Finding Out [Whoever] Believes in God

[Ryantology]

...huh? Which part is what you said?

"So you're not claiming that religious Conservatives are more prone to error than religious Liberals?" <- Is that what you just said? That is, you just said, "I'm not claiming that religious Conservatives are more prone to error than religious Liberals?"

Or do you mean that you just said, "religious Conservatives are more prone to error than religious liberals"?

What I wrote is still up there and you're free to read it again.

My point is that calling something 'common knowledge' isn't a convincing argument.

And if we were conducting a scientific experiment rather than a casual debate, I'd agree with you 100%.

That's good evidence that Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, and Perry don't support same-sex marriage. I'm not sure it's good evidence that Republicans are largely proud of viewing homosexuals as less than human.

I'd say it's a pretty good sample of conservatives proudly and publicly demonstrating their contempt for the human rights of gay people using religion as their excuse. I have no intention of quote-mining every Republican politician in America just to satisfy you.

If you can demonstrate evidence that liberal politicians oppose gay marriage on religious grounds in equal or greater number to conservative politicians doing the same, I will concede that my assertion, and common knowledge, are incorrect.

[Skepsis]

Oh, well, if it seems clear, then you should just go ahead and believe it. Right, Skepsis? What a hilariously inappropriate name.

Woke up on the wrong side of the bed, Clive? Don't get your panties in a wad.
Skepticism doesn't put extreme burden on different claims. The more extraordinary he claim, the more evidence is needed. In this case, very little evidence was needed to reach the conclusion I did.
In any case, why do you think I employed the rhetoric I did? If I have to point it out for you it feels like ruining a good joke, telling the slow kid why the punchline was pertinent.

Any evidence for this, or are these just more of those claims that seem true? Which as we all know, skeptics should always believe.

Another claim that seems true? Are you just prodding me for a response?
When I say something seems true, at least in this case, I mean that overwhelming evidence points to it being true.
Take Fox news, an obvious Republican propaganda station. Doesn't take much searching to find a clip where they badmouth gays or defend "family values". I believe there is a Christian run "family values" institution, largely republican, who condemn gays and all that they stand for.
Look at DOMA and bills like it, and look at who is defending the current laws that prevent gay marriage in most states. Our far right is overwhelmingly Republican. You can see Republicans calling congressional member Communists with little repercussion from congressional leaders.
"My faith inform my belief," you'll hear people say. What do you think that means? In deuteronomy does it say to be accepting of all peoples, gay, Muslim, or otherwise?
What better depictions can I provide other than Fox and the Christian Coalition? It is simply overwhelming obvious. It seems that way.

[CliveStaples]

What I wrote is still up there and you're free to read it again.

Right. You said:

Conservatives are more prone to bad policy regarding religion because conservatives are more prone to be religious.

That is, the reason that conservatives have a higher incidence of bad policy regarding religion is merely because there are a higher portion of conservatives that are religious.

That doesn't mean that religious conservatives are more prone to bad religious policy than religious liberals.

Suppose that there are 100 conservatives and 100 liberals. Suppose further that 50 of the conservatives are religious, but only 10 of the liberals are.

Suppose further that every religious person, regardless of political affiliation, has a 10% chance of having bad religious policies.

Then the number of bad religious policies by party is...

Conservatives: 50*(.1) = 5
Liberals: 10*(.1) = 1

So there's a higher portion of religious conservatives, and a higher incidence of bad religious policy among conservatives, but religious liberals aren't less prone to bad religious policy than religious conservatives.

And if we were conducting a scientific experiment rather than a casual debate, I'd agree with you 100%.

Ah, so if we're in a casual debate, I should just accept as true anything that you describe as "common knowledge".

I'd say it's a pretty good sample of conservatives proudly and publicly demonstrating their contempt for the human rights of gay people using religion as their excuse. I have no intention of quote-mining every Republican politician in America just to satisfy you.

It's a sample of, what, 5 people? From the last year? And that's a good representative sample of how Republicans think in general?

How do you even know how Republicans reacted to these remarks? Didn't all of these campaigns crash and burn before the primaries?

If you can demonstrate evidence that liberal politicians oppose gay marriage on religious grounds in equal or greater number to conservative politicians doing the same, I will concede that my assertion, and common knowledge, are incorrect.

That's...I don't even know what to do with that.

First, showing that the incidence of religious opposition to same-sex marriage among liberals is at least as high as among conservatives does nothing to disprove that "Republicans are largely proud of viewing homosexuals as less than human".

Second, suppose the incidence of religious opposition to same-sex marriage among liberals is low, but the incidence of the violent torture and rape of homosexuals is incredibly high among liberals. By your standards, that would show that "Republicans are largely proud of viewing homosexuals as less than human" is false.



