It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does Religious Conservatism Embrace Ignorance?

page: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The reason that religious conservatives do this is that most people, whatever their political or religious beliefs, are uncreative in their thinking. Consider the multitudes of college educated liberals who imagine themselves to be av-ant guard progressive thinkers while all they are really doing is re regurgitating the stuff they are fed by the mass media and liberal university establishment. They believe that they are in possession of the final and irrefutable truths that are good for everyone, not just themselves. Strange that they have been able to accomplish such a level of understanding no other person or civilization has ever been able to do in the history of the world! Well, they're all "true believers" (just like the Nazi's or the folks that brought us the inquisition). Caution! more trouble ahead!




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Thanks for the reply lol.

I know you didn't mean the thread as an anti-Christian thread. But I was pointing out that it's not "hiding behind Christianity" that's the problem, it's the far right wing's interpretation of Christianity that causes the issues you mentioned in the OP. So I pointed out Christian Socialism as a way to show that the majority of Christians globally aren't against social progress, science, environmental issues, etc. In fact, Brazil has perhaps the world's best ethanol industry & is a huge proponent of renewable energies, and it's a Catholic "Christian Socialist" country.


I agree with this and have even eluded to it when I pointed out how the majority of the left in America is also Christian but doesn't believe as the right does.


I could've also used Dr. & Reverend MLK as an example, since his group (The Southern Christian Leadership Conference) was at the forefront for social progress. But I didn't think that would drive home the point as well. I just wanted to show that it's not religious conservatism that's the problem, it's the interpretation of religious conservatism that creates problems. If the majority of the American Christian base decided to adopt the social gospel approach, the far right wing would have to change tactics.


The far right would have to adopt different tactics if the right just stopped embracing ignorance really. It doesn't have to be Socialist Christianity to do it either.


And you're right that they use religion as a tool. But every culture does that to an extent. Leaders will use whatever resonates with the masses to rally them, be it religion, ideology, or a celebrity (which is the entire point of endorsement deals).


This is why I'm calling attention to it. So that people can recognize it for what it is and, hopefully, react appropriately.


I can agree with this. I actually think the willful ignorance is its own subculture, kind of like the hyper-macho subcultures. The point is to reduce people to their most primal states because it's easier to manipulate them like that.

Several decades ago, one of the Rockefellers is alleged to have told a US President "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers." I don't know if that quote is valid, but the outcome is obviously happening.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent


There is a difference between being a Christian nation and a nation of Christians. We are the second and up until the latter 1930's and early 1940's most of America understood that as true.


Sure. But in the beginning, (some) Christians in the USA thought that it was necessary to perpetuate Christianity to maintain democracy. You can see some of the Founders saying this (in fact, I think even ol' Jefferson believed this, based on his habit of donating money to churches.) Some of the states had official churches for a while too. My point: the idea that American needed to be Christian, in one way or another, was a very old one. As the Christian cultural hegemony began to wear off, it's not surprising that people started trying to make it "official."



Ayn Rand is more of an old school conservative though. Small government, no religion, let the market decide policy, etc. She's more Libertarian than any Libertarian figurehead today, that's for sure. Though I can see your point in that Libertarianism started out as a Liberal ideology (hence why the word "Liberal" shows up in it).


Oh, gosh, no, Rand is not an "old school conservative," and the old school conservatives I know think she's the devil (or, if you prefer, "Nietzsche in a skirt.") Conservatives (today) only like her because of her economics. The next time a conservative (not libertarian) extolls Rand's virtues, see what they think about free love


Well, in the US conservatism itself started out as a liberal ideology.



Naturally, both parties are guilty of it to suit their needs, but inarguably the right does it FAR more than the left.


Inarguably? I think the left is worse than the right, but that's because I get annoyed by the stupidity in A) various social movements and B) economic policies.



Honestly, I hadn't heard of PCC until today. I had to wiki them to see if what you said is true. It should be noted that PCC was only accredited recently back in 2011 (by a Christian accreditation group nonetheless) and had been starkly opposed to accreditation until the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools extended them a candidacy for accreditation. So to me that reads that the college knew it was peddling bull# and wasn't going to accredit because they knew that the accrediting agency would tell them to change their course material and it wasn't until an accreditation agency that agreed with them extended accreditation that they changed their tune.


I doubt they were *teaching* bull, but I can see how they'd be opposed to accreditation. At my (private religious) school we made fun of them because they had more rules than we did
(That was the BS part of PCC, they had ridiculous rules.)



