No. This goes back to my question about whether you want to thought police the world. Even if the answer to your question is yes, then what??! Do you want to send people to indoctrination camps? Do you want to remove churches, and temples and synagogues? Do you want to ban inciting God in the public sphere? Do you want to criminally or civilly punish those who don't believe in evolution, climate change, or vaccines?

Everytime there is a debate on religion, i see this strawman pop up. You must realize that criticizing, ridiculing and even insulting religion or religious people does not imply that you advocate for religious thoughts to be criminalized. Exercizing your right to free speech, even if it is offensive, does not contradict freedom of religion. In fact, thoughts crimes are the trade mark of religion, not secularism. We have already established that if you don't think that the God of the Bible exist, then you shall be punished with eternal suffering. Not believing in God is therefore the ultimate thought crime. another famous thought crime:
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, and adultery is a crime worthy of capital punishment in the Bible. And it goes on and on

I assume they have looked at the facts and have come to a different conclusion then me.

I'm curious why you would assume that, especially about a topic like evolution in the US, where many people are not even *exposed* to the facts, and where there is an active disinformation campaign against it.

I do however hope that they've come to their conclusions through looking at evidence, not just doing it because they don't like the people saying that the thing is real.

I'm afraid this is a hope in vain, and also doesn't consider the possibility that they are 'just doing it' not because they don't like the people saying it, but because they are specifically taught/indoctrinated the *opposite* of the facts and evidence. Have you *seen* the anti-evolution propaganda?

Critical thinking is a skill and usually requires at least some study and practice. And it's not really taught in the US public education system, except perhaps to some degree as a side-effect of other courses like science, math, etc.

Another thing, humans have inborn, innate biases in our thinking -- ironically because evolution favours 'good enough' but cheap instead of 'very good' but costly. So, without exposure to critical thinking/reason/rationality/whatever you want to call it, people are at a disadvantage when confronting *facts* that are nevertheless *counter-intuitive*, such as evolution, relativity, global climate change, etc. They are even worse off when faced with *disinformation* of the kind religions wallow in.

If you're not taking this into account when discussing the 'controversies' over evolution, etc., then you yourself are going to be succumbing to such innate human biases (e.g. reasoning based on filtered/incomplete information). I'm not immune to such biases either of course. Part of critical thinking is not just critically examining ideas 'out there', but even more importantly examining our *own* ideas, biases and misconceptions. Again, it's a skill that needs to be practiced with regularity.

Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)?

No. This goes back to my question about whether you want to thought police the world.

Do you understand that this is a non-sequitur? And an ad hominem at that. Those are fallacies, by the way. Here's a link to help you in your 'study' and 'practice': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

For you, here's a more focused question: Do you agree that *beliefs* can have *real-world* consequences? Let's start at the basics and see if we can go anywhere from there.

If you're concerned with the stupidity of the US voting public you may want to look at the secondary and post-secondary education in this country.

Do you think I *haven't* looked at it?

We've spent billions in dollars (at the behest of progressives and liberals) to no avail as our test scores continue to plateau or see only moderate gains.

Are you referring to No Child Left Behind? Is Bush a progressive or liberal? News to me.

The answer to a low educated voting class is not more progressiveness.

Hahahahaha! Remember those innate biases and disinformation campaigns I wrote about a couple posts ago? You may want to do a bit of introspection and independent research.

The US education system is not suffering from 'too much progressiveness', it's suffering from too much backwards, religiously tainted, racially and economically segregated, conservative politics and educational philosophy.

The US is so far right, your 'left' is right-wing in most other modern Western countries.

You want to know how to do education? Look at progressive Finland. Hold teachers up like doctors and lawyers, rather than glorified baby-sitters. Focus on *teaching* first, and the *testing* will follow, *not* the other way around.

Trust me...

Why should I? You don't seem well-informed on the topic.

Edited 12/27/2015 07:48:40

it's suffering from too much backwards, religiously tainted, racially and economically segregated, conservative politics and educational philosophy

I'm genuinely curious if you have any evidence of this?? Also another question: How much money do you want the federal government to spend on primary and secondary education? 1 trillion? 2 trillion? 3 trillion? Just tell me when I get close. Liberals have had their way with education standards and rules for multiple decades now and they haven't produced any tangible beneficial results. Not to mention that liberal-progressives have dominated almost all the universities in the US so that they've become echo-chambers of the same recycled liberal arguments: "72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative". You guys have failed to make America educated. Don't trust me. It's not like I single-handedly forced my board of education to raise standards for history and social studies, instituted a mandatory civics exam, or achieved 80% voter registration within my graduating class. By the way its not like you offered any reason why we should trust your views.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

WCT and Hitchslap posted way too many times for me to coherently and successfully make any counter points so I'll leave the discussion here.