Whether Republicans are largely proud of viewing homosexuals as less than human isn't equivalent to whether Republicans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Maybe Republicans actually support same-sex marriage (on principles of limited government), but viscerally hate homosexuals as being unnatural. Maybe Republicans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds (on principles of theocratic government), but think that homosexuals are just as human as anyone else.

---

Woke up on the wrong side of the bed, Clive? Don't get your panties in a wad.
Skepticism doesn't put extreme burden on different claims. The more extraordinary he claim, the more evidence is needed. In this case, very little evidence was needed to reach the conclusion I did.
In any case, why do you think I employed the rhetoric I did? If I have to point it out for you it feels like ruining a good joke, telling the slow kid why the punchline was pertinent.

You use the same uncritical, circle-jerk rhetoric as everyone else here, who already knows in their heart that Christians and conservatives are stupid/evil/heartless/hateful/etc.

Another claim that seems true? Are you just prodding me for a response?
When I say something seems true, at least in this case, I mean that overwhelming evidence points to it being true.
Take Fox news, an obvious Republican propaganda station. Doesn't take much searching to find a clip where they badmouth gays or defend "family values".

Badmouth gays? Can you get me a video?

I believe there is a Christian run "family values" institution, largely republican, who condemn gays and all that they stand for.

Oh, well, if there's one organization that's Christian and largely republican that condemns gays and all that they stand for--and I'm guessing you're just blanking on the name right now--then of course most Republicans condemn gays and all that they stand for.

Look at DOMA and bills like it, and look at who is defending the current laws that prevent gay marriage in most states. Our far right is overwhelmingly Republican. You can see Republicans calling congressional member Communists with little repercussion from congressional leaders.

I guess we're just taking as read that opposing same-sex marriage means you hate homosexuals, yes? One more of those special kinds of claims that don't require you to give evidence?

And what's wrong with calling people Communists? Should that be punished? Are they wrong to call people Communists, or does that not even matter?

"My faith inform my belief," you'll hear people say. What do you think that means? In deuteronomy does it say to be accepting of all peoples, gay, Muslim, or otherwise?
What better depictions can I provide other than Fox and the Christian Coalition? It is simply overwhelming obvious. It seems that way.

Yeah, if you're not thinking critically and already have your conclusion in mind, I'm guessing everything seems pretty obvious. You seem like a "seems pretty obvious"-level thinker.

[The Grand Nudger]

Roger, it's not that they hate homosexuals, they just don't think that homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as, you know, everyone else.

Sounds reasonable, you probably have a point. It's not like you have to hate someone for you to feel that they deserve less consideration than yourself, to feel that they don't deserve the benefits and protection of law that you deserve. There are plenty of other ways to reach this particular conclusion. Perhaps we should elaborate upon some of them?

[Ryantology]

That is, the reason that conservatives have a higher incidence of bad policy regarding religion is merely because there are a higher portion of conservatives that are religious.

That doesn't mean that religious conservatives are more prone to bad religious policy than religious liberals.

Suppose that there are 100 conservatives and 100 liberals. Suppose further that 50 of the conservatives are religious, but only 10 of the liberals are.

That's really all you had to type to mirror my suggestion a conservative is more likely (by a factor of five times, as you have it) of making bad religious policy, as I believe that any policy which promotes religion in any way is bad policy, and a pool of conservatives is, again according to you, five times as likely to produce people to push for it as an equal number of liberals.

Ah, so if we're in a casual debate, I should just accept as true anything that you describe as "common knowledge".

Of course not. You're free to dispute it. It is worth noting that you have not done so. Am I to assume tacit agreement, then?

It's a sample of, what, 5 people? From the last year? And that's a good representative sample of how Republicans think in general?

How do you even know how Republicans reacted to these remarks? Didn't all of these campaigns crash and burn before the primaries?

What is the objective number I have to provide?

Yes, they did all crash and burn. That they all launched campaigns of many months, each earning millions of primary votes and millions of dollars, suggests quite well how Republicans reacted. It doesn't matter that these five lost. The guy who won is every bit as bad.

That's...I don't even know what to do with that.

First, showing that the incidence of religious opposition to same-sex marriage among liberals is at least as high as among conservatives does nothing to disprove that "Republicans are largely proud of viewing homosexuals as less than human".

Fair enough, it does not prove that particular point. Perhaps I would have better stated that Republicans are far more likely to be proud of etc. Which is every bit as important, really.

Second, suppose the incidence of religious opposition to same-sex marriage among liberals is low, but the incidence of the violent torture and rape of homosexuals is incredibly high among liberals. By your standards, that would show that "Republicans are largely proud of viewing homosexuals as less than human" is false.

