A great deal of the buzz I'm hearing today seems to revolve around the question, "What's next for the Republican Party?".

Based on the overwhelming response we saw during yesterday's election, it would seem that the modern American conservative movement has been sent a message. Will the centrist try to take the wheel and move the party closer to the center in a bid to regain influence? Or will the far-right redouble their efforts and end up moving even further right?

In what might be one of the most important ramifications of an Obama presidency is the fact that he will most likely appoint 1, if not 2, Supreme Court Justices during his 1st term. If he does so within the next two years, he will most certainly have a cooperative Congress doing the confirmations. If the Democrats either keep their current seats or grow their majority (which I suspect they will, but I'm hardly an expert or a fortune teller) in the 2010 mid-term election, then he might even appoint a 3rd justice with an ever more cooperative Congress.

What will happen to the conservative groups pushing their pro-religion/anti-science agenda (I'm using a broad brush here. I feel that all the specific issues I could list off would comfortably fit under this umbrella)? We've seen the conservative movement go underground only to come back stronger later. Is this something we should be thinking about going forward.

A lot of questions here. Hopefully this will generate some good discussion. Thanks reading and thanks in advance for your responses.

this country is going to hell lol

Listening to this (http://www.here-now.org/shows/2008/11/20081106_1.asp) now.

Will the centrist try to take the wheel and move the party closer to the center in a bid to regain influence? Or will the far-right redouble their efforts and end up moving even further right? I would expect a farther lean to the right. It worked in 2000/2004 and centrism didn't pan out too well for McCain. Though a lot could change in two years, I doubt that is enough time to see conservatism gain substantial power. If Obama is able to sustain his popularity through his first term enough for re-election in 2012, I would very much expect another rise in conservatism in 2014, just as it did in 1998 (Clinton's 2nd term) and the way liberalism rose in 2006 (Bush's 2nd term). By then there will almost certainly be enough fodder to build a campaign upon (scandals, narrow passage/defeat of controversial legislation, and questionable executive decisions).

I'm not sure what role Palin will play in the future. I really liked Tina Fey.

I would expect a farther lean to the right. It worked in 2000/2004 and centrism didn't pan out too well for McCain.Hmm...

I think I would be inclined to argue that Bush won in 2000 because he "out-centristed" McCain. My impression is that Bush did well because he made a case of "compassionate conservatism", not the hard-right conservatism.

McCain didn't run in 04 and some have argued that he didn't do well in this election because he didn't do enough to cater to the center (I'll admit that I'm simply parroting what I've heard on this last point. Feel free to blow it out of the water.).

Though a lot could change in two years, I doubt that is enough time to see conservatism gain substantial power. I think that the previous power-brokers are all gone. The movement would need a new generation of leaders gain momentum. I think you're correct in saying that 2 years isn't enough time.

If Obama is able to sustain his popularity through his first term enough for re-election in 2012, I would very much expect another rise in conservatism in 2014, just as it did in 1998 (Clinton's 2nd term) and the way liberalism rose in 2006 (Bush's 2nd term). By then there will almost certainly be enough fodder to build a campaign upon (scandals, narrow passage/defeat of controversial legislation, and questionable executive decisions). 2nd terms are always the most fun, aren't they? ;)

I'm not sure what role Palin will play in the future. I really liked Tina Fey.[added by edit]Can Palin resurrect the GOP? Does she want to? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_el_pr/palin_what_s_next)[/edit]) :)

If there is any merit to the stories that are coming out now (she didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country?!), then I think her time in the limelight will be short-lived indeed.

Quasi-unrelated: It will be interesting to see how McCain spends what might be his last two years in the Senate.

Hmm...

I think I would be inclined to argue that Bush won in 2000 because he "out-centristed" McCain. My impression is that Bush did well because he made a case of "compassionate conservatism", not the hard-right conservatism.

I was thinking of the post-primary time period in 2000, rather than the pre-primary one. At that point Bush selected Cheney and galvanized his ties with PNAC.

But even in the 2000 pre-primary campaign against McCain, the New York Times noted (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E7D8113AF935A25752C0A9669C8B) 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):Mr. Bush, as the first votes of the primary season near, has sought to galvanize his party's conservative base. Originally Mr. Bush tried to run from the center as if already in the general election campaign, using his ''compassionate conservatism'' to distinguish himself from the harder-edged conservatism of Congressional Republicans.

But now, with Mr. McCain drawing support from independents and moderates, Mr. Bush has tried to paint himself as the true conservative of the duo. He has charged that the senator's ideas on campaign finance law would ''hurt Republicans and hurt the conservative cause.'' He has put heavy emphasis on his sweeping tax-cut proposal and constantly tries to tie Mr. McCain to Vice President Al Gore, saying that they are the ''two voices'' in the campaign who say his plan is too large.
--(Jan 16, 2000)


I think that the previous power-brokers are all gone. The movement would need a new generation of leaders gain momentum. I think you're correct in saying that 2 years isn't enough time.
*Googles the current whereabouts of Bill Kristol*

If there is any merit to the stories that are coming out now (she didn't know that Africa was a continent, not a country?!), then I think her time in the limelight will be short-lived indeed.That's my gut feel, but look at the trouble that Senator Stevens is in right now. If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5096619.ece)

But even in the 2000 pre-primary campaign against McCain, the New York Times noted (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E7D8113AF935A25752C0A9669C8B) 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2): <snip> Good read. Thanks for the link.

*Googles the current whereabouts of Bill Kristol* :lol:

I was thinking more along the lines of Tom Delay. Based on what I've been reading lately (http://www.amazon.com/Follow-Money-Republicans-Hog-Tied-America/dp/074328643X), I've been made to realize just how far the "team effort" extended. With many big pieces missing, I'm not sure what to expect as far as timeline for resurgence.

Going back to the first post, what does the Discovery Institute do now? They don't have someone in the White House advocating that we "teach the controversy".

How does the anti-abortion movement proceed with the knowledge that a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative Supreme Court isn't likely to happen?

What are the repercussions of the likelihood that U.S. researchers might be on the brink of getting a lot more funding for embryonic stem cell research? Do we need to start eyeing the newspapers for headlines of research facility bombings (ala abortion clinic bombings, etc)?

Is the culture war over? Are we just getting a breather? Or will it continue/intesify/whatever?

That's my gut feel, but look at the trouble that Senator Stevens is in right now. If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5096619.ece)Oh) my. That's an interesting thought indeed.

[added by edit]Can Palin resurrect the GOP? Does she want to? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_el_pr/palin_what_s_next)[/edit]) :) Grover Norquist, a leading conservative and president of Americans for Tax Reform, called Palin "one of five or six people who is a plausible candidate for president in 2012," along with familiar names like Mitt Romney, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Well Palin is smarter than one of their only plausible candiates for 2012. I've talked to this man on the phone more than once and I would be surprise if he knew where Austin, Texas was. If Perry is one of their five or six plausible candidates the Republican Party is in more trouble than I suspected.

If he steps aside, I would think her star power would be enough to carry herself back to Washington D.C. And I knew I wasn't the only thinking this. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5096619.ece)
Heh heh, after reading the last paragraph in that article over again, I guess she wouldn't need star power at all, just her governorship.

Well Palin is smarter than one of their only plausible candiates for 2012. I've talked to this man on the phone more than once and I would be surprise if he knew where Austin, Texas was. If Perry is one of their five or six plausible candidates the Republican Party is in more trouble than I suspected.I agree. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting Perry (except, I suppose, a minority of Texans). He carried the last election with less than half of the total votes. The only reason he won was because there were several other contenders that split the opposition. I don't see him being able to swing a candidacy.

More on this topic here (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/tpmtv_sunday_show_roundup_gran.php).

More on this topic here (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/tpmtv_sunday_show_roundup_gran.php).

Thanks Achilles. Some of the key points I heard:

George Will: 25% of Obama's voters were under 30 so could this signal a generational imprinting?
Cynthia Tucker: That would likely be the case if the administration shows itself to be competent.
Fareed Zakaria: Traditional stances of the GOP (deregulation, low taxes, low spending) and are more irrevelant today than in years past.
David Brooks: GOP needs to address today's issues (China, Russia, healthcare, energy).
Mike Pence: McCain still got 46% of the popular vote, so don't count the party out yet.

Cynthia Tucker: That would likely be the case if the administration shows itself to be competent. I found her use of adjectives interesting. Did Bush lower the bar so far that competence is all that's required or is the bar for Obama set so high that "competence" from him would seem like "exceed expectation" for someone else?

Mike Pence: McCain still got 46% of the popular vote, so don't count the party out yet.Another comment that I found interesting. Especially in light of the other comments that alluded to the Republican party being the party for people with outdated ideas who refused to get with the times.

I found her use of adjectives interesting. Did Bush lower the bar so far that competence is all that's required or is the bar for Obama set so high that "competence" from him would seem like "exceed expectation" for someone else?

I think more of the latter... by the time rolls around that there's enough hindsight to meaningfully discuss the Obama administration's "competency", it will have its own merits or lack thereof to be judged by. If the youth doesn't get disillusioned, they might very well imprint Democratic.


Another comment that I found interesting. Especially in light of the other comments that alluded to the Republican party being the party for people with outdated ideas who refused to get with the times.I can only think of GOP jabs as a response so I'll just :)

Another round table discussion (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96863596) from NPR's Talk of the Nation (click Listen Now link at the top of the article).

There's an article at Rebuild the Party.com (http://www.rebuildtheparty.com/plan) that outlines much of their technical strategy and some of there tactical strategy as well.

Technically speaking, they'd like to take more advantage of the internet and novel media in general -something the Obama campaign demonstrated as extremely effective in fundraising and disseminating information.

