House Science Member Says Earth is 9,000 years old by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie - you're too stupid to even try discuss this with. Your sole intent is to play the role of contrarian, at all costs.

You want to play stupid, and troll for sport, then by all means, have at it. It's clear that is all you're mentally capable of doing anyways.

"Ahh yes, the standard unnecessary insult. Well played."

Now who posted that? Hmmmmm...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
No can do, him being dead and corpsified and all.

Sorry to hear that. I figured maybe he was one of us lackeys of the running dog imperialists who went to Viet Nam to oppress the people there, and had told you about the unique experience of burning out shit-cans. Or an uncle perhaps? Pretty much any FNG at a smaller post got to do it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Fooling yourself into believing some horseshit data which falls in line with your beliefs is still a lie.

So pretty much any religious person is a liar? A lot of them believe what could be considered by a rational person as "horseshit" data.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:49 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So pretty much any religious person is a liar? A lot of them believe what could be considered by a rational person as "horseshit" data.

Not any religious person, but those that are educated enough to have earned degrees I think are.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:38 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So pretty much any religious person is a liar? A lot of them believe what could be considered by a rational person as "horseshit" data.

Not any religious person, but those that are educated enough to have earned degrees I think are.

So anyone who has a degree, and believes, for example, that Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into Heaven is a liar? I mean, it's right there documented in their holy book - the divinely inspired foundation of their belief.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Fooling yourself into believing some horseshit data which falls in line with your beliefs is still a lie.

So pretty much any religious person is a liar? A lot of them believe what could be considered by a rational person as "horseshit" data.

If someone really, really believes in Hitler and the genocide of the "evil Jews" - I mean, they REALLY believe it as fact, and have all sorts of "horseshit data" to back them up - are they lying? Are they wrong?

Does just believing a thing, even when that thing is untrue, unprovable, and unsupportable by scientific evidence, make it true?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So pretty much any religious person is a liar? A lot of them believe what could be considered by a rational person as "horseshit" data.

And you think you're an intelligent person?

A long time ago, I realized there was a problem with what the word "true" meant. Son, you have a lot of catching up to do.

"True" can mean many things, but primarily it has one of two main interpretations:

True- real, accurate, valid. In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true" Look up the meaning of the word- this is a first definition that comes up.

True- expressed without intent to deceive. This is at best a tertiary definition.

The opposite of "true #1" is "mistaken or invalid". The opposite of "true #2" is "a lie". One can be mistaken or invalid, a statement can be untrue without being a deliberate lie. Unfortunately, we use "lie" as an antonym for "true" but the two aren't exactly opposite meanings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If someone really, really believes in Hitler and the genocide of the "evil Jews" - I mean, they REALLY believe it as fact, and have all sorts of "horseshit data" to back them up - are they lying? Are they wrong?

Two different questions. But you know that.

ETA: You could also see SignyM's comment above, which covers 'wrong' vs. 'lying' pretty well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
One can be mistaken or invalid, a statement can be untrue without being a deliberate lie.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying.

Nickerson is the one deciding that if you make a mistaken or invalid conclusion based on what you consider good data, you are lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So pretty much any religious person is a liar? A lot of them believe what could be considered by a rational person as "horseshit" data.

Not any religious person, but those that are educated enough to have earned degrees I think are.

So anyone who has a degree, and believes, for example, that Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into Heaven is a liar? I mean, it's right there documented in their holy book - the divinely inspired foundation of their belief.

Are they "a liar"? Scientifically speaking, they are. They are believing in, and professing as true, things that they cannot support with evidence.

There's a divinely-inspired poem which goes like this:

"There's a lady who's sure
All that glitters is gold,
And she's buying
The stairway to Heaven."

Is that a true story? Is all that glitters really gold? Is there an actual physical stairway to heaven that one can buy and own? It's written down, and some people believe in it. Are you calling them liars? Do they believe in something that isn't real?

