I knew to stop listening when you said that evolution can't be proved scientifically. Why should I listen to what you (or any politician) have to say about politics when you don't even know the basics about science?
Religion and religious issues really have no bearing on libertarian ideology. It's a contradiction of terms, unless we're talking about a vote between which should be taught in public schools. The libertarian vote would be; why do we need public schools?
Since you don't seem to understand in even the remotest fashion what libertarianism is all about, I apologize for the ineffective communication. I understand what you're talking about, but I do not understand how you can relate it to libertarianism, in any way. I mean, unless you are implying that the exercise of synthesis, the basis of the idea of social evolutionary, is opposed to libertarianism. I would agree with that. But evolution in science is a different item altogether.
What I said was relating only to the use of the term 'evolutionist' and had nothing to do with the rest of the video. I don't see how you managed to stretch my one sentence that didn't mention libertarianism into me being ignorant of libertarianism.
Personally whether someone believes in a god or whatever, only sways my vote in a small set of circumstances. By that I mean if a candidate has and will try to force their beliefs whatever they are into any form of law.
Voting for someone solely due to if they are theist or atheist rather than what they have accomplished, their experience, or knowledge of our constitution, can place us in a bad situation. Libertarians want someone who will try to restore our republic regardless of their faith.
A creationist is generally a "hard core" christian, who may want laws based on religion (see the middle east). Thus infringing individual liberties.
But if *either* candidates are basing their political decisions on how they believe the human race came about then something is wrong. Decisions should only be based on empathy, morals etc. Hardliners in either direction will infringe other people's rights. People in politics should be those that can consider and respect all views.
I think Spike lost track of what this was all about actually. As I understand Biggs agrument, would you rather have someone with a strong moral base (however he attains that) represent you in goverment, or someone who believes you are completely disposable "for the greater good". I know what I'd rather have.
I would consider myself a libertarian and I am very anti-creationist. Saying that evolution makes politicians frown upon individual freedoms is like saying believing in gravity will make politicians frown upon airplanes
Also you sound moronic when you say "evolutionism". Its not a word
So do you agree with spikesmith when he says that if someone is "empirically incorrect" he should be told what to do by politicians? Remember both he and I were talking about economic policy at the time, and economics, as a social science, is almost impossible to use to prove somebody empirically incorrect.
Wow, look. Idiots have invaded your comments section. These guys didn't actually watch your video, did they, Biggs? Hey, guys, Go Troll Somewhere Else! (And if you must troll, do it with your own words instead of parroting your mind-master guru, Mr. Smith).
I have never found the words inailienable rights anywhere in the bible. The early christians lived communaly as well, let's not forget that... diving goods, not caring for wealth and property, etc etc etc...
Besides, accepting the scientific evidence for evolution has nothing to do with my philosophical and political positions. Nature has viruses, and bacteria that threaten me, the fact that i acknowledge that they exist and are "natural" does not mean I would not pursue "unnatural" means of ridding myself of them, such as modern medicine.
Likewise, looking at the evolutionary history of mankind I can see we have a tendancy towards nationalism and totalitarianism. Nationalism, tribalism, totalitarianism, and all sorts of divisive "isms" are a product of our evolutionary history, that is true, and it means nothing, because just like illnesses, they may be "natural" but to any rational person, they are still something to put effort into ridding oneself of, wether you accept evolution or not.
Unfortunately, you seem to have a tendancy to take things too literally, just like the people you support in this video. No, I was not looking for the declaration of independance in the bible, just in case i really need to make it clear here.
Another thing you seem to share with them is the tendancy to ignore every other point made by the person who disagrees with you, and focus on ridiculing a casual and slightly sarcastic opening remark.
If you start with such a stupid opening remark, do not expect me to read much further.
You have a good point about various "isms" being a natural development that does not make them moral. Unfortunately, your theory of the origin of life doesn't exactly give anybody good reason to have morals, but I'm glad you have them anyway. I coined "evolutionism" because I wanted to talk about what Darwin's basic idea would look like as a political philosohpy; hence; "ism". I did this on purpose.