Tactically, however, they'll need to modify their message. On this site its mentioned: Obama's victory could be a blessing in disguise for conservatives. Why? Because Obama's winning strategy was built on the back of an inherently conservative idea: that we the people, acting together outside of government, can accomplish great things. Or, in the words of the overused slogan, "Yes We Can." -and an admission that: Because of the Internet, "us" becomes a force more powerful than any in politics. The ability to donate or volunteer instantaneously online gives the millions of "us" more leverage than even the most connected group of insiders.

But their one failing may actually be the continued appeal to their alleged "base" of evangelical and fundamental but largely ignorant Christians who have a large population and a low education. This population is slowly dying off as older generations make way for younger, more tolerant and less fundamental ones and as education gains a larger foothold among Christian populations, diluting the fundamental mentality with a more eclectic one.

Excuse me?

I'm a Republican and I consider those comments to be out of line, the Republican's base has always been Military, Religious Conservatives, etc.

People had better hope the Republicans manage to remain a major party or this country is in real trouble, cause we'd have a One-Party system.


The reasons why Republicans lost this last election can be traced to multiple factors, however to sum up the situation I find the commentary that Republicans are not tolerant of others to be really insulting, that's the stereotype the media tries to paint Republicans as, that's not what Republicans are, just look at who heads the Republican Party.

Well, as much as many people don't like to believe, stereotypes are often based on some form of truth. Not always, but often, whether it is or is not stretched or blown out of proportion.

And from what you say about the Republican base being military and religious conservatives, may possibly be one of the key factors to why they aren't a majority in office at this time.

Military. Well, I know this isn't a great example and is pretty biased. Iraq.

Religious. Somewhat irrelevant because of the separation of Church and State.

Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything. And I do apologize if this came across that way.

Well, here is the thing, was it the Republicans that lost or the unethical behavior of the Media that caused the Democrats to be elected.

Seriously, if it were the results of just people going to the left, it wouldn't explain why the constitutional amendment in California passed.


As far as Iraq is concerned, did anyone else notice the fact they voted here recently without any major incident of violence.

Furthermore, I don't want to get into the race/gender media coverage in this thread.

Whenever people start talking about an "anti-religious" movement here, I ask them to reconsider how the black vote got Obama elected, and that constituency is largely religious, and conservative on some social issues (Ie: anti-gay marriage).

So let's try and avoid too much black and white (pardon the pun) portrayals here.

Frankly I think the Republican party has lost its way (yes I was a Ron Paul supporter, and it was amazing to see how different he was from the other candidates running). The big two have just gotten fatter and more centrist, cynical politically sly with each passing year. That's reason enough to remain an independent!

Ya get 90% of a demographic to vote for someone, and all of the sudden that means the Republicans are falling apart.

McCain never energized the party, let alone the nation. I swear some times it seemed like he was campaigning for Obama.

And Vikinor, I would be VERY careful with your generalizations about stereotypes. Especially with us now having an African American president. There are more than a few stereotypes out there. And quite a few are unfounded.

And Vikinor, I would be VERY careful with your generalizations about stereotypes. Especially with us now having an African American president. There are more than a few stereotypes out there. And quite a few are unfounded.

Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at(or what you interpreted from my post), but I'll keep that in mind.
:confused:

Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at(or what you interpreted from my post), but I'll keep that in mind.
:confused:

Justifying the stereotype of Republicans could easily be used to justify the stereotypes of African Americans. I would rather not go into explaining those. Basically, I'm saying watch your stereotypes, and the justifications you use.

Justifying the stereotype of Republicans could easily be used to justify the stereotypes of African Americans. I would rather not go into explaining those. Basically, I'm saying watch your stereotypes, and the justifications you use.

Or conservatives for that matter, friends.

@general idea
The whole "conservatives are defined by the oldest, dumbest, most racist white guy who loves his guns" stereotype is getting rather old. If it is true, then how do you explain Ted Hayes?

I'd have more but I'd rather not rant on and on right now. Just thought I'd toss out an example (a popular one at that) of a stereotype.

*brevity*


True, but on the other hand, most members of the group are both in favor of the War and Religious, which may not be the public's wish for a leader right now.

While this doesn't include all Republicans, I can see what Viknor was trying to say, even if I don't necessarily agree.

_EW_

True, but on the other hand, most members of the group are both in favor of the War and Religious, which may not be the public's wish for a leader right now.

While this doesn't include all Republicans, I can see what Viknor was trying to say, even if I don't necessarily agree.

_EW_

True enough. I guess I'm just ragging on as an independent in a rightbound niche. (shrugs)

BTW, What was so brief about what I said? :confused:

Sorry, but with Skinwalker saying the Republicans(and conservatives in general) were intolerant(even though Bush had more minorities in higher positions than Clinton), ignorant, and uneducated, then Vikinor following that with saying those stereotypes have some basis in truth... That is insulting. It would be like if Garfield called Democrats pot smoking layabout welfare babies. Then I followed it up with claiming there was some truth to it. It's insulting.

At any rate, to the topic: There's very little that makes me think the Republican party is going away. Heck if the Democrat party didn't go away after the crushing defeat in '84 why would the Republican party go away this time. I think more than anything the people wanted something different. If you paid attention to the speeches you would have noticed that "Change" was the buzz word. Eventually that "New President Smell" will wear off, and people will start looking at him and his party more critically. For now it's mostly the conservatives looking at him closely. When it gets on two years, if we aren't doing better, the general public is gonna look real closely at our government. If we're worse off(which is entirely possible), whether right or not, this administration is going to get the blame. That will give the Republican party the ammunition it needs to gain power.

The problem comes in the form of the major news outlets. More of them tend to be far less critical of Democrats than they are Republicans. So taking that into account, it's going to be hard to sway public opinion. Oh well, we'll see how the future plays out

Sorry, but with Skinwalker saying the Republicans(and conservatives in general) were intolerant(even though Bush had more minorities in higher positions than Clinton), ignorant, and uneducated, then Vikinor following that with saying those stereotypes have some basis in truth... That is insulting. It would be like if Garfield called Democrats pot smoking layabout welfare babies. Then I followed it up with claiming there was some truth to it. It's insulting.

You're analysis may be formed from preconceived bias and lack of understanding. Perhaps you're a conservative and consider yourself republican (I honestly don't care and actually detest politics in general), but my statements, while not supported at the time with references, were generally accurate.

Yours, however, suffer some fallacious reasoning.

First, you assume that the mere act of a single leader within the republican party or conservative movement to position minorities within government is both necessary and sufficient to absolve the entire party of its overall intolerant appearance. It is not.

Facts show that more resistance to human rights, gay rights, women's rights, and the rights of people of color within government is driven by republican and conservative efforts (Bandhauer & Perales 2004; Kromm & Sturgis 2008; Republicans Against 8 2008; and Ross & Esposito 2005).

Facts also show (Massengill, 2008) that "Even in light of the increased educational opportunities available to Americans born since 1940, being raised conservative Protestant still exerts a negative effect on educational attainment... conservative Protestants born since 1960 are no less likely to finish high school, but display consistently lower odds of bachelor's degree attainment when compared to mainliners."

Should you find a desire to attempt a riposte by deriding Democrats, please feel free to knock yourself out. I have my fair share of criticism for them as well. I'll reserve this criticism should someone deluded by liberal ideology wish to bring it up.

As I said, I detest politics. Mostly because its an institution that is necessary but deplorable in its ideological nonsense which ends up polarizing human societies in order to accomplish progress.

References:

Bandhauer, C. A. and Perales, M. (2004-08-14) "Guest Workers or Invaders? The Conservative Division Over U.S. Immigration Policy: The Reinforcement of National Borders and the Racialization of Latino Migrants" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA

Kromm, Chris and Sue Sturgis (2008). Hurricane Katrina and the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: a Global Human Rights Perspective on a National Disaster (http://www.southernstudies.org/ISSKatrinaHumanRightsJan08.pdf). Institute for Southern Studies

Massengill, Rebekah Peeples (2008). Educational attainment and cohort change among conservative protestants, 1972-2004. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(4), 545-562.

Republicans Against 8 (2008). http://www.republicansagainst8.com/about/)

Ross, Brian and Richard Esposito (Nov. 18, 2005). CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866). ABC World News

Oh, prop 8... I forgot, Is California mostly Republican? Then why on earth would it be voted down... Could it have more to do with the fact that we as a nation in general are intolerant. To pin it on the Republicans is a bit silly. You are also painting the whole of the party by the actions of a few, so why can't we use the actions of a few to paint us in a better light. I mean wasn't Robert Byrd a member of the KKK? Can't get much more intolerant than the KKK.

You also note that there is division within the party over immigration. So, throw that one out.

Oh Come on... your Katrina source is obviously biassed. Find me anything negative they say about the Democrats at Facing South(which both of them are associated with).

And sorry, but people who are intolerant of religious people talking about religious intolerance... Sorry, doesn't fly. All you'd have to do is read more of Dr. Massengill's work to see where she stands with regards to religion.

And as far as I know the Republicans don't have a monopoly on the religious.

It was Republicans that freed slaves
It was Democrats that fillibustered to prevent making lynching a federal crime.
It was a Democrat that put a Klansman into the supreme court.
First Black Secretary of State?
First Black Woman Secretary of State?

Republicans tend to get called racist and intolerant, and it just is not fair.

Oh right Republicans are intolerant of the GLBT community http://online.logcabin.org/)

So what about the torture.. the party leader for the last election was McCain. He made it VERY clear he opposed torture.

You're analysis may be formed from preconceived bias and lack of understanding. Perhaps you're a conservative and consider yourself republican (I honestly don't care and actually detest politics in general), but my statements, while not supported at the time with references, were generally accurate.

No, I think Tommycat was completely accurate and in some cases understating the fact.


First, you assume that the mere act of a single leader within the republican party or conservative movement to position minorities within government is both necessary and sufficient to absolve the entire party of its overall intolerant appearance. It is not.

The current leader of the Republican Party is African American, your comments that Republicans are racist are out of line.


