis. Claiming that something isn't loony because it's common.

Yes, I consider anyone who beliefs that any book came from any deity to be "loony". Firstly because they belief that said deity exists when there is no valid reason to belief so. Secondly because they belief that their book comes from said deity when there is no valid reason belief so.

You ignore the fact that people find loopholes in science – and that the most popular thinking is undeniably correct.

WOW. That is even better example of a Appeal to Popularity fallacy then the last one. No, the most popular thinking is not undeniably correct. The world was never flat, despite the fact that most believed so once, the Sun never revolved around Earth, despite the fact that most once believed so.

You said it yourself. You called the man “King Bush the Second.”

That is not an Ad Hominem as I already explained.

If you can’t argue without resorting to name-calling to devalue the man, then don’t.

I'm being mean to Shrubby...
Well, that's just too damn bad. I feel nothing but contemptment for the man and I am not going to pretend otherwise to pay you lip service.

There are theories for how a Big Bang Event could come about, yes. Just because you believe one doesn’t make it any more than patent speculation.

How excellent it is then that the validity of Scientific Theories does not lay in people having faith in them.

I’m not justifying George W. Bush’s personal belief in Creationism on the basis of Muslim faith. I’m simply asking whether you also believe the one billion or so Muslims in the world (or rather, those among them who believe the Koran came from Allah directly) are all complete and utter morons.

Asked and answered.

Once more, you assume that a proper education somehow implies agreement with your secular point of view.

Um, no. Aproper education only means that Shrubby should know how utterly bunk creationism is. Since Shrubby is a creationist inspite of this he either doesn't know it, meaning that he is stupid, or he knows it and takes the bible word over that of empirical observations and science, meaning that he is stupid.

If anyone’s committing an appeal to popularity, it is you.

You really don't know what an appeal to popularity even is?

There’s a difference between criticizing these people and then claiming they’re complete write-offs. That’s the point of my argument.

Asked and answered.

Many Christians argue that God has always existed and that the situation is beyond the scope of human capacity to properly consider.

Arqument from Ignorance.

Just because scientists put forth theories doesn’t mean they’re automatically correct.

True, that is why these theories have been tested and verified. If you belief that they aren't correct make your arqument.

BTW Axis what is the definition of a scientific theory? I somehow get the idea that you don't quite understand that either.

I’m hardly a Creationist.

You could have fooled me.

I’m simply pointing out the fault of declaring Bush a complete moron on the basis of his belief in Creationism. Get that through your head.

Only a total moron would belief in creationism.

[Axis Kast]

You're spouting, verbatim, nonsense Creationism answers, Axis. That you think these are valid rebuttals frightens me; while I knew you were jingoistic and close minded, I didn't think you stupid. However, since all your posts here have been appeals to popularity(Dur, lots of people beleive it! Are they are all stupid!), or just rehashing bullshit that was squashed decades ago, I've had enough. Be sure to let know if you have an argument that wasn't done to death before you were born.

It wasn’t an appeal to popularity. It was a question – which you failed successively to answer for whatever reason – about whether or not you cared to make the argument over any other segments of the population outside George W. Bush. It’s a measure of the ridiculousness of your scaling of intelligence based on very subjective religious beliefs alone. You made the blanket condemnation; you’ve got to stand by it or acknowledge the error.

Yep, that is what makes them ignoramuses. It doesn't excuse their behaviour.

Only from your point of view. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: you somehow take the liberty of assuming that these people know, deep down, that their views are false. That’s kind of empathy is simply impossible.

If Shrubby uses that arqument to criticise modern science he is as stupid as you are and that's plenty stupid.

Ad-hominem. Stick to the facts, please.

O.K. in this case = excuse for being a creationist. You continuously arque that holding strong faith that the bible is divinely inspired and therefor innerrant is an excuse for being a creationist, it is not. You are just adding extra hoops of illogic in to loop of stupidity. It doesn't change anything.

No. I’m pointing out that strong faith is an explanation is to how men with otherwise average or above-average intelligence can take an unpopular approach to certain issues. I agree that Creationism deserves its critics, but disagree that each of its proponents is completely and utterly stupid. And that’s the center of the argument: whether or not George W. Bush is completely bereft of intelligence on the basis of his being a Creationist alone.

Half the worlds population has below averige intelligence, that is a matter of simple statistics. Bush is definately falls far below the half-way marker.

I find your standard of measurement lacking, considering his track record on the foreign stage until September of last year.

Again, you’re also setting higher standards than before. Once, it was “complete moron.” Now it’s: “of below-average intelligence.” There’s a strong difference.

Bushes opinion is in conflict with reality, that's a bit more then just being at fault. Only a moron would be creationist.

This is indeed an appeal to popularity.

Creationism may be ridiculous, but it doesn’t strip a man of all mental faculties, as you originally suggested.

Nitpicking brought to by Axis Kast!

I’m not the one who’s slowly coming about.

If he doesn't understand creationism to be false despite living in a 1st world country he's entire life and having gone to good schools he is most definately stupid. There just is no other possible explanation.

How about religious indoctrination of youth that seemingly rewarded unerring faith? I’d also like to know exactly which Biblical elements George W. Bush agrees with most, and his own explanations. Have you a source?

No, no and no. It is not just my personal viewpoint that creationism is bunk, it is a fact. If you belief otherwise please present an arqument to defend your view.

It’s not a fact. It’s a view held by the overwhelming majority. This you must admit. I might agree with you myself, but I understand that if one goes back far enough, science is increasingly radical, increasingly unregulated theory.

You’re also skirting the issue: does George W. Bush know Creationism to be false, even while espousing its merits? I doubt it highly.

He is a creationist is he not?

From what you tell me, yes. But then again, that doesn’t strip him of all mental capability.

Considering that 44% Americans are creationist, I don't hold getting elected to be POTUS in much esteem. As for the China thing, I don't really don't know what Bush did that was so brilliant.

Bush played a strong hand that vacillated between limited but meaningful accommodation and strong public displays of calm. He avoided exciting a crisis of far larger proportions and even managed to secure the return of the plane, despite Chinese prodding.

You’re also forgetting North Korea.

So 44% of Americans are complete and utter morons without a single scrap of intellectual capability between them?

Now that is a text book example of an Appeal to Popularity fallacy Axis. Claiming that something isn't loony because it's common.

No. I’m asking you the question; there’s a difference. I want to know if you do consider them all “loony,” because I have several counter-arguments prepared.

Yes, I consider anyone who beliefs that any book came from any deity to be "loony". Firstly because they belief that said deity exists when there is no valid reason to belief so. Secondly because they belief that their book comes from said deity when there is no valid reason belief so.

Define “loony” for me. Does that mean, in your opinion, “lacking all intelligence whatsoever”?

WOW. That is even better example of a Appeal to Popularity fallacy then the last one. No, the most popular thinking is not undeniably correct. The world was never flat, despite the fact that most believed so once, the Sun never revolved around Earth, despite the fact that most once believed so.

In this case, you’re insisting that the most widely-held view is correct, despite the fact that Creationists do find loopholes for which you have nothing beyond theory to counter.

That is not an Ad Hominem as I already explained.

Certainly it is. You’re interlacing debate with derogatory statements designed to degrade the focus of the discussion.

Well, that's just too damn bad. I feel nothing but contemptment for the man and I am not going to pretend otherwise to pay you lip service.

That’s “contempt.” There’s also “contentment,” but that means a feeling of tranquility and acceptance.

How excellent it is then that the validity of Scientific Theories does not lay in people having faith in them.

You’ve put forth no other argument than, “Smart people know it’s not true!”

The scientific theories put out over the Big Bang are few and far between, subject to little scrutiny and even fewer challenges by peers. No undeniably correct answer has ever been had.

Um, no. Aproper education only means that Shrubby should know how utterly bunk creationism is. Since Shrubby is a creationist inspite of this he either doesn't know it, meaning that he is stupid, or he knows it and takes the bible word over that of empirical observations and science, meaning that he is stupid.

All opinion.

Arqument from Ignorance.

Rabid proponents of certain Big Bang theories fall into this category as well; there’s nothing to verify the truth of those proposals.