"I coined "evolutionism" because I wanted to talk about what Darwin's basic idea would look like as a political philosohpy"
Darwin's theory applied to political philosophy is called social darwinism by academics. Evolutionism is a smear term used by creationists to jam-pack Darwin,Hitler, Stalin, Lysenko, Lenin and what have you into a single nonsensical package. So I would seriously advise against using it in that sense, for credibility purpouses.
"your theory of the origin of life doesn't exactly give anybody good reason to have morals, but I'm glad you have them"
That's because I have better sense than to base my morals on science, even though I accept the magesterium of science where it actually has it. Science has no magesterium over morals, but it does over natural history.
Your objection might make better sense if raised against atheist materialism, but I still would object to divine command theory as a source for morals because to accept divine command theory as a source for morals is to accept totalitarianism in principle if not in practice. After all, wasn't it creationist thinking that gave us such concepts as "the divine right of kings"? Sovereignty must flow from the citizens, not some outside ethereal source, either natural (state) or supernatural (god).
Divine right of kings was a usurpation of the popular thinking of the time for use by monarchs who already had accumulated political power. This is the equivalent to the USSR teaching a modified view of history that supports their idea of universal Communist revolution. They could do this because they had guns. It is not the case that the idea of Creationism would naturally lead to this, but that the objective fact of political force can justify itself in any given belief framework.
Creationism has the same relationshipp to the Divine Right of Kings as evolution has to social darwinism. In other words, it doesn't necessarily lead directly to DRoK but it is a necessary element. But that alone is not enough to morally convict creationism, and vice versa aplies to darwinian evolution.
Creationism has the same relationshipp to the Divine Right of Kings as evolution has to social darwinism. In other words, it doesn't necessarily lead directly to DRoK but it is a necessary element. But that alone is not enough to morally convict creationism, and vice versa aplies to darwinian evolution.
If your origin myth or theory has a political outcome that logically militates against accepted morality, you have to either give up morality, give up the myth or theory, or accept a certain logical inconsistency in worldview. I don't particularly care what you believe, or what inconsistency you accept, but I find it interesting to analyze the outcome of a given origin theory in political practice.
Social Darwinism is a philosophical idea, not a political philosophy. I am discussing the political result of large numbers of people basing their concept of life on this Earth on the theory of evolution as an origin myth or theory. Social Darwinism on the other hand, is the application of Darwinian principles to society, using a flawed comparison between genetic variance and your fellow people.
Creationism is religion and it is the law that religion stays out of the classroom.
You used fallacy after fallacy, but try to cover up by looking neat and honeyed lies, but we see through you bullshit. You should be ashamed.
Btw, Evolutionism is not a word, it is a creationist term to make evolution seem religious, which is it not. Do you use Gravitationism? No, so shut up.
nazi germany? really? your going with nazi germany? GET THIS: there isnt such thing as evolutionism no more than there is gravitationism, it isnt a set of rules we act by!!! we dont kill our weak to help evolution happen it is a natural process and not a ideology your presenting it to be! your stupidity hurts my head!
the fact is that evolution isnt a mindset like creatonism is. just ´cause I accept evolution by efficient evidence doesnt mean that I accept the survival of the fittest as moral principle or that I by any action try to bring forth change by evolutionar standards. to accept creatonism you have to deny scientific facts and accept "facts" without efficient evidence. creatonism is merely an idea and evolution is a scientific theory. just´cause you say evolution cant be proven doesnt make it so.
"(Evolutionists) thought they were hastening the natural evolutionary process by eliminating "inferior" variants."
These Darwinst ideas gave birth to the inhumane "science" known as Eugenics (e.g. Tuskegee Experiment, forced sterilization).
They produced Planned Parenthood, which was devised to convince blacks and other "inferior" classes to murder their own children (read "Killer Angel").