Is Star Wars real? If Jediism is recognized as a real religion (and it is), does that make the divinely-inspired movies factual documentaries? Are the followers following a lie? Are they perpetuating a lie if they try to spread their beliefs?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:22 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I have a problem with you determining that he is breaking his oath, and making himself liable to the penalties for doing so, for stating what he believes."

When he says he votes his religion into public policy, he's violating the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state. I've already posted this FACT, something you’ve failed to address.

"I also ask again how what he says is that much different from President Obama saying that his public service is a reflection of his Christian faith."

There's a difference between having your religion prompt you into the service of your fellow man, and using your position to impose your religion on others through the force of law. I'm surprised you didn't already know the difference.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are they "a liar"? Scientifically speaking, they are. They are believing in, and professing as true, things that they cannot support with evidence.

Not sure I, or SignyM, would agree with you on that.

Good old Webster's New World defines 'lie' as "1. a)To make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive. b) to make such statements habitually."

So someone who believes a statement is true cannot, by definition, be lying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I have a problem with you determining that he is breaking his oath, and making himself liable to the penalties for doing so, for stating what he believes."

When he says he votes his religion into public policy, he's violating the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state. I've already posted this FACT, something you’ve failed to address.

So would this apply to any Christian legislator who says he "votes his conscience", since his conscience will be based on religious teachings?

Quote:
"I also ask again how what he says is that much different from President Obama saying that his public service is a reflection of his Christian faith."

There's a difference between having your religion prompt you into the service of your fellow man, and using your position to impose your religion on others through the force of law.

So has Rep. Broun imposed his religion on others by force of law, or even tried to?

If you heard Mike the legislator get up in a mosque and say he thought Shaira law should be the law of the land, would you want him removed from office?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are they "a liar"? Scientifically speaking, they are. They are believing in, and professing as true, things that they cannot support with evidence.

Not sure I, or SignyM, would agree with you on that.

Good old Webster's New World defines 'lie' as "1. a)To make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive. b) to make such statements habitually."

So someone who believes a statement is true cannot, by definition, be lying.

So if someone believes you to be a dishonest fascist asshole, they would be correct in that belief? Is that what you're saying?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I have a problem with you determining that he is breaking his oath, and making himself liable to the penalties for doing so, for stating what he believes."

When he says he votes his religion into public policy, he's violating the constitutional requirement for separation of church and state. I've already posted this FACT, something you’ve failed to address.

So would this apply to any Christian legislator who says he "votes his conscience", since his conscience will be based on religious teachings?

Quote:
"I also ask again how what he says is that much different from President Obama saying that his public service is a reflection of his Christian faith."

There's a difference between having your religion prompt you into the service of your fellow man, and using your position to impose your religion on others through the force of law.

So has Rep. Broun imposed his religion on others by force of law, or even tried to?

If you heard Mike the legislator get up in a mosque and say he thought Shaira law should be the law of the land, would you want him removed from office?

And if I started actually voting it into the law of the land, would YOU want me removed from office?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are they "a liar"? Scientifically speaking, they are. They are believing in, and professing as true, things that they cannot support with evidence.

Not sure I, or SignyM, would agree with you on that.

Good old Webster's New World defines 'lie' as "1. a)To make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive. b) to make such statements habitually."

So someone who believes a statement is true cannot, by definition, be lying.

So if someone believes you to be a dishonest fascist asshole, they would be correct in that belief? Is that what you're saying?

No. Facts and belief are not the same thing. Lying only applies when someone knows better but professes otherwise. If someone doesn't know otherwise, professes otherwise, and lives so divorced from reality that they refuse to amend their opinions when presented with facts and come up with convoluted explanations to wave away the facts, they are believers, not liars. It is only their beliefs that are not factual, not that their character or person is disingenuous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:25 AM

So if someone says that they believe every bit of the bible, every word, as the literal word of god... What should they do if they believe god told them to kill their children?

