Evolution, Politics and Religion

Discussions related to politics and social issues
(the impact of religion on society)

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby Bill » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:49 pm

Instincts are invariably inherited from parents - down through the ages. Modern man's irrational fear of speaking in public is thought to be an inherited trait from long distant ancestors who learned to flee when surrounded by eyes looking at them. I have not seen any studies showing that people have inherited memories from their parents: if there are any, please point me in the right direction.

Other innate qualities may possibly be a case of inverted cause and effect. People with bodies capable of developing strong muscles were more likely to be blacksmiths: the strong muscles (an inheritable trait) led to black-smithery and not vice versa. (Just a thought, not a proven fact.)
The only reality is the moment that we call "Now".
= = = =
We evolved to seek dinner, not to seek the truth - Mark Whatever
User avatar
Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5027
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: South Orange, CA
Blog: View Blog (8)
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: United States

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:32 pm

Bill wrote:You have never stated why such a politician is not worthy of your vote, and you have maintained that your position is not irrational despite the lack of any reason for such a lack of your vote.


I have said no such thing. Nowhere have I said I would not vote someone who does not believe in evolution. While true I might be reluctant to give that person my vote. If you disagree with the reasons I gave for it being rational, you will have to explain why they are not.... all I can say they seem rational to me. If you are comfortable with say a president that has their finger on a red button, that has assessed the evidence and does not believe in evolution, by all means cast your ballot for this person if you deem this politician fit for high office.

Bill wrote:Refusing to vote for a person is treating them adversely,

Nowhere have I said I would not vote for this person. Admittedly it might take special circumstances that would cause me to vote for this person. And if you won't answer the question I asked I will. I have no qualms voting for the candidate who believes in evolution but is otherwise identical candidate with the disbeliever. If that is bigotry so be it.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby Bill » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:48 pm

No - you diversify again.

If a person who disbelieves in evolution is inferior in some way to one who does believe in it, where does the bias end? You admit bias, but do not quantify it. How about an accountant who does not believe in evolution? Should he be disbarred from assisting with your tax return? Or is the bias limited solely to those who wish to be public servants?

And you flatly ignore the question why the non-believer in evolution is unworthy of your vote. Want to have a go at that? Other than a bible literalist is not to be trusted with having his finger on the red button. Why is he not to be trusted? I just don't get it.
The only reality is the moment that we call "Now".
= = = =
We evolved to seek dinner, not to seek the truth - Mark Whatever
User avatar
Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5027
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: South Orange, CA
Blog: View Blog (8)
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: United States

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby gilnv » Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:45 am

Evidently, New Zealand passed some kind of 'marriage equality law' and the politicians started to sing. Somehow, this seems quite humane and I suspect they're evolving better than most countries. I don't really know the laws that they created, but the songs made me rather teary eyed. As though, one of those big changes in the growth of a country occurred.
the divine isn't a living entity, it is the living force within all of us.
- Sadhguru
User avatar
gilnv
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 890
Images: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:59 am
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:39 pm

Bill wrote: No - you diversify again.

And yet I feel like I keep repeating myself.
Bill wrote:If a person who disbelieves in evolution is inferior in some way to one who does believe in it, where does the bias end?

I don't think biases ever end.
you are biased against what I think is a valid question.

Bill wrote: You admit bias, but do not quantify it.
How about an accountant who does not believe in evolution? Should he be disbarred from assisting with your tax return?
Or is the bias limited solely to those who wish to be public servants?.

I am not sure how I would quantify my biases. Can you give me an example on how you quantify your biases Bill?
Again you raise the straw man. How said anything about disbarring someone for their beliefs. You continually keep saying this but please point out where I have said this.

And here a couple of quotes of mine in this thread that say the opposite:
    While many fundamental Christians will fall foul of this question on belief in evolution, in of itself is not does not disbar any person from getting elected.
and
    I will have a higher regard for someone who answers the question openly and honestly, though it may not win my vote but depending how other (prospective) politicians answer it may.

Actually I have asked an engineer to look at my roof knowing full well he believes evolution is false. I had a colleague who calculated long lived isotope compositions but believed the Earth is six thousand years old. We depended on his calculations for our health and safety. The whole thing makes my eyes water with cognitive dissonance.

But their beliefs were an accurate bell weather for some of their other more societal positions.

Bill wrote:And you flatly ignore the question why the non-believer in evolution is unworthy of your vote. Want to have a go at that? Other than a bible literalist is not to be trusted with having his finger on the red button. Why is he not to be trusted? I just don't get it.

I am ignoring it, because I have never said it.

It might make me less likely to vote for that person ... and I have given those reasons at least twice.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:47 pm

Kiwi national anthem

"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby Bill » Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:51 pm

This is what you did say:

If you are comfortable with say a president that has their finger on a red button, that has assessed the evidence and does not believe in evolution, by all means cast your ballot for this person if you deem this politician fit for high office.