These were Darwin's express wishes. Darwin's book "The Descent of Man" inspired "Mein Kampf".
Oh, stop it. creationists endorsed slavery and genocide and had long winded debates about whether "negros" were properly regarded as part of the animal kingdom, OR could be conisdered some kind of highly inferior human BUT with NO soul, eg Archbishop of Canterburry Lord Wilmstedt 1605 wrote the negro is "a soul-less animal with a curious ability to mimic simple human action, such as basic speech. One is both amused and disturbed to see beasts so close to man, yet eternally separated from it."
It was evolutionists who referred to negroes as an inferior race (and compared them to apes). It was evolutionists who popularized abortion for negroes in hopes that negroes would eradicate themselves.
wouldn't an evolutionit say that the branches of human races represent the human being's genetic advantage to adapt and spread the genes into it's own genome by choice rather than by chance, and as such it represents a evolutionary tool that aids humanity in dominance?
I'm not quite sure you can claim the nazi's where following evolutionary theory. Wouldn't it be a valud arguement to say that they where in fact acting against evolutionary drives, since they were cutting percetnage of mutations
Well, if you think like a scientist, you are right in a way, but if you think like an animal, then no. The two "phases" of evolutionary advancement are thought to be the spread of a lot of mutations, and then the domination of the species by a mutation carrying a superior trait. It would be a disadvantage to mammal kind for examples that can mix with them but have no eyes to still be around. So, they thought they were hastening the natural evolutionary process by eliminating "inferior" variants.
I have read humanistic authors extensively. I think I have a fairly good handle on it. As for your comment; how about elaborating just a tad. Why do you think I don't?
besides your uh..timetable having fundamental flaws, i think i catch your drift. untestable? all you have to do is look in the ground or through a microscope, or compare genome sequences or compare fora and fauna of a chain of islands etc. there are many tests coming out each year. it's called science.
Data only has meaning when it is given a narrative by the experimenter's assumptions (ass-u-me).
When atheistic scientists combine scientific data with their unscientific assumptions they produce false conclusions. Yet it is the nature of logic that if they do not check their premises, they will never understand how their conclusions can be false. Faulty premises can produce valid conclusions that are still false conclusions.
i am merely pointing out that science is the act of testing to create data, unlike faith which by it's very nature is untestable. if it was testable it would not be faith. they are both useful tools that produce results, however limited. anyway, who said anything about atheists? they are just another bunch of people who make definitive statements about reality which they can never ultimately verify. it takes more faith than i have to be an atheist.
Prophecy and revelation provide the faithful with axioms that can then be tested as counterpoints to the theories of materialistic science. Recent scientific research has shown that the words of revelation are indeed testable and may in fact be correct.
It is the evolutionists who have taken the position of censoring scientific research and the transmission of scientific knowledge into the classroom. In order to maintain the dominance of Darwin in the public, they declare dissent impermissible
FUNNY convoluted logic presented, when 'creationists' are invariably control freaks who want to enforce their narrow minded views (i.e. anti-abortion, forced school prayer, outlawing strip clubs etc.) on everyone else, the EXACT SAME MINDSET as the Taliban who want to impose their Sharia law on everyone else too. RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM OF ANY BRAND IS COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH LIBERTARIANISM.
Ah, another ALL CAPS USER. Yes, that will make people agree with you.
The controls enacted by creationist politicians in areas like television programming are inconsequential compared to things like the fairness doctrine and hate crimes legislation in stoppering free speech. Strip clubs are opposed by plenty of atheist and agnostic politicians as a public nuisance ...
... the Sharia is an alien law system inherently hostile to our own rule of law based on a concept of equality that derived from Judaic and Christian ideas, and you really need to define what you mean by "right wing religous fundamentalism" and also provide some modicum of support for your assertion. In other words; why is this undefined thing "incompatible with libertarianism"?
Finally; I seriously doubt you even know what the principles of Libertarianism are if you define yourself inversely to the GOP. You are far more likely to be a Democrat and your other comment demonstrates this type of outlook.