What evidence do you have that the 'violent torture and rape' you indicate is specifically directed at the victim because of their homosexuality, and not because of any other reason at all? Are you arguing that a liberal is more likely to sexually assault a homosexual on principle? That's a rather amazing claim to make. Didn't you just lecture me about making unfounded statements?

Whether Republicans are largely proud of viewing homosexuals as less than human isn't equivalent to whether Republicans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Maybe Republicans actually support same-sex marriage (on principles of limited government), but viscerally hate homosexuals as being unnatural. Maybe Republicans oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds (on principles of theocratic government), but think that homosexuals are just as human as anyone else.

I absolutely refuse to accept any self-serving justification for the willful denial of equal rights to another human being on the basis of their sexuality. I consider that, unequivocally, to be contemptuous and wicked behavior one only practices against people they claim to be inferior human beings. It is irrelevant if the bigot denies his bigotry.

[CliveStaples]

That's really all you had to type to mirror my suggestion a conservative is more likely (by a factor of five times, as you have it) of making bad religious policy, as I believe that any policy which promotes religion in any way is bad policy, and a pool of conservatives is, again according to you, five times as likely to produce people to push for it as an equal number of liberals.

That was just an example. Are you really trying to extend the particular ratios I gave into the real world???

Of course not. You're free to dispute it. It is worth noting that you have not done so. Am I to assume tacit agreement, then?

I challenged your assertion. You refused to provide evidence. That's a tacit concession. I don't have to disprove unevidenced claims.

What is the objective number I have to provide?

You could figure it out from the central limit theorem. What is the size of the population that you're attempting to measure?

Yes, they did all crash and burn. That they all launched campaigns of many months, each earning millions of primary votes and millions of dollars, suggests quite well how Republicans reacted. It doesn't matter that these five lost. The guy who won is every bit as bad.

And that shows how people reacted specifically to the candidates' views on same-sex marriage?

Fair enough, it does not prove that particular point. Perhaps I would have better stated that Republicans are far more likely to be proud of etc. Which is every bit as important, really.

Do you mean that the likelihood that a person who thinks homosexuals are subhuman is more likely to be proud of it if he is conservative than if he is liberal?

What evidence do you have that the 'violent torture and rape' you indicate is specifically directed at the victim because of their homosexuality, and not because of any other reason at all?

I don't. It was a hypothetical counterexample. Just assume that the evidence exists.

Are you arguing that a liberal is more likely to sexually assault a homosexual on principle? That's a rather amazing claim to make. Didn't you just lecture me about making unfounded statements?

It wasn't a real-world example. It merely highlights that there are factors other than "support of same-sex marriage" for measuring whether a group considers homosexuals subhuman.

You understand what a hypothetical is, right? If I say, "Suppose that Barack Obama murdered someone, and you knew about it," your response shouldn't be, "OMG YOU ARE ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF MURDER YOU BETTER BACK THAT UP WITH EVIDENCE"

I absolutely refuse to accept any self-serving justification for the willful denial of equal rights to another human being on the basis of their sexuality. I consider that, unequivocally, to be contemptuous and wicked behavior one only practices against people they claim to be inferior human beings. It is irrelevant if the bigot denies his bigotry.

Pedophiles? Rapists?

What if someone isn't denying equal rights to another human being, but merely opposes same-sex marriage? You're assuming that same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights, but that's precisely one of the issues in contention.

[Cinjin]

When you find out that someone you admire and respect -- someone who is very intelligent and otherwise full of common sense -- believes in god, does your opinion of him/her take a nosedive?

You tell me:

Godschild, Undeceived, Waldorf, Catfish, Lucent, and a host of our other bible-fucker-godboy-suckers believe in "God"
however -
DeistPaladin and I believe in "god" ................... which group do you have less respect for???


If someone believes in something that you do not - that does not make them unworthy of respect. Being a bigoted, heartless, air-headed, close-minded, preachy, parasitic asshole on an internet forum however - does.

[Ryantology]

That was just an example. Are you really trying to extend the particular ratios I gave into the real world???

I am highlighting the absurdity of making arbitrary ratios to support an argument.

I challenged your assertion. You refused to provide evidence. That's a tacit concession. I don't have to disprove unevidenced claims.

Rather, you are unable dispute the veracity of the statement and have instead chosen to hide behind pedantry.

You could figure it out from the central limit theorem. What is the size of the population that you're attempting to measure?

The question was rhetorical. I am not going to provide hundreds or thousands of pieces of evidence. I can't convey to you how little your acceptance of my point means to me compared to the ridiculous efforts you are attempting to make me undergo in order to establish what is obvious to anyone with even a modicum of awareness regarding American politics today.

And that shows how people reacted specifically to the candidates' views on same-sex marriage?

