Republicans and the religious right will say that this proves that they’re in the majority, except that contrary to the drumbeat of the MSM not everyone who believes in God (or something like it) is a Republican voter. In fact, the very broad category of people who believe in God constitutes a majority in both parties. Let’s just say that I, Oliver Willis, would probably be on the majority side of this survey but it isn’t likely that I’m voting Republican in this life or the next.
Then the evolution denialists will say that the popularity of creationism means that there is a controversy to be taught. But like I said here it doesn’t matter how many surveys one takes - even if 100% of people believed the earth was only 6,000 years old - that assertion is not supported by the evidence that counts. Its not a valid claim.
Republicans and the religious right will say that this proves that they’re in the majority
Not this Republican.
Then the evolution denialist [funny, the WordPress spell check doesn't acknowledge the existeb=nce of the word "denialist"] will say that the popularity of creationism means that there is a controversy to be taught.
What’s good for the “globalwarmian” goose is good for the “creationist” gander. Scientific consensus should prevail in both cases. However, I’ll settle for an intelligent, purposeful cause of the Universe, though.
And scientific consensus supports both global warming and evolution.
Although I have a few quibbles with your post, it’s pretty reasonable.
It’s certainly a few steps above the “atheists are such meanies” stuff you were offering up not long ago.
I just wish this organized religion crap would go away. It wouldn’t solve everything, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
There is an intelligence behind the universe: the laughing god. The joke is on believers.
You’re misstating what I said on atheists. I think some of the people, like Richard Harris, are being total asses in their absolutism on the issue.
I just wish this organized religion crap would go away
That’s the spirit.
Like atheists have done so much for all of us.
“Like atheists have done so much for all of us.”
How many diseases has organized religion cured? Penicillin has done more good in the last 80 years than all organized religions combined for entire history of mankind.
[[Like atheists have done so much for all of us."]]
[[How many diseases has organized religion cured? ]]
They did invent the hospital; and the university; and a monk founded genetics. In the quiet of a monastery.
Science is a great tool, but because moral questions aren’t part of it, it can cut both ways. The scientific method has been used to discover the cures for diseases. It has also been used to create devices that can kill very large numbers of people at once. If “Science” (and why DO some people talk about “science” as though it was an entity instead of a discipline?) wishes to take credit for curing polio, it must also accept blame for Nagasaki.
Of course, “science” did neither of these things. People did. Science is just a tool.
Science has the capacity to both heal AND kill. What science does NOT do is tell you which one is the better option.
Well put, Iggy.
I would say the same for organized religion–at its best it offers spiritual comfort, fosters community, and brings people closer together. At its worst it offers excuses for hate and violence. But in both cases it takes the right or wrong people to make their interpretations and the right or wrong people to follow those interpretations.
I think the creationists misunderstand-and are deliberately misstating the statistics. 91% believe in some form of Higher Power and Intelligence-but not all are Christians or even belong to a majority religion at all. Others may, regardless of what religious belief they were raised in, believe in a Higher Power but not necessarily a distinct one, or they do believe in a distinct one-or multiple ones-but not necessarily the institution of Church.
Same thing I believe is true about the “creationist” statistics. They may believe that a Higher Power created the Universe, but not necessarily in the Christian Fundamentalist Version that says it happened 6,000 years ago.
And they certainly don’t want people to realize that there are a lot of Democrats who have religious beliefs both on the conservative and liberal sides of the church/temple/shrine isle. Not even get me started on the various forms of Paganism, Metaphysical and Occult Beliefs, various philosophies of life. They need the narrative that athiests/Democrats are all one and the same and a distinct minority.
And it doesn’t matter if 91% of Americans “believe” in “God”, it means as much as “believeing” in intelligent design.
It’s a pleasing story people tell themselves to make sense of a non-directed and leaderless universe.
Arguing about how mean atheists are is frankly pathetic.
Man, that Howard Dean was MEAN when he argued about how wrong George Bush was.
But how many people want creationism or intelligent design taught in public schools? How many people whould like to see the president or congress pass laws based on religious teachings? In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people believe in god or evolution. What matters more is how many of those people also believe in the constitution.
Science has the capacity to both heal AND kill. What science does NOT do is tell you which one is the better option.
So, the 91% who believe in “God”; what did their religion tell them on the day the United States started the Shock and Awe campaign?
Not so much?
Fewer kill “in the name of science” than kill “in the name of God” and the destruction of the planet tomorrow wouldn’t even the scales.
“Of course, “science” did neither of these things. People did. Science is just a tool.”
So science is a tool, but religion discovered genetics. Talk about hypocrisy.
The only tool here is you.
First of all, there are the folks who belong in a non-Christian religion. Think these folks want the Christian version of Creation taught in their school? These Hindus and Muslims who go to medical and engineering school are clearly comfortable with a universe far older than 6K, coming out of religious traditions that are more poetic and metaphorical than literal. And even in the Christian religion, there are plenty who are comfortable with a metaphorical approach to just about anything not nailed down by archaelogy and history. These people aren’t comfortable with Creation Science either.
The universe is neither cruel and meaningless nor totally benevolent. It is what we make it and what we see.
And Creationism (beyond the idea that God started it all some how) betrays the religion it serves. The real tenets of Christianity have to so with sin, redemption, and ethics towards one’s neighbor. Indeed, one can believe that God works through the natural world and its processes, and that the people of the Bible knew little of those processes, and needed a shorthand that said “God is the creator, not some giant killing another giant” which were the alternative beliefs of the day.
If you read the Old Testament and the Prophetic works, the vast majority of them involved the ethics of man treating man humanely. Not a word on believing whether or not the earth was a specific age. Jesus’s emphasis was on ethics, and he taught in parables which may or may not have been drawn on events observed. Not that much energy is expended on trying to prove these are history.
So couldn’t the Bible stories in the Old also have been seen as mostly parable, designed for spiritual edification instead of science?
Secondly, the whole idea of forced teaching of certain religious tenets comes out of the Puritan/Jansenist/Calvinist tradition, not the Christian tradition with its emphasis on Salvation and Belief freely chosen. Not to mention all of the words by Jesus about the importance of private prayer and personal study.
These people believe that mere exposure would somehow make the world more pious-in their direction. Such practices are more likely to make those alienated from the teachings more so, those in the tradition bored and restless, and everyone else feeling it’s a useless exercise of state power. Church becomes the extension of the “Man” and not something a person is attached too.
[["Of course, "science" did neither of these things. People did. Science is just a tool."]]
So science is a tool, but religion discovered genetics. Talk about hypocrisy.
The only tool here is you. ]]
Ummm….I said, “A MONK discovered genetics.”
But nice tactic - change what I said and then accuse me hypocrisy on the basis of your misquotation.
[[So, the 91% who believe in "God"; what did their religion tell them on the day the United States started the Shock and Awe campaign?]]
Actually, the leaders of almost every major religion in the country - the Baptists being an exception - condemned the invasion of Iraq.
“But nice tactic - change what I said and then accuse me hypocrisy on the basis of your misquotation.”
I asked how many diseases did religion cure. You brought up the monk. The implication is clear.
Now you are weasel out of your claim. I don’t think anyone here is stupid enough to fall for that crap.
When Dean talks about Republican policies he has the advantage of objective truth on his side. An atheist going on about God not existing for sure is as faith based as the GOP.
91% of Americans seem to think American Idle is great entertainment, so what the hell do they know anyway?
“When Dean talks about Republican policies he has the advantage of objective truth on his side. An atheist going on about God not existing for sure is as faith based as the GOP.”
Bullshit. It doesn’t take faith to not believe something if there is no evidence.
Oliver, you can keep asserting that atheists’ beliefs are as faith-based as religious folks’ beliefs. No matter how much you repeat it, you’ll still be wrong.
I readily admit that I could be wrong. God MIGHT exist, sure. But I can also judge the relative probabilities of God’s existence vs. his non-existence. And what are the odds of the existence of an exceedingly-complex being such as God, an all-knowing, omnipotent being? I’ll tell you: They ain’t good. With the utter lack of evidence for God’s existence, and the blatant lack of parsimony in assuming that He exists, I will choose to be scientific about this issue… I will ascribe to the null hypothesis. Namely, that there is no God.
Now, tell me how my view is as faith-based as Falwell’s. I’d love to hear your explanation.
mambochicken23: You said, “I readily admit that I could be wrong. God MIGHT exist…”
That’s it. Probability has nothing to do with it.
You can’t prove there is no God. Yet you won’t allow believers to say, “The complexity and organization of our universe suggests an intelligent creator”, because that doesn’t prove God exists. It doesn’t, but it points in that direction — it could be simple anthropocentrism: Surely someone (like us?) made this, but not necessarily.
You may choose “the null hypothesis”, but nothing on God’s green earth can compel anyone else to do so. And that ain’t science.
Frank,
No, you’re wrong. Given the two alternatives, I don’t just select which one suits me. I ascribe to the null hypothesis because that’s the nature of the scientific method. In absence of evidence to the contrary (e.g., support for the alternative hypothesis, the existence of God), it’s scientifically proper to go with the null (e.g., the nonexistence of God). Don’t try to tell me what science is, because you clearly have no clue. The burden of proof is on believers to demonstrate the existence of God, not on atheists to demonstrate the non-existence of God.
Furthermore, I’ll note that no one, not even you, believe everything that cannot be disproven. For example, you probably don’t believe that there’s a superintelligent alien species living beneath the surface of the sun. But you can’t PROVE that there isn’t… so are you trying to say that, using your logic, everyone should believe in the subterreanean sun-dwellers? It is to laugh.
Finally, believers can say all they want re: the existence of God. I love the first amendment, Frank. However, that they’re allowed to say it, and that they’re in the majority, does not have any bearing on whether they’re CORRECT.
The fact remains that all observable, replicable phenomena in the universe can be explained through the application of physics, biology, psychology, etc. In terms of explanatory power, “God” is empty, unparsimonious, unscientific, and fucking lazy to boot.
“Mommy, why is the sky blue?”
“Oh dear, because God willed it to be so.”
How fucking uncurious and lazy can you be, Frank?
mambochicken says, “Roll out the insult machine, I have nothing to say.”
The burden of proof is on believers to demonstrate the existence of God, not on atheists to demonstrate the non-existence of God.
There is no “burden of proof” — this isn’t “Inherit the Wind”, and you’re not Spencer Tracy. If you believe something to be true, then you don’t know it to be true, and that’s that.
But you can’t PROVE that there isn’t… so are you trying to say that, using your logic, everyone should believe in the subterreanean sun-dwellers?
No one is asserting that there are or are subterreanean sun-dwellers (who, if they did exist, would be subsolar surface dwellers, would they not, Mr. Wizard?).
You are asserting that God does not exist because in you’re quasi- (or should I say pseudo- ?) scientific way, you have good reason to believe He doesn’t. Good for you.
I love the First Amendment, too, because it keeps guys like you from going to the Supreme Court to have religion declared illegal.
… all observable, replicable phenomena in the universe can be explained through the application of physics, biology, psychology, etc. In terms of explanatory power …
Maybe it can be, but we don’t know that, do we? There are lots of things that are unexplained in the universe, and you know it — I hope.
So, you ought to say, at the very least, “[A]ll observable, replicable phenomena in the universe might someday be explained… ”
That means that someday there might be demonstrable, incontrovertible replicable evidence (a rather awkward usage, not universally accepted — I’d go with “evidence that can be replicated”) that God did, and does exist.
And I’m certainly no lazier and less curious than someone who symbolically crosses his arms, and says, “Nah - I don’t believe it. Nope. And you can’t prove it. So there!”
“Yet you won’t allow believers to say, “The complexity and organization of our universe suggests an intelligent creator”,”
Because it doesn’t. Complexity and organization doesn’t imply a designer.
Complexity and organization doesn’t imply a designer.
C.S.S.: Maybe not to you — but that’s not my concern.
OK Frank, let’s dissect your post.
1) mambochicken says, “Roll out the insult machine, I have nothing to say.”
Where did I insult anyone? Sure, I implied that you were being lazy by implicating God as an explanatory tool… but it’s more of a descriptive term than an insult. If I wanted to insult you, I’d call you a self-deluded ignoramus who is scientifically-illiterate, a pompous jackass, and who has an unhealthy obsession with his own personal belief system. Plus, I’m pretty sure I had A LOT to say in that previous post, otherwise you wouldn’t feel the need to respond so vigorously to it in the first place.
2) “There is no “burden of proof” — this isn’t “Inherit the Wind”, and you’re not Spencer Tracy. If you believe something to be true, then you don’t know it to be true, and that’s that.”
No, that’s not that. If we’re going to be scientific about this, the absence of God is the null hypothesis, and the presence is the alternative. The default option is the absence of God… without evidence to the contrary, the null hypothesis is what a scientist is left with. And you, nor anyone else, has presented evidence pointing to the existence of God. I readily admit that I MIGHT be wrong… but it’s highly unlikely that I am, and I need to see Jesus descend from the heavens and start healing lepers before I’ll change my mind. Give me one good piece of evidence for the existence of God, Frank, and you’ll see me change my mind in a heartbeat. But you won’t, because you can’t.
3)”No one is asserting that there are or are subterreanean sun-dwellers (who, if they did exist, would be subsolar surface dwellers, would they not, Mr. Wizard?).
You are asserting that God does not exist because in you’re quasi- (or should I say pseudo- ?) scientific way, you have good reason to believe He doesn’t. Good for you.”
OK Frank, I am asserting there are superintelligent subsolar surface dwellers. They have X-ray vision, and the females in the population have telekinetic powers. They’re all 4 feet tall, with a body mass of 21kg. The most common name in the population is Greg. Prove me wrong. Oh, wait… you can’t? Then by your logic, I guess you have to believe that what I said is true, don’t you? If not, please tell me where I’m mistaken.
4) “I love the First Amendment, too, because it keeps guys like you from going to the Supreme Court to have religion declared illegal.”
I would never do that. You do realize that you’re talking to a fullout liberal, right? I respect people’s right to have religious views. But their beliefs aren’t necessarily correct, are they, Frank? Explain to me why you don’t believe in Zeus, or Zoroaster, or Vishnu.
5)”Maybe it can be, but we don’t know that, do we? There are lots of things that are unexplained in the universe, and you know it — I hope.
So, you ought to say, at the very least, “[A]ll observable, replicable phenomena in the universe might someday be explained… ”
That means that someday there might be demonstrable, incontrovertible replicable evidence (a rather awkward usage, not universally accepted — I’d go with “evidence that can be replicated”) that God did, and does exist.”
Sure, there are some things that we don’t have a full grasp of yet. But just because we don’t understand them yet doesn’t imply the existence of God, no more than our lack of understanding of quantum physics a century ago implied the existence of God. What is needed is demonstrable evidence, unexplainable by the sciences, that a supernatural being (e.g., God) exists. Just because string theory isn’t complete yet doesn’t say that God is around.
If that evidence were to come to light, Frank, you’d see me convert in a heartbeat. Why? Because I’ve learned to believe what the data tell me. I don’t accept things on faith alone. If evidence comes to light (with the understanding that it’s highly unlikely that it will) that God exists, I’ll be right there with you, and pray that I’m forgiven for my transgressions. But I’m not holding my breath.
6) “And I’m certainly no lazier and less curious than someone who symbolically crosses his arms, and says, “Nah - I don’t believe it. Nope. And you can’t prove it. So there!”"
Frank, I’ve thought long and hard about the existence of God, and organized religion in general. I grew up Presbyterian, spent time as an agnostic, and then moved to atheism. I am certainly not lazy in this regard. And I’ve demonstrated that I’m not merely crossing my arms and refusing, as you claim. I have a clear, objective reasoning behind my understanding of God’s non-existence. It’s unparsimonious, it’s unnecessary, it’s frankly a ludicrous idea. Give me evidence otherwise, Frank. Please, I’d love to hear it. You, on the other hand, epitomize laziness. You don’t question your beliefs, and you just outright reject every counterargument because they don’t fit in with your view of the world. Considering your old age, I suppose its too late to hope that you’d try to have an open mind.
Frank, I’m not going to post to this thread again unless you have some new things to say. My educated guess is that you won’t. You consistently get your ass handed to you, post after post. Just quit. You lose. Good day, sir!
Frank, I’m not going to post to this thread again unless you have some new things to say. My educated guess is that you won’t. You consistently get your ass handed to you, post after post. Just quit. You lose. Good day, sir!
Thanks for calling me “Sir.”
You have by no means “handed my ass to me.” You have simply repeated yourself.
Don’t think so?
I will ascribe to the null hypothesis. Namely, that there is no God.
Apr 2, 2007 2:51:58 PM
it’s scientifically proper to go with the null (e.g., the nonexistence of God).
Apr 2, 2007 8:57:42 PM
The default option is the absence of God… the null hypothesis is what a scientist is left with
Apr 3, 2007 1:03:04 AM
You are playing word games, declaring victory, and storming off the field.
Once again, you claim your insult is a “descriptive term.” Don’t you tire of the routine? Speak to me condescendingly, hide an insult inside an attempt to deny you are insulting me, refuse to acknowledge that you have a belief that there is no God, and wrap it all up by hitting me with a blatant stereotype related to age, after calling yourself a “fullout liberal”.
You’re a fullout liberal, OK: pedantic, dogmatic, intolerant, arrogant, and rude.
Fix italics
Me:
“Complexity and organization doesn’t imply a designer.”
The Moron:
“C.S.S.: Maybe not to you — but that’s not my concern.”
No, it doesn’t imply a designer in reality. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own reality.
CSS: Did you get moist between the thighs when you called me “The Moron”?
Ooooh, how irreverent! How defiant!
And, he defines reality, too!
I guess you don’t believe in any other God but you, eh, butthead?
And what happened to HAL 3000 mambochicken?
The null hypothesis… The null hypothesis… The null hypothesis…
“I guess you don’t believe in any other God but you, eh, butthead?”
Why do you bother responding? You said nothing.
Of course I don’t think I’m a god. But I’m also smart enough to realize complexity and organization is not indicative of design. After all, crystals have both, but they are created through natural processes. We know these rules right down to the atomic level and there’s no gap for god to fit in.
C.S., there’s probably not more for you or me to say at this point. This guy’s a lost cause. I almost pity him.
mambochicken: Do you think I give a damn if you “almost pity me”? You’re just another ‘rebel without a clue’.
Acting like you’ve been all around the world searching for meaning, and now you’ve decided God doesn’t exist. The arrogance and self - importance ooze from every pixel of your comments. You and the pompous CSS both.
Are you interested in learning when I confirmed, for myself, that God most definitely exists? I was 40 years old! And I had been around the world, and back again.
Don’t pity me, you selfish prig. It’s easy not to believe in God, and you call me lazy. What’s the world all about, then? An accident? A tautology, where we are all here for each other, but none of us has a purpose, like bees in a hive?
No, my preening, condescending friend, it is I, who know what awaits you — the foolish regret you will fell when you find that there is a God — I pity you.
Frank,
I don’t care, and never said I did, if you give a damn about my near-pity for you. I was addressing CSS.
You can call me arrogant and self-important if you like. It’s a convenient way to avoid the irrefutability of my arguments. Just because I reiterate them doesn’t mean they are not valid. You have yet to address my points regarding the scientific method and parsimony. Why haven’t you, Frank?
“Are you interested in learning when I confirmed, for myself, that God most definitely exists? I was 40 years old! And I had been around the world, and back again.”
It is of no consequence to me, or to the veracity of this discussion, how old you were when you “confirmed” the existence of God. Nor does your traveling experience matter. What does matter, though, is this confirmation you speak of… please share with us your proof that “God most definitely exists.” I told you, if I see some evidence, I’ll change my mind and admit that I’ve been wrong all this time. Again, my guess is that you can’t supply this evidence.
It’s actually quite difficult to not believe in God. Besides the obvious social stigma associated with atheism, I’d genuinely like to believe that there’s a supernatural father figure looking over everyone and everything. But I’ve learned to believe what I can perceive; what can I see, hear, taste, touch? I don’t believe things just because they’re convenient to my worldview, and I don’t believe things in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Why does the world have to have a purpose, Frank? Short answer: It doesn’t. If it helps you to think of it as “bees in a hive,” then so be it. In fact, the very notion of “purpose” is unparsimonious (your favorite concept, have you looked it up yet?). The fact of our existence has no bearing on whether we have a “purpose,” or whether there’s “meaning” to our existence. And yes, I know that this is a depressing and inconvenient point of view… and I believe that I’ve been more unhappy since I’ve come upon these realizations. A difference between us, Frank, is that I’d rather be outside the cave and unhappy than locked up in the dark and satisfied.
I’m sorry, Frank, but you’re wrong. About practically everything on this topic. I actually wish that you weren’t though. Honestly.
mambochicken: and I’m sorry you believe that belief in God is like being locked up in the dark.
I can’t prove God exists, and I’m fairly certain that if I could prove God existed for a thousand people in a row, you wouldn’t be satisfied when it was your turn.
People who speak glibly of “turning on to faith” as soon as they “see a sign” never see a sign. That’s anecdotal, I know, but I have told many people many a time, “Remember that incident” or “that conversation”, and they never see it as a sign that God exists, even though I, or someone else, might.
It is better, I feel, to be in the dark from time to time, than to stand, as you do, with the light behind you, so that you darken your own world.
And yes, I know that this is a depressing and inconvenient point of view… and I believe that I’ve been more unhappy since I’ve come upon these realizations.