It's amusing. The relevance of this video is aimed primarily at the American government, yet the two greatest antagonists in the discussion are from Australia and the Netherlands. What's the matter guys, is your government not interesting enough for you?
anyway evolution makes NO STATEMENTS on the state how ever begin a creationist points out your inability to look at reality and understand this reality.
you also forget to say evolution is support by mountains up on mountains of evidence where creationism is support by faith alone.
i consider creationism on the same level as i consider living in the matrix yes i can not disprove your idea but its stupid and/or useless
Did you watch the video? Your comment has nothing to do with it. I am not arguing the relative merits of creationism and evolution. I am pointing out the philosophical outcome of these two belief systems in politics.
The fact is, more than half the World's population believes in a creator God. Whether you agree with them or not, it is worth thinking about the outcome of that ideology in general.
I like how he just skipped over the mass extinction that killed off the dinosaurs because he didn't "want to get into it", then harps on about how mammals beat dinosaurs by working in groups.
Oh, lets not forget the implication that if "evolutionists" disagree with him, they're being dishonest.
And I still fail to see how believing a magical being created everything, as opposed to accepting observed reality, somehow makes someone a more favorable political candidate for a Libertarian.
FYI for the uninformed; There is currently a big argument amongst paleontologists about whether or not a big asteroid killed the dinosaurs off, whether there were successive, multiple killings off, or whether it was something entirely different like a virus. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, nor the debate between evolution and creationism, so I did not go into it.
All paleontologists generally agree that it was social organization that led to the supremacy of mammals, however.
"There is currently a big argument amongst paleontologists about whether or not a big asteroid killed the dinosaurs off, whether there were successive, multiple killings off, or whether it was something entirely different like a virus."
- You'll find it hard to find 1 that says it was mammalian team work that did it, which is what you hinted at in the video.
"All paleontologists generally agree that it was social organization that led to the supremacy of mammals, however."
Evolutionism? Are you fucking serious?
shadoeatheist 2 years ago
I knew to stop listening when you said that evolution can't be proved scientifically. Why should I listen to what you (or any politician) have to say about politics when you don't even know the basics about science?
jablair51 2 years ago
I knew to stop reading when you said you stopped listening.
Why should I listen to what you write if you are closed to rational discussion?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
its been a long time since i have heard something as shockingly ignorant as this video
1. darwin is not on your side on this one
2. YOU are the one denying the emergent nature of order. libertarianism recognizes the emergent order that results from free human interaction
3. the neo-liberal/collectivist ideology is entrenched in the pursuit of the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of soiety.
4. saying that evolution cannot be proved scientifically demonstrates a misunderstanding of science and its application.
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Religion and religious issues really have no bearing on libertarian ideology. It's a contradiction of terms, unless we're talking about a vote between which should be taught in public schools. The libertarian vote would be; why do we need public schools?
intricatic 2 years ago
Since you didn't understand in even the remotest fashion what I was trying to convey, I apologize for the ineffective communication.
In any case, there is no point in trying to argue, since you do not seem to be speaking about anything related to the point of my video.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
If I'm an 'evolutionist', should I also be called a 'gravityist'?
anavarre 2 years ago
Since you don't seem to understand in even the remotest fashion what libertarianism is all about, I apologize for the ineffective communication. I understand what you're talking about, but I do not understand how you can relate it to libertarianism, in any way. I mean, unless you are implying that the exercise of synthesis, the basis of the idea of social evolutionary, is opposed to libertarianism. I would agree with that. But evolution in science is a different item altogether.
intricatic 2 years ago
What I said was relating only to the use of the term 'evolutionist' and had nothing to do with the rest of the video. I don't see how you managed to stretch my one sentence that didn't mention libertarianism into me being ignorant of libertarianism.
anavarre 2 years ago
Personally whether someone believes in a god or whatever, only sways my vote in a small set of circumstances. By that I mean if a candidate has and will try to force their beliefs whatever they are into any form of law.
Voting for someone solely due to if they are theist or atheist rather than what they have accomplished, their experience, or knowledge of our constitution, can place us in a bad situation. Libertarians want someone who will try to restore our republic regardless of their faith.
krayzewolf 2 years ago
A creationist is generally a "hard core" christian, who may want laws based on religion (see the middle east). Thus infringing individual liberties.
But if *either* candidates are basing their political decisions on how they believe the human race came about then something is wrong. Decisions should only be based on empathy, morals etc. Hardliners in either direction will infringe other people's rights. People in politics should be those that can consider and respect all views.
stroomkrooma 2 years ago
I think Spike lost track of what this was all about actually. As I understand Biggs agrument, would you rather have someone with a strong moral base (however he attains that) represent you in goverment, or someone who believes you are completely disposable "for the greater good". I know what I'd rather have.
Patientlady 2 years ago 5
I would consider myself a libertarian and I am very anti-creationist. Saying that evolution makes politicians frown upon individual freedoms is like saying believing in gravity will make politicians frown upon airplanes
Also you sound moronic when you say "evolutionism". Its not a word
LucasTheAtheist 2 years ago
So do you agree with spikesmith when he says that if someone is "empirically incorrect" he should be told what to do by politicians? Remember both he and I were talking about economic policy at the time, and economics, as a social science, is almost impossible to use to prove somebody empirically incorrect.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Wow, look. Idiots have invaded your comments section. These guys didn't actually watch your video, did they, Biggs? Hey, guys, Go Troll Somewhere Else! (And if you must troll, do it with your own words instead of parroting your mind-master guru, Mr. Smith).
fadewalker 2 years ago
lol Powerfail.
comamaos 2 years ago
I have never found the words inailienable rights anywhere in the bible. The early christians lived communaly as well, let's not forget that... diving goods, not caring for wealth and property, etc etc etc...
danytibi 2 years ago
Besides, accepting the scientific evidence for evolution has nothing to do with my philosophical and political positions. Nature has viruses, and bacteria that threaten me, the fact that i acknowledge that they exist and are "natural" does not mean I would not pursue "unnatural" means of ridding myself of them, such as modern medicine.
danytibi 2 years ago
Likewise, looking at the evolutionary history of mankind I can see we have a tendancy towards nationalism and totalitarianism. Nationalism, tribalism, totalitarianism, and all sorts of divisive "isms" are a product of our evolutionary history, that is true, and it means nothing, because just like illnesses, they may be "natural" but to any rational person, they are still something to put effort into ridding oneself of, wether you accept evolution or not.
danytibi 2 years ago
So... you never managed to find the Declaration of Independence in the Bible huh? Wow, that's a shocker... I was sure it was in there somewhere.
Did you ever go to high school? If so, did they teach civics?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Unfortunately, you seem to have a tendancy to take things too literally, just like the people you support in this video. No, I was not looking for the declaration of independance in the bible, just in case i really need to make it clear here.
Another thing you seem to share with them is the tendancy to ignore every other point made by the person who disagrees with you, and focus on ridiculing a casual and slightly sarcastic opening remark.
danytibi 2 years ago
If you start with such a stupid opening remark, do not expect me to read much further.
You have a good point about various "isms" being a natural development that does not make them moral. Unfortunately, your theory of the origin of life doesn't exactly give anybody good reason to have morals, but I'm glad you have them anyway. I coined "evolutionism" because I wanted to talk about what Darwin's basic idea would look like as a political philosohpy; hence; "ism". I did this on purpose.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
"I coined "evolutionism" because I wanted to talk about what Darwin's basic idea would look like as a political philosohpy"
Darwin's theory applied to political philosophy is called social darwinism by academics. Evolutionism is a smear term used by creationists to jam-pack Darwin,Hitler, Stalin, Lysenko, Lenin and what have you into a single nonsensical package. So I would seriously advise against using it in that sense, for credibility purpouses.