It is a major issue in this election year. Supporting a candidate based on their same-sex marriage views amounts to acceptance of those views, or at the very least, a measure of apathy towards the equal rights of gay people.

Do you mean that the likelihood that a person who thinks homosexuals are subhuman is more likely to be proud of it if he is conservative than if he is liberal?

Almost certainly. A liberal who is proud of discrimination against gay people is not someone most other liberals are going to want as an associate. A conservative proud of this same assertion will find welcome and comfort much more readily.

It wasn't a real-world example. It merely highlights that there are factors other than "support of same-sex marriage" for measuring whether a group considers homosexuals subhuman.

I dispute that. There is no other reason which can exist. There are only self-serving justifications.

The only legitimate opposition to gay marriage which does not involve irrational bias against homosexuality would be a person who opposes the very institution of marriage.

You understand what a hypothetical is, right? If I say, "Suppose that Barack Obama murdered someone, and you knew about it," your response shouldn't be, "OMG YOU ARE ACCUSING THE PRESIDENT OF MURDER YOU BETTER BACK THAT UP WITH EVIDENCE"

I understand what a hypothetical is. I did not read it as hypothetical because it's so unusual to offer a hypothesis without a point. If you suppose the sky is green, then yes, my assertion that it is blue would be wrong. So what?

Pedophiles? Rapists?

Both involve non-consenting parties, so no.

What if someone isn't denying equal rights to another human being, but merely opposes same-sex marriage? You're assuming that same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights, but that's precisely one of the issues in contention.

I do not recognize the opposition as valid. Opposing same-sex marriage is opposing equal rights for same-sex couples. As I've stated repeatedly, I care nothing for the justifications of those who oppose it, because the opposition, whatever the reason, comes from a seed of perceived superiority. I have no doubt that, for most people who are in opposition, the seed of that perceived superiority is religion.

[Skepsis]

You use the same uncritical, circle-jerk rhetoric as everyone else here, who already knows in their heart that Christians and conservatives are stupid/evil/heartless/hateful/etc.

*Sigh
Why do you think I used all the conditional statements? Was I trying to pass what I said off as cold, hard, irrefutable fact?
No. If you think I was then you weren't using that wonderful brain of yours. Those were my observations of the world I live in.
I know from repeated exposure in reality and over other mediums that Christians tend towards being ignorant sheep willing to believe what they are told to believe; more often than not, this leads them to be stupid and hateful. Experience proves this.

Badmouth gays? Can you get me a video?

If I told you that Fox had on Republican presidential candidates on for the stretch of the primaries to ask among other things why they didn't support gay marriage, would that suffice? I won't be bothered looking things up, I just don't feel inclined to do so for something hat wasn't stated as fact.

Oh, well, if there's one organization that's Christian and largely republican that condemns gays and all that they stand for--and I'm guessing you're just blanking on the name right now--then of course most Republicans condemn gays and all that they stand for.

Well shit, I guess I'll have to go look for the organization... I'll get to it.
Anyhoo, you understand evidence, right? For example, if you give three pieces of evidence that you feel support a claim and an opposing PoV takes one piece and asserts that you meant this to be the only evidence, you can see how this is dishonest, right?

I guess we're just taking as read that opposing same-sex marriage means you hate homosexuals, yes? One more of those special kinds of claims that don't require you to give evidence?

Labeling and defending same-sex marriage as abominable and wrong may as well be hatred. It treats people whose only crime is private bedroom habits like criminals.

And what's wrong with calling people Communists? Should that be punished? Are they wrong to call people Communists, or does that not even matter?

I mainly included it to show how crazy the far right can be, but since you asked calling people Communists has had and will continue to have a negative effect on those accused. It isn't the truth of the claim but the claim itself that is immoral.

Yeah, if you're not thinking critically and already have your conclusion in mind, I'm guessing everything seems pretty obvious. You seem like a "seems pretty obvious"-level thinker.

And why the hell wouldn't I already have concluded this for myself? I'm not incapable of formulating my own logical pathways to reach a destination. This isn't something that even deserves to be debated.
I wouldn't say that ALL republicans are like this, as you repeatedly assert I must prove. Many, maybe most, but not all. From what I observe, Christians take their theology and apply it to politics, which translates roughly to Republicanism.

[The Grand Nudger]

What if someone isn't denying equal rights to another human being, but merely opposes same-sex marriage? You're assuming that same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights, but that's precisely one of the issues in contention.

If someone opposes same sex marriage they are denying equal rights to another human being. Bigots maintain that this issue is in contention. I am left utterly and completely unsurprised. What does surprise me, is that you would suggest this. That's gonna be a tough one to elaborate upon. If one person has a right and another does not, that's pretty cut and dry, don't you think?