Also I may as well here address the red state-blue state knowledge gap myth that liberals assume when arguing. The classic line of this argument is: liberal voters are far more informed and smarter about politics/political history that redneck, dumb-ass, religious believing, conservatives.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/editorial-red-knowledge-blue-knowledge/

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/2339-republicans-more-informed-than-democrats-according-to-pew-research

^Read up on those if you were able to learn that skill in your high school :)


Lastly note again that WCT and Hitchslap together posted 8 consecutive times...I'm not going to respond to this thread 8 consecutive times.

Edited 12/27/2015 04:15:11

Beliving is not a win-win. If there is no afterlife and everything your religion tells you is bullshit, then you would have wasted your only life in a delusion, refrained to develop it to its full potential by an irrational fear of the after life. And if there is an after-life, then you still have pick the right doctrine out of the tens of thousands of different religions there has been through the years, so you would most likely loose anyway. Pascal's Wager is not a good argument.

You would have wasted your life in delusion, but you wouldn't know that when you're dead. And you don't have to pick a religion to believe in an afterlife.

This assumes that having false beliefs about gods/religion has no real-world consequences. But we know, clearly, that this is false. Having false beliefs about gods/religions *does* have consequences for the believer. For example, some false beliefs about the afterlife are not only lethal to the believer, but to the innocent people within their blast radius.

Okay, you're not responding to what I even said, you're just bashing the actions of religious nutcases, who are either right about there being an afterlife, or are wrong, but won't here "I told you so" after they die.

Still a win-win.

This assumes that having false beliefs about gods/religion has no real-world consequences. But we know, clearly, that this is false. Having false beliefs about gods/religions *does* have consequences for the believer. For example, some false beliefs about the afterlife are not only lethal to the believer, but to the innocent people within their blast radius.

Okay, you're not responding to what I even said, you're just bashing the actions of religious nutcases, who are either right about there being an afterlife, or are wrong, but won't here "I told you so" after they die.

Still a win-win.

Before I go into depth in response, I just want to clarify what it seems like you're saying in the part I bolded.

Are you saying that the 9/11 hijackers 'won' when they killed themselves? Why? Because they didn't hear "I told you so," from an atheist?

Do their *lives* in this world have no value?!?!?!?!?!!

Because that's what it appears you are saying: Their human lives are less valuable than not hearing "I told you so," from an atheist. I don't want to put words in your mouth though, especially such ... abhorrent ones.

Edited 12/27/2015 05:18:06

Those terrorists died doing what they wanted, and if there is life after death, then they are right in thinking that they aren't "dead." If there is no afterlife, then they don't know they were wrong. You're overthinking this, I think.

Do their *lives* in this world have no value?!?!?!?!?!!

Actually, the value of human life is entirely subjective. In the case of the terrorists, their lives do/did not mean much to them, as there surely is an afterlife waiting for them when they pass. If there isn't, they won't know it.

So yes, the hijackers were in a win-win situation when it comes to our little topic of believing or not believing. So is every single person who believes in an afterlife when they pass.

Progressives don't control public education. Progressives aren't blocking sex education. Progressives aren't teaching the Flintstones as a documentary, The week after 9/11 my geography teacher made her 7th graders each come up with attack plans to invade the middle east. (Some how a bunch of 12 years came to the same conclusion as Bush and invaded random shit on the map.) Texas spends MILLIONS a year on high school football stadiums. The Tea Party has slashed budgets and cut hours and you blame progessives? Lay off the glenn beck man.

it's suffering from too much backwards, religiously tainted, racially and economically segregated, conservative politics and educational philosophy

I'm genuinely curious if you have any evidence of this??

Again, let's get down to basics. Which parts do you disagree with?

'Backwards'? Have you heard of No Child Left Behind? Do you agree that it is largely backwards in terms of educational philosophy (testing over teaching)?

'Religiously tainted'? You've heard of the Creationism and Intelligent Design movements, right? Do you agree that they have tainted education in the US with religious dogma? (They have largely been defeated in recent years, but only after a long and drawn out battle. And there are still regular occurrences of teachers and school boards dabbling in it.)

'Racially and economically segregated'? Do you really find this a controversial claim? You've heard of the term 'inner city schools', right?

'Conservative politics'? Do you really think Bush is not conservative? And he's just one example, though he was a primary champion of NCLB, so he's a biggy.

Tell me what you disagree with and I'll dig up some references.

