What gets me going is how anyone even thought she was a viable candidate this long.

Goes to show that there is still alot of dumb people out there, willing to vote on looks and religion alone.

As a Canadian with a fascination for American politics, I've read or heard a lot of about her positions, and they seem pretty extreme. I know she's not the only one who holds these views nor did she come up with them. I only wonder how extreme it can get?

Quote

... " I had to mute the sound every time she was on the air" geetrue.

Some times that not enough. I still know what she's saying!

My cousin said to me that if she was as ugly as Hilary Clinton she would have lasted half as long. At least Mrs Clinton knows what she is talking about before she says it.

I agreed. Bachmann was trying to appeal to a small segment of the population (religious tea-nuts) and got told in Iowa where to go with that divisionist and hateful rhetoric she spews.

I only hope Minnesota votes her out of congress so she can go back to her gay hating, government aid accepting "orphanage" she runs. Maybe then she will talk alot less about government programs giving useless people money, since she is one of the people her tea-nut kind crusade against...

Hypocrasy in politics? *gasps*

I believe in intelligent design.

I believe in a creator. Given the scope, beauty, and complexity of the design, I can only assume he is intelligent.

Unfortunately belief has pretty much nothing to do with fact. Without evidence, it's just wishful thinking.

Have you been dead?

I'm going to presume, neither have you; ergo, "wishful thinking"...

No. Neither has anyone who talks about it. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying that believing isn't the same as knowing. I don't know either way, but I've reached a point where I'd like see at least a little evidence.




Speaking of which, I have to go to a funeral. Back later.

Oh I do believe that there are intelligent designers out there, but I haven't met one yet :smug:. However I believe in intelligent design when I see some works of Scandinavian Industrial Design, where form and function are both fulfilled.

It's not the point if a creator exists or not or a creatorness, at least we all know that we have been created.
The point is that complexity can be a sign of an intelligent designer or an overly, unnecessary complicated design. Take programming: is the complex code superior or the one which is simpler but performs better. Something complex is not always better for your task, but it certainly can enhance the experience you have with the game ;).

Which brings us to the task of the creator: why he put us onto planet Earth and if everything is part of a big plan, perfectly designed and clearly written to the last comma.
Did he foresee the extinction of the Dodo and developed him only that some eco-guys can moan about animal extinction? Or would an intelligent designer not put some randomness into his work, something which often leads to astonishing results.

We're really leaving Bachman here a little - to me, her words about "Intelligent Design" reveal no philosophical thoughts about our existence but only an attempt to bring Creationism onto the agenda, bringing religion back into the state as a pseudo-compensation for the felt power loss of the Christian Right.

No. Rather, that you, Steve and myself do not know. We have not been dead, so we do not have the experience of an afterlife with our god, or a lack of such an experience. Nor were we there when the entire universe either exploded forth from a tiny dot of matter or didn't do so at all. Many of us take things as a matter of wishful thinking, whether religious or not. To ridicule something to which no answer can be given is a foolish thing.

Well, that wasn't very nice.

Nah, I have friends who work as designers, they'll understand. I for myself have too much respect for art to call my little attempts of creativity at work "design" :cool:

But, the real question, which comes to my mind, reading only the written communication, is: what you did you mean by the words "intelligent design". I mean uncapitalized do the words not stand for this wacko temple of thought which goes by the name of "Intelligent Design". If you do really believe in this stuff, check out my answer to crank.

Ah, I see, it was all about word games and mockery. I should have spelled it out right off the bat. My bad.

I believe that our world, it's ecosystems, the symbiotic relationship of organism and the universe by extension is so perfectly balanced and intricate in both it's micro and macro design that it almost certainly could not have happened by chance. This would almost be akin to a room of monkeys typing out a novel. As such, I see it only as logical that the mechanics of life and evolution of species occur only through the divine intervention of a creator, or at the very least a mind greater than mine.

I do hope that my pitiful words were able to at least make my intended statement discernable.

It is not my intention to ridicule; it is a simple satement of fact that no one has "come back from the grave" with a definitive answer. As Sailor Steve pointed out, there is no conclusive evidence to support either a creation story or an afterlife condition. There are so many differing creation theories and so many afterlife beliefs (an empty void, reincarnation [in several different scenarios], heaven-or-hell juudgement, etc.) given by so many cultures over so many millenia, the only way to rationally approach the question is to simply ask "Where is your conclusive proof". Asking if someone was ever dead is not an argument, it is simply trying to place the onus pf proof on the other party while sidestepping the need to provide proof one's self. This tactic can be seen in itself as a mockery or ridicule of the core topic and the arguments for or against. So the question is, Takeda,...

Where is your conclusive proof?...

Asking if someone had died is an excellent argument. It places emphasis on the purpose of any religion or science, for that matter; namely the explaination of the unknown. In that vein, death is the ultimate unknown. None who have ventured into it's bonds have ever returned. The afterlife, as the central theme of any religion, therefore remains a mystery to all. It is a matter to be taken on faith, much like the bulk of the theoretical sciences, most especially pertaining the the beginnings of our universe.

Proof? I'm not attempting to convince you of anything, vienna. I simply stated, in general fashion, what my view was. I made no attempt to place it above your own; only asking that it recieve the very same respect that I afford to your's and others. However, I have been on GT long enough to know that I should not hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

So, basically, you're saying the subject is, after all, "wishful thinking"...


(Oh, and yes, I do respect yours or anyone else views; I merely wanted to point out the shift of onus...)

Yup, it's all more clear to me now :yep:. There might be also our different cultural background involved. Here, we tend to throw Creationism and ID all into the same bowl. An interesting point of view about this question is presented in the film "Religulous" by Bill Maher. Here he asks the original old-school Christians, the Vatican, namely a guy who works in the Vaticanian planetarium, about Creationism. As backwards as those guys are often, even this guy wipes such unscientific believes and doesn't find it even worth discussing.

Your thoughts are something different. I can relate to this. I am overwhelmed by the complexity and weirdness when we leave our human (Newtonian) physics and watch how the laws of physics are in the micro and the very macro size: strange, complex, overwhelming and presumably random.
Same when I see some breathtaking things on Earth, in nature: the mind-blowing complexity of an ecosystem or just the breathtaking awesomeness of a waterfall.

This is something where I have discussions about; with people who are believers. They see it as a proof for the awesomeness and big brains of a creator. However they have the ability to link scientific findings and their belief in god - which is ok for them and to me. But the desperate search for some dino prints next to some human footprints we see in the US looks laughable, even to them. Hell, why do some people do not seem to be able to bring together faith and science? This is what looks so strange, from the European POV - like I mentioned before: it's all about a political agenda, not a philosophical question.

However, as the good agnostic that I am :know:, I still challenge you to bring an example why a complex system could not be created by randomness rather than by planned design.

Theoretical science does not require faith, just the opposite actually, real science demands skepticism which is the implacable enemy of faith.

It also requires the ability to analyze empirical information and draw logical conclusions from the data. Science also make predictions that are backed up by empirical data whereas religion can offer only ritual and magic.

Comparing the two is disingenuous in the extreme.

Regarding the question of death: in my eyes the burden of proof lies upon the people who believe to have an answer. I go with Steve in this topic: I don't know and I don't have a better theory than you guys, but if you claim something to be true: bring on the arguments for it.

I have heard different stories of people who were declared dead by medicine. Some came back, being angry at the people who took them back to life, as if those suckers took them away from something beautiful - the proverbal light, together with a peaceful feeling; others were happy to be revived because they felt awful things, fear and pain. I had a friend who even did both: he wanted to off himself, was saved and came back fighting at the doctors who revived him, but he was happy to come back, as he felt (saw?) terrible stuff - he didn't want to go. Maybe those near death experiences are only caused by the body's very own drugs, maybe a they show something like "a spirit of life" - meh, hope I don't sound to hippy-ish :DL - fact is I don't know, and neither does anybody who believes in a higher being.


(Btw: I think an awesomely interesting discussion derived from a topic about a less-than-mediocre presidential candidate :up:)