They know it's wrong. But they BELIEVE it to be real and true.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are they "a liar"? Scientifically speaking, they are. They are believing in, and professing as true, things that they cannot support with evidence.

Not sure I, or SignyM, would agree with you on that.

Good old Webster's New World defines 'lie' as "1. a)To make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive. b) to make such statements habitually."

So someone who believes a statement is true cannot, by definition, be lying.

So if someone believes you to be a dishonest fascist asshole, they would be correct in that belief? Is that what you're saying?

No. Facts and belief are not the same thing. Lying only applies when someone knows better but professes otherwise. If someone doesn't know otherwise, professes otherwise, and lives so divorced from reality that they refuse to amend their opinions when presented with facts and come up with convoluted explanations to wave away the facts, they are believers, not liars. It is only their beliefs that are not factual, not that their character or person is disingenuous.

But if they really BELIEVE it to be true, and can't be convinced otherwise, then they aren't lying, are they?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So if someone says that they believe every bit of the bible, every word, as the literal word of god... What should they do if they believe god told them to kill their children?

They know it's wrong. But they BELIEVE it to be real and true.

That would be a good argument in the criminal proceedings for an insanity plea and a good stay in a mental institution.

Yet it still doesn't mean they are liars. Just murderers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:42 AM

A mental institution? Why? Are they delusional?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:01 AM

If they kill their children based on unfounded beliefs in violation of commonly understood social mores, then yes. But they still aren't liars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If they kill their children based on unfounded beliefs in violation of commonly understood social mores, then yes. But they still aren't liars.

And if they attempt to pass legislation based on the same beliefs, are they still delusional?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:10 AM

Quote:

And if they attempt to pass legislation based on the same beliefs, are they still delusional?

Yes. Unless they are faking belief to curry favour with voters.

Once they become politicians, you may start to question whether they're liars. :P

(Still think lies and delusions are mutually exclusive though. Though a person can be delusional about one thing, and a liar about another).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:34 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"So would this apply to any Christian legislator who says he "votes his conscience", since his conscience will be based on religious teachings?"

It depends on what his conscience prompts him to vote. But to paraphrase an old saying, you live like a christian, you govern like an atheist.

"So has Rep. Broun imposed his religion on others by force of law, or even tried to?"

He says he votes his religion into law. "And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that." Do you believe him?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:19 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I think he can say what he likes, but my issue is that he has been voted into the House of Reps? (Did I get that right?) and that he is sitting on a science committee. That is, he has some say on policy in this area? Crazy.

I remember we had some looney party running a candidate or two here who believed they could levitate through the power of meditation. Needless to say, they didn't win a seat.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I think he can say what he likes, but my issue is that he has been voted into the House of Reps? (Did I get that right?) and that he is sitting on a science committee. That is, he has some say on policy in this area? Crazy.

I remember we had some looney party running a candidate or two here who believed they could levitate through the power of meditation. Needless to say, they didn't win a seat.

Although if they could levitate, they didn't really need a seat - just the air above it would suffice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Ha true. They could just fly around the House.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:12 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So anyone who has a degree, and believes, for example, that Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into Heaven is a liar? I mean, it's right there documented in their holy book - the divinely inspired foundation of their belief.

No, unless you know about mounds of scientific evidence that proves Jesus did not.

See belief that Jesus rose from the dead is much like the belief in God. It is not really something that can be tested against. The age of the earth is. There are many theologians who think that the genesis story in the bible is not a literal story. Jesus and other profits often taught with parables, it would not be hard to believe Gob could not teach in a similar fashion.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:14 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So someone who believes a statement is true cannot, by definition, be lying.

Belief and knowledge are two different things.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
So would this apply to any Christian legislator who says he "votes his conscience", since his conscience will be based on religious teachings?

HUGE difference between voting one's conscience "based on religion" and stated intent to use the Bible as a "manufacturer's handbook"--which clearly implies it will have more force on his decisions than "man's laws". He said:

Quote:
...lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.... And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually, how to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all of public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.