True, that is why these theories have been tested and verified. If you belief that they aren't correct make your arqument.

BTW Axis what is the definition of a scientific theory? I somehow get the idea that you don't quite understand that either.

There’s no way to test a theory of the Big Bang. It’s all faith.

You could have fooled me.

Bullshit. You’ve been hopping all over yourself trying to claim my defense of George W. Bush is a defense of Creationism since the opening of the argument.

Only a total moron would belief in creationism.

But George W. Bush is no moron.

And as much as I dislike people such as the Ayatollah Khomeni, he was still a shrewd man who held out and won against an American President named Jimmy Carter, widely considered one of the best- educated to take the office in the first place. Certainly Khomeni was delusional; that doesn’t rob him, however, of a certain intelligence.

[SirNitram]

You're spouting, verbatim, nonsense Creationism answers, Axis. That you think these are valid rebuttals frightens me; while I knew you were jingoistic and close minded, I didn't think you stupid. However, since all your posts here have been appeals to popularity(Dur, lots of people beleive it! Are they are all stupid!), or just rehashing bullshit that was squashed decades ago, I've had enough. Be sure to let know if you have an argument that wasn't done to death before you were born.

It wasn’t an appeal to popularity. It was a question – which you failed successively to answer for whatever reason – about whether or not you cared to make the argument over any other segments of the population outside George W. Bush. It’s a measure of the ridiculousness of your scaling of intelligence based on very subjective religious beliefs alone. You made the blanket condemnation; you’ve got to stand by it or acknowledge the error.

And I do stand by it. And you reword it again and try and shove words down my mouth. And do it again. And you keep seeming to try and make it seem like I'm insulting everyone, when I'm insulting a very specific group: Those who, after having a 1st world education(Like Bush), still beleive in some moronic creation myth shitted out by con-men five thousand years ago, are clearly not the brightest crayon in the box. You somehow leapt to Muslim's beleiving if the Koran came from God, a complete non-sequitor except.. Surprise surprise.. You want to make an appeal to authority.

Again, all you have to challenge the claim that Creationism is bullshit is 'rebuttals' that got beaten to death before you were born.

[Axis Kast]

And I do stand by it. And you reword it again and try and shove words down my mouth. And do it again. And you keep seeming to try and make it seem like I'm insulting everyone, when I'm insulting a very specific group: Those who, after having a 1st world education(Like Bush), still beleive in some moronic creation myth shitted out by con-men five thousand years ago, are clearly not the brightest crayon in the box. You somehow leapt to Muslim's beleiving if the Koran came from God, a complete non-sequitor except.. Surprise surprise.. You want to make an appeal to authority.

Again, all you have to challenge the claim that Creationism is bullshit is 'rebuttals' that got beaten to death before you were born.

“Clearly not the brightest crayon in the box” is far different from “completely and utterly stupid.”

Your argument is that Creationism is not substantiated and that therefore Bush has no logical grounds on which to support the concept, leaving you free to label him a complete moron. The same is true of Muslims who believe the Koran came from Allah. Despite factual evidence, this is a fervent belief of several tens of millions of people. Do you honestly wish to intimate that they, too, are all “complete morons?”

While worthy of criticism, George W. Bush is not a complete intellectual write-off.

[SirNitram]

And I do stand by it. And you reword it again and try and shove words down my mouth. And do it again. And you keep seeming to try and make it seem like I'm insulting everyone, when I'm insulting a very specific group: Those who, after having a 1st world education(Like Bush), still beleive in some moronic creation myth shitted out by con-men five thousand years ago, are clearly not the brightest crayon in the box. You somehow leapt to Muslim's beleiving if the Koran came from God, a complete non-sequitor except.. Surprise surprise.. You want to make an appeal to authority.

Again, all you have to challenge the claim that Creationism is bullshit is 'rebuttals' that got beaten to death before you were born.

“Clearly not the brightest crayon in the box” is far different from “completely and utterly stupid.”

Now you're going to be claiming I'm changing my story because I don't mindlessly repeated it verbatim? My god, you're thick.

