Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Paranoia About Creationists

[Btodd]

Then you need to consult a critical thinking or logical reasoning book. It is nothing short of fallacious and flawed reasoning to argue since a club, organizaton, group of people, nation, etcetera, possess X characteristic, then an individual who belongs to them also possesses X characteristic.

Read my post again. I said it was more likely than not, and you keep avoiding that. I didn't say it was 100%, and noted that it is 'possible' that she's not a YEC. But that has nothing to do with the probability, which is in favor of the statement I made.

This is a well documented logical reasoning fallacy and the fact you not only made this fallacious argument but actually have the audacity to contest it is, well, tantamount to contesting the validity of evolution. So in a way, you are in the same boat with, apparently, Sara Palin, but for different reasons.

Again, read my post. I didn't say she IS a YEC, I said it's the most likely position, considering what Assemblies of God promotes, and what I know of Pentecostals, who are very literal in their beliefs. Your misrepresentation of my post does not make it my position, and your argument fails accordingly.

Not even remotely close to being a parallel argument to the one you made. To be parallel to the flawed argument you made, it would have to proceed as follows. Al Qaeda has X belief, stating its members should believe in it. Therefore, individual member Y of Al Qaeda has X belief.

The final sentence should read 'Therefore, individual member Y of Al Qaeda is more likely to hold said belief than not'.

In the same manner, if I tell you I'm an atheist, do you think it's most likely that I believe in Evolution, or is it impossible to assign a probability without my definitive answer? This should clear it up for you. It's not wrong to appeal to probability in the absence of an answer. So to clear it up, I did not say 'Palin is a YEC', but I DID say that it's more likely than not. And in regard to the OP and Matt Damon's words, I want an answer to that question.

Care to tell me that even though the denomination's national charter stands for Creationism and a literal Bible, that you still think less than half their members fall in line? Or does my appeal to probability stand?


Btodd

 

[Cabal]

Her attitude about evolution provides no indication as to her disposition about properly funding science and the scientific community. You are stretching here.

Well, you've already had one president cut biotech funding, as already mentioned. And if she's as keen as the last guy on defense spending (which seems to be the case), I'd be worried as the last budget nearly crippled several key research facilities. Disregarding one major scientific theory on religious principles and not logic, as said already, sets a dangerous precedent by showing a huge disdain for the scientific method and the scientists who produce all the theories. The "teach the controversy" movement is hugely corrupt, largely because it keeps putting out canards like "evolution is only a theory" despite multiple corrections being issued multiple times. An association with something like that (if confirmed) is a bad thing. Subscription to it could indicate an underlying tendency to do more of these budget cuts.

Also, given the overall disagreement with ID among the scientific community, teaching it at the high school level as equivalent to science will put your nation's science education at a disadvantage.

 

[Corey]

I disagree with the slippery slope argument but this digression aside in favor of question more germane to our discussion. How and why does this make them unfit for the office of the president?

It's not so much that this person believes in it but rather also believes that it should be taught as fact. In the latter, it's the implementation of a personal ideology directly contradicted by such a large amount of evidence that Atlas himself would be crushed underneath it.

It begs the question of for what else would this person supplant unsupported ideologies over empirical evidence?

 

[NotreDame]

Well, it may be important but why is it so for the office of the presidency? Did JFK really need to know or have some rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics in dealing with Khruschev? Was knowledge and understanding of the "Origins of Species" going to guide him to a peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis? Is there something equivalent to the idea of a "Bible Code" in scientific claims which, if decyphered, will provide infallible wisdom and guidance when dealing with terrorists, the Cuban missile crisis, and so forth? I seriously doubt it.

No, but that's not the issue here - the "teach the controversy" thing is yet another meaningless issue politics issue that some voters are going to over-prioritise. Also, in principle if one dissents from a consensus on any subject, then one has to have good reason for it. With ID, many people don't see good reason in it. It sets a potentially troubling precedent.

Oh but it is the issue. The issue here is whether she is mentally fit for the office of the executive and by mentally fit, we are talking about being smart enough, rational and reasonable enough, as opposed to a crazy, insane, irrational individual. This is precisely the issue Matt Damon is seeking to address.

However, I disagree professing a belief the earth is young, very young, and dinosaurs roamed the planet 4,000 years ago makes one looney, insane, crazy, nuts, or mentally unfit for the office of the presidency.