Also another question: How much money do you want the federal government to spend on primary and secondary education? 1 trillion? 2 trillion? 3 trillion?

What part of 'backwards' do you need clarified? You don't *add* funding to a *backwards* system. You install a system that *isn't* backwards, and you fund *that*.

Just tell me when I get close.

You're out in left field as far as I can tell.

Liberals have had their way with education standards and rules for multiple decades now and they haven't produced any tangible beneficial results.

Like, WTF?! Do you realize that NCLB was Bush's baby, and has been in place from 2001/2002 to 2015? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

What 'decades' are you referring to?

Not to mention that liberal-progressives have dominated almost all the universities in the US so that they've become echo-chambers of the same recycled liberal arguments: "72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative". You guys have failed to make America educated.

Eh, what?! It's a bit *late* to educate the *voting public* after they've left the *public education system*! It's the elementary and secondary schools that are the main failure, dude! Indeed, when it comes to post-secondary, many of the US's universities are top-notch. But how many people can actually afford to go to university, much less qualify for it?! Hint: *Not* the majority of the US voting public.

The failure of the US education system is a failure of state and federal *politics*, not post-secondary academic institutions. Failure to set good standards, failure to fund, failure to separate church and state.

Don't trust me.

Roger.

By the way its not like you offered any reason why we should trust your views.

Nor did I ever ask you to "trust me". You *did*, on the other hand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

What is this supposed to show?

Remember: The US 'left' is considered right-of-center by most other modern countries in the West. The fact that academics in the US are largely on the US 'left' doesn't surprise me or shock me. It tells me that they are more in touch with reality than the typical US politico.

Most top scientists are atheists, too, BTW.

WCT and Hitchslap posted way too many times for me to coherently and successfully make any counter points so I'll leave the discussion here.

To quote Monty Python, "Run away! Run away!"

What can I say? It takes more words to debunk an erroneous claim than the claim itself. If you don't want long responses debunking erroneous claims, don't make erroneous claims.

Also I may as well here address the red state-blue state knowledge gap myth that liberals assume when arguing. The classic line of this argument is: liberal voters are far more informed and smarter about politics/political history that redneck, dumb-ass, religious believing, conservatives.

Nice straw man. That's another fallacy, BTW. Better study it quick, we'll be implementing a standardized test next week.

You still don't understand. Your 'left' is to the right of me (and most of the modern West). Quite a bit to the right of me, actually. Your 'right' is off the deep end for me, BTW, just for comparison. I don't think that *only* the US right fosters ignorance. There's lots of ignorance on the left, too. But that just makes my point more salient: There's a *lot* of ignorance in the *general* US voting public. After all, not only was W. elected once, but he was *re*-elected. That just blew my mind when that happened.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/editorial-red-knowledge-blue-knowledge/

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/2339-republicans-more-informed-than-democrats-according-to-pew-research

^Read up on those if you were able to learn that skill in your high school :)

I don't see the point. They wouldn't counter anything I've said. If you disagree, quote something from them and show how it counters something I've said (also quoted).

Lastly note again that WCT and Hitchslap together posted 8 consecutive times...I'm not going to respond to this thread 8 consecutive times.

So do it all in one post like I just did for this reply. Stop making up reasons why you conveniently can't reply to our questions and arguments. Particularly our questions.

Actually, I don't really care if you reply or don't. Go ahead and make up excuses if you want. The result will be the same anyway. If you don't respond, that just shows you can't respond cogently. If you do respond, I'm pretty sure it won't be cogent, so that again just shows you can't respond cogently. (The ideal outcome, in my eyes, would be if you *do* respond cogently. Go for it! I'm just not expecting much, but I would love to be surprised!)

Edited 12/27/2015 07:13:51

@Hitchslap:
i'll grant you that, but why do you absolutely need to have a supernatural being in you explanation of the world? Why not just being OK with not knowing everything, instead of making up stories for the thing we don't know? Also if you think there is no alternative hypothesis to the god hypothesis concerning the creation of the universe, then i encourage you to read

I don't, I just like to believe this because A. I don't look like nearly as much of an asshole and B. It makes pretty good sense, and why does it matter how the universe was created if the creator isn't involved anymore.

On the subject of alternate hypotheses, I'm perfectly fine with whatever they can validate with evidence, so as soon as they get more for the big bang, I'll jump on the wagon.