Though interesting none the less. Hopefully science minded students graduating from such universities go onto proper post-grad schools or don't get work in an evolutionary science field like Genetics. Though I wonder how BJU reconciles teaching astronomy and defining a light-year...


Why wouldn't you want them to work in a field like Genetics? And I'm not certain that "going to the right post-grad schools" would "fix" their graduates. The last YECer I spoke to earned his graduate degree in geology (?) at a state school, IIRC.



There is a difference between questioning the norms and flat out ignoring evidence that the norms are correct.


True that.



I think you just highlighted a point, rather indirectly, that I didn't mention in the OP. Parents desiring that their children think as they exactly as they do. Conservative parents MUST have conservative children. Liberal parents MUST have liberal children. That is ridiculous and too controlling. Just educate the children and let them come to their own ideas about how the government should be ran.






Right. I agree, schools should teach critical thinking. Largely I think that universities do it MUCH better than grade schools, but the problem is that grade schools are so TERRIBLE at teaching critical thinking, that the universities may have to fall back on rote memorization because that's all the students know.


A prof I spoke to who used to teach at an Ivy League school told me that they their students were weak in the area of rote memorization; I guess they were better at picking up on themes. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.



I agree with you about the arts. I certainly became more rounded as a person as I started to more thoroughly study music (which opened my eyes to other arts as well). Though I'd say that university is a little late to introduce the children to the arts and expect them to be as easily enthralled with it as they may have been when younger. Not that it doesn't happen (it happened to me when I was 27), it just isn't as likely.


Yup, I'd agree. I think students ought to get a good dose literature, art, etc. in high school, so that college could be more technical in nature. But like you said, grade schools are weak in that area.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: skeptikal1

I acknowledge that there are people on the left as closed minded as the right likes to be. It's natural, we are all human. Though I contest that it is as widespread as the right has made it. For instance, I cannot accept Fox News as a valid source anymore. Whenever I see a story on ATS that originated from there, I immediately treat it like WND or similar sites because they CONTINUALLY post crappy or embellished stories. The only difference between WND and Fox News is that Fox will actually post truth from time to time (whereas the only "truth" WND posts comes from reposting scoops from other conservative websites which may or may not be actual truth), but even that truth is usually embellished.

This is in contrast to say CNN or the New York Times, which DOES post inaccuracies (no media outlet is immune to them, especially in this day and age of the internet proliferation), who don't embellish nearly as much when posting their truths.

I understand that there is a certain level of smugness from the left about their knowledge, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find too many that think that what they know is the be all, end all of knowledge. I imagine that they instead recognize that what they know is likely true, but are willing to change their minds if presented with newer information. Though that is only for factual information. Obviously, opinions are going to be a whole different animal and I am making no concessions for smugness in regards to political rhetoric and opinions.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yes, and the problem is that that subculture is the one pandered to the most. This is a subculture that cannot compromise with the left, at all. So if the position the left is pushing is backed up with facts and evidence, naturally this right wing subculture has to deny it out of hand. Then they make up reasons why it is wrong later.

PS: I REALLY hate the acronyms RINO or DINO. They are so insulting to the types that lean slightly right or left from moderate. Like they can't be real right wingers or left wingers if they hold a few beliefs from the opposite political spectrum or are willing to compromise with the other side.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yes, and the problem is that that subculture is the one pandered to the most. This is a subculture that cannot compromise with the left, at all. So if the position the left is pushing is backed up with facts and evidence, naturally this right wing subculture has to deny it out of hand. Then they make up reasons why it is wrong later.

PS: I REALLY hate the acronyms RINO or DINO. They are so insulting to the types that lean slightly right or left from moderate. Like they can't be real right wingers or left wingers if they hold a few beliefs from the opposite political spectrum or are willing to compromise with the other side.


Well you have to remember that political parties themselves are just carefully crafted vehicles to keep voters divided in a "divide & rule" scheme. Being a Democrat doesn't necessarily mean being progressive or liberal, it just means being a member of the party. I think the thing with "RINO" & "DINO" is simply to reinforce the cult-like status of the party. Some regions teach a strict following for a political party, like it's a sports team or religious denomination. Mix these views & you'll see why they encourage party members to reject anyone who's in favor of things that go against the party's official views.

A perfect example I like to ask my Democrat friends is would they accept Palin if she suddenly ran as a Democrat? Then I ask the Republicans if they'd support Al Sharpton or myself if either of us declared we were running as Republicans. The reactions are usually hilarious because you can see the emotional conflict on their faces, even when they try to hide it.