danytibi 2 years ago
"your theory of the origin of life doesn't exactly give anybody good reason to have morals, but I'm glad you have them"
That's because I have better sense than to base my morals on science, even though I accept the magesterium of science where it actually has it. Science has no magesterium over morals, but it does over natural history.
danytibi 2 years ago
Your objection might make better sense if raised against atheist materialism, but I still would object to divine command theory as a source for morals because to accept divine command theory as a source for morals is to accept totalitarianism in principle if not in practice. After all, wasn't it creationist thinking that gave us such concepts as "the divine right of kings"? Sovereignty must flow from the citizens, not some outside ethereal source, either natural (state) or supernatural (god).
danytibi 2 years ago
Divine right of kings was a usurpation of the popular thinking of the time for use by monarchs who already had accumulated political power. This is the equivalent to the USSR teaching a modified view of history that supports their idea of universal Communist revolution. They could do this because they had guns. It is not the case that the idea of Creationism would naturally lead to this, but that the objective fact of political force can justify itself in any given belief framework.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Creationism has the same relationshipp to the Divine Right of Kings as evolution has to social darwinism. In other words, it doesn't necessarily lead directly to DRoK but it is a necessary element. But that alone is not enough to morally convict creationism, and vice versa aplies to darwinian evolution.
danytibi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Creationism has the same relationshipp to the Divine Right of Kings as evolution has to social darwinism. In other words, it doesn't necessarily lead directly to DRoK but it is a necessary element. But that alone is not enough to morally convict creationism, and vice versa aplies to darwinian evolution.
danytibi 2 years ago
Fine, I'm glad for you.
If your origin myth or theory has a political outcome that logically militates against accepted morality, you have to either give up morality, give up the myth or theory, or accept a certain logical inconsistency in worldview. I don't particularly care what you believe, or what inconsistency you accept, but I find it interesting to analyze the outcome of a given origin theory in political practice.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Social Darwinism is a philosophical idea, not a political philosophy. I am discussing the political result of large numbers of people basing their concept of life on this Earth on the theory of evolution as an origin myth or theory. Social Darwinism on the other hand, is the application of Darwinian principles to society, using a flawed comparison between genetic variance and your fellow people.
Political science is not philosophy in a vacuum.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
EPIC FAIL
What a load of crap.
Creationism is religion and it is the law that religion stays out of the classroom.
You used fallacy after fallacy, but try to cover up by looking neat and honeyed lies, but we see through you bullshit. You should be ashamed.
Btw, Evolutionism is not a word, it is a creationist term to make evolution seem religious, which is it not. Do you use Gravitationism? No, so shut up.
Again you fail.
hail Science.
Feredir28 2 years ago
nazi germany? really? your going with nazi germany? GET THIS: there isnt such thing as evolutionism no more than there is gravitationism, it isnt a set of rules we act by!!! we dont kill our weak to help evolution happen it is a natural process and not a ideology your presenting it to be! your stupidity hurts my head!
TuplaPekka 2 years ago
the fact is that evolution isnt a mindset like creatonism is. just ´cause I accept evolution by efficient evidence doesnt mean that I accept the survival of the fittest as moral principle or that I by any action try to bring forth change by evolutionar standards. to accept creatonism you have to deny scientific facts and accept "facts" without efficient evidence. creatonism is merely an idea and evolution is a scientific theory. just´cause you say evolution cant be proven doesnt make it so.
TuplaPekka 2 years ago
"(Evolutionists) thought they were hastening the natural evolutionary process by eliminating "inferior" variants."
These Darwinst ideas gave birth to the inhumane "science" known as Eugenics (e.g. Tuskegee Experiment, forced sterilization).
They produced Planned Parenthood, which was devised to convince blacks and other "inferior" classes to murder their own children (read "Killer Angel").