 

[NotreDame]

Btodd

Read my post again. I said it was more likely than not, and you keep avoiding that. I didn't say it was 100%, and noted that it is 'possible' that she's not a YEC. But that has nothing to do with the probability, which is in favor of the statement I made.

Does not matter...your fallacious reasoning does not demonstrate it is more likely than not. Your qualification does not rescue your argument from the flawed reasoning in it. For more explication on this point, consult a logical reasoning/critical thinking book.

 

[Cabal]

Oh but it is the issue. The issue here is whether she is mentally fit for the office of the executive and by mentally fit, we are talking about being smart enough, rational and reasonable enough, as opposed to a crazy, insane, irrational individual. This is precisely the issue Matt Damon is seeking to address.

However, I disagree professing a belief the earth is young, very young, and dinosaurs roamed the planet 4,000 years ago makes one looney, insane, crazy, nuts, or mentally unfit for the office of the presidency.

Right, and I agreed with you that to equate ID with being untrustworthy with nuclear codes was a jump too far. However, having such a disrespect for the scientists and the scientific method that has provided the US with all of its technological superiority is a good reason to question her as a good candidate.

 

[Btodd]

Does not matter...your fallacious reasoning does not demonstrate it is more likely than not. Your qualification does not rescue your argument from the flawed reasoning in it. For more explication on this point, consult a logical reasoning/critical thinking book.

What a shallow effort that was. Ignore the points I made, ignore the questions I asked of you, and simply recommend I read a book.

Get back to me if you're able to develop any answers to my questions (that don't involve purposely misrepresenting my position). That was nothing more than a failed attempt at ignoring them in favor of a snarky statement about book learnin'. Your sarcasm won't hide the fact that you just copped out.


Btodd

 

[jamesrwright3]

I don't think the majority of Christians believe in Creationism or YEC....but we're talking about someone who was a Pentecostal for almost 30 years.

I invite you to answer the question I previously posed....if you had to bet on what a Pentecostal believes about the age of the Earth, what would you bet on? Be honest. It's hard to imagine that a church that believes in speaking in tongues and individual prophecy, is suddenly 'enlightened' on the issue of the age of the Earth. I don't think it's outlandish to expect her to be YEC, and their website does nothing but support my suspicion. It's the answer that is most likely.

Have you ever been to a Pentecostal church? I have. Scary stuff. Not the type of people I want in charge of decisions about the Holy Lands and other religions' claims to it. If you would like, I can let you watch her church sing, "This world has nothing for me, I will follow you". That's not an idea I want a world leader subscribing to. This world matters, because it just may be the only life we ever get.


Btodd

There is no proof she is a YECEr..that's like saying that everyone in the Catholic church is pro-life and pro-contraception when we know that is not the case. Not everyone in a church believes in all of the specific beliefs of a denomination. I go to a Catholic church, but I also have and do attend the services of other denominations. And if we are going to do the guilt by association charade Obama would look a lot worse..and by the way they sell YEC stuff at his church.

 

[tulc]

There is no proof she is a YECEr..that's like saying that everyone in the Catholic church is pro-life and pro-contraception when we know that is not the case. Not everyone in a church believes in all of the specific beliefs of a denomination. I go to a Catholic church, but I also have and do attend the services of other denominations. And if we are going to do the guilt by association charade Obama would look a lot worse..and by the way they sell YEC stuff at his church.

...but why do you guys not want anyone asking her what she believes?
tulc(seems odd to not want anyone asking your candidate any questions)

 

[jamesrwright3]

...but why do you guys not want anyone asking her what she believes?
tulc(seems odd to not want anyone asking your candidate any questions)

Who said we are in favor of not asking questions?
I am just not in favor of making assumptions about people.
Libs will criticize her over an issue that wouldn't have anything to do with her running the country, but they will readily embrace someone that will enact economic policies that will fail..and that is based on evidence as well.
Sorry I will take the free market YECer any day over someone that believes in evolution, but will cripple the market economy.

 

[Btodd]

There is no proof she is a YECEr..that's like saying that everyone in the Catholic church is pro-life and pro-contraception when we know that is not the case.