BTW I'm an independent & am only loyal to my own views. But I think you get the point I'm making.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Sure. But in the beginning, (some) Christians in the USA thought that it was necessary to perpetuate Christianity to maintain democracy. You can see some of the Founders saying this (in fact, I think even ol' Jefferson believed this, based on his habit of donating money to churches.) Some of the states had official churches for a while too. My point: the idea that American needed to be Christian, in one way or another, was a very old one. As the Christian cultural hegemony began to wear off, it's not surprising that people started trying to make it "official."


I'm pretty sure that Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, donating to churches notwithstanding. I also understand that America's Protestant ties go back a LONG way. In fact, Protestants used to demonize Catholic immigrants the same way that the Religious Right demonizes Muslims or Mexicans today. But these political ideologies never gained widespread traction and never became major political parties. They've always been fringe ideas. Today is a different story. Where the fringe is the mainstream and the mainstream is the fringe.


Oh, gosh, no, Rand is not an "old school conservative," and the old school conservatives I know think she's the devil (or, if you prefer, "Nietzsche in a skirt.") Conservatives (today) only like her because of her economics. The next time a conservative (not libertarian) extolls Rand's virtues, see what they think about free love


I wouldn't lump any living Conservative as an "old school conservative" because this ideology I'm discussing in the OP isn't an old school conservative belief. The old school conservatives I'm talking about that would embrace Rand are the likes of Thomas Jefferson (well he would consider her a liberal) and other conservatives that predate the 1930's.


Well, in the US conservatism itself started out as a liberal ideology.


Every political ideology starts as a liberal ideology. That's how the political spectrum works. Well except this idea of religious conservatism which started as a conservative ideology only because the people who invented it (robber barons), altered historic accounts to make it look like we've always had those beliefs.


Inarguably? I think the left is worse than the right, but that's because I get annoyed by the stupidity in A) various social movements and B) economic policies.


The left has their own brand of rhetoric, but I wouldn't call it anti-intellectualism.


I doubt they were *teaching* bull, but I can see how they'd be opposed to accreditation. At my (private religious) school we made fun of them because they had more rules than we did
(That was the BS part of PCC, they had ridiculous rules.)


Young Earth Creationism is bull. The wiki page clearly states they teach that.


Why wouldn't you want them to work in a field like Genetics? And I'm not certain that "going to the right post-grad schools" would "fix" their graduates. The last YECer I spoke to earned his graduate degree in geology (?) at a state school, IIRC.


Genetics relies heavily on evolutionary theory being true for it to be true. You really can't believe one without the other. As for "fixing" the YECers in post-grad school, I DID say hopefully. Obviously, you can't change everyone's mind even if you do present them with irrefutable evidence. The Origins and Creationism forums on ATS are a fine example of that.


A prof I spoke to who used to teach at an Ivy League school told me that they their students were weak in the area of rote memorization; I guess they were better at picking up on themes. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.


That's interesting and the first I've heard a professor say something like that. He must not have been a history professor because rote memorization of dates and events is pretty much how history is taught in grade school (as opposed to discussing them and thinking about their impacts on the present and such). Though you did say Ivy League school, so those kids are already pretty damn smart, and I'd bet they had access to better schools like private schools to obtain better educations.


Yup, I'd agree. I think students ought to get a good dose literature, art, etc. in high school, so that college could be more technical in nature. But like you said, grade schools are weak in that area.


AND fixing our public schools is a low priority to the religious right, so this whole thing becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. The students get bad education, grow up not learning how to critically think, start voting and taking over for their parents in government, push the same anti-intellectual crap they grew up with, then force their kids to be subjected to the crappy education and we all start over again.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Well you have to remember that political parties themselves are just carefully crafted vehicles to keep voters divided in a "divide & rule" scheme. Being a Democrat doesn't necessarily mean being progressive or liberal, it just means being a member of the party. I think the thing with "RINO" & "DINO" is simply to reinforce the cult-like status of the party. Some regions teach a strict following for a political party, like it's a sports team or religious denomination. Mix these views & you'll see why they encourage party members to reject anyone who's in favor of things that go against the party's official views.


This is a valid point and I can certainly see truth about it. Though politics shouldn't be a case of rooting for your favorite sports team. These guys are going to lead us and create laws that we have to obey. It's not like you are putting stock in some random group of people who have no baring on your life no matter what they do (like a sports team).