Don't you just love the holiday season !

i tried to say something other than "creationists are complete morons, please go away" but i failed. instead, here is a pretty short and reasonable essay on why it's important to teach evolution.

http://www.faseb.org/portals/2/pdfs/opa/Why%20is%20it%20important%20to%20teach%20evolution.pdf

the last two paragraphs are the most salient. my biggest concern about creationism is not about whether or not there is a god. i don't care one bit about your personal beliefs. my concern is that the scientific method and the whole pursuit of knowledge, everything that got us out of the caves, is being undermined by people trying to replace a valid scientific theory with scientifically unsupported religious dogma. it's one thing to question a scientific theory, that is part of the process. but to replace a scientific theory with something that by nature can never be tested experimentally and has literally zero amount of data supporting it is anti-science, anti-education, and anti-progress. and it's absurd to even think it's appropriate for a science class.

if you think science is an attack on religion, then by all means go back to the caves. you won't be missed.

'Backwards'? Have you heard of No Child Left Behind? Do you agree that it is largely backwards in terms of educational philosophy (testing over teaching)?

1) I did not and do not support NCLB. 2) There is nothing wrong with high amounts of testing (its the model of success for far east asian countries) 3) My main problem with US education is the amount of teaching that goes on for the amount per capita spent on each student.

'Religiously tainted'? You've heard of the Creationism and Intelligent Design movements, right? Do you agree that they have tainted education in the US with religious dogma? (They have largely been defeated in recent years, but only after a long and drawn out battle. And there are still regular occurrences of teachers and school boards dabbling in it.)

Oh please this hasn't been a problem for decades and you're posthumously trying to drudge it up to cover the back of liberal-progressive failures in the educational system. Slate created a map of all the schools teaching creationism: http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-map-showing-which-u-s-public-schools-teach-creationi-1515717148. They're mostly concentrated in Indiana, Tennessee, Louisianan, Florida, Texas, and Georgia. Just stating "religious tainted" with no evidence whatsoever is fallacious and deceitful at best. Even the occurrence of "religion based philosophies" being taught within public schools fails to account for the massive failures in northeastern liberal-elite schools.

'Racially and economically segregated'? Do you really find this a controversial claim? You've heard of the term 'inner city schools', right?

Why do poor asian americans (let's say in New York City's poorest areas) out preform whites, jews, blacks, and hispanics in the same economic bracket on test scores. Its due to differences in culture and work ethic. The problem with the liberal philosophy of education is that they want to throw more money at the problem. Liberal are not calling for new educational standards (they've proposed nothing so far at least). They're tonic to the test scores problem is to throw more money at it. You can't argue the facts. DC Schools spent $29,349 per pupil and 83% of students are not proficient in reading. Liberals are trying to attack meritocracy at every level, which degrades the high standards of education that makes American education get better. "In 1971, Stuyvesant High School was mostly white, 10 percent black, 4 percent Puerto Rican or “other Spanish surnamed,” and 6 percent Asian. This year at Stuyvesant, 72 percent are Asian and less than 4 percent are black or Hispanic." You know how they determine admission into Stuyvesant High School...a single test. Do you know which group has the highest poverty rate of any racial group in NY...Asians. An economically disadvantaged group is succeeding right in the heart of an "inner city". So what do liberals have a problem with? Ohhhhhh I forgot...the "right types of races" aren't succeeding (namely Africans and Hispanics). Now Bill de Blasio and the liberal teacher unions that support him are arguing that the test is racially biased (YES A TEST IS RACIALLY BIASED!!). So apparently it favors poor Asians but not poor Africans??? Some have even proposed quotas for blacks and hispanics. This is the liberal answer to poor education: throw more money at it, water down the difficulty of tests, and allow people to make excuses and play the victim card.

'Conservative politics'? Do you really think Bush is not conservative? And he's just one example, though he was a primary champion of NCLB, so he's a biggy.

Don't associate me with the "conservatism" of Bush. Controls on education belong to the state and local governments not the big bureaucrats up on the Hill. Educational standards that NCLB and Common Core (liberals + establishment republicans) are ridiculous (I never argued with you on that), but to say that these are conservative educational policies is again deceitful.

Enjoy your New Year's. You can post at 2:00 AM on WL forums about educational standards if that's what you want to do with your life. If not, then I suggest going out and doing something about the problem we both are clearly passionate about. I wonder how active you people are in your local and state governments????

Edited 12/27/2015 17:37:15

Yes they do. For the most part the liberals within the Democratic party have co-opted the progressive and socialist movements. Which is why Bernie Sanders, a committed social democrat is able to run on a Democratic Ticket. There are no enemies to the left of the Democrats, only allies.

WTF!!! JAI! Longest post I have ever seen lol

^You obviously haven't seen Juq's work.

Edited 12/28/2015 02:37:45

guys, its not christmas

#fail

fuk u

double post oops

Edited 12/30/2015 13:42:53