The first is bad enough, to claim everything he was taught was done in order to keep people from knowing they need a savior...that's stating clearly that everyone of every religion should accept that they need a "savior". We claim to be a country of all religions; I don't need no stinking savior, so where does that leave me and those like me, or anyone whose religion doesn't include a savior?

But "how to run all of public policy and everything in society" IS clearly stating that he views the Bible as having more force on his decisions than the law of the land, and that is directly opposed to what representatives are elected to do. Voting one's conscience BASED ON religious teachings is not stating the intent to vote SPECIFICALLY according to the Bible, and it does go directly against the separation of church and state.

The oath taken by every Representative and Senator reads:

Quote:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.] Wiki

The Constitution clearly states separation of Church and State; ergo, it goes against that oath to put the Church above the Constitution. "True faith and allegiance" to the Constitution means the same. "Faithfully discharge the duties" means following the Constitution, not putting the teachings of the Bible ABOVE the laws in the Constitution.

It's pretty simple and pretty obvious, it seems to me. If they were elected to JUST represent those who believe the Bible is the "manufacturer's handbook" that would be one thing (but still go against the oath), but they are elected to represent ALL the people...supposedly anyway.

(And yes, you're correct Magons, he's a member of the House of Representatives...most unfortunately, in my opinion.)

As to "liar", in my opinion anyone who truly believes anything to be true cannot therefore be a liar; terribly wrongheaded, perhaps, indoctrinated, certainly when there's no proof to substantiate the belief, but you can't lie by stating what you actually believe (and yes, the question of what politicians actually believe is a valid one, as has been obvious this election season!).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 2:21 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So if someone believes you to be a dishonest fascist asshole, they would be correct in that belief? Is that what you're saying?

If someone really believed that, they wouldn't be lying, they'd just be wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 2:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And if I started actually voting it into the law of the land, would YOU want me removed from office?

Mike, If I found that you actually were in any elected political position, I would work to have you removed from office by your constituents at the polls.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 2:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"So would this apply to any Christian legislator who says he "votes his conscience", since his conscience will be based on religious teachings?"

It depends on what his conscience prompts him to vote.

So what's the test to indicate whether he voted his conscience in a religious way or not? or in the "right" way or not. Religious and non-religious people believe in a lot of the same moral and ethical things.

Quote:
"So has Rep. Broun imposed his religion on others by force of law, or even tried to?"

He says he votes his religion into law. "And that's the reason as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that." Do you believe him?

So if he voted for a law that is based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you'd have a problem with that, since it's in the Bible, but if an Atheist voted for the same law because he thought it was good ethics, you wouldn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 3:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
So would this apply to any Christian legislator who says he "votes his conscience", since his conscience will be based on religious teachings?
HUGE difference between voting one's conscience "based on religion" and stated intent to use the Bible as a "manufacturer's handbook"--which clearly implies it will have more force on his decisions than "man's laws".

So. Once again, any indication he has actually done this? Any indication that he wasn't saying, in effect, "I'm gonna vote my conscience based on what I believe from the Bible?"

If it had been a Liberal Democrat saying they were going to base their voting on their interpreatation of the Bible as the "manufacturers handbook" would you be so up in arms? There's lots of stuff in the Bible a liberal could get behind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 3:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So someone who believes a statement is true cannot, by definition, be lying.

Belief and knowledge are two different things.

But if you believe what you're saying, you can't be lying about it.

Then again, knowledge often changes as we learn more, because people believe there is more to learn.

Bet you could come up with a pretty good list of things that were labeled "Knowledge", or "True" that are now known to be incorrect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And if I started actually voting it into the law of the land, would YOU want me removed from office?

Mike, If I found that you actually were in any elected political position, I would work to have you removed from office by your constituents at the polls.

How? By posting videos or transcripts of things I've said?