A perfect example I like to ask my Democrat friends is would they accept Palin if she suddenly ran as a Democrat? Then I ask the Republicans if they'd support Al Sharpton or myself if either of us declared we were running as Republicans. The reactions are usually hilarious because you can see the emotional conflict on their faces, even when they try to hide it.


Lol that is a good thought experiment. Though I guess you wouldn't get to see the full results of the conflict in their voices and displayed on their faces if you attempted this online. Me, I wouldn't vote for Sharpton OR Palin regardless of what party they stood for. They are both loons, the party only shapes the lunatic arguments they are going to put forth.


BTW I'm an independent & am only loyal to my own views. But I think you get the point I'm making.


Certainly



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I'm pretty sure that Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, donating to churches notwithstanding.


He didn't seem to be an Orthodox Christian, which is why I used him as an example.



I also understand that America's Protestant ties go back a LONG way. In fact, Protestants used to demonize Catholic immigrants the same way that the Religious Right demonizes Muslims or Mexicans today. But these political ideologies never gained widespread traction and never became major political parties. They've always been fringe ideas. Today is a different story. Where the fringe is the mainstream and the mainstream is the fringe.


I think the anti-Catholicism was more mainstream than you think. Interesting parallel, by-the-by, with the distaste for immigrants.



I wouldn't lump any living Conservative as an "old school conservative" because this ideology I'm discussing in the OP isn't an old school conservative belief.


There are still a few old school conservatives out there. They just don't come on to TV.



The old school conservatives I'm talking about that would embrace Rand are the likes of Thomas Jefferson (well he would consider her a liberal) and other conservatives that predate the 1930's.


Jefferson embrace Rand? Hmmm. I doubt that would happen outside of Bioshock




Well except this idea of religious conservatism which started as a conservative ideology only because the people who invented it (robber barons), altered historic accounts to make it look like we've always had those beliefs.


Again, though, some of the beliefs (the USA needs Christianity to succeed) have always been there. It's just the whole "USA has Christianity as the state religion" thing that's made up.



The left has their own brand of rhetoric, but I wouldn't call it anti-intellectualism.


The far, far left (I guess it's the left, it's certainly not the right, tho to be honest it just seems like clueless kids) is actually attacking academic freedom in the universities. Check out what's happening to Laura Kipnes.



Young Earth Creationism is bull. The wiki page clearly states they teach that.


Meh. It's bull if you can prove it's wrong. You can't, because it's magical. (No wonder scientists don't like it.)



Genetics relies heavily on evolutionary theory being true for it to be true. You really can't believe one without the other.


IIRC, genetics predates modern evolutionary theory and was developed independently. Anyway, I don't think YECers have a problem with genetics or (all) evolution, actually, so I wouldn't worry




As for "fixing" the YECers in post-grad school, I DID say hopefully. Obviously, you can't change everyone's mind even if you do present them with irrefutable evidence. The Origins and Creationism forums on ATS are a fine example of that.


You can't irrefutably prove anything, much less evolution...



That's interesting and the first I've heard a professor say something like that. He must not have been a history professor because rote memorization of dates and events is pretty much how history is taught in grade school (as opposed to discussing them and thinking about their impacts on the present and such). Though you did say Ivy League school, so those kids are already pretty damn smart, and I'd bet they had access to better schools like private schools to obtain better educations.


She was a history prof, actually. Like I said, not sure what to make of it.



AND fixing our public schools is a low priority to the religious right, so this whole thing becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. The students get bad education, grow up not learning how to critically think, start voting and taking over for their parents in government, push the same anti-intellectual crap they grew up with, then force their kids to be subjected to the crappy education and we all start over again.


Yeah. Pretty sure the poor education is inevitable, tho. in mean, think about it: two different sides fighting for control over the next generation of voters. How could that end well? We'd be better off if public schools were viewed as welfare instead of the norm.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Well you have to remember that political parties themselves are just carefully crafted vehicles to keep voters divided in a "divide & rule" scheme. Being a Democrat doesn't necessarily mean being progressive or liberal, it just means being a member of the party. I think the thing with "RINO" & "DINO" is simply to reinforce the cult-like status of the party. Some regions teach a strict following for a political party, like it's a sports team or religious denomination. Mix these views & you'll see why they encourage party members to reject anyone who's in favor of things that go against the party's official views.


