Wapsi Square Forum

lake_wrangler wrote:stuff

Kewl.

You go on believing that.

What is it about politics? This only reinforces my personal belief that those that seek power are the least suited to wield it.

Dave11 wrote:What is it about politics? This only reinforces my personal belief that those that seek power are the least suited to wield it.

In many, many cases, that is quite correct. That being the case, how would anyone pick someone to lead them, if the ones that are suited for it won't present themselves, and the ones who do are often the ones who should not get in?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't...

shadowinthelight wrote:I never wanted to insinuate that I believe being religious automatically makes you crazy. I just believe the nuts have disproportionate amount of attention and power both here and abroad.

That's because nuts make better press releases and news stories than the vast majority of normal people with mainstream beliefs. Yay for sensationalism.

lake_wrangler wrote:Edited for length.

You have a good point or two here. Yes, it's commendable for someone to stand up and state what they believe instead of trying to appease the masses with lies or half-truths. Yes, evolution remains a theory, and all scientific theories are only valid until a better or more accurate study comes along to show where we messed up in our assumptions. However, it's a little unnerving to see a federal politician calling a widely accepted scientific theory a "lie from hell."

It's one thing to say you don't believe in evolution. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. It's another thing entirely to call evolution a "lie from hell." What does that say about the people who do believe in evolution (or even theistic evolution)? IMO, that's essentially calling anyone who disagrees with Young Earth Creationism a fool (for not recognizing a "lie") or a proponent of Satan/evil (for promoting and believing in something that comes from hell). Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's what it feels like. I'm a big believer in the whole "coexist" mentality. I'll have my faith in the unseen...you have your faith in the unseen...and if we can't play nice when discussing our disparate faiths, we agree not to discuss them. *shrugs*

Dave wrote:The U.S. is not unique in this.

It's true that we're not the only country with people who believe in the YEC theory, but (from what I've read) we're certainly leading the world in number of followers (and how vocal they are about their beliefs). Heck...even the Pope has given a thumbs-up to theistic evolution (to think that most of the fundamentalist Christian groups I know would call Catholicism antiquated ), and while the Catholic church may be on the decline in the US (or at least I've heard it has been), it's still the largest church body in the world. That's a lot of believers whose leader has turned away from YEC...

Julie wrote: It's true that we're not the only country with people who believe in the YEC theory, but (from what I've read) we're certainly leading the world in number of followers (and how vocal they are about their beliefs). Heck...even the Pope has given a thumbs-up to theistic evolution (to think that most of the fundamentalist Christian groups I know would call Catholicism antiquated ), and while the Catholic church may be on the decline in the US (or at least I've heard it has been), it's still the largest church body in the world. That's a lot of believers whose leader has turned away from YEC...

"Did Adam hava a Navel?" is the hingepoint question for some theories similar to YEC - all humans have one, so Adam MUST have had one. A more extreme - and mind-hurting - example is the idea that we cannot PROVE that God did not create everything in media res a few microseconds ago, complete with memories of doing things five minutes 'ago', BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. This is impossible to test from within Creation.

Now my head hurts.

NOTDilbert wrote:
"Did Adam hava a Navel?" is the hingepoint question for some theories similar to YEC - all humans have one, so Adam MUST have had one. A more extreme - and mind-hurting - example is the idea that we cannot PROVE that God did not create everything in media res a few microseconds ago, complete with memories of doing things five minutes 'ago', BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. This is impossible to test from within Creation.

Now my head hurts.

Hell by that thought, maybe we are just figments of a dream by God and we do not actually exist either. Welcome to the philosophical refuse bin of creation theory.

Mark N wrote:Hell by that thought, maybe we are just figments of a dream by God and we do not actually exist either. Welcome to the philosophical refuse bin of creation theory.

In Lin Carter's "The Wizard of Zao", the Wizard was once jailed briefly by a group of very straightlaced priests, for being drunk and disorderly if I recall correctly. He tormented his jailers by regaling them with the philosophies of other, distant religions... all of which they considered heretical and thus dangerous to hear. One which particularly horrified them, was the belief of a cult which held that the Evil One had already destroyed the world and everyone in it... but was maintaining a very convincing and inescapable illusion of reality, in order to keep tricking people into sin and preventing them from reaching Paradise.

The priests rapidly found reason to release the Wizard and order him out of town... and he had a really horrible hangover the next day, which the simurgh thought served him right.

Mark N wrote:

NOTDilbert wrote:
"Did Adam hava a Navel?" is the hingepoint question for some theories similar to YEC - all humans have one, so Adam MUST have had one. A more extreme - and mind-hurting - example is the idea that we cannot PROVE that God did not create everything in media res a few microseconds ago, complete with memories of doing things five minutes 'ago', BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. This is impossible to test from within Creation.

Now my head hurts.

Hell by that thought, maybe we are just figments of a dream by God and we do not actually exist either. Welcome to the philosophical refuse bin of creation theory.

I think it was Bishop Berkeley who said everything is just ideas in the mind of god.

Indeed it was. And Samuel Johnson refuted it thus.

MerchManDan wrote:Indeed it was. And Samuel Johnson refuted it thus.