Facts show that more resistance to human rights, gay rights, women's rights, and the rights of people of color within government is driven by republican and conservative efforts (Bandhauer & Perales 2004; Kromm & Sturgis 2008; Republicans Against 8 2008; and Ross & Esposito 2005).

California is ran predominately by Democrats not Republicans.


Facts also show (Massengill, 2008) that "Even in light of the increased educational opportunities available to Americans born since 1940, being raised conservative Protestant still exerts a negative effect on educational attainment... conservative Protestants born since 1960 are no less likely to finish high school, but display consistently lower odds of bachelor's degree attainment when compared to mainliners."

And what evidence do you have that this individual knows what he is talking about. Some of the people from 1960s that predominately run Academia curriculem today were the Marxists and terrorists that did their best to kill people. See William Ayers as an example.


Bandhauer, C. A. and Perales, M. (2004-08-14) "Guest Workers or Invaders? The Conservative Division Over U.S. Immigration Policy: The Reinforcement of National Borders and the Racialization of Latino Migrants" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Hilton San Francisco & Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco, CA

If that is an example of your sources your case is in serious trouble, it is no secret that the hard left controls academia and no coincidence that it happens to be Pelosi's district.

Congratulations you just fell for the most typical left wing ploy, when someone disagrees with them, they just call them racists or sexist. We saw it all 2008 election, we even see it just last week.

And what evidence do you have that this individual knows what he is talking about.So, as usual, if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of how the world works it's probably an outright fabrication?

If that is an example of your sources your case is in serious trouble, it is no secret that the hard left controls academialolwut? So any academic source is null and void because those crazy lefties have them in their pockets? Are you for serious here?

Congratulations you just fell for the most typical left wing ploy, when someone disagrees with them, they just call them racists or sexist. We saw it all 2008 election, we even see it just last week.And you have fallen for the most typical GarfieldJL ploy, when someone disagrees with you just accuse them of being part of the radical left and then insinuate that they want to perform romantic acts on our current president.

California is ran predominately by Democrats not Republicans.
We may vote Democrat in the presidential elections, but we have a Republican in power and on inner state matters we more often vote Republican.

Why?

Because we are a coasted state. Meaning, a good part of the military and navy exist out here. California is not so cut and dry Democrat as the rest of the country likes to believe.

And what evidence do you have that this individual knows what he is talking about. Some of the people from 1960s that predominately run Academia curriculem today were the Marxists and terrorists that did their best to kill people. See William Ayers as an example.
So, any academy in the 60s is null and void because they were "terrorists" and/or "marxists"?

If that is an example of your sources your case is in serious trouble, it is no secret that the hard left controls academia
Are you serious? Everything is null and void because it is in the "lefts" pocket?

Great job closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly.

And you have fallen for the most typical GarfieldJL ploy, when someone disagrees with you just accuse them of being part of the radical left and then insinuate that they want to perform romantic acts on our current president.
Quoted for Truth.

We may vote Democrat in the presidential elections, but we have a Republican in power and on inner state matters we more often vote Republican.

Why?

Because we are a coasted state. Meaning, a good part of the military and navy exist out here. California is not so cut and dry Democrat as the rest of the country likes to believe.


Wasn't your prior Governor a Democrat, also if you look at the voting Demographics you'd find many of the same people that voted for Obama voted to ban Gay Marriage.



So, any academy in the 60s is null and void because they were "terrorists" and/or "marxists"?

They are when they are teaching people their leftist ideaology have you read some of the books they use or even seen them. I have thank you kindly, so I think I know a lot more on the subject than you.


Are you serious? Everything is null and void because it is in the "lefts" pocket?


It is when they start accusing people of being racist, sexists, etc.


Great job closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly.


Whatever...

Wasn't your prior Governor a Democrat, also if you look at the voting Demographics you'd find many of the same people that voted for Obama voted to ban Gay Marriage.
Which would fall into the religious category of people. Right or left has little to do with that. I was simply clarifying that this state is hardly as "leftist" and "democratic" as the rest of the country would like to believe.

It is when they start accusing people of being racist, sexists, etc.
Since when has all of academia accused you of being a racist sexist? I believe it was Skinwalker who said such, not the entire academic community.

Since when has all of academia accused you of being a racist sexist? I believe it was Skinwalker who said such, not the entire academic community.

What I actually said (initially) was:But their one failing may actually be the continued appeal to their alleged "base" of evangelical and fundamental but largely ignorant Christians who have a large population and a low education. This population is slowly dying off as older generations make way for younger, more tolerant and less fundamental ones and as education gains a larger foothold among Christian populations, diluting the fundamental mentality with a more eclectic one.

I thought I was actually complimenting or at least defending the republican party by pointing out that it is actually diverse and maturing past its stereotyped role of the past and developing into a more eclectic and progressive party. The core values of the republican party are beginning to shift, though there does seem to be an effort by some to continue to appeal to their alleged "base," which are conservative but fundamental christians who are demonstrably the more ignorant and undereducated of our society.

Republicans are fast catching up in education.

The data I posted for tommy was intended to show that there are some general feelings among non-republicans (and even some moderate republicans) that the things he was claiming not to exist actually does appear to exist.

Rather than take each point of data and refute it logically, he chose to simply cast all the data aside as if they are magically refuted by his mere disagreement or an accusation of "bias." This type of fallacious reasoning is also a generalization that can be cast toward the republican party and, it is hoped, will become extinct among them as educations improve.

Which would fall into the religious category of people. Right or left has little to do with that. I was simply clarifying that this state is hardly as "leftist" and "democratic" as the rest of the country would like to believe.

Yeah and I am Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. There may be some places in California that are conservative, but most of California's population centers are controled by the loony left.


Since when has all of academia accused you of being a racist sexist? I believe it was Skinwalker who said such, not the entire academic community.

They've accused Republicans in general, including Senator John McCain as well as other things.


I thought I was actually complimenting or at least defending the republican party by pointing out that it is actually diverse and maturing past its stereotyped role of the past and developing into a more eclectic and progressive party. The core values of the republican party are beginning to shift, though there does seem to be an effort by some to continue to appeal to their alleged "base," which are conservative but fundamental christians who are demonstrably the more ignorant and undereducated of our society.


You're digging yourself a deeper hole, you're insulting Conservatives even more, seriously you take every opportunity to bash people of faith Christians in particular and it's serious flamebait.

To be blunt there are uneducated Atheists too but you don't see me go off bashing Atheists.

Republicans are fast catching up in education.

Excuse me? To be blunt there are a lot of Republicans out there that are educated, the people that are barely literate and living on welfare tend to be Democrat voters.


The data I posted for tommy was intended to show that there are some general feelings among non-republicans (and even some moderate republicans) that the things he was claiming not to exist actually does appear to exist.

And we're telling you that the sources you used have their own agenda and are intellectually dishonest.


Rather than take each point of data and refute it logically, he chose to simply cast all the data aside as if they are magically refuted by his mere disagreement or an accusation of "bias." This type of fallacious reasoning is also a generalization that can be cast toward the republican party and, it is hoped, will become extinct among them as educations improve

Stop right there, you used sources that are known left wing places, including one that is trying to criminally investigate members of the college GOP at one of the Universities because they counterprotested against the Pro-Hamas protest. They are being investigated for a hate crime, excuse me that school has no objectivity.

heh your logic is so pathetic the only thing you can do is make baseless accusations against his sources

Yeah and I am Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. There may be some places in California that are conservative, but most of California's population centers are controled by the loony left.Thanks for stereotyping. Up for more liberal name-calling?
They've accused Republicans in general, including Senator John McCain as well as other things.Source, since I did know that every intellectual likes to bash Republicans in their spare time.
To be blunt there are uneducated Atheists too but you don't see me go off bashing Atheists.Why, you haven't forgotten the cult of atheism (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2587810&postcount=21), have you?
Excuse me? To be blunt there are a lot of Republicans out there that are educated, the people that are barely literate and living on welfare tend to be Democrat voters.What? So, every poverty-stricken degenerate is automatically a Democrat? Stereotype much?
And we're telling you that the sources you used have their own agenda and are intellectually dishonest.I don't see "we" anywhere...
Stop right there, you used sources that are known left wing places, including one that is trying to criminally investigate members of the college GOP at one of the Universities because they counterprotested against the Pro-Hamas protest. They are being investigated for a hate crime, excuse me that school has no objectivity.You've used obviously biased right-wing sources, and aren't they just as bad as extremely left-wing news sources? Either way, that's sooooo hypocritical.

... most of California's population centers are controled by the loony left.

Please. Lets not resort to irrational hyperbole. There are clearly "loonies" in both camps of political ideology. Intellectual discourse is damaged by such characterizations and unfair generalizations. Or at least this is what you've been attempting to argue when it comes to your claims that conservatives are being unfairly generalized.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole, you're insulting Conservatives even more, seriously you take every opportunity to bash people of faith Christians in particular and it's serious flamebait.

This is your opinion and one not demonstrated as significant. I see no evidence of a "hole" nor have I made any undo "insult" to conservatives. Most so-called conservatives do a fabulous job insulting themselves, much the same way extreme liberals do. People who are given to political ideology are self-insulting since they subscribe to conclusions to which they seek only that data which are confirming, ignoring contrary data out of hand. This is a clear insult to their intellect and rational processes.

And what you consider "bashing" of people of faith, I consider fair criticism. The more wacky people of faith deserve this as well as ridicule if they attempt to publicly assert their "faith" as fact or something that others should consider as valid reason for subscribing to their warped ideologies. I have no problem if you want to believe in ideas as wacky as the Earth is 10,000 years old or that there was once a global flood and a guy built a boat to float 2 of every living thing for over a month. But the moment you make a public claim that this is a fact, I get to laugh and poke fun at them.

To be blunt there are uneducated Atheists too but you don't see me go off bashing Atheists.

Of course their are uneducated atheists. Why wouldn't there be? My daughter was (and to a large degree) is a uneducated atheist. She's seven. There are also non-religious and atheist adults who are limited in education.

But the correlations of education and atheism cannot be ignored. A recent study of empirical data (Nyborg 2008) revealed that believers trail atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Nyborg used six testable syllogisms, the first of which was:


Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas
people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims.
Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.


A survey of American scientists (Larson and Witham 1998) revealed that 60.7% of scientists who responded to a random questionnaire reported disbelief or doubt in a god. With the focus on the National Academy of Scientists, ostensibly the top scientists in their fields, that figure rises to 93%.

But more to the point about conservatives. Conservatives definitely have their positive qualities. They tend to be happier people than liberals, apparently they less bother by social inequalities (Napier and Jost 2008). They participate more in charitable activities than liberals (Brooks 2008). But Jost et al (2003) confirm in their work the psychological variables which consistently predict political conservatism: death anxiety; system instability; dogmatism; intolerance of ambiguity, low openness to experience, and
uncertainty; need for order, closure, and negative integrative complexity; and fear of threat and loss of self-esteem.

Finally, an article in press with the peer reviewed journal Intelligence (Stankov 2008) finds that "[c]onservatism correlates negatively with measures of cognitive ability and educational achievement at both individual- and country levels of analysis." The data are empirical and the results are significant enough to show the clear correlation. In other words, the smarter someone is, the less likely they are to be conservative.

Of course, this won't always hold true. There are some very smart, intelligent conservative republicans. But they're rare when the numbers are scientifically evaluated.

So, while you could attempt to bash atheists, it wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Excuse me? To be blunt there are a lot of Republicans out there that are educated, the people that are barely literate and living on welfare tend to be Democrat voters.

And yet, when you control for income, Democrats slightly lead Republicans in the number of years of education (Fried 2008, Table 22, p. 86). Fried is, however, generally favorable (and fairly so) toward republicans in general noting:Republicans are more likely to correctly answer questions related to basic political knowledge and, in some cases, scientific knowledge. However, where the scientific knowledge conflicts with religious beliefs, Republicans are less likely to give the answers that most scientists would provide.

And we're telling you that the sources you used have their own agenda and are intellectually dishonest.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Tommy remarked on Massengill's work in general as "having an agenda" but gave no indication that he was even familiar with her work. Likewise, the other sources were casually and fallaciously dismissed as "having an agenda" without the slightest bit of refutation. Without citing and quoting their premises and conclusions to refute them logically and rationally, you're playing the part of the fool. Indeed, I'd say you're reinforcing the stereotypes that Fried appears to argue against in his book (a fascinating read, by the way)


References

Brooks, A. R. (2008). Gross national happiness: Why happiness matters for
America—and how we can get more of it. New York: Basic Books.

Fried, Joseph (2008). Democrats and Republicans: Comparing the Voters in Statistics and Anecdotes Algora Publishing.

Jost, J. T., et al (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339−375.

Larson, Edward and Larry Witham (1998). Leading Scientists Still Reject God. Nature, 394 (6691), 313.

Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19, 565−572.

Nyborg, Helmuth (2008). The intelligence-religiosity nexus: a representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 37(1), 81-93.

Stankov, Lazar (2008)

Please. Lets not resort to irrational hyperbole. There are clearly "loonies" in both camps of political ideology. Intellectual discourse is damaged by such characterizations and unfair generalizations. Or at least this is what you've been attempting to argue when it comes to your claims that conservatives are being unfairly generalized.

No, I'm calling it for what it is or would you care to explain the fact schools are starting to get sued for discrimination against Conservatives.

http://chronicle.com/news/article/5852/university-of-iowa-staff-member-sues-law-school-for-discrimination)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467626,00.html)

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090123/NEWS/90123003)

Heck there is even an article in the New York Times which is the mouthpiece for the Democrats
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/national/20christian.html)

So don't tell me I'm making it up, oh and each of these sources are referring to seperate cases.





This is your opinion and one not demonstrated as significant. I see no evidence of a "hole" nor have I made any undo "insult" to conservatives. Most so-called conservatives do a fabulous job insulting themselves, much the same way extreme liberals do. People who are given to political ideology are self-insulting since they subscribe to conclusions to which they seek only that data which are confirming, ignoring contrary data out of hand. This is a clear insult to their intellect and rational processes.

See my sources above


And what you consider "bashing" of people of faith, I consider fair criticism. The more wacky people of faith deserve this as well as ridicule if they attempt to publicly assert their "faith" as fact or something that others should consider as valid reason for subscribing to their warped ideologies. I have no problem if you want to believe in ideas as wacky as the Earth is 10,000 years old or that there was once a global flood and a guy built a boat to float 2 of every living thing for over a month. But the moment you make a public claim that this is a fact, I get to laugh and poke fun at them.

And I consider some of what you have said to be outright flamebait, if I were a muslim and you were bashing the muslim faith you'd be up for a lawsuit about now.



Of course their are uneducated atheists. Why wouldn't there be? My daughter was (and to a large degree) is a uneducated atheist. She's seven. There are also non-religious and atheist adults who are limited in education.

Then why are you trying to paint Christians as just being a bunch of uneducated people.


But the correlations of education and atheism cannot be ignored. A recent study of empirical data (Nyborg 2008) revealed that believers trail atheists by 5.13 IQ points. Nyborg used six testable syllogisms, the first of which was:


And the correlation between educational institutions and discrimination of Conservatives cannot be ignored either. It took me 30 seconds to find 4 seperate lawsuits.



Cognitively complex people typically resort to reason, science and data to reduce uncertainty,whereas
people lacking this cognitive protection often resort to ancient supernatural beliefs and claims.
Ergo: High-IQ people gravitate towards atheism and/or science, and low-IQ people become religious.



And you're wondering why the hell I'm considering what you're saying is flamebait.


A survey of American scientists (Larson and Witham 1998) revealed that 60.7% of scientists who responded to a random questionnaire reported disbelief or doubt in a god. With the focus on the National Academy of Scientists, ostensibly the top scientists in their fields, that figure rises to 93%.

You do realize that there are quite a few scientists including Stephen Hawkins that believe in God, as Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."


But more to the point about conservatives. Conservatives definitely have their positive qualities. They tend to be happier people than liberals, apparently they less bother by social inequalities (Napier and Jost 2008). They participate more in charitable activities than liberals (Brooks 2008). But Jost et al (2003) confirm in their work the psychological variables which consistently predict political conservatism: death anxiety; system instability; dogmatism; intolerance of ambiguity, low openness to experience, and
uncertainty; need for order, closure, and negative integrative complexity; and fear of threat and loss of self-esteem.

Religious Conservatives tend to be happier because they believe in God and believe there is a purpose to their lives, if you go from the aethiest viewpoint, life has no purpose. That's also why Conservatives are more charitible as to the deliberate goading that conservatives don't care about discrimination, that is complete and total garbage.


Finally, an article in press with the peer reviewed journal Intelligence (Stankov 2008) finds that "[c]onservatism correlates negatively with measures of cognitive ability and educational achievement at both individual- and country levels of analysis." The data are empirical and the results are significant enough to show the clear correlation. In other words, the smarter someone is, the less likely they are to be conservative.

Again, you are using data that is biased, as demonstrated in the above articles I found.


Of course, this won't always hold true. There are some very smart, intelligent conservative republicans. But they're rare when the numbers are scientifically evaluated.

If this argument were in the reverse I would be in a discrimination lawsuit right now and would have the ACLU would be trying to silence me. Seriously, what you're saying is outrageous.



So, while you could attempt to bash atheists, it wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Explains why various members of the scientific community and academia are being sued.



And yet, when you control for income, Democrats slightly lead Republicans in the number of years of education (Fried 2008, Table 22, p. 86). Fried is, however, generally favorable (and fairly so) toward republicans in general noting:

Or maybe your scientific studies have tainted data due to wanton bias. Ever heard selectively sampling to skew results.



Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Tommy remarked on Massengill's work in general as "having an agenda" but gave no indication that he was even familiar with her work. Likewise, the other sources were casually and fallaciously dismissed as "having an agenda" without the slightest bit of refutation. Without citing and quoting their premises and conclusions to refute them logically and rationally, you're playing the part of the fool. Indeed, I'd say you're reinforcing the stereotypes that Fried appears to argue against in his book (a fascinating read, by the way)

Or maybe Tommy has it right and you have it wrong.
There is a study out there that says you must have something fundamentally wrong in your head to be conservative, does that sound like an unbiased study to you?

What? So, every poverty-stricken degenerate is automatically a Democrat? Stereotype much?


Look at election polling data much? I don't particularly care for statistics, but the numbers indicate that people in poverty tend to predominately vote for Democrats. Or is it just due to the free pot and cigarettes?

@SkinWalker

Oh the source that you used that Tommycat protests, well the University of California is subject to a lawsuit for discriminating against Christians.

http://www.christianpost.com/Society/Court_cases/2005/08/christian-school-files-discrimination-suit-against-university-of-california-28/index.html)

Unbiased source it is not.

Well, these past few posts have been quite educational.

I now have a better idea of what actually occurs when matter and antimatter come into close proximity with one another.

Well, these past few posts have been quite educational.

I now have a better idea of what actually occurs when matter and antimatter come into close proximity with one another.

Sadly I've actually seen worse.


Anyways, my point is several universities including those that SkinWalker used as sources are facing lawsuits of discrimination against Conservatives. There have been a lot of things here recently that demonstrate just how corrupt the Education system is in the United States.

There is even a documentary out there about a teacher scolding elementry school children because they and their parents supported John McCain. (The documentary was done by people from a country in Europe I'll try to find more information on it, cause I'm going off of memory) Many of Academia have their own agenda to take down Conservatives, many want Income Redistribution.

There was another incident in Colorado that I didn't bother to look for that I can think of off the top of my head.

