Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Paranoia About Creationists

[Nathan Poe]

We have socialist fire departments in America that work pretty well.

Alas, the creationist fire departments don't work nearly as well -- believing the fire to be intelligently designed and placed by God, they are against attempts to use man's science to thwart His will.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

I can't answer what Matt Damon believes about All Evangelical Christians/Creationists, but Sarah Palin (the one he was specifically referring to):

IS an Evangelical Christian,
IS a Creationist,
AT LEAST PARTIALLY rejects evolution,
ALMOST CERTAINLY wants to impose her views upon others,
and ABSOLUTELY WILL have the nuclear codes.

And let me tell you, boys and girls -- Damon's not the only one who finds all that unsettling.

/shudder..../flees to Canada

And here I was worried about Huckabee before McCain got the nod.

 

[platzapS]

/shudder..../flees to Canada

And here I was worried about Huckabee before McCain got the nod.

The only candidate I was truly terrified of was Giuliani. I'm so very very glad that my home state of Florida did something right for once and got this police-state-dictator wannabe out of the race.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

/shudder..../flees to Canada

And here I was worried about Huckabee before McCain got the nod.

Because nuclear fallout won't cross national borders?

 

[seeker777]

We need more honest people to come forward and articulate how terrifying the prospect of Palin becoming President really is!

George Bush scares me.

Sarah Palin terrifies me.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

We need more honest people to come forward and articulate how terrifying the prospect of Palin becoming President really is!

George Bush scares me.

Sarah Palin terrifies me.

Well, she has her good points, I mean... she has a really hot daughter...

 

[gengwall]

And the baseless and illogical paranoia rages on. You people crack me up.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

Because nuclear fallout won't cross national borders?

I think Oregon is the best place to be in a fallout scenario according to www.survivalblog.com

The fleeing to Canada part is the image of a George Bush on steroids Palin as President, pushing her fundamentalist agenda on the world. I doubt she'd use nukes but when people think death in war is ultimately acceptable because there is heaven, it doesn't work so well for the rest of us who don't share a belief in heaven. It makes us pause before sending troops into battle and decide if this is really worth the fight.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

The only candidate I was truly terrified of was Giuliani. I'm so very very glad that my home state of Florida did something right for once and got this police-state-dictator wannabe out of the race.

Yeah, I'm glad he didn't make the cut either.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hmm. So its more looney to think that collective action can work (at least in some respects) than it is to believe that the earth was made 6,000 years ago and dinosaurs walked with man?

I do not understand your standards of evidence. We know there are successful socialist countries (Norway and Sweden). Even if their rule of government is not to our liking, we can see these countries as being effective. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is only thousands of year old.

May I suggest that perhaps your standards of evidence are a tad looney?

There is no evidence she is a YECer.

 

[gengwall]

Two points:

1. In the quote from Damon that I gave in the OP, he is being rhetorical. He is not seeking information from which to draw a conclusion; he has already jumped to that conclusion based on some preconceived (i.e. assumed) notion of who Sarah Palin is and what she believes.

2. To bounce off of ArnautDaniel's post - What if the issue was the ressurection of Jesus. Isn't someone who believes that Jesus came back to life "someone who ignores the sum total of scientific expertise and opinion to go for some other opinion based on nothing". Isn't a bible believing Christian therefore "willing to ignore the expert opinion of the scientific community and believe in something with no basis or foundation". According to Arnaut's logic, "we would have every reason to believe a [Christian] president would make ignorant decisions all over the map by relying on their own opinions over systematic and scientific studies...That is why it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a [Christian] would make a terrible president."

Well, I suppose we ought to be mighty fearful of all the candidates then. And it's a miracle...whoops, can't believe in them, they aren't scientific...it's by sheer luck that Kennedy and Johnson and Carter and Clinton didn't nuke the world (let alone Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushies).

 

[seeker777]

I think Oregon is the best place to be in a fallout scenario according to www.survivalblog.com

The fleeing to Canada part is the image of a George Bush on steroids Palin as President, pushing her fundamentalist agenda on the world. I doubt she'd use nukes but when people think death in war is ultimately acceptable because there is heaven, it doesn't work so well for the rest of us who don't share a belief in heaven. It makes us pause before sending troops into battle and decide if this is really worth the fight.

What if Palin starts beleiving that God is personally directing her mandate and that God tells her what to do?

Then we are doomed.

 

[Grizzly]

What if Palin starts beleiving that God is personally directing her mandate and that God tells her what to do?

Then we are doomed.

Yes, we all saw what happened when GW believed he was being guided by God. I wish God would have told him there were no WMD's in Iraq (along with the location of Bin Laden).