These were Darwin's express wishes. Darwin's book "The Descent of Man" inspired "Mein Kampf".
herbs814 2 years ago
Oh, stop it. creationists endorsed slavery and genocide and had long winded debates about whether "negros" were properly regarded as part of the animal kingdom, OR could be conisdered some kind of highly inferior human BUT with NO soul, eg Archbishop of Canterburry Lord Wilmstedt 1605 wrote the negro is "a soul-less animal with a curious ability to mimic simple human action, such as basic speech. One is both amused and disturbed to see beasts so close to man, yet eternally separated from it."
forestskog 2 years ago 3
It was evolutionists who referred to negroes as an inferior race (and compared them to apes). It was evolutionists who popularized abortion for negroes in hopes that negroes would eradicate themselves.
herbs814 2 years ago
Um, humans are apes. And no it was not evolutionist who did that, evolution proves that no race is inferior as we are all the SAME RACE.
mecher3k 2 years ago 5
wouldn't an evolutionit say that the branches of human races represent the human being's genetic advantage to adapt and spread the genes into it's own genome by choice rather than by chance, and as such it represents a evolutionary tool that aids humanity in dominance?
I'm not quite sure you can claim the nazi's where following evolutionary theory. Wouldn't it be a valud arguement to say that they where in fact acting against evolutionary drives, since they were cutting percetnage of mutations
Funkyirishjew 2 years ago
Well, if you think like a scientist, you are right in a way, but if you think like an animal, then no. The two "phases" of evolutionary advancement are thought to be the spread of a lot of mutations, and then the domination of the species by a mutation carrying a superior trait. It would be a disadvantage to mammal kind for examples that can mix with them but have no eyes to still be around. So, they thought they were hastening the natural evolutionary process by eliminating "inferior" variants.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
You really just do not understand humanism, do you?
crosswalkernie 2 years ago
I have read humanistic authors extensively. I think I have a fairly good handle on it. As for your comment; how about elaborating just a tad. Why do you think I don't?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
LIBERTARIAN SCIENCE: "leave me alone and don't impose untestable assumptions on me!".
carazyc 2 years ago 2
Untestable assumptions like
man evolving from monkeys,
monkeys evolving from fish,
fish evolving from bacteria,
bacteria evolving from cosmic dust,
cosmic dust appearing Ex Nihilo.
herbs814 2 years ago
besides your uh..timetable having fundamental flaws, i think i catch your drift. untestable? all you have to do is look in the ground or through a microscope, or compare genome sequences or compare fora and fauna of a chain of islands etc. there are many tests coming out each year. it's called science.
carazyc 2 years ago 2
These scientific tests only produce Data.
Data only has meaning when it is given a narrative by the experimenter's assumptions (ass-u-me).
When atheistic scientists combine scientific data with their unscientific assumptions they produce false conclusions. Yet it is the nature of logic that if they do not check their premises, they will never understand how their conclusions can be false. Faulty premises can produce valid conclusions that are still false conclusions.
Check your premises.
herbs814 2 years ago
i am merely pointing out that science is the act of testing to create data, unlike faith which by it's very nature is untestable. if it was testable it would not be faith. they are both useful tools that produce results, however limited. anyway, who said anything about atheists? they are just another bunch of people who make definitive statements about reality which they can never ultimately verify. it takes more faith than i have to be an atheist.
carazyc 2 years ago 2
Prophecy and revelation provide the faithful with axioms that can then be tested as counterpoints to the theories of materialistic science. Recent scientific research has shown that the words of revelation are indeed testable and may in fact be correct.
It is the evolutionists who have taken the position of censoring scientific research and the transmission of scientific knowledge into the classroom. In order to maintain the dominance of Darwin in the public, they declare dissent impermissible
herbs814 2 years ago
inkblots.
carazyc 2 years ago
No prophecy or revelation has ever been proven, most have actually been proven wrong.
And its the evolutionists who censor scientific research? Yea ok.
mecher3k 2 years ago 2
FUNNY convoluted logic presented, when 'creationists' are invariably control freaks who want to enforce their narrow minded views (i.e. anti-abortion, forced school prayer, outlawing strip clubs etc.) on everyone else, the EXACT SAME MINDSET as the Taliban who want to impose their Sharia law on everyone else too. RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM OF ANY BRAND IS COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH LIBERTARIANISM.