Additionally the Political Science department at the University I go to got in trouble for violating Federal Election Laws by using university printers to make Barack Obama fliers to post all over campus. So there is a major problem.

No, I'm calling it for what it is or would you care to explain the fact schools are starting to get sued for discrimination against Conservatives.

Would I care to explain irrelevant links to irrelevant and frivolous lawsuits? Sure. The explanation is that the plaintiffs are possibly just crybabies. The fact that some whiny individuals are so full of themselves that the institutions of higher learning aren't tolerant of their ignorance is laughable. In fact, I'd like to thank you for the links, I haven't had a good laugh like this in a while! :D

So don't tell me I'm making it up, oh and each of these sources are referring to seperate cases.

hehe... you clearly didn't read your own "sources" (scare quotes intentional). At least two are the same case and another might be the same frivolous case you link to later in this post.

See my sources above

Ha! I did! Thanks!

And I consider some of what you have said to be outright flamebait, if I were a muslim and you were bashing the muslim faith you'd be up for a lawsuit about now.

Uh. Nope. I can dis Allah and Muhammad all day long and there would be no threat of law suit. Indeed, Islam is just as much a superstition as Christianity -cult followers of both allow irrational thought to cloud reason.

Then why are you trying to paint Christians as just being a bunch of uneducated people.

Please. Get my assertions correct. "[U]neducated" implies a lack of education. What I'm asserting is just what I said: the lower an IQ is the more likely to be conservative and, apparently, religious. The data are clear and empirical but instead of dealing with data sets you choose to create straw man arguments. You're arguing with fallacious reasoning rather than critical thought, demonstrating my assertion with every single post. Good work.

And the correlation between educational institutions and discrimination of Conservatives cannot be ignored either. It took me 30 seconds to find 4 seperate lawsuits.

Actually, anyone of sound and reasoned mind would likely ignore these "sources" you've cited. Two are of a disgruntled former student who didn't get hired by the university. Duh. Lots of people don't get hired. She'll get over it. Link to us the article that announces a judge and/or jury sided with the plaintiff on this one, buddy. Two of the others are in regards to superstitious and backwards high schools and educators upset because real institutions of learning are not willing to allow credit for learning mythology and claiming it to be science. Duh. Hats off to the California universities. Anyone who transfers from so-called christian colleges where that nonsense is taught also shouldn't get transfer credits and also be required to take remedial coursework to get up to speed.

So, again, you've made my point for me. If anyone doubted the challenges of religious conservatives to educate themselves, you've helped clarify it.

And you're wondering why the hell I'm considering what you're saying is flamebait.

No. I'm not wondering that at all. Your core beliefs and preconceived notions are being challenged by my words. I question the very conclusions you accept blindly and without question. Conclusions to which you consider only that data which are supportive. To someone like you, words like mine are very clearly "flamebait." In the context of this forum and the topics being questioned, discussed, and debated, however, they are not. Discourse in this area could not proceed without these words.

You do realize that there are quite a few scientists including Stephen Hawkins that believe in God, as Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Stephen Hawking's "god" (http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=12) -he's often misquoted by under-educated believers (please note that "under" is not synonymous with "un").

Mark Twain also said, "Faith is believing in that which you know ain't so." Do you really want to go head-to-head with quoting atheists and non-religious with me regarding the superstitions of religion.

Religious Conservatives tend to be happier because they believe in God and believe there is a purpose to their lives, if you go from the aethiest viewpoint, life has no purpose.

This is an argument from ignorance. You're not an atheist, so you have no idea what atheists believe. I was once a theist -raised in a culture that gave a priori acceptance of the god myth. I can honestly say that my life has great purpose: to live; to love; to leave a legacy. I enjoy living today. I don't torment myself over what might be in some alleged and speculative afterlife that can never be known -I live for now and to make the world a better place for my descendants and my neighbors, which includes you.

That's also why Conservatives are more charitible as to the deliberate goading that conservatives don't care about discrimination, that is complete and total garbage.

Hey, it wasn't *my* study. The data are available for you to look at. Perhaps religious conservatives are more charitable because they seek status among their peers and find it through public displays of piety. Personally, I don't care what the means are, the ends are enough. If you think your god wants you to feed the homeless and provide drug counseling to teens, knock yourself out -just don't require these people to convert to your superstition or I'm going to have something to say about your "charity." (I using "you" in the general sense here).

Again, you are using data that is biased, as demonstrated in the above articles I found.

You haven't demonstrated that the data are biased. You haven't even demonstrated that the institutions that the data originate from are biased. Even if the institution was biased, applying guilt by association to the researchers who happen to work at the institution and who have made their methodologies transparent and available for peer review is a very, very fallacious argument and underscores a deficit in your education. This isn't a bad thing, but if you insist on continuing to debate such topics, it may benefit you to obtain some education in the fields as well as the general field of philosophy where it pertains to critical reasoning and logic.

If this argument were in the reverse I would be in a discrimination lawsuit right now and would have the ACLU would be trying to silence me. Seriously, what you're saying is outrageous.

Right.

Explains why various members of the scientific community and academia are being sued.

It explains only that, in the United States, there is a right to civil action via the court system. Show us the case citations to the suits where the plaintiffs were awarded damages. Then you might have something for discussion.

Or maybe your scientific studies have tainted data due to wanton bias. Ever heard selectively sampling to skew results.

Sure. Its possible. The data are available for review. I eagerly await your analyses.

Or maybe Tommy has it right and you have it wrong.

It doesn't appear so, but I suppose its possible. I eagerly await your analysis of the data.

Look at election polling data much?

Not much. No. I detest politics and politicians. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans -they're all the same to me: sqwaking hens crying about this and that, looking for power and status... meh.

Oh the source that you used that Tommycat protests, well the University of California is subject to a lawsuit for discriminating against Christians.

http://www.christianpost.com/Society/Court_cases/2005/08/christian-school-files-discrimination-suit-against-university-of-california-28/index.html)

Unbiased source it is not.

HA! You're not serious! Are you? You're saying that a bunch of religious nuts sore that their myths and superstitions aren't getting accepted as science by universities where real educations are obtained is evidence that *my* citation is biased? Cool. I'm liking you more and more.

One things for sure, there'll always be something to talk about in the Senate as long as you're posting here.

Would I care to explain irrelevant links to irrelevant and frivolous lawsuits? Sure. The explanation is that the plaintiffs are possibly just crybabies. The fact that some whiny individuals are so full of themselves that the institutions of higher learning aren't tolerant of their ignorance is laughable. In fact, I'd like to thank you for the links, I haven't had a good laugh like this in a while! :D

Or you're just dismissing them because they show your sources to be the frauds they are.



hehe... you clearly didn't read your own "sources" (scare quotes intentional). At least two are the same case and another might be the same frivolous case you link to later in this post.

Possibly but these were what I just skimmed through in about 30 seconds as I said, they are not frivalous lawsuits though. And I hate to break it to you, but San Fran is more the lunatic city.



Ha! I did! Thanks!


Then you'll admit at least on of your sources is being sued.


Uh. Nope. I can dis Allah and Muhammad all day long and there would be no threat of law suit. Indeed, Islam is just as much a superstition as Christianity -cult followers of both allow irrational thought to cloud reason.


Actually the way the politically correct groups are it could be classified as a hate crime.


Please. Get my assertions correct. "[U]neducated" implies a lack of education. What I'm asserting is just what I said: the lower an IQ is the more likely to be conservative and, apparently, religious. The data are clear and empirical but instead of dealing with data sets you choose to create straw man arguments. You're arguing with fallacious reasoning rather than critical thought, demonstrating my assertion with every single post. Good work.

You know that's the same kind of garbage the Nazis used to justify their treatment of Russians, Jewish People, etc. That they were somehow less intelligent subhuman. I notice scary parallels to what I learned in my World War II history class to what you've been saying.



Actually, anyone of sound and reasoned mind would likely ignore these "sources" you've cited. Two are of a disgruntled former student who didn't get hired by the university. Duh. Lots of people don't get hired. She'll get over it. Link to us the article that announces a judge and/or jury sided with the plaintiff on this one, buddy. Two of the others are in regards to superstitious and backwards high schools and educators upset because real institutions of learning are not willing to allow credit for learning mythology and claiming it to be science. Duh. Hats off to the California universities. Anyone who transfers from so-called christian colleges where that nonsense is taught also shouldn't get transfer credits and also be required to take remedial coursework to get up to speed.


No you're advocating discrimination and your own statements prove it, because they don't require the same thing for Muslim students for whom creationism is also taught, face the facts you just shot your own argument to pieces.


So, again, you've made my point for me. If anyone doubted the challenges of religious conservatives to educate themselves, you've helped clarify it.

Explains why it was conservative Republicans that backed President Johnson on the Civil Rights laws while Liberal Democrats were member of the KKK. And you can't argue with the truth there as Tommycat brought up. Seriously, I find it interesting that Liberals (in general) tend to be advocates of free speech until that speech is something contrary to their views then they berate, insult, flame, commit charecter assassination, and attempt to silence opposition.



No. I'm not wondering that at all. Your core beliefs and preconceived notions are being challenged by my words. I question the very conclusions you accept blindly and without question. Conclusions to which you consider only that data which are supportive. To someone like you, words like mine are very clearly "flamebait." In the context of this forum and the topics being questioned, discussed, and debated, however, they are not. Discourse in this area could not proceed without these words.

SkinWalker, don't try to lecture to someone that actually had to take their CITI Certification to actually conduct research, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the track records of intellectual dishonesty.



Stephen Hawking's "god" (http://www.atheistempire.com/greatminds/quotes.php?author=12) -he's often misquoted by under-educated believers (please note that "under" is not synonymous with "un").


Read a A Case for Faith and A Case for Christ and btw Jesus did exist.


Mark Twain also said, "Faith is believing in that which you know ain't so." Do you really want to go head-to-head with quoting atheists and non-religious with me regarding the superstitions of religion.