Isn't that what's being done to Rep. Broun?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 15, 2012 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So if someone believes you to be a dishonest fascist asshole, they would be correct in that belief? Is that what you're saying?

If someone really believed that, they wouldn't be lying, they'd just be wrong.

What if they used that belief to guide them when writing, implementing, and interpreting laws, as their primary guide, above and before all others? If they stood up and said that the belief that Geezer is a dishonest, fascist asshole is their guiding force in life, and that anyone who says otherwise is spewing lies straight from the pit of hell.

Would you think such a person qualified to sit on a science and technology committee?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:14 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But if you believe what you're saying, you can't be lying about it.

Then again, knowledge often changes as we learn more, because people believe there is more to learn.

Bet you could come up with a pretty good list of things that were labeled "Knowledge", or "True" that are now known to be incorrect.

Just believing is not enough. The first person you have to lie to to believe something you know the facts say is not true is yourself.

Yes, knowledge does change. Even if in the future knowledge changes to match what a person is saying know, it would still have been a lie before hand.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:03 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And if I started actually voting it into the law of the land, would YOU want me removed from office?

Mike, If I found that you actually were in any elected political position, I would work to have you removed from office by your constituents at the polls.

How? By posting videos or transcripts of things I've said?

Isn't that what's being done to Rep. Broun?

Some folks are doing that, and I have no problems with it.

Some folks, like Kiki and Nickerson (and, I suspect, Niki), seem to think that Rep. Broun stating his beliefs makes him either a liar or a violator of his oath. That I have a problem with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Just believing is not enough. The first person you have to lie to to believe something you know the facts say is not true is yourself.

This assumes the person knows their belief isn't true in the first place. So did Pres. Obama have to lie to himself to be able to profess a belief in the Christian God?

Quote:
Yes, knowledge does change. Even if in the future knowledge changes to match what a person is saying know, it would still have been a lie before hand.

And what about old knowledge that has been disproved? Were the folks who believed, based on the best evidence at the time, in phlogiston theory or Lamarckian evolution liars? Was Newton lying about his corpuscular theory of light?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:46 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
If it had been a Liberal Democrat saying they were going to base their voting on their interpreatation (sic) of the Bible as the "manufacturers handbook" would you be so up in arms?

Hell yeah! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, no matter who does it.

As to his voting record, what he said in that speech sounds to me like a recent "revelation", especially given his history of science. We'll see how he votes in future, as far as that's concerned. It's not just "how" he votes I worry about, it's what he proposes as legislation. Oops, I see Mike covered that. I believe that is the pertinent issue in people's reactions to his statements.

Quote:
But if you believe what you're saying, you can't be lying about it.

With this I agree, as I stated previously.

Yes, I do believe that his statements that he is going to use the Bible, not the Constitution, to govern his actions is a violation of his oath; that seems to me to be clear because of the wording of the oath (as I posted it) and the conflict of his statements with that oath.

As to new knowledge coming to light, the problem with this guy is that he was trained in science, I would imagine his background was part of the reason he was put on the Science committee, and his "new" knowledge rejects all of that on some faith. He's entitled to go backwards if he wishes, but not to choose to reject science while serving on a committee about specifically that as a representative of his constituents.

I think you're flogging a dead horse, coming up with arguments that don't in my opinion hold water. Why you want to defend this idjit is your business, so I'll leave you to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:51 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Some folks, like Kiki and Nickerson (and, I suspect, Niki), seem to think that Rep. Broun stating his beliefs makes him either a liar or a violator of his oath. That I have a problem with.

I said before, him stating his beliefs is fine. He as an educated man stating that those beliefs are facts, which he did at one time in the video, means he is lying.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:17 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This assumes the person knows their belief isn't true in the first place. So did Pres. Obama have to lie to himself to be able to profess a belief in the Christian God?

Anyone that has studied enough science to become a physician knows that there is no evidence to support the biblical story of creation, and there is evidence that the story is not true. We know for a fact that the Earth is older than the Bible indicates.

