Ben Carson is a Creationist

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Again, the real problem is bigotry. Unfortunately, the modern age of *ahem* "enlightened" inteligencia bristles at criticism of most belief structure... except for the beliefs of the Abrahamic Faiths, which are fair game for some reason.

Either everything is fair game or nothing is, and the while the Abrahamic religions are constantly attempting to cease any and all criticisms of it's claims and stories, it's not going to happen. Cries of bigotry are par for the course at this point, as is playing the victim at every opportunity....

To be honest with you, I find it much, MUCH more dangerous to elect one of the AGW adherents whose beliefs are based on a con game directly intended to separate people from their money and instill artificial parity around the globe than I find electing an individual of Faith. Faith is neither rational nor irrational when viewed by someone who houses a different faith because it is entirely personal and subjective... Narrow mindedness and bigotry, however, can be spotted from a mile away by people of all faiths.

Yeah ignoring evidence in place of personal beliefs is also par for the course......as well as hypocrisy...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Otherwise, both are still an internal belief structure which the adherent may or may not decide to be open and forthright with.

Agnosticism is not a belief in any shape or form.

A religious person believes in their god, book, etc.

An atheist believes there is no god(s).

An agnostic doesn't "believe" anything. They don't dwell or inform their ideology on any internal belief system.

I know it's hard for some people to understand, but we agnostics do not have any inner religious belief system, whether it's for or against, whatsoever. We do not consult out inner belief structure when making decisions because we don't have one.

Well agnostics do seem to hold the (incorrect) belief that atheists by definition believe there are no god/s (they merely lack the belief) and that they (agnostics) are by default not atheists...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Ben Carson is a Bible-Thumper from an outlying fringe group of "Christians" (SDAs) who argue with EVERYONE ELSE who professes Christianity that they are all wrong and condemned. Because, you know...the sabbath -

I attended an SDA school for 2 grades (7th and 8th). I attended this school not because I share many beliefs with the SDAs (I don't), but because my parents were concerned about the ridiculous failure rate at my county's only mid-high (as well as a handful of teacher abuse cases there among other things.) I was not pressured to attend their services or profess any beliefs, even though the school was intended to be a parochial school. I was asked to respect their beliefs, not mock them, and that is what I did. I can say with little doubt that an SDA, if qualified, could easily be POTUS and perform the job admirably and competently from even the position of those who disagree with their religious underpinnings.

Anyway, for those two years I received an extremely solid education in math, English, history, AND SCIENCE. In terms of medicine and physics, especially, SDAs are quite well educated and knowledgeable.

I'm not an adventist and have zero interest in ever attending their church, but it helps to know as much as possible about a group before criticizing them.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, that's great! So, you received a solid education. Awesome.

The problem is that despite their ability to teach math, history, and science, they STILL balk against the mainstream beliefs that archaic literature is invalid.
But, whatever. I said I would bow out...my bad. Sorry for still eavesdropping.....

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I just think they say to themselves look at all the wondrous science god created.

Then they go on about how the darker side of god is responsible for the manipulation of education that takes place in schools.

Then they might say that despite the evil done to them they still refuse to hate.

a reply to: windword

Can you pinpoint it the map? Is Carson running for US President as some sort of representative from the "Kingdom of God"?

Get in the car I'll take you there!
And the vatican? Really?

Guess I missed that one yuc yuc.
No one at the vat follows Christ no one.
Everyone is to busy following the pope
and his crooked cross.

Get outta ere wid dat stuff the vatican.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Why is archaic literature invalid and just what do you mean by that?

Are you referring to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle?

Or are you referring to the much-maligned literary canon that us comprised of "old, dead white men" who nevertheless were masters of English language and story and wrote better than just about anyone I've seen in modern contemporary times despite how old, white and dead they are?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Well agnostics do seem to hold the (incorrect) belief that atheists by definition believe there are no god/s (they merely lack the belief) and that they (agnostics) are by default not atheists...

There is some overlap between agnostics and atheists in that many atheists lack belief in God, but do not say absolutely that god does not exist. Agnostics don't believe either way and are open to the possibilities. I also believe many atheists are actually agnostic.

a reply to: ketsuko

Why is archaic literature invalid and just what do you mean by that?