 

[GWRULES2004]

Hmm. So its more looney to think that collective action can work (at least in some respects) than it is to believe that the earth was made 6,000 years ago and dinosaurs walked with man?

I do not understand your standards of evidence. We know there are successful socialist countries (Norway and Sweden). Even if their rule of government is not to our liking, we can see these countries as being effective. On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that the earth is only thousands of year old.

May I suggest that perhaps your standards of evidence are a tad looney?

May I suggest that the standards of evidence regarding Sarah Palin's beliefs are loony? We have no evidence she subscribes to Young Earth Creationism. The conclusions on this thread are not based on any concrete evidence regarding her beliefs.

And I think the successes of socialism are overblown in those countries and is supported by a resource heavy export industry which would produce wealth regardless of internal government policies, more notably in the case of Norway.


http://www.verumserum.com/?p=447

 

[Donkeytron]

Two points:

1. In the quote from Damon that I gave in the OP, he is being rhetorical. He is not seeking information from which to draw a conclusion; he has already jumped to that conclusion based on some preconceived (i.e. assumed) notion of who Sarah Palin is and what she believes.

2. To bounce off of ArnautDaniel's post - What if the issue was the ressurection of Jesus. Isn't someone who believes that Jesus came back to life "someone who ignores the sum total of scientific expertise and opinion to go for some other opinion based on nothing". Isn't a bible believing Christian therefore "willing to ignore the expert opinion of the scientific community and believe in something with no basis or foundation". According to Arnaut's logic, "we would have every reason to believe a [Christian] president would make ignorant decisions all over the map by relying on their own opinions over systematic and scientific studies...That is why it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that a [Christian] would make a terrible president."

Well, I suppose we ought to be mighty fearful of all the candidates then. And it's a miracle...whoops, can't believe in them, they aren't scientific...it's by sheer luck that Kennedy and Johnson and Carter and Clinton didn't nuke the world (let alone Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushies).

Its not the same question. We dont have a whole lot of data about Jesus. We know that people dont generally come back to life or turn water into wine, but we do have a whole lot of data about the world and how it was formed. To ignore that and take a bronze-age creation myth literally doesnt show fantastic judgement.

 

[NotreDame]

I think what he was saying is that someone who thinks the flinstones was more than a cartoon is probably too stupid to be trusted with an atomic arsenal. I tend to agree with that assessment. Whether governor palin is actually a creationist or not I dont know, but its certainly possible.

Well his point, and your apparent concurrence with it, is about as logically coherent as stating two plus two equal five.

Believing in "creationism" does not make one stupid, ignorant, or unintelligent. I am not aware of any tests, devised by man, like I.Q. tests, SATS, MCAT, LSATS, GRE, and so forth, conceived to measure human intelligence, which has the single question of, "Do you believe in creationism? Do you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth 5,000 years ago?"

When and if the day comes the intelligence of a person can be ascertained on the basis of this single question, then he and you will have a great point. Fortunately, for the rest of the rational and logical thinking world, that day is not today.

 

[Donkeytron]

Well his point, and your apparent concurrence with it, is about as logically coherent as stating two plus two equal five.

Believing in "creationism" does not make one stupid, ignorant, or unintelligent. I am not aware of any tests, devised by man, like I.Q. tests, SATS, MCAT, LSATS, GRE, and so forth, conceived to measure human intelligence, which has the single question of, "Do you believe in creationism? Do you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth 5,000 years ago?"

When and if the day comes the intelligence of a person can be ascertained on the basis of this single question, then he and you will have a great point. Fortunately, for the rest of the rational and logical thinking world, that day is not today.

Asking someone if they are a creationist doesnt tell us their IQ, but it does tell us something about them.

Understanding modern science and the ramifications of an old earth is not a sufficient condition to be considered fit to run the country, but its certainly a necessary condition.

 

[Athene]

May I suggest that the standards of evidence regarding Sarah Palin's beliefs are loony? We have no evidence she subscribes to Young Earth Creationism. The conclusions on this thread are not based on any concrete evidence regarding her beliefs.

And I think the successes of socialism are overblown in those countries and is supported by a resource heavy export industry which would produce wealth regardless of internal government policies, more notably in the case of Norway.


http://www.verumserum.com/?p=447

She's Assemblies of God isn't she? Creationism is the official position of the AoG so therefore it's not unreasonable to assume that a person who has attended that church for most of her life would share that position.

 

[seeker777]

Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth 5,000 years ago?"

.

Anyone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old, despite the over whelming evidence against that belief....they should be barred from holding any position of power.

 

[GWRULES2004]

She's Assemblies of God isn't she? Creationism is the official position of the AoG so therefore it's not unreasonable to assume that a person who has attended that church for most of her life would share that position.

That's like saying Obama is a creationist because they sell YEC books at his church.