Except it's not a refutation, any more than the Bible is proof God exists to have weird ideas like Wapsi Square in his head.

======

EDIT to add further thought: That's properly a rebuttal, not a refutation. (Which Dr Johnson would surely have known.) "Refute" where "rebut" should be seems to be somewhat common among news headline writers.

Welcome to the Matrix. Or to quote the great philosopher Keanu Reeves, "Whoa".

Fairportfan wrote:

MerchManDan wrote:Indeed it was. And Samuel Johnson refuted it thus.

Except it's not a refutation, any more than the Bible is proof God exists to have weird ideas like Wapsi Square in his head.

I rather agree. This hypothesis, like many religious and philosophical ones, is not testable or disprovable. It's outside ghe scope of science... it might be true, mikgh be untrue, but science can't tell you which.

Dave wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:

MerchManDan wrote:Indeed it was. And Samuel Johnson refuted it thus.

Except it's not a refutation, any more than the Bible is proof God exists to have weird ideas like Wapsi Square in his head.

I rather agree. This hypothesis, like many religious and philosophical ones, is not testable or disprovable. It's outside ghe scope of science... it might be true, mikgh be untrue, but science can't tell you which.

Gödel Has Spoken.

Julie wrote:

shadowinthelight wrote:I never wanted to insinuate that I believe being religious automatically makes you crazy. I just believe the nuts have disproportionate amount of attention and power both here and abroad.

That's because nuts make better press releases and news stories than the vast majority of normal people with mainstream beliefs. Yay for sensationalism.

It's important to keep this in mind. There is a related point: news media don't exist to inform, they exist to sell newspapers, advertising time, hits on web sites, and so on. They are able to sell these things by perpetuating the myth that they are informing, when in fact what they are doing is entertaining. The media that reported this bit of lunacy from Braun have succeeded in "selling" their "product," and we have "bought" it by having the discussion we are having here.

This said, while one can ignore the "attention" these guys get, on the grounds that it's a creation of the entertainment industry masquerading as news, the "power" that this particular guy wields is a different story. That is NOT a creation of the entertainment industry, and it makes him different from the Limbaughs and Becks (and, to be sure, their opposite numbers on the Left) whose radio broadcasts can simply be turned off. You can't just turn off a legislator.

Out of curiosity: does anyone know how this guy's standings in the polls changed after that story came out? National opinion on what he said falls into the category of entertainment. Opinion among the people who can actually vote for him ... well, that's different. I see that he is running unopposed. Has a write-in campaign emerged to provide voters in his district with a less loony alternative? Because if the answer is no, that's scarier than his own beliefs.

Graybeard wrote:Out of curiosity: does anyone know how this guy's standings in the polls changed after that story came out? National opinion on what he said falls into the category of entertainment. Opinion among the people who can actually vote for him ... well, that's different. I see that he is running unopposed. Has a write-in campaign emerged to provide voters in his district with a less loony alternative? Because if the answer is no, that's scarier than his own beliefs.

Nope. I'll look around: since his district starts one county over, i'm kind of interested...

Well, i'm mildly embarrassed to admit that i didn't know that Broun's chances of re-election are 100% - he's running unopposed

Fairportfan wrote:Well, i'm mildly embarrassed to admit that i didn't know that Broun's chances of re-election are 100% - he's running unopposed

What If They Gave an Election, and Nobody Came?

Jabberwonky wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:Well, i'm mildly embarrassed to admit that i didn't know that Broun's chances of re-election are 100% - he's running unopposed

What If They Gave an Election, and Nobody Came?

Actually, if you wanted to make a statement, get a large group of voters to vote for the same write in candidate, even if it is Micky Mouse. That would get on the news and be very humiliating to the incumbent in question.

Mark N wrote:

Jabberwonky wrote:

Fairportfan wrote:Well, i'm mildly embarrassed to admit that i didn't know that Broun's chances of re-election are 100% - he's running unopposed

What If They Gave an Election, and Nobody Came?

Actually, if you wanted to make a statement, get a large group of voters to vote for the same write in candidate, even if it is Micky Mouse. That would get on the news and be very humiliating to the incumbent in question.

I think I read somewhere that, until the success of Pixar, Mickey was a firm believer in the flat earth theory...

Graybeard wrote:..."power" that this particular guy wields is a different story. That is NOT a creation of the entertainment industry, and it makes him different from the Limbaughs and Becks (and, to be sure, their opposite numbers on the Left) whose radio broadcasts can simply be turned off.

Ah yes, the demagogues of the Left, spreading their incessant, angry radio propaganda disguised as news. Well, let's be balanced here, Graybeard, that was your intent. Let's name some names.

There's um... well, there was that one loud woman, um, years back, and, um...

Oh, there has to be opposite numbers. Has to be. I mean, if the only infotainment available year after decade was from one side, then you could wind up with a situation...

Graybeard wrote:I see that he is running unopposed. Has a write-in campaign emerged to provide voters in his district with a less loony alternative? Because if the answer is no--

... that's scarier than his own beliefs.

Silence leads to ignorance, which leads to cowards hiding behind the name of divine power in order to wield temporal power unopposed.