Your argument is that Creationism is not substantiated and that therefore Bush has no logical grounds on which to support the concept, leaving you free to label him a complete moron. The same is true of Muslims who believe the Koran came from Allah. Despite factual evidence, this is a fervent belief of several tens of millions of people. Do you honestly wish to intimate that they, too, are all “complete morons?”

Thank you for changing what I've been saying! I added in the qualifier about education for a reason, asscrack. Someone who does not have access to a good education can more easily be swindled by the bullshit, indoctorine, and other nonsense.

And, as I said, there are levels of bullshit. Creationism is one that takes a complete idiot or one who has no access to proof otherwise(See: Any country where religion controls the school system) to beleive.

Does it become tiresome making up strawmen?

While worthy of criticism, George W. Bush is not a complete intellectual write-off.

So you keep insisting, so you completely fail to prove.

[Axis Kast]

Now you're going to be claiming I'm changing my story because I don't mindlessly repeated it verbatim? My god, you're thick.

Nice try, but you – like Sirius – did indeed move from “total moron” to “not very intelligent.”

Thank you for changing what I've been saying! I added in the qualifier about education for a reason, asscrack. Someone who does not have access to a good education can more easily be swindled by the bullshit, indoctorine, and other nonsense.

And, as I said, there are levels of bullshit. Creationism is one that takes a complete idiot or one who has no access to proof otherwise(See: Any country where religion controls the school system) to beleive.

Does it become tiresome making up strawmen?

You imply that the best education debunks most religious arguments. Did it ever occur to you that religious indoctrination is still possible despite public schooling in the United States? Or that religion technically offers future reward for those who remain faithful?

Many in the Middle East have still been exposed to the scientific method. Countless Iraqis remain grounded in religious fundamentalism despite widespread suppression and a secularizing system of education during the 1970s. You’re also ignoring the fact that George Bush has risen rather far for one of no intelligence whatsoever …

So you keep insisting, so you completely fail to prove.

This is now a matter of opinions. Of course you won’t back down. Fortunately, history supports my theory. The man is President. It’s rather a jump to say it was all handed to him without any effort at all on his part to “fit the mould” – even if you believe routinely in such conspiracy theories.

[SirNitram]

Now you're going to be claiming I'm changing my story because I don't mindlessly repeated it verbatim? My god, you're thick.

Nice try, but you – like Sirius – did indeed move from “total moron” to “not very intelligent.”

Ah, in AxisWorld, speaking anything but the exact same thing over and over like a record player is 'lying'. It's so nice to see the world from a deranged moron's point of view.

Thank you for changing what I've been saying! I added in the qualifier about education for a reason, asscrack. Someone who does not have access to a good education can more easily be swindled by the bullshit, indoctorine, and other nonsense.

And, as I said, there are levels of bullshit. Creationism is one that takes a complete idiot or one who has no access to proof otherwise(See: Any country where religion controls the school system) to beleive.

Does it become tiresome making up strawmen?

You imply that the best education debunks most religious arguments. Did it ever occur to you that religious indoctrination is still possible despite public schooling in the United States? Or that religion technically offers future reward for those who remain faithful?

And yet neither require beleif in a 5000 year old bile of stupidity. Yes, indoctorine is, sadly, still possible. Stupidity is thrust onto people.

Many in the Middle East have still been exposed to the scientific method. Countless Iraqis remain grounded in religious fundamentalism despite widespread suppression and a secularizing system of education during the 1970s. You’re also ignoring the fact that George Bush has risen rather far for one of no intelligence whatsoever …

Wow, a son of a politician went far. Am I supposed to congratulate him..?

So you keep insisting, so you completely fail to prove.

This is now a matter of opinions. Of course you won’t back down. Fortunately, history supports my theory. The man is President. It’s rather a jump to say it was all handed to him without any effort at all on his part to “fit the mould” – even if you believe routinely in such conspiracy theories.

Hah! History also shows that Clinton was following tradition, and that Shrubbery is doing a pathetic job. Neither are claims you'll admit to. You are claiming he's intelligent, yet all you can say is 'He's President'. Circular fucking logic.