This is a valid point and I can certainly see truth about it. Though politics shouldn't be a case of rooting for your favorite sports team. These guys are going to lead us and create laws that we have to obey. It's not like you are putting stock in some random group of people who have no baring on your life no matter what they do (like a sports team).


A perfect example I like to ask my Democrat friends is would they accept Palin if she suddenly ran as a Democrat? Then I ask the Republicans if they'd support Al Sharpton or myself if either of us declared we were running as Republicans. The reactions are usually hilarious because you can see the emotional conflict on their faces, even when they try to hide it.


Lol that is a good thought experiment. Though I guess you wouldn't get to see the full results of the conflict in their voices and displayed on their faces if you attempted this online. Me, I wouldn't vote for Sharpton OR Palin regardless of what party they stood for. They are both loons, the party only shapes the lunatic arguments they are going to put forth.


BTW I'm an independent & am only loyal to my own views. But I think you get the point I'm making.


Certainly


Haha, yeah but football is basically a religion here in the deep South. Some of these people know far more sports stats than they do religious and political texts combined. Which is both weird & fitting. So if they're taught to be as loyal to their local political party as they are to their local football team, they'll support it even when its policies are hurting them.

And yeah, those thought exercises only work in person. I like to test people with things like that though, so they can see their double standards and/or flaws in logic. It works best when I can see their reactions though, so I can know how much to push & when to pull back. It makes it easy to break down religious, ethnic & cultural barriers.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Meh. It's bull if you can prove it's wrong. You can't, because it's magical. (No wonder scientists don't like it.)


Actually, the would need to prove it right first. Or at least put forth a significant amount of evidence to support it's possibility of being right before anyone needs to prove it wrong.

YEC doesn't have evidence for their theory. All they have is a theological argument. Aside from that they simply try and refute the evidence put forth by evolutionary theory as if proving the other side wrong somehow proves their side right, but it doesn't. If someone could completely destroy credibility in Evolutionary theory tomorrow it would still not prove another theory correct.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Almost any religion falls apart when you look at it with a critical eye. For that reason alone, religious beliefs can't be questioned and ignorance keeps them alive.

So many people say that you need to read between the lines when it comes to religion, but because everyone sees something different, it can make individual sense, up until you start applying logic to it. It's why people believe in astrology; they think it applies to them because some things resonate.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm



Actually, the would need to prove it right first. Or at least put forth a significant amount of evidence to support it's possibility of being right before anyone needs to prove it wrong.


To do what, stop Krazysh0t from calling it BS? I'm not certain that there's an objective standard for BS, but for now I'll refrain from referring to YEC as a whole as BS simply because they take their theological arguments seriously and interpret the data in a way that conforms to their views. Who knows, they might be right, and then I'd be in a fine kettle of fish




Aside from that they simply try and refute the evidence put forth by evolutionary theory as if proving the other side wrong somehow proves their side right, but it doesn't. If someone could completely destroy credibility in Evolutionary theory tomorrow it would still not prove another theory correct.


That's an astute observation.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I think the anti-Catholicism was more mainstream than you think. Interesting parallel, by-the-by, with the distaste for immigrants.


Actually that is an age old tradition in this country. America has had continuing waves of immigrants from different parts of the world, and the established Americans are ALWAYS prejudiced against them. In fact, the arguments of losing jobs to immigrants, losing American culture, etc are all MUCH older than you may think. They were using them against immigrants all the way back to the 1800's when we started getting our first immigrant booms. Immigrants have almost ALWAYS done the worst jobs in the country too. Their children and the next subsequent generation go on to have better jobs (and end up becoming Americanized, proving the losing American culture myth wrong) who in turn get mad at incoming immigrants "stealing their jobs".

Just wait about two generations and then look at how many of the families of Mexicans that immigrated today end up behaving and acting. But that's alright, because by then there will be a new wave of immigrants from some other hellhole in the world for THOSE Americans to get pissy about. And the cycle starts over.


There are still a few old school conservatives out there. They just don't come on to TV.


That's the problem. The REAL conservatives don't get any air time. Only the clowns.


Again, though, some of the beliefs (the USA needs Christianity to succeed) have always been there. It's just the whole "USA has Christianity as the state religion" thing that's made up.


Yes, that is what I've been saying. Though keep in mind that there have always been fundamentalists trying to get religious laws put on the books, if not at the federal level then on the state level, but originally the arguments came from morality reasons and since almost all Americans were Christian and believed the bible, they agreed with the premises behind them. NOW, there is this pretense that we've always coupled Christianity with the state and that the bible must be adhered to legally.