I agree that you did not actually use the words "this guy is not fit for for high office" - but it sure seems to us that is what we are intended to read into your words.

And when asked for clarification, you claim that you yourself are not showing any bias, only those who ask for clarification are being biased. Against you for an issue that is open to all sorts of semantic nit-picks.

For a question to be "valid", it must serve some purpose. And the purpose you constantly hint at but never actually state is that the purpose is to assist in the elimination of a candidate from one pool or another. So, do tell us, what does I had a colleague who calculated long lived isotope compositions but believed the Earth is six thousand years old. We depended on his calculations for our health and safety. The whole thing makes my eyes water with cognitive dissonance imply if it is other than people we depend upon for health and safety should be forced to believe in evolution?
The only reality is the moment that we call "Now".
= = = =
We evolved to seek dinner, not to seek the truth - Mark Whatever
User avatar
Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5027
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: South Orange, CA
Blog: View Blog (8)
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: United States

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby gilnv » Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:09 am

Thanks for the anthem video Rom. I was wondering what the New Zealanders were singing.

In a Quebec, Canada court recently, a judge refused to hear a Muslim woman because she was wearing one of those scarfs on her head.
http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/03/153172/canadian-court-refuses-hear-muslim-woman-removes-hijab/
I don't know if Canadian courts have people swear to tell the truth on a bible the way a U.S. court does, but if they do, they would seem like hypocrites to me.
Keeping religious symbols out of the courtroom is a good idea, but if the symbol is a common source of modesty then the court is being too picky (and maybe biased).
I don't know if its mandatory to swear on a bible in the U.S. courts but it is probably pushed.
the divine isn't a living entity, it is the living force within all of us.
- Sadhguru
User avatar
gilnv
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 890
Images: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:59 am
Affiliation: Agnostic

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby Bill » Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:52 am

In America, it is quite possible to affirm to tell the truth by answering "yes" to the question " "You do affirm that all the testimony you are about to give in the case now before the court will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; this you do affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury?". This format is used when a witness does not wish to swear on a bible. I am told, but have no personal knowledge, that atheists and agnostics make their affirmation in the Judge's chambers ahead of time, so that a big deal will not happen out of not using the bible in order to ensure total honesty. But even this custom may now be changing as America continues to become more and more secular.
The only reality is the moment that we call "Now".
= = = =
We evolved to seek dinner, not to seek the truth - Mark Whatever
User avatar
Bill
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5027
Images: 1
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:23 pm
Location: South Orange, CA
Blog: View Blog (8)
Affiliation: Agnostic
Country: United States

Re: Evolution, Politics and Religion

Postby romansh » Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:54 pm

Bill wrote: This is what you did say:
rom wrote: If you are comfortable with say a president that has their finger on a red button, that has assessed the evidence and does not believe in evolution, by all means cast your ballot for this person if you deem this politician fit for high office.

I agree that you did not actually use the words "this guy is not fit for for high office" - but it sure seems to us that is what we are intended to read into your words.

Good, we are agreed and we can move on what I actually did say.
If you are comfortable ... go for it. But I did imply I'm not. But I did not say I would or would not vote for such a person.

Bill wrote:And when asked for clarification, you claim that you yourself are not showing any bias, only those who ask for clarification are being biased. Against you for an issue that is open to all sorts of semantic nit-picks.

This might be one of those semantic nit-picky things but I thought I said exactly the opposite here
rom wrote:I don't think biases ever end.

and implied it here ...
rom wrote:I am not sure how I would quantify my biases.

Bill wrote:For a question to be "valid", it must serve some purpose. And the purpose you constantly hint at but never actually state is that the purpose is to assist in the elimination of a candidate from one pool or another.

How else am I to choose a candidate but by eliminating the others?
Bill wrote:So, do tell us, what does "I had a colleague who calculated long lived isotope compositions but believed the Earth is six thousand years old. We depended on his calculations for our health and safety. The whole thing makes my eyes water with cognitive dissonance" imply if it is other than people we depend upon for health and safety should be forced to believe in evolution?

This was in response to your question do accountants have to believe in evolution to be my accountant? As I did not have an accountant anecdote to tell ... I did have an engineer and PhD chemist story to tell. Plainly your bigotry accusation is a nonsense ... not that I'm expecting an apology anytime soon.

But the cognitive dissonance how two otherwise well educated people could be led astray by some ancient interpretation does make my eyes water.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
Douglas Adams
User avatar
romansh
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4671
Images: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:46 pm
Location: BC/US border - in the woods
Affiliation: Agnostic

PreviousNext

Return to Political and Social Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron