General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Poll: 13% think Obama is the anti-Christ; 29% believe in aliens
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/03/newser-poll-conspiracy-theories/2049073/It's official: Americans love their conspiracy theories. Public Policy Polling asked voters to weigh in on 20 more infamous ones, and the results show that a not-insignificant number of people believe that President Obama is the anti-Christ (13%), Big Foot exists (14%), and the planet is secretly ruled by the New World Order (28%). Four percent think our societies are actually ruled by "lizard people."
Among the other results:
•21% believe the government covered up a UFO crash in Roswell; 29% believe in aliens
•6% believe Osama bin Laden is alive
•5% think Paul McCartney has been dead for decades
•15% think there's mind-control technology hidden in TV signals
•37% think global warming is a hoax
•7% think the moon landing was faked
•15% think Big Pharma develops new diseases as a way to make money
•14% see the CIA's hand in the 1980s crack epidemic
******************************************
America needs mental health services.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)('m being very conservative with that figure since I can't be bothered to look up the real exact number.)
Drale
(7,932 posts)Whether you believe in a "magic superbeing" or not does not automatically make you good or bad. A man has to make his own choices whether to be good or bad. Its not the belief in the supernatural that's the problem, its the persons personality and how they dictate their Religion that is the problem. Not all Religions are bad and not all Churches are bad, so how about you focus on the ones that are bad?
Can you prove inter-dimensional gremlins aren't teleporting themselves into my dryer to steal my socks and that's why I keep ending up with one out of a pair missing?
(The answer is no, you can't. This I absolutely guarantee)
So that makes it TOTALLY REASONABLE to believe it's happening, RIGHT?
As for the rest of your rant, you appear to be carrying baggage from an unrelated discussion. Nothing was said or implied here about the inherent morality of believers.
Drale
(7,932 posts)hence we can extrapolate that you believe those people to be stupid and ignorant. That "Ha you believe in God, that's stupid" attitude that some atheists have is why many people don't trust atheists and why they never learn what it really is about.
That's a comment on the prevalence of gullible and reality denying positions clung to by large swaths of society. That's scary. That's also kind of the point of the OP
It's not a statement on whether those people are eeeeeeeevil.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... but I hate absolutes in both directions.
You and I can't know for certain (absolutely) that there is or isn't a supernatural sky-being that controls the universe. It's unknowable in this realm of life for both of us. It's impossible to ascertain.
So, I'm weary of people that know for "certain" either way. Unless they know of some empirical evidence or science that I'm not aware of, they can't "absolutely" make a statement for or against.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You and I can't know for certain (absolutely) that there is or isn't a supernatural sky-being that controls the universe. It's unknowable in this realm of life for both of us. It's impossible to ascertain.
...as an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Those of us with familiarity of scientific methodologies reject those hypotheses on the grounds that they are unfalsifiable. And for very good reason. A consequence of them being unfalsifiable is that they can offer no practical knowledge and adopting them is not only pointless but in many case actually *harmful* to the process of inquiry into real explanations for things. Creating the impression that you possess an explanation for something when you in reality have simply slapped an alternative label on a state of total ignorance.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.
But that would work both ways. You can't demonstrate or falsify the assumption of a sky-being actually existing.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Claim: "X exists"
You reject the claim because it's unfalsifiable. That is fully sufficient grounds for taking the position that you do not hold that belief. (Ie: Atheism in the case that "X" = "deity".)
You can't turn around and say you reject the rejection because it's unfalsifiable. The rejection isn't a claim that requires a burden of proof to be applied to it. It's a ruling on the failure of the claim that a deity exists to meet that burden.
You can say there is some subset of atheists (a very small one btw) that claims to know "god definitely doesn't exist" and say that position is unfalsifiable, but that isn't what makes them atheists. The initial rejection of the positive claim that a deity does exist makes them atheists. They're incorrect to claim that blanket certainty but they hardly need to.
(And don't get me started by claiming that those who don't claim that blanket certainty are agnostics *instead of* atheists. They're both.)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... but, wouldn't the claim, either way, be equally invalid outside some empirical or testable data? It is true that you and I do not, at this point in time, know for certain in the existence or nonexistence of a deity. So, an argument for or against is either valid or invalid; in this case, making an absolute statement either way would not be valid until such a time where it could be falsified, correct?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts).. what "the claim either way" is referring to?
The initial claim is fairly straightforward... "deity exists".
Is the "other way" you are referring to "deity doesn't exist" or "don't accept initial claim deity exists"?
The former you are correct on, but the latter is what atheism is and what people are usually trying to apply this particular reasoning to. I can make, quite comfortably, a definitive statement that rejecting the claim "a deity exists" is fully justified on the grounds that that claim is unfalsifiable and thus of no value.
As for this part:
It is true that you and I do not, at this point in time, know for certain in the existence or nonexistence of a deity.