It takes just as much faith to believe God doesn't exist as to believe he does, and I think there is a reason people of faith aren't as maniac depressive as people who don't believe in God. Because they find purpose in their life.



This is an argument from ignorance. You're not an atheist, so you have no idea what atheists believe. I was once a theist -raised in a culture that gave a priori acceptance of the god myth. I can honestly say that my life has great purpose: to live; to love; to leave a legacy. I enjoy living today. I don't torment myself over what might be in some alleged and speculative afterlife that can never be known -I live for now and to make the world a better place for my descendants and my neighbors, which includes you.


You sure aren't showing it, all I've seen from you is arrogance that you know what's best garbage when you don't. I want to leave a legacy too, but I also believe in life having a point, and that there is a something to cling to when things are going poorly.


Hey, it wasn't *my* study. The data are available for you to look at. Perhaps religious conservatives are more charitable because they seek status among their peers and find it through public displays of piety. Personally, I don't care what the means are, the ends are enough. If you think your god wants you to feed the homeless and provide drug counseling to teens, knock yourself out -just don't require these people to convert to your superstition or I'm going to have something to say about your "charity." (I using "you" in the general sense here).

Or perhaps they believe that we are all God's children and therefore we should help one another, not everyone is just thinking about themselves all the time.



You haven't demonstrated that the data are biased. You haven't even demonstrated that the institutions that the data originate from are biased. Even if the institution was biased, applying guilt by association to the researchers who happen to work at the institution and who have made their methodologies transparent and available for peer review is a very, very fallacious argument and underscores a deficit in your education. This isn't a bad thing, but if you insist on continuing to debate such topics, it may benefit you to obtain some education in the fields as well as the general field of philosophy where it pertains to critical reasoning and logic.

The fact they are being sued for persecuting Christians specifically isn't good enough for you? Do you need it to be the KKK style of cross burning before religious persecution becomes apparent?



It explains only that, in the United States, there is a right to civil action via the court system. Show us the case citations to the suits where the plaintiffs were awarded damages. Then you might have something for discussion.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489)

How does a congressional report sound?


Sure. Its possible. The data are available for review. I eagerly await your analyses.

Considering your statements as research fact is the same type of garbage that scientists used to claim that some of my ancestors weren't as intelligent just due to the color of their skin, I would think that it is more likely than your "research" being accurate.

Not much. No. I detest politics and politicians. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans -they're all the same to me: sqwaking hens crying about this and that, looking for power and status... meh.

Explains why you are pulling stuff straight out of the DNC handbook.



HA! You're not serious! Are you? You're saying that a bunch of religious nuts sore that their myths and superstitions aren't getting accepted as science by universities where real educations are obtained is evidence that *my* citation is biased? Cool. I'm liking you more and more.

If you've been paying attention to my other debates I've flat out stated that the media is corrupt and mostly made up of far left ideaologues. In case you've noticed your sources are the universities that are being accused of blatent discrimination.


One things for sure, there'll always be something to talk about in the Senate as long as you're posting here.

:mrt:

Or you're just dismissing them because they show your sources to be the frauds they are.

I'm dismissing your "sources" because they're irrelevant and show nothing. They're red herrings and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you truly believe the blog articles and news bits you've linked "show [my] sources to be ... frauds," then there really isn't anything more we can discuss.

And I hate to break it to you, but San Fran is more the lunatic city.

What has this comment to do with anything? Are you actually reading the same thread the rest of us are? Wow.

Then you'll admit at least on of your sources is being sued.

Uh... no. You haven't shown where a single one of the individuals I cited were named in a lawsuit. Nor would a lawsuit be relevant to our discussion unless it was directly related to their study. Perhaps I overlooked something... could you please look back at the posts I created and under the "references" headings, which individual(s) are named in which lawsuits?

Actually the way the politically correct groups are it could be classified as a hate crime.

Nope. Wrong again. I have freedom of speech. I can criticize (and even insult) any religion I chose.

You know that's the same kind of garbage the Nazis used to justify their treatment of Russians, Jewish People, etc. That they were somehow less intelligent subhuman. I notice scary parallels to what I learned in my World War II history class to what you've been saying.

The data are what they are... and just because one doesn't like data doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it out of hand. Doing so would make you an ideologue. What you're creating is an ad hominem argument and a straw man -instead of dealing with the premises of the claim, you're mis-characterizing the argument into something that is aligned with an idea you think most people will find repulsive or disagreeable and, thus, an idea you won't have to process. Unfortunately, in a rational discourse, argumentation doesn't work that way. If you want to refute the claim, you'll either have to educate yourself (the citations are probably accessible via your local library) or simply accept that they might be true.

No you're advocating discrimination and your own statements prove it, because they don't require the same thing for Muslim students for whom creationism is also taught, face the facts you just shot your own argument to pieces.

No problem, simply insert Muslim school into my comment. My argument stands. Your weak attempt to counter it holds water like a fish net -there are few (perhaps none at all) Muslim high schools or universities in the United States attempting to get their creationist poppycock accepted in real institutions of academia. Perhaps they recognize creationist nonsense for what it is: stupid.

Seriously, I find it interesting that Liberals (in general) tend to be advocates of free speech blah, blah, blah...

I wouldn't know. I'm not a "liberal." If anything, I'm a conservative since fiscal and resource conservation are things that concern me, but like I said: I detest politics to begin with. Whenever someone starts making political proclamations, their brains open up and all sense of reason and rational thought is lost to personal ideology.

SkinWalker, don't try to lecture to someone that actually had to take their CITI Certification to actually conduct research, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the track records of intellectual dishonesty.

Yawn... Yes, suffice it to say your an "expert..."

Read a A Case for Faith and A Case for Christ and btw Jesus did exist.

I've no idea what your talking about... but, hey, you're the research expert. Is the underline tag a citation style of APA or MLA? Or something else entirely... ? And you're right, Jesus does exist. He cut my grass just the other day and his wife sells tamales on the weekends in my neighborhood. A real nice guy... doesn't speak much English though.

It takes just as much faith to believe God doesn't exist as to believe he does,

Eh.. not so much, no. I'm at least open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. All I need is sufficient evidence or good reason. How about you? Are you open to the possibility that not only is there no god, but that your particular god doesn't exist?

You sure aren't showing it, all I've seen from you is arrogance that you know what's best garbage when you don't.

Oh, I'm very sorry. I don't mean to give that impression. I'm actually not that bright. I git a lot readin' dun, but I've never been very good at choosing good garbage from bad. I urge everyone to never take my word for anything I say and to question it all! The last thing I would wish for is anyone to take anything I say as gospel truth without first looking further into whatever claim or opinion I'm asserting.

But you don't even give me the courtesy of inquiry. Hell, you don't give yourself the courtesy of inquiry given the duplicated "sources" that you so vociferously stated were not duplicated! Come on guy! I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs or your politics! I'd be disappointed and hurt if you did. And I have more respect for you than to expect you to do so.

One of the reasons I come off so harshly is that sometimes it takes a harsh word to jumpstart someone's thinking. If I put you on the defensive, suddenly you have to look critically at your positions... and you shouldn't be afraid to do this! Yeah, I'm arrogant. I can admit that. But I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong -but only if I truly am. What you have before you is several decades of constantly revised positions which have continually refined themselves. Had you met me on the net in 1996, you wouldn't believe I was the same person -my beliefs and critical thought was that unrefined. I was about your age, actually.

Or perhaps they believe that we are all God's children and therefore we should help one another, not everyone is just thinking about themselves all the time.

I hope that's true. I'm willing to go with that explanation for now. Look! We have some common ground!

The fact they are being sued for persecuting Christians specifically isn't good enough for you? Do you need it to be the KKK style of cross burning before religious persecution becomes apparent?

Ah-ah... there you go again with the straw man. While the civil suit may be initiated by those that perceive it as a persecution against Christians, the reality is that this is a learning institution charged with educating its students with knowledge and scientific fact, not the superstitions and mythology of religions. There is no tradition of scientists and science educators picketing or suing churches to get science installed in the Sunday school classroom... why should it be tolerated the other way around. If Christians are able to get their mythology accepted as "truth" and taught as "science," where would the line be drawn? Would not the Zuni with their concept of creation vis a vis the Corn Goddess have to also be taught? What of Muslim ideas of "science?" The education institutions of the United States that are refusing to accept high school credits where creationism is taught are upholding patriotic, American values by not establishing any one religion over another. By not creating a state-sponsored religion. Moreover, students are free to gain acceptance via their SAT scores -if I understand the issue correctly (and its been a while since I reviewed it), SAT scores still take priority in university acceptance.

Have you noticed that none of the suits against the universities have favored the plaintiffs?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489)

How does a congressional report sound?

It doesn't satisfy the question I asked. You're creating a red herring ... please, one thing at a time. I'm more than willing to look over that 29 page report that doesn't appear to have any punitive judgment (from what I've read so far, kudos are due for the Smithsonian for not tolerating superstition in a place of real science), but first you'll have to address the question that was actually asked: where are the punitive damages awarded by the courts in one of these civil suits you keep bringing up?

Considering your statements as research fact is the same type of garbage that scientists used to claim that some of my ancestors weren't as intelligent just due to the color of their skin, I would think that it is more likely than your "research" being accurate.

This is a complete and utter straw man. An ignorant and under-educated one to boot. Sorry... I'll spend no more time on such nonsense.

Explains why you are pulling stuff straight out of the DNC handbook.

I don't know what this handbook is. Can you link to it or is it in a library? I don't follow (can someone shed light on this?).

If you've been paying attention to my other debates I've flat out stated that the media is corrupt and mostly made up of far left ideaologues. In case you've noticed your sources are the universities that are being accused of blatent discrimination.

People get "accused" of stuff all the time. Usually by nuts with a "mission" but that's beside the point. To end this post, I'll just recap:

I posted hard, empirical data. You posted "no its all biased, dude!"

I posted citations to the individuals who conducted studies. You posted, "they're all getting sued, man!"

What you haven't posted are rebuttals to the empirical data (hint: I'm willing to email a couple of these to you in PDF form if you'd only ask. "But you gotta ask me nicely" [/Col. Jessup]). You also haven't cited legal decisions from the civil courts which show damages awarded or that the plaintiffs even had a favorable outcome.

Garfield, please don't take me the wrong way. I sense you getting worked up and it might benefit you to pause a bit before responding. Thinking some is good to. Like I said, I'm not expecting you to change you mind or your beliefs. But I'd like to think that there exists some common ground out there that we could stand upon and engage in rational discourse. We can't do that if you toss fallacious argument after fallacious argument into the fray.


Recommended reading: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)

I'm dismissing your "sources" because they're irrelevant and show nothing. They're red herrings and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you truly believe the blog articles and news bits you've linked "show [my] sources to be ... frauds," then there really isn't anything more we can discuss.

They are already being sued for discrimination towards Christians, and you're claiming they aren't biased?



What has this comment to do with anything? Are you actually reading the same thread the rest of us are? Wow.

I haven't looked but isn't one of your sources from there?



Uh... no. You haven't shown where a single one of the individuals I cited were named in a lawsuit. Nor would a lawsuit be relevant to our discussion unless it was directly related to their study. Perhaps I overlooked something... could you please look back at the posts I created and under the "references" headings, which individual(s) are named in which lawsuits?


The University they work at was sued, which puts the people you used as sources in doubt.



Nope. Wrong again. I have freedom of speech. I can criticize (and even insult) any religion I chose.

Okay, and I have the freedom of speech to point out how you're trying to justify intolerance of people of faith.



The data are what they are... and just because one doesn't like data doesn't mean you can simply dismiss it out of hand. Doing so would make you an ideologue. What you're creating is an ad hominem argument and a straw man -instead of dealing with the premises of the claim, you're mis-characterizing the argument into something that is aligned with an idea you think most people will find repulsive or disagreeable and, thus, an idea you won't have to process. Unfortunately, in a rational discourse, argumentation doesn't work that way. If you want to refute the claim, you'll either have to educate yourself (the citations are probably accessible via your local library) or simply accept that they might be true.

No, I'm calling it what it is and that is an attempt to justify the atheist ideaology as being superior by saying only stupid people believe in God. And don't even try to to give me the garbage (which I underlined) because I probably know a heck of a lot more about World War II than you do, considering I've studied the topic for a class.


No problem, simply insert Muslim school into my comment. My argument stands. Your weak attempt to counter it holds water like a fish net -there are few (perhaps none at all) Muslim high schools or universities in the United States attempting to get their creationist poppycock accepted in real institutions of academia. Perhaps they recognize creationist nonsense for what it is: stupid.

Well in case you haven't noticed they aren't holding the same discriminatory behavior on students from Muslim schools, so it is discrimination end of discussion.



I wouldn't know. I'm not a "liberal." If anything, I'm a conservative since fiscal and resource conservation are things that concern me, but like I said: I detest politics to begin with. Whenever someone starts making political proclamations, their brains open up and all sense of reason and rational thought is lost to personal ideology.

Dude, if you are conservative than Nancy Pelosi would be Ann Coulter. Don't give me that song and dance.



Yawn... Yes, suffice it to say your an "expert..."


I'm saying I know more about researching than you do, and I know how easy it is to skew results based on ideaology.


I've no idea what your talking about... but, hey, you're the research expert. Is the underline tag a citation style of APA or MLA? Or something else entirely... ? And you're right, Jesus does exist. He cut my grass just the other day and his wife sells tamales on the weekends in my neighborhood. A real nice guy... doesn't speak much English though.

Referring to Jesus as in around over 2000 years ago.



Eh.. not so much, no. I'm at least open to the possibility that a god or gods exist. All I need is sufficient evidence or good reason. How about you? Are you open to the possibility that not only is there no god, but that your particular god doesn't exist?

It doesn't sound like it at all from your statements, every other statement you've stated suggests you despise people that believe in God. As far as the idea of there being no God, that wouldn't add up if you look at some of the events that took place in the Bible. Particularly look at the Exodus, also didn't they find a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea?



But you don't even give me the courtesy of inquiry. Hell, you don't give yourself the courtesy of inquiry given the duplicated "sources" that you so vociferously stated were not duplicated! Come on guy! I'm not asking you to give up your beliefs or your politics! I'd be disappointed and hurt if you did. And I have more respect for you than to expect you to do so.

I was in a hurry and should have looked at the links I posted more thoroughly. However you didn't investigate your sources as far as potential for bias either.


One of the reasons I come off so harshly is that sometimes it takes a harsh word to jumpstart someone's thinking. If I put you on the defensive, suddenly you have to look critically at your positions... and you shouldn't be afraid to do this! Yeah, I'm arrogant. I can admit that. But I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong -but only if I truly am. What you have before you is several decades of constantly revised positions which have continually refined themselves. Had you met me on the net in 1996, you wouldn't believe I was the same person -my beliefs and critical thought was that unrefined. I was about your age, actually.

Well here is the thing, it is impossible to disprove God's existence, nor is it possible to prove he exists. Just because you can't observe God doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and the fact you can't scientifically disprove his existence (and scientists that claim they can aren't being honest quite frankly).


Ah-ah... there you go again with the straw man. While the civil suit may be initiated by those that perceive it as a persecution against Christians, the reality is that this is a learning institution charged with educating its students with knowledge and scientific fact, not the superstitions and mythology of religions. There is no tradition of scientists and science educators picketing or suing churches to get science installed in the Sunday school classroom... why should it be tolerated the other way around. If Christians are able to get their mythology accepted as "truth" and taught as "science," where would the line be drawn? Would not the Zuni with their concept of creation vis a vis the Corn Goddess have to also be taught? What of Muslim ideas of "science?" The education institutions of the United States that are refusing to accept high school credits where creationism is taught are upholding patriotic, American values by not establishing any one religion over another. By not creating a state-sponsored religion. Moreover, students are free to gain acceptance via their SAT scores -if I understand the issue correctly (and its been a while since I reviewed it), SAT scores still take priority in university acceptance.

That explanation would fit except for the fact that they admitted students from Muslim schools but denied entry to students from Christian Schools. Therefore your entire justification doesn't fly.


Have you noticed that none of the suits against the universities have favored the plaintiffs?

That doesn't mean it isn't happening, it used to be that nobody won any Civil Rights lawsuits concerning discrimination based on race.



It doesn't satisfy the question I asked. You're creating a red herring ... please, one thing at a time. I'm more than willing to look over that 29 page report that doesn't appear to have any punitive judgment (from what I've read so far, kudos are due for the Smithsonian for not tolerating superstition in a place of real science), but first you'll have to address the question that was actually asked: where are the punitive damages awarded by the courts in one of these civil suits you keep bringing up?

Again have you ever heard of reverse discrimination? And as I've pointed out it used to be the same way concerning lawsuits involving race.



This is a complete and utter straw man. An ignorant and under-educated one to boot. Sorry... I'll spend no more time on such nonsense.

Sorry you find the truth offensive, that was the closest comparison that fit.



I don't know what this handbook is. Can you link to it or is it in a library? I don't follow (can someone shed light on this?).

Have you been in a coma for the last 10 years? You can see it almost all the time in the media.


People get "accused" of stuff all the time. Usually by nuts with a "mission" but that's beside the point. To end this post, I'll just recap:

Oh so I suppose in your view the leader of the Weather Underground is a respectable Professor. Anyone deliberately targetting children in my view doesn't deserve respect.


I posted hard, empirical data. You posted "no its all biased, dude!"

If the data is biased it isn't valid data.


I posted citations to the individuals who conducted studies. You posted, "they're all getting sued, man!"


Any time you have a study that says nonreligious people are more intelligent than religious people, it's a sign that the person conducting the study has an agenda. It's called common sense, study history sometime because there are numerous examples in history of this.


What you haven't posted are rebuttals to the empirical data (hint: I'm willing to email a couple of these to you in PDF form if you'd only ask. "But you gotta ask me nicely" [/Col. Jessup]). You also haven't cited legal decisions from the civil courts which show damages awarded or that the plaintiffs even had a favorable outcome.

So then going by your line of reasoning one could argue black people aren't as intelligent as white based on studies done years ago.


Garfield, please don't take me the wrong way. I sense you getting worked up and it might benefit you to pause a bit before responding. Thinking some is good to. Like I said, I'm not expecting you to change you mind or your beliefs. But I'd like to think that there exists some common ground out there that we could stand upon and engage in rational discourse. We can't do that if you toss fallacious argument after fallacious argument into the fray.

It's what you consider a fallacious argument, I consider your arguments to be a fallacious argument too, it goes both ways.


Recommended reading: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism)

They are already being sued for discrimination towards Christians, and you're claiming they aren't biased?

I haven't looked but isn't one of your sources from there?

The University they work at was sued, which puts the people you used as sources in doubt.

However you didn't investigate your sources as far as potential for bias either.

If the data is biased it isn't valid data.

These are fallacious examples and it doesn't follow that because one group or individual files civil suit against a university that the data resulting from research conducted by individuals within that university are therefore suspect. None of the individuals I've indicated as references for data are named in any legal action. Nor have you shown their data to be obtained via poor methodology. You simply assert, ignorantly I might add, that "they're biased so they can't be trusted."

This is completely and utterly illogical, especially from someone who dares to talk one's self up so boldly with statements that amount to "I'm a better researcher than you!" Many would view this as a childish mentality. Luckily, I think better of you than that.