The far, far left (I guess it's the left, it's certainly not the right, tho to be honest it just seems like clueless kids) is actually attacking academic freedom in the universities. Check out what's happening to Laura Kipnes.


But those are isolated incidents, and at the least aren't hyped up as the mainstream left platform. The right centers their lunacy front and center. The left tries to distance themselves from it. Naturally some of it bleeds into the mainstream, but I wouldn't call it a mainstay of their platform. They have other issues.


Meh. It's bull if you can prove it's wrong. You can't, because it's magical. (No wonder scientists don't like it.)


That's not how you prove things at all. You don't prove negatives. You just assume that premises with no supporting evidence are by default not true. Otherwise known as the null hypothesis.

Besides that, there is also competing evidence that paints an entirely different picture than what YEC says. That piles on even MORE assumptions that must be made for YEC to be true. That the evidence against YEC is somehow fake or fabricated. There really is no more reason to believe in YEC than to believe in the flat earth theory. It's just scientifically unsound and fantasy level.


IIRC, genetics predates modern evolutionary theory and was developed independently. Anyway, I don't think YECers have a problem with genetics or (all) evolution, actually, so I wouldn't worry


Yes they developed separately, but they are intricately intertwined today. Medical research is the same way actually. Especially with the way the pharmaceutical industry is going. They are going to try to start curing diseases on the genetic level. Custom tailored cures for the individual, not for as many people as possible with side effects. All that relies HEAVILY on evolutionary theory being true.


You can't irrefutably prove anything, much less evolution...


I never said that you could.


She was a history prof, actually. Like I said, not sure what to make of it.


Like I said, keep in mind that it IS an Ivy League professor, so the kids most likely had access to better schools. Though I'm not sure what to make of it either. Maybe you should have asked her to elaborate on it.


Yeah. Pretty sure the poor education is inevitable, tho. in mean, think about it: two different sides fighting for control over the next generation of voters. How could that end well? We'd be better off if public schools were viewed as welfare instead of the norm.


Other countries seem to be able to pull it off. Maybe we should take some cues from them.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Haha, yeah but football is basically a religion here in the deep South. Some of these people know far more sports stats than they do religious and political texts combined. Which is both weird & fitting. So if they're taught to be as loyal to their local political party as they are to their local football team, they'll support it even when its policies are hurting them.


Trust me. I've seen it myself. I've lived in both Oklahoma and Mississippi. Though the north gets pretty excited about football too. We just like professional football more than college football.

Keep in mind, we could easily extend this analogy to low education liberals living in major cities too being duped into voting Democrat.


And yeah, those thought exercises only work in person. I like to test people with things like that though, so they can see their double standards and/or flaws in logic. It works best when I can see their reactions though, so I can know how much to push & when to pull back. It makes it easy to break down religious, ethnic & cultural barriers.


Lol. I really try to avoid religious and political conversations in real life. I don't like being "that guy" at a social event who always has to ruin the conversation by talking about divisive things like that. Though if someone else starts, I'll be more than happy to join in.

I use ATS as my outlet for these thoughts.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Haha, yeah but football is basically a religion here in the deep South. Some of these people know far more sports stats than they do religious and political texts combined. Which is both weird & fitting. So if they're taught to be as loyal to their local political party as they are to their local football team, they'll support it even when its policies are hurting them.


Trust me. I've seen it myself. I've lived in both Oklahoma and Mississippi. Though the north gets pretty excited about football too. We just like professional football more than college football.

Keep in mind, we could easily extend this analogy to low education liberals living in major cities too being duped into voting Democrat.


And yeah, those thought exercises only work in person. I like to test people with things like that though, so they can see their double standards and/or flaws in logic. It works best when I can see their reactions though, so I can know how much to push & when to pull back. It makes it easy to break down religious, ethnic & cultural barriers.


Lol. I really try to avoid religious and political conversations in real life. I don't like being "that guy" at a social event who always has to ruin the conversation by talking about divisive things like that. Though if someone else starts, I'll be more than happy to join in.

I use ATS as my outlet for these thoughts.


Oh I agree about people being brainwashed to vote Democrat as well. Even highly educated people can fall into that trap, especially when presented w/the "lesser of 2 evils" argument. It took me a long time to get some of my friends to look into independent/3rd party candidates simply because they "didn't want to let the Repubs win".