DeathToTheGOP 2 years ago
Ah, another ALL CAPS USER. Yes, that will make people agree with you.
The controls enacted by creationist politicians in areas like television programming are inconsequential compared to things like the fairness doctrine and hate crimes legislation in stoppering free speech. Strip clubs are opposed by plenty of atheist and agnostic politicians as a public nuisance ...
BiggsReport 2 years ago
... the Sharia is an alien law system inherently hostile to our own rule of law based on a concept of equality that derived from Judaic and Christian ideas, and you really need to define what you mean by "right wing religous fundamentalism" and also provide some modicum of support for your assertion. In other words; why is this undefined thing "incompatible with libertarianism"?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Finally; I seriously doubt you even know what the principles of Libertarianism are if you define yourself inversely to the GOP. You are far more likely to be a Democrat and your other comment demonstrates this type of outlook.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
It's amusing. The relevance of this video is aimed primarily at the American government, yet the two greatest antagonists in the discussion are from Australia and the Netherlands. What's the matter guys, is your government not interesting enough for you?
USN1985 2 years ago
godwin's law so i have already WON.
anyway evolution makes NO STATEMENTS on the state how ever begin a creationist points out your inability to look at reality and understand this reality.
you also forget to say evolution is support by mountains up on mountains of evidence where creationism is support by faith alone.
i consider creationism on the same level as i consider living in the matrix yes i can not disprove your idea but its stupid and/or useless
pagangeek 2 years ago
Did you watch the video? Your comment has nothing to do with it. I am not arguing the relative merits of creationism and evolution. I am pointing out the philosophical outcome of these two belief systems in politics.
The fact is, more than half the World's population believes in a creator God. Whether you agree with them or not, it is worth thinking about the outcome of that ideology in general.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
this is exactly the dishonesty I'm talking about also evolution is not a attack on your creator god and has no philosophical outcome.
the fact that creationism has no real world application means that voting for a politician like that, means voting against REASON itself.
the inability to understand evidence is not a compelling argument to vote for somebody.
again politics is a game of looking how is right.
who can understand evidence and make the right call.
pagangeek 2 years ago
I like how he just skipped over the mass extinction that killed off the dinosaurs because he didn't "want to get into it", then harps on about how mammals beat dinosaurs by working in groups.
Oh, lets not forget the implication that if "evolutionists" disagree with him, they're being dishonest.
And I still fail to see how believing a magical being created everything, as opposed to accepting observed reality, somehow makes someone a more favorable political candidate for a Libertarian.
Atriviality 2 years ago
FYI for the uninformed; There is currently a big argument amongst paleontologists about whether or not a big asteroid killed the dinosaurs off, whether there were successive, multiple killings off, or whether it was something entirely different like a virus. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, nor the debate between evolution and creationism, so I did not go into it.
All paleontologists generally agree that it was social organization that led to the supremacy of mammals, however.
BiggsReport 2 years ago
"There is currently a big argument amongst paleontologists about whether or not a big asteroid killed the dinosaurs off, whether there were successive, multiple killings off, or whether it was something entirely different like a virus."
- You'll find it hard to find 1 that says it was mammalian team work that did it, which is what you hinted at in the video.
"All paleontologists generally agree that it was social organization that led to the supremacy of mammals, however."
- Citation required.
Atriviality 2 years ago
Too bad you are too uncreative to do it yourself huh, bubba?
BiggsReport 2 years ago
Someone make a remake of this guys video with a laugh track.
LittleTruckingBozo 2 years ago
Comment removed
USN1985 2 years ago
"LittleTruckingBozo"
What a fitting username.
USN1985 2 years ago
"Someone make a remake of this guys video with a laugh track."
- The sad thing is LTB, I think he's serious.
Atriviality 2 years ago