The difference between that as anyone saying they believe in God, or even that God is real is that there is no evidence to the contrary. You can't prove, nor disprove the existence of God.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And what about old knowledge that has been disproved? Were the folks who believed, based on the best evidence at the time, in phlogiston theory or Lamarckian evolution liars? Was Newton lying about his corpuscular theory of light?

No.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
A warning to everyone, AURaptor is a known liar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:40 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"So what's the test to indicate whether he voted his conscience in a religious way or not?"

If he says he does it's a good indication he does. But you seem to think he's a liar since you don't credit what he says about himself as being true.

"So if he voted for a law that is based on "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", you'd have a problem with that, since it's in the Bible, but if an Atheist voted for the same law because he thought it was good ethics, you wouldn't.

I can't imagine a LAW being based on 'do unto others'. Laws tend to be very specific and action based, forbidding certain problematic behaviors that are disruptive to society. I can't imagine a law making it illegal to do to someone else what you think you wouldn't like done to you.

"Some folks, like Kiki and Nickerson (and, I suspect, Niki), seem to think that Rep. Broun stating his beliefs makes him either a liar or a violator of his oath. That I have a problem with."

Geezer, you are a fucking asshole. This is the LAST TIME out of more than half a dozen that I will address the same thing you keep FALSELY bringing up. After this all I will do is call you the fucking asshole you are.

Broun STATES that he VOTES HIS RELIGION INTO LAW. He states that the Bible SHOULD BE A BLUEPRINT FOR LAW. He could stand in the chambers and read the bible stating his personal beliefs till the cows come home. When he admits he VOTES HIS RELIGION INTO LAW he crosses a Constitutional line. When the crosses that Constitutional line he breaks his oath. And when you support unConstitutional action, so do you. Now fuck off.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:31 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
As to his voting record, what he said in that speech sounds to me like a recent "revelation", especially given his history of science. We'll see how he votes in future, as far as that's concerned. It's not just "how" he votes I worry about, it's what he proposes as legislation.

Once again, has he proposed any legislation based on his "revelation"? If he does that, and its content is not constitutional, then you might have an argument. If it is a law that's not unconstitutional, but is informed by his reading of the Bible, say a school lunch bill that derives from Matthew 25:35 "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me," would you have a problem with that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Some folks, like Kiki and Nickerson (and, I suspect, Niki), seem to think that Rep. Broun stating his beliefs makes him either a liar or a violator of his oath. That I have a problem with.

I said before, him stating his beliefs is fine. He as an educated man stating that those beliefs are facts, which he did at one time in the video, means he is lying.

Okay, everyone not believing what you consider "the facts" is lying. Please send up the list of "facts" so we'll know what to believe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"So what's the test to indicate whether he voted his conscience in a religious way or not?"

If he says he does it's a good indication he does.

But then any legislator who says he does should be removed, Right? Say Rep. X says, "I voted for this school lunch program because I believe the Holy Koran when it says, “What actions are most excellent? To gladden the heart of a human being, to feed the hungry, to help the afflicted, to lighten the sorrow of the sorrowful, and to remove the wrongs of the injured.”"

Quote:
I can't imagine a LAW being based on 'do unto others'. Laws tend to be very specific and action based, forbidding certain problematic behaviors that are disruptive to society. I can't imagine a law making it illegal to do to someone else what you think you wouldn't like done to you.

Then how about the example above?

Quote:
Broun STATES that he VOTES HIS RELIGION INTO LAW. He states that the Bible SHOULD BE A BLUEPRINT FOR LAW.

Actually, he says neither of those things.

I've provided examples above of people using their holy book as a guide to inform their support of legislation that would be useful and not be unconstitutional. I suspect that this is what Rep. Broun was inferring.

If not, and he does actually submit unconstitutional legislation, THAT would be the time to ask that action be taken against him.

As long as it's just talk, I say let him talk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:00 AM