But, more to the point, all scientific research is subject to bias. Researchers are aware of this and design their studies, surveys, and research to eliminate bias as much as possible. Indeed, most good researchers will field their result to colleagues, asking them to be brutally critical so that they can get all points of view. In the end, this is where the methodology section of a good research write up comes in, making the biases transparent and outlining what the researchers did to overcome bias.

And I haven't even shown the tip of the iceberg on one of the studies. Their research, which shows the negative correlation of intellect with conservative ideology is startling. But their methods are sound and their results clear. The authors are also very clear that they make no speculation as to the causation and that they're only looking at the correlation.

But, hey. That's what we're starting to expect from you... whenever data doesn't support your conclusion, you can't accept it. When it does, it must, therefore, be good data. That, in itself, is fallacious reasoning (a.k.a. circular reasoning).

Okay, and I have the freedom of speech to point out how you're trying to justify intolerance of people of faith.

Absolutely. I'll even help you: people of faith should not be tolerated when they impose their superstitions on the rest of society. Regardless of their faith. Be they Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Navajo, whatever.... once they start demanding that the rest of society adhere to superstitions specific to their particular brand of religion these people of faith have no reason to be tolerated. Of course, if they keep to themselves, I can tolerate them just fine.

And don't even try to to give me the garbage (which I underlined) because I probably know a heck of a lot more about World War II than you do, considering I've studied the topic for a class.

Cool. You took a class.

I'm saying I know more about researching than you do, and I know how easy it is to skew results based on ideaology.

Your kewl resurch skillz rock.

It doesn't sound like it at all from your statements, every other statement you've stated suggests you despise people that believe in God.

You couldn't be farther from the truth. But I'll admit, its hard to see the other side of me when I'm forced to provide rational and reasoned arguments. I'm sorry. I don't get all wishy-washy and namby-pamby just because I'm afraid reason and rational thought will offend someone. If you assert it publicly and use a religious reason to support an argument, I'm going to throw your superstitions back in your face every time.

As far as the idea of there being no God, that wouldn't add up if you look at some of the events that took place in the Bible. Particularly look at the Exodus, also didn't they find a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea?

It would add up if you read biblical literature and mythology with an objective eye and not that of someone with an a priori belief. And, no, "they" didn't find "a bunch of Egyptian Chariots in the Red Sea." I'm an archaeologist, so if you want to discuss this topic, I ask that you start another thread since I'll probably make a few posts that are longer than the short ones I've made in this thread lately.

Well here is the thing, it is impossible to disprove God's existence, nor is it possible to prove he exists.

Why would anyone care to?

Just because you can't observe God doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and the fact you can't scientifically disprove his existence (and scientists that claim they can aren't being honest quite frankly).

This sentence wasn't structured to well, so I hope I've inferred your meaning correctly. There are many, many things that cannot be "scientifically proved" when it comes to "existence." Zeus, Apollo, Gilgamesh, Marduk, and the were-jaguars of ancient Mesoamerica cannot be scientifically disproved. Yet there are no good reason to accept any of them to be true. I'm more than willing to revise my beliefs about your god (or anyone else's) once I'm presented with good reason. Can you say the same? Can you admit here that you would be willing to give up belief in a god if good reason were shown to you?

That explanation would fit except for the fact that they admitted students from Muslim schools but denied entry to students from Christian Schools. Therefore your entire justification doesn't fly.

Which one of those Muslim schools did not have a science curriculum that teaches evolution in the science class?

Oh so I suppose in your view the leader of the Weather Underground is a respectable Professor. Anyone deliberately targetting children in my view doesn't deserve respect.

Again, we don't seem to be participating in the same thread. I can only assume that this is some sort of straw man argument and a gross mis-characterization of what I originally said. Such a mis-characterization affords you a cop-out rather than actually address the point at hand. This, my friend, is a fallacious argument and has no bearing on the original statement. I ask you to please stay on topic.

Any time you have a study that says nonreligious people are more intelligent than religious people, it's a sign that the person conducting the study has an agenda. It's called common sense, study history sometime because there are numerous examples in history of this.

It could also be that there is someone who noticed a trend and is looking for answers. The data are the data and they still stand, mocking you with scientific methodology while you go about creating straw men, knocking down windmills, and hoping people will chase your red herrings. In the end, your very words are confirming the data I cited. This is fascinating to an anthropologist like me, I must say.

So then going by your reasoning black people aren't as intelligent as White based on studies done years ago.

Mod Note:You'll need to quote the place I stated this, publicly retract this racist accusation, or receive an infraction. Being a fair person and a lenient moderator, I'll allow you the opportunity of 24 hours to PM me, edit your post, or retract your accusation unless you are able to quote, word-for-word where I've implied that the people of one ancestry are more or less intelligent than another. Hopefully, if an infraction is applied, you don't have enough points to auto-ban.

It's what you consider a fallacious argument, I consider your arguments to be a fallacious argument too, it goes both ways.

Sorry, but you don't get to just make a baseless accusation of fallacy. You'll actually have to demonstrate it. If you'll look through your various posts and notice the appeals to authority, arguments from ignorance, and the straw man and red herring arguments you've presented, you can see examples of fallacious argumentation. Just because you disagree or don't want what I'm saying to be true doesn't give you reason to say "it goes both ways," because it doesn't. If, however, you can specify which of my arguments and assertions were fallacious, cite the type of fallacy and why you think a fallacy exists, then I'll need to revise my position or change it. Or, counter argue why the reasoning is sound. None of this, by the way, have you done as your fallacies have been pointed out. This is indicative of poor reasoning or at least a refusal to acknowledge reason and evidence of the assertion that there is a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservative beliefs.

Mod Note:You'll need to quote the place I stated this, publicly retract this racist accusation, or receive an infraction. Being a fair person and a lenient moderator, I'll allow you the opportunity of 24 hours to PM me, edit your post, or retract your accusation unless you are able to quote, word-for-word where I've implied that the people of one ancestry are more or less intelligent than another. Hopefully, if an infraction is applied, you don't have enough points to auto-ban.

I'm guessing you misinterpretted what I said, and I'm sorry for not wording it in a way that you wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but for the record I never called you a racist if you actually read what I said, I was comparing the research you were using to past instances where people came up with research to justify their personal prejudgices (sp?). I stated that by your reasoning then, that research done in the 1800s would be valid as well. In other words by using that line of reasoning you can come up with that research (which you and I both know is a bunch of garbage) as being accurate.

To sum it up my point is that you need to look at historical instances of where the scientific community tried to manipulate data to promote stereotypes. To be completely blunt, I was not accusing you of being a racist, I was pointing out that your line of reasoning was faulty because by using that line of reasoning one could justify the results of those experiments seen in the 1800s.


Sorry, but you don't get to just make a baseless accusation of fallacy. You'll actually have to demonstrate it. If you'll look through your various posts and notice the appeals to authority, arguments from ignorance, and the straw man and red herring arguments you've presented, you can see examples of fallacious argumentation.

The fact that the research is highly subjective and that we have no information as to who they tested and the geographic locations where the samples were taken. This indicates the research was quite likely biased and the sample was taken in a manner to skew the results. Further based on what I've shown, it seems that research professionals that believe in God, probably aren't willing to admit it due to fear of religious discrimination.


Just because you disagree or don't want what I'm saying to be true doesn't give you reason to say "it goes both ways," because it doesn't. If, however, you can specify which of my arguments and assertions were fallacious, cite the type of fallacy and why you think a fallacy exists, then I'll need to revise my position or change it. Or, counter argue why the reasoning is sound. None of this, by the way, have you done as your fallacies have been pointed out. This is indicative of poor reasoning or at least a refusal to acknowledge reason and evidence of the assertion that there is a negative correlation between cognitive ability and conservative beliefs.

There is such a thing as common sense, tests that say that people with a certain beliefs aren't as intelligent as others for instance doesn't pass the smell test. You can tell right off that the researcher had an ax to grind. Whenever you have research that says someone of a particular religion, race, etc. isn't going to be as intelligent as another individual for those reasons, then you can tell that the research is probably not accurate.

I am glad you at least waited for me to clarrify what I was saying in case you were misinterpreting what I was saying.

The fact that the research is highly subjective and that we have no information as to who they tested and the geographic locations where the samples were taken.Oh? You actually read the research article? Or you're just asserting that this information is inaccessible to prevent having to accept the validity?

In fact, I believe the specific study in question about the IQ of atheists being statistically significantly higher than theists is data taken from surveys conducted by the US Department of Labor, so the data wasn't even taken by the researcher in question, and your assertions of bias and skewed sampling fall flat.

Oh? You actually read the research article? Or you're just asserting that this information is inaccessible to prevent having to accept the validity?

In fact, I believe the specific study in question about the IQ of atheists being statistically significantly higher than theists is data taken from surveys conducted by the US Department of Labor, so the data wasn't even taken by the researcher in question, and your assertions of bias and skewed sampling fall flat.

And the data that justified racism was taken by the Smithsonian Institute if I remember correctly. You have to be very careful about any study that involves race or religion, the vast majority of the time you're going to see the research skewed by someone with an ax to grind. Newsbusters found a pretty good example here recently.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9993.html)

But News Busters also found:
http://www.indiana.edu/~telecom/people/faculty/grabe/grabe_resume.pdf)

And

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/2/5/8/pages92589/p92589-1.php)

The Newsbusters Article is here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/02/24/indiana-profs-oddly-claim-big-three-networks-slanted-toward-gop-presiden)

Interesting Quote:
The other co-author, Maria Elizabeth Grabe, has an interesting 2006 research project listed online in her curriculum vitae: a paper titled ""Bill O'Reilly's 'No Spin Zone': Using 1930s Propaganda Techniques and Constructing Villains, Victims, and The Virtuous." It says it was well-received at an international conference in Dresden, Germany. The paper is here, and compares O'Reilly to Father Charles Coughlin, an anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi radio host of the 1930s. -- Newsbusters.org (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/02/24/indiana-profs-oddly-claim-big-three-networks-slanted-toward-gop-presiden)