Are you referring to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle?

No.

I am referring to LITERATURE, not PHILOSOPHY. The Bible is what I mean when I say "literature". The Bible is an archaic anthology of myths.
On my bookshelf are dozens of volumes addressing cultural mythologies from our earliest (but not necessarily the first, because the first were destroyed) written texts.

Plato/Socrates and Aristotle were talking about real-life conundrums, not making up stories about how the earth was created and trying to explain Adam and Eve. Gah.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

Why is archaic literature invalid and just what do you mean by that?

Are you referring to Plato, Socrates, Aristotle?

No.

I am referring to LITERATURE, not PHILOSOPHY. The Bible is what I mean when I say "literature". The Bible is an archaic anthology of myths.
On my bookshelf are dozens of volumes addressing cultural mythologies from our earliest (but not necessarily the first, because the first were destroyed) written texts.

Plato/Socrates and Aristotle were talking about real-life conundrums, not making up stories about how the earth was created and trying to explain Adam and Eve. Gah.

Agreed. If God dictated the Bible, then he did a horrible job of Genesis. Of our creation and evolution and planetary formation...that's all he gave us? If there is a God, as I believe, then he wouldn't have given us such a scant horrible creation story as Genesis.

a reply to: amazing
That would go against the whole knowledge is bad route the story takes.

I wish I could delete some things I know.

originally posted by: network dude
To think that the world was created in 144 hours or the Earth is only 6000 years old it pretty nutty in my opinion...

You want to talk about laughable?

Darwinism is some of the best comedy I've EVER seen...

a reply to: Murgatroid

Lol Malcom Muggeridge?

The author, journalist, sex pest and serial groper?

Why would you think he's an authority on evolution?

Do you just quote absolutely anyone that has anything disparaging to say about evolution?

a reply to: Murgatroid

Erm, T-Rexs did not become birds. Small raptor-like dinosaurs became birds. Your second picture is deeply dishonest. As for Malcolm Muggeridge, don't bring up that old idiot please.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: network dude
To think that the world was created in 144 hours or the Earth is only 6000 years old it pretty nutty in my opinion...

You want to talk about laughable?

Darwinism is some of the best comedy I've EVER seen...

Not so sure...I mean we actually have fossil records and more data is added every year. Sure there are some questions and holes and whatevers, but What's the alternative theory? That's the question that no one ever answers. There is no alternative theory.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
they STILL balk against the mainstream beliefs

We're on a Conspiracy forum message board... do you really believe balking at mainstream beliefs is a bad thing? Do you understand that balking at mainstream beliefs is one of the primary motivators behind progress?

a reply to: introvert

So agnostics are better politicians in your view because religion is a non factor for them. To me it just seems like someone unwilling to take a stand. What happens when the agnostic makes a decision? What if its after they are elected? Better yet the atheist isn't held to any code of conduct and for them any morality or ethics are subjective relativism.

I think this whole issue and this whole thread is simple. Science vs religion. They don't have to be at odds or against each other, but what we can't have is a president that appears to be anti science. Science is more important then ever right now.

Oh no! Carson is a creationist? He doesn't believe the universe was "created" by a huge explosion from nothin? Everyone believes in one form or another of a "creation". What's your beef OP? That Carson believes in God? This country has had many, great leaders that belived in God..Jesus, I'd dare say. Don't slander people just because they don't believe your way. Practice "tolerance" ...LOL!

a reply to: NihilistSanta

To me it just seems like someone unwilling to take a stand. What happens when the agnostic makes a decision?

Do you think that affirming "Yes" there is a god or "No" I don't believe there is a god, is the same as making a decision or taking a stand? Is that the only issue that is of concern to you, the only stand that matters?

What if its after they are elected?

Erm, presidents are supposed to make decisions after they're elected. What's your concern as to decision made by a non-religious president?

Better yet the atheist isn't held to any code of conduct and for them any morality or ethics are subjective relativism.

This is absolute rubbish, and you know it. Biblical morality isn't any where near the standard of today's American morality and ethics. Biblical morality is ten steps backwards from where we are today.