I should point out that it is not a matter of "at this point in time". A claim being unfalsifiable is not a matter of you currently lacking the necessary equipment to test it or something, it is that the claim made is inherently unfalsifiable and always will be. That there exists no possible test that could *ever* falsify it. In the case of God, no test result even hypothetically exists that cannot be explained away by "because God made it happen that way" because the supernatural does not operate according to any defined rules. Which is why we reject the hypothesis right out of the gate. It's worthless and pointless to entertain it.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)You gave me food for thought. Doesn't happen much, but it happened.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)look at some similar claims
1. My brother exists.
In order to prove anything you first need to have a standard of proof. Suppose the year is 1860 and my brother is in Germany and I am in Wisconsin. (and just never mind that there was no such thing as Germany until 1870). How can you in Wisconsin prove that my brother exists?
Now are you, as some kind of Ayerian verificationist going to scoff at the pitiful fool who believes he has a brother and reject such a hypothesis as being "unverifiable"? Because with the current technology and in any practical way, it certainly would be "unverifiable".
or this claim
2. I can juggle.
Explain to me how YOU would prove that.
Because you cannot. That claim can only be verified if I CHOOSE to demonstrate it.
In a somewhat similar way, imagine this. IF there is a god, then he/she/it could certainly prove his existence by simply CHOOSING to appear. If, such a being decided to pop into your room and say "hey, Mr./Ms. Skeptic, I am god" and then transported you to the surface of the sun and then to the center of the galaxy and then to a spot 100 feet over the house where you grew up, and then returned you, untouched and alive, to your room. Would you, or would you not accept that as proof?
At least in theory, god can prove he exists in the same way that I can prove I can juggle - by demonstrating it. Some people accept that god exists in the same way they would accept that their brother is still alive - by reading his words. If I get a letter from my brother in Germany, I usually will believe that he is alive.
Now you claimed that the hypothesis was useless, and that claim is clearly false.
Because the belief does not stand alone.
"God exists" is followed by
"God wants you to ..."
and usually "believe in Him, worship Him" is right at the top.
Of course, "right view" is the first step on the Buddhist eightfold path.
Or, as Micah wrote "What does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Belief in God is usually followed by exhortations to do good. Whereas disbelief in God, is followed by nothing. As CS Lewis wrote "From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn."
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)"In order to prove anything you first need to have a standard of proof."
And that's where you go wrong. You just spent an entire post talking about whether you can prove things when falsifiability deals with whether you can disprove things.
Science does not try to prove things. Every single scientific finding in history is considered provisionally accepted as consistent with the evidence so far, pending more data that may or may not overturn it. That's it. NEVER, EVER proven. Which is what makes science so very very good at advancing knowledge. It never stops pushing or questioning itself.
Falsification is a different consideration. It is "how can I tell if I'm WRONG"?
If there is no possible way to know, then you're wasting your time considering the claim.
And whether you are willing to perform a test of whether you can juggle is not the point. The point is whether such a test can even possibly EXIST AT ALL that if performed has a potential outcome which, if the claim were wrong, would allow you to tell that it was wrong.
For the claim "I can juggle" such a test exists. It's called you trying to juggle and either succeeding or failing (assuming anyone actually cared enough about such a trivial claim to bother subjecting it to testing). So the claim is falsifiable. You refusing to perform the test doesn't make the test not exist.
For the claim "God exists" on the other hand there is no possible test that could ever produce any possible result that would tell you if that claim was wrong, and there never can. So the claim is unfalsifiable, and thus a waste of time to consider.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)God, if he/she exists could either appear or not appear. God refusing to perform the test doesn't make the test not exist. Further, in the example you give, for me to fail to juggle certainly does NOT prove that I cannot juggle - because I could pretty obviously pretend that I am unable to juggle. Why? Just to mess with the scientists, of course.
And "waste of time" is a value judgement. One apparently not subjected to your standard of "disproof".
Science, as you wrote, is very good at "advancing knowledge".
Vonnegut wrote, "There had been much advance in the knowledge of HOW to do things. It was regrettable that there had been much less advance in the knowledge of things worth doing."
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Let's start with the most obvious and largest one. You have to establish the test exists.
If the claim you are examining is "God exists" and you assign responsibility for performing the test of that to... God... do you see a problem there?
In the case of you juggling establishing that you exist TO perform the test of whether you can juggle is taken care of pretty easily.
So "God choosing to appear or not" is not a valid test of the claim that God exists because you're begging the question by assuming that God exists to make that choice in the first place.
You could alter the test to something *you* could do instead of something God would do. Like "I will observe whether or not God appears". But then the problem there should also be obvious. It doesn't matter what the outcome of that "test" is you're still going to be saying God exists. ALL possible outcomes of that "test" can be explained away as being consistent with God existing. There is no possible test result that would tell you if you were wrong about that.
As for you pretending not to be able to juggle, yep, you can do that. And we can test that too. Say hello to Mr. Polygraph. Or an fMRI scan. Eventually the weight of the evidence is going to be sufficient to establish whether the claim that you can juggle is false or not. There is no way to even gather evidence of whether the claim "God exists" is false.
See the difference yet?
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)"You and I can't know for certain (absolutely) that there is or isn't a supernatural sky-being that controls the universe. It's unknowable in this realm of life for both of us. It's impossible to ascertain."
cordelia
(2,174 posts)who happen not to think the same way as they do.
They apparently don't realize how tiresome their supposed superiority is.
Answer me this.
37% think global warming is a hoax
Most people on this board feel absolutely justified in bashing that, and rightly so. Do you disagree?
Explain how that position is LESS justifiable than believing a magic superbeing rules the universe. I dare you. Because from where I'm standing it has about 100 times more support. Which is still almost no support, but it has the advantages of:
1. Hoaxes actually being known to exist.
2. The claimed perpetrators of the hoax actually being known to exist.
3. The act of perpetrating the hoax not involving violating any firmly established laws of physics.
etc... it's still ridiculous, but tell me how it's *less* ridiculous than believing in the magic universe ruling superbeing?
cordelia
(2,174 posts)Global warming - I belive it's happening.
"Magic universe ruling superbeing"? Nope.
You sure seem to have a lot of time on your hands.
Wish I had that luxury.
Insert annoying juvenile laughing smilie thing here. Or the puking one. Your choice.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Can you prove unicorn farts don't smell like chicken mcnuggets?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)They smell like licorice and rainbows! So sayeth the great holy book of the horn.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)messed up a couple shingles...
I climbed up there to confront it and it blasted one right in my face before it proceeded to fly away. I respect the holy book of the horn but that passage is incorrect 
Silly person. Clearly you encountered the Unicorns evil cousin... the Pegacorn.
Unicorns don't fly, they either gallop gracefully in slow motion with soft lighting effects, or teleport
snooper2
(30,151 posts)on Saturday
Drale
(7,932 posts)the odds of an alien civilization with the technology to travel across the starts not existing is ridiculously astronomical. Now whether they've come to visit Earth or not that's another question.
P.S. I would not put it past Big Pharma to create new diseases to make money, it seems like something a giant corporation would totally do.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...would be aliens *probably* exist.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Before I ever would go with a god.
AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)is silly. I also believe there is intelligent life in the universe. The possibilities of a more advance form of life is also a possibility. Whether or not they have traveled to earth or not is in question. As someone once said extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)Not crazy, imo.
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)The money raised was used to fund the Contras and probably other stuff as well.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)QUOTE:
EARLY COMPLICITY IN DRUG TRAFFICKING
THE OSS: FORERUNNER TO THE CIA. The “multinational” business of drug trafficking can be traced back to the 1940s, even before the CIA was created following World War II. Before the creation of the CIA in 1947, Allen Dulles assembled the Flying Tigers, an inner clique within the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Dulles had close ties with Eastern billionaire families, and he was able to run clandestine operations out of the White House.
The OSS-mafia alliance emerged soon after the agency was formed. The OSS was first headed by Earl Brennan who helped plan the Allied invasion of Sicily and Italy in World War II. During the war, He had close ties with the head of the Vatican’s Vessel Operation, Monsignor Giovanni Batista Montini who was also an aid to Pope Pius XII. Montini suggested that Brennan recruit Italian exiles such as Masons business leaders, and mafia members to corroborate with the Allies in their invasion. In 1963, Montini become Pope Paul VI.
Colonel Paul Hellwell of the OSS began to smuggle heroin from Burma and sold it in ghettos in the United States. Grown in Burma and processed in Shanghai, OSS agents ran across this bonanza while attempting to bolster the right wing regime of Chiang Kai-shek and to prevent Mao Tse Tung from ascending to power. Flying Tigers were OSS mercenaries who were financed with secret funds. Hellwell observed how Chiang sold opium to Chinese addicts and used the revenue to purchase weapons for his troops. Hellwell created Sea Supply, an OSS proprietary company, out of Miami and used it to carry guns across the ocean to China. The opium was grown in Burma, so Hellwell moved on to Southeast Asia in order to consolidate his operation.
Nope, not crazy at all.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)I.e. Aliens.
The chances that the Earth contains the only life in the universe is preposterous on many, many levels.
I also wouldn't put it past the CIA to introduce crack into the inner city. They've done other despicable things, so this is probable.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)That God is an "extra-terrestrial being" or Alien, so if you add the 75% that believe in God with the 29% that believes in aliens you get 104% of the people believe in "extra-terrestrials"
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)For their safety and ours
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I can see where this thread is heading. Another let's bash anybody who believes in God thread. I've already seen some of the posts down thread that have already gone there. Enjoy your superiority trip.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)In addition to sowing divisions between the one-ups and one-downs, the superiority trippers are most un-democratic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)While we're playing the percentages, it's appropriate to point out that the chance of there being "alien" life forms is a lot greater than the 29% who apparently believe this to be the case. As for the rest of the idiocy, it smacks of teabaggers who can barely get by in a modern society.
Oh, and the CIA crack thing: also not a conspiracy theory.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
Dpm12
(512 posts)explain how Al Qaeda said he was dead, and how he has never publicly come out and said: "The Americans are liars, I'm alive!"
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)
edbermac
(15,933 posts)And aliens do exist.