What does one say to that?
And, of course, you can’t end your plaintive soliloquy without a jibe at me.
Because if I’m right — if I’m right — you have made a tragic,tragic error.
And, yes, I looked up parsimony, not because I never heard of it, and not because I didn’t know what it meant. I looked it up to see if I could find a link to the concept of parsimony via-a-vis the existence of God.
I believe you shrugged it off, without refuting it. Say what you will, I know this: A believer cannot be persuaded not to believe by reason, and a nonbeliever cannot be persuaded to believe by faith.
You have chosen reason as superior to faith, but it is still a choice.
I’m sorry my experience means so little to you, but that makes you just like all the other young liberals that post here. It is, in a sense, part and parcel of liberalism to distrust experience and tradition.
The famous story Mark Twain told about his father comes to mind.
Ah, so we’re to this point, where you imply your superiority because of your advanced years. Sorry Frank, not a good argument. Just because you’re really, really old doesn’t mean you know anything. Quite the contrary, with advanced age comes decreased flexibility and reduced capacity to learn new ideas. And no, I’m not just pulling that stereotype out of my ass… I’m a psychologist. Just a pre-emptive strike.
I’ve discussed the link between parsimony and God’s nonexistence… many, many times. You are the one who is shrugging it off without responding to it. If you want an excellent breakdown of the association, read a bit of The God Delusion… that is, if you can bear it.
“Because if I’m right — if I’m right — you have made a tragic,tragic error.”
Yep, you’re right on this point. So you’re saying I should believe in God, and go to church, and eat crackers and drink wine out of fear? You’re telling me that THAT constitutes belief? Besides that, I could make a prediction that a giant meteor is going to hit the U.S. in exactly a month. IF I’M RIGHT, and you don’t build yourself a bomb shelter in your backyard, you have just made a tragic error, haven’t you? But the probability of me being right is very, very, very small. Probably still better than your prediction of God’s existence though.
You said that when you turned 40 you had a revelation. I’m asking you to please share it with me, so that I can change my mind and become a believer, and repent for my sinful behavior. Not sharing the proof of God’s existence seems to be sinful to me… aren’t you supposed to spread the word of Christ? Think that’s in the Good Book somewhere…
“You have chosen reason as superior to faith, but it is still a choice.”
Oh, thank you, Frank. You’ve FINALLY admitted that faith and reason are diametrically opposed to one another. Essentially, you’ve admitted that your beliefs are unreasonable. If a major part of your identity is wrapped up in religion, which it seems to be… you’ve admitted that you are an unreasonable person. Fuckin-a, pal! Thanks for making my argument for me.
I believe the score is somewhere around 126-2, with me leading. Would you like to pack up your things and go home yet?
mambochicken: For a moment, just a moment, I thought I detected a spark of humanity in you.
Pardon me.
I shall never make that mistake again.
“C.S., there’s probably not more for you or me to say at this point. This guy’s a lost cause. I almost pity him.”
I would pity him if he didn’t vote. As it is, he’s dangerous.
He’s a lost cause, but maybe pointing out how stupid he is, will convince more reasonable people not to follow suit.
Yeah, C.S. I vote. And the fact that you wish I didn’t, says more about you than it does about me.
There has never been a more undemocratic group of liberals than the contemporary liberal.
They are well represented here. You must be proud to count yourself among them.
“Yeah, C.S. I vote. And the fact that you wish I didn’t, says more about you than it does about me.”
When did I say I wish you didn’t vote? Here’s a tip, those voices you hear in your head, they are not me.
No I don’t wish you don’t vote, I wish you were smart enough to vote responsibly. That’s how I feel about everyone.
And saying, “That boy’s too stupid to vote.” isn’t undemocratic. Signing up a bunch of democrats and then throwing away their registration cards in undemocratic. Jamming a phone number set up to help people vote is undemocratic. Throwing black people off the vote registration list because they share the same last name as a convicted fellon is undemocratic.
those voices you hear in your head, they are not me.
But that tin - foil hat you have on? That’s all yours.
“But that tin - foil hat you have on? That’s all yours.”
Two points:
1.) I can’t believe you bothered to write that post. Like the crystal post above, you completely ignored my point for something that you probably think is funny. You can’t win this debate, because you are not smart enough.
2.) Tin foil hats don’t work. As designed, they would act as a dish to amplify any signals. To have any hope of functioning, they would have to encase the brain, which would be fatal in most cases.