EDIT: Oh & here, we have a policy where we love to talk about contentious issues as long as no one takes it personally. That's how we get past artificial barriers stemming from race, culture, religion, etc. That way, people can see for themselves that we all have more in common than we have differences.
edit on 3-6-2015 by enlightenedservant because: added something because... (insert reason you deem legitimate)



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Haha, yeah but football is basically a religion here in the deep South. Some of these people know far more sports stats than they do religious and political texts combined. Which is both weird & fitting. So if they're taught to be as loyal to their local political party as they are to their local football team, they'll support it even when its policies are hurting them.


Trust me. I've seen it myself. I've lived in both Oklahoma and Mississippi. Though the north gets pretty excited about football too. We just like professional football more than college football.

Keep in mind, we could easily extend this analogy to low education liberals living in major cities too being duped into voting Democrat.


And yeah, those thought exercises only work in person. I like to test people with things like that though, so they can see their double standards and/or flaws in logic. It works best when I can see their reactions though, so I can know how much to push & when to pull back. It makes it easy to break down religious, ethnic & cultural barriers.


Lol. I really try to avoid religious and political conversations in real life. I don't like being "that guy" at a social event who always has to ruin the conversation by talking about divisive things like that. Though if someone else starts, I'll be more than happy to join in.

I use ATS as my outlet for these thoughts.


Oh I agree about people being brainwashed to vote Democrat as well. Even highly educated people can fall into that trap, especially when presented w/the "lesser of 2 evils" argument. It took me a long time to get some of my friends to look into independent/3rd party candidates simply because they "didn't want to let the Repubs win".


My biggest success was getting my dad to consider the Libertarian options when voting. He's always been a conservative but was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Republican party. I kept going on and on about the Libertarian party and he has started to come around.


EDIT: Oh & here, we have a policy where we love to talk about contentious issues as long as no one takes it personally. That's how we get past artificial barriers stemming from race, culture, religion, etc. That way, people can see for themselves that we all have more in common than we have differences.


To be honest, that's how I try to discuss things here on ATS. Everything I say about a topic is meant to discuss the topic only. I never intend anything personal to the people I am discussing things with. Though, unfortunately, many take an attack against their beliefs as an attack against them.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



Actually that is an age old tradition in this country. America has had continuing waves of immigrants from different parts of the world, and the established Americans are ALWAYS prejudiced against them. In fact, the arguments of losing jobs to immigrants, losing American culture, etc are all MUCH older than you may think. They were using them against immigrants all the way back to the 1800's when we started getting our first immigrant booms. Immigrants have almost ALWAYS done the worst jobs in the country too. Their children and the next subsequent generation go on to have better jobs (and end up becoming Americanized, proving the losing American culture myth wrong) who in turn get mad at incoming immigrants "stealing their jobs".


I think we agree on this. Shoot, the Native Americans sometimes seem like the most welcoming lot, don't they?



That's the problem. The REAL conservatives don't get any air time. Only the clowns.


Yup.



Yes, that is what I've been saying. Though keep in mind that there have always been fundamentalists trying to get religious laws put on the books, if not at the federal level then on the state level, but originally the arguments came from morality reasons and since almost all Americans were Christian and believed the bible, they agreed with the premises behind them. NOW, there is this pretense that we've always coupled Christianity with the state and that the bible must be adhered to legally.


Eyup.



But those are isolated incidents, and at the least aren't hyped up as the mainstream left platform. The right centers their lunacy front and center. The left tries to distance themselves from it. Naturally some of it bleeds into the mainstream, but I wouldn't call it a mainstay of their platform. They have other issues.


The more I read, the less I'm convinced that it's isolated. The left isn't suicidal enough to hype it as their platform, and I don't think "the left" as a whole even likes it or agrees with it, but I think it's becoming unfortunately clear that leftist ideas created a bit of a monster. How this sorts itself out waits to be seen.



That's not how you prove things at all. You don't prove negatives. You just assume that premises with no supporting evidence are by default not true. Otherwise known as the null hypothesis.


I wasn't talking about proving things, was I? I was talking about calling things BS




Like I said, keep in mind that it IS an Ivy League professor, so the kids most likely had access to better schools. Though I'm not sure what to make of it either. Maybe you should have asked her to elaborate on it.


Yup, it was interesting. I'm not sure I'm convinced that "better" schools would skimp on rote memorization; she didn't say it like it was a good thing, but rather like "I have to write tests in such a way that they'll learn dates and such."



Other countries seem to be able to pull it off. Maybe we should take some cues from them.


That's a good idea. However, most other countries that pull it off are small and culturally homogenous. (Japan, most European countries, etc.) The only other countries in the world that I know of that are as large and culturally diverse as the US of A would be India, Russia, and China, and I don't think any of them have educational systems as good as the US (on average) but I could be wrong on that one. Furthermore, those countries generally don't have any problems ramming nationalistic sentiment down their students throats, and I get the impression that many of them (Japan?) have no problem instituting ridiculously high standards and holding their children to it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I think if we tried to take cues from them, we'd have lots of angry voters.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


My biggest success was getting my dad to consider the Libertarian options when voting. He's always been a conservative but was becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Republican party. I kept going on and on about the Libertarian party and he has started to come around.


I respect the Libertarians on most foreign policies and on limiting non-violent crimes. I mainly have a problem with their domestic views that center around discrimination. To my understanding, Libertarians seem to want government to stay out of things even in cases of racism, bigotry, etc. It seems to be naive in thinking that people will eventually do the right thing, be it by rejecting the bigots or using an alternative to the bigot. But my entire family tree is proof that some people need to be forcefully reigned in or they'll just keep oppressing others.


To be honest, that's how I try to discuss things here on ATS. Everything I say about a topic is meant to discuss the topic only. I never intend anything personal to the people I am discussing things with. Though, unfortunately, many take an attack against their beliefs as an attack against them.


Well yeah. Many people simply don't have anything else going for them in life. That's one reason why religions will always prosper among the poor; because economics, politics, hope for change, and every grand sounding ideology or leader has failed them. Also, you have people like me who were atrocious & despicable until their religious experiences changed them for the good. So telling someone like me that our beliefs are dumb or our experiences are false can obviously create a backlash.

BTW I don't mean that last comment in a negative way. I actually have no problem with most people, regardless of their beliefs or non-beliefs. And I've debated with so many different religions & ideologies that I don't get phased anymore (except w/racism & bigotry grrr). Though there is a single denomination I simply can't get along with. My belief system is just too fundamentally different from theirs. I can work with them, talk w/them, etc. But the second it comes to a discussion, we get heated & have to walk away from each other. I've literally never gotten along with a single one ideologically. Ironically, it's not Devil worshipers or the occult either lol. But I'll leave that for another day.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I think we agree on this. Shoot, the Native Americans sometimes seem like the most welcoming lot, don't they?


I've recently enjoyed reading the essay Ben Franklin wrote about the "Savages", where he basically calls the Natives more civilized than English-American culture. I've linked it several times here on ATS.


The more I read, the less I'm convinced that it's isolated. The left isn't suicidal enough to hype it as their platform, and I don't think "the left" as a whole even likes it or agrees with it, but I think it's becoming unfortunately clear that leftist ideas created a bit of a monster. How this sorts itself out waits to be seen.


Well if that is the case, it WILL eventually blow up in the left's face. Stuff like that always does. Then you'll see a new wave of conservatism take over the country as a backlash. It's a pendulum that swings with the times. It's already starting to shift. Though here's the thing, when it does, the conservatism that takes over could divide the country even further. I'm not a doom monger, so I wouldn't say that it will doom the country or anything. But it certainly won't bridge any gaps.


I wasn't talking about proving things, was I? I was talking about calling things BS


Well BS is things that aren't true but being presented as true. So it comes back to proving.


Yup, it was interesting. I'm not sure I'm convinced that "better" schools would skimp on rote memorization; she didn't say it like it was a good thing, but rather like "I have to write tests in such a way that they'll learn dates and such."


She could just be bitter that she has to change her teaching style as the times change. I've never been a fan of memorizing dates myself to be honest. I've always felt that the events themselves are the most important. Though, naturally, there are a few dates I've memorized that are pretty significant.


That's a good idea. However, most other countries that pull it off are small and culturally homogenous. (Japan, most European countries, etc.) The only other countries in the world that I know of that are as large and culturally diverse as the US of A would be India, Russia, and China, and I don't think any of them have educational systems as good as the US (on average) but I could be wrong on that one. Furthermore, those countries generally don't have any problems ramming nationalistic sentiment down their students throats, and I get the impression that many of them (Japan?) have no problem instituting ridiculously high standards and holding their children to it. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I think if we tried to take cues from them, we'd have lots of angry voters.


Now keep in mind that European countries themselves may not be that diverse politically, but the entirety of the continent definitely is. Europe is almost a pseudo-country at this point with the EU. The politics of one country definitely effect other ones.




top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join