Please don't make the same mistake Notre Dame did. I never said she's a YEC'er. The whole point of the thread is about wanting an answer to that question. I said that it's reasonable to be suspicious of that, because it's more likely that she is than not. Do you disagree that it's more likely for a Pentecostal to be YEC, or take the Bible literally, than not?

By the way, I've never been happy about Obama's association with his church, either. The reason for my concern about Palin's religious beliefs has nothing to do with some ultra-adoration of Obama, because he's simply the better of two lackluster candidates. That doesn't mean I have no doubts or reservations about him; I certainly do.

If you will notice, I don't have a problem with McCain's Christianity.


Btodd

 

[jamesrwright3]

Please don't make the same mistake Notre Dame did. I never said she's a YEC'er. The whole point of the thread is about wanting an answer to that question. I said that it's reasonable to be suspicious of that, because it's more likely that she is than not. Do you disagree that it's more likely for a Pentecostal to be YEC, or take the Bible literally, than not?

By the way, I've never been happy about Obama's association with his church, either. The reason for my concern about Palin's religious beliefs has nothing to do with some ultra-adoration of Obama, because he's simply the better of two lackluster candidates. That doesn't mean I have no doubts or reservations about him; I certainly do.

If you will notice, I don't have a problem with McCain's Christianity.


Btodd

I am not making a mistake. I simply pointed out we can't tell what someone's beliefs are based on the fact they belong to a certain church. So you are not concerned about Obama's religious beliefs because he belongs to a certain church? You are not concerned about his socialist economic leanings which haven't worked whereever they have been tried?

 

[tulc]

Who said we are in favor of not asking questions?

uhmmm isn't this thread about Matt Damon being "loony, liberal and paranoid" because he wants to ask Sarah Palin what she believes?

I am just not in favor of making assumptions about people.

(note to self: remember to shut off all irony meters before coming into this thread again!)

Libs will criticize her over an issue that wouldn't have anything to do with her running the country, but they will readily embrace someone that will enact economic policies that will fail..and that is based on evidence as well.
Sorry I will take the free market YECer any day over someone that believes in evolution, but will cripple the market economy.

...where did Matt Damon ask her about free markets? Because I don't remember that in the interview.
tulc(doesn't remember this reluctance when Rev. Wright was a major topic)

 

[tulc]

You are not concerned about his socialist economic leanings which haven't worked whereever they have been tried?

...there's that question again, could you point out to me where that came up in the interview? I've watched it a couple of times and I still can't seem to find it.
tulc(just wondering)

 

[Btodd]

I am not making a mistake. I simply pointed out we can't tell what someone's beliefs are based on the fact they belong to a certain church.

You're still not getting the point. I want an answer to the question, "Do you believe in a young Earth, and do you take the Bible literally?"

I didn't say I can tell what someone's beliefs are by the church they attend, but I did say that we can assign a probability to them. There is a likelihood. I can't believe you won't admit that it's more likely for a Pentecostal to take the Bible literally than not.....it's a literal denomination.

Please answer the questions that Notre Dame would not. If you hear that a person is an atheist, is it more likely than not that they believe in Evolution?

What about someone who belongs to Al Qaeda? Is it unfair to think that an Al Qaeda member probably hates America? I think you're suffering from a knee-jerk reaction that is based both on being a Christian and a hardcore Republican.

So you are not concerned about Obama's religious beliefs because he belongs to a certain church? You are not concerned about his socialist economic leanings which haven't worked whereever they have been tried?

I'm not worried about Obama taking the Bible so literally that he might make decisions more on his religious belief than rational thought. I also don't worry about McCain in that regard.

As I already admitted, I do have concerns about Obama, and find him to be the better of two lackluster candidates. That's not what this thread is about, but I understand why you want to change the subject.


Btodd

 

[jamesrwright3]

]You're still not getting the point. I want an answer to the question, "Do you believe in a young Earth, and do you take the Bible literally?"

I didn't say I can tell what someone's beliefs are by the church they attend, but I did say that we can assign a probability to them. There is a likelihood. I can't believe you won't admit that it's more likely for a Pentecostal to take the Bible literally than not.....it's a literal denomination.

Please answer the questions that Notre Dame would not. If you hear that a person is an atheist, is it more likely than not that they believe in Evolution?

What about someone who belongs to Al Qaeda? Is it unfair to think that an Al Qaeda member probably hates America? I think you're suffering from a knee-jerk reaction that is based both on being a Christian and a hardcore Republican.

Can't say that for certain. It may be 50/50. People join churches for a lot of reasons. For some people the creation/evolution debate does not matter to their faith.

I'm not worried about Obama taking the Bible so literally that he might make decisions more on his religious belief than rational thought. I also don't worry about McCain in that regard.

Then you are being discriminatory since Obama's denomination holds YEC beliefs. We don't know what Obama's beliefs are. If we are using your method..assuming beliefs by denomination..then we can say there is a greater likelyhood Obama is a YECEr Why doesnt good old Matt Damon ask whether or not Obama believes dinosaurs roamed the earth 6000 years ago?

As I already admitted, I do have concerns about Obama, and find him to be the better of two lackluster candidates. That's not what this thread is about, but I understand why you want to change the subject.

Not changing the subject. Simply pointing out your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Skaloop]

Then you are being discriminatory since Obama's denomination holds YEC beliefs. We don't know what Obama's beliefs are. If we are using your method..assuming beliefs by denomination..then we can say there is a greater likelyhood Obama is a YECEr Why doesnt good old Matt Damon ask whether or not Obama believes dinosaurs roamed the earth 6000 years ago?

Obama has already said he accepts evolution, and is against teaching Creationism in science classes. The question has been asked and answered.

 

[NotreDame]

Get back to me if you're able to develop any answers to my questions (that don't involve purposely misrepresenting my position). That was nothing more than a failed attempt at ignoring them in favor of a snarky statement about book learnin'. Your sarcasm won't hide the fact that you just copped out.

Btodd

I addressed the point you made. Even your qualified argument is fallacious and contains flawed reasoning. Illuminating your fallacious argument is not a shallow effort. Furthermore, your point above is moot and irrelevant. Why? Because I addressed even your qualified argument! If you cannot comprehend how and why, logically, even your qualified argument is fallacious, then this is your problem, not mine or any one else's. I did not fail at ignoring ANY of your points as I not only addressed them in my prior post but do so again in this post! (below).

The only "cop" out here is evidently you failing to recognize your argument, including your qualified argument, was addressed, explained why it is fallacious, and refuted, in my prior post.

There is no sarcam, by the way, in my last post, as you erroneously assume. My suggestion you consult some authorities would assist you greatly and hopefully keep you from making these types of bad arguments.

Your qualified argument is still fallacious.

But that has nothing to do with the probability, which is in favor of the statement I made.

To the contrary, your fallacious argument demonstrates the probability in favor of the statement you made is de minimis. It is not more likely than not a member of a club, organization, group of people, nation, country, fraternity, etcetera has a certain characteristic on the basis the majority has a certain characteristic or believes in a certain characteristic. This statement demonstrates you do not properly understand probability much less stastics.

 

[JoshuaW]

To the contrary, your fallacious argument demonstrates the probability in favor of the statement you made is de minimis.....

I am greatly amused how some of the supporters of creationism, a belief that defies common sense, try to frame their arguments in the language of the Privy Council of the Court of St. James. As if the reader will decide "Oh, this person is so smart, there must be something to creationism."

So tell me NotreDame, we have already established that a theory is provable by repeated experimentation, what is the theory of creationism?

 

[NotreDame]

Right, and I agreed with you that to equate ID with being untrustworthy with nuclear codes was a jump too far. However, having such a disrespect for the scientists and the scientific method that has provided the US with all of its technological superiority is a good reason to question her as a good candidate.

I think you make a huge leap in logic here. Disagreeing with scientists on a narrow and specific issue like the validity of evolution is not an impeachment of the scientific approach, its method, or scientists. Especially since Creationists, YEC, OEC, and Christians are extremely deferential to them in regards to other areas, such as gravity, viral and bacterial infections and treating same, magnetism, electricity, etcetera. So, I am not sure how far this point gets you here. In fact, I think it weakens your point as it demonstrates Sarah Palin could quite possibly be very deferential to scientists, its method, and the scientific community say 99% of the time, which means, if true, it is most likely she will adhere to their advice, if and when doing so becomes relevant to the position of president. Considering the validity of evolution is not likely, if at all, going to be particularly or especially relevant to her job duties as president, I think this weakens your position, again if true. I think there is some evidence in Gengwall's opening post where, if true, this would be the case.