Why college students are so liberal.

Student Lounge College Life
401

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you know my answer to that question; however, I don’t think you realize that it isn’t a very good analogy for belief in god.</p>

<p>If you use your god purely as a device to explain physical phenomena, then yeah, of course, your belief will be shaken when, for example, scientists find out that matter is distributed (QM). I don’t think the sophisticated christian uses god as a replacement for scientific theories though.</p>

<p>Showing that ur bro never walked into the room is pretty good evidence that he never was in the room. Showing that light is made up of oscillating electric & magnetic fields isn’t evidence that your god didn’t will light to behave that way. Showing that time-harmonic charges and currents generate those fields by no means suggests that your god couldn’t will that to be so. </p>

<p>The fact finding in the brother . . . goldfish analogy helps the case. The ‘fact finding’ (doing science) in the ‘does god exist case’ doesn’t really move the case one direction or the other.</p>

402

<p>Well, legend, there is one fundamental difference between how a person and a computer (well, besides emotions, and that humans are squishy, etc.)</p>

<p>Humans have a consciousness/ we inhabit a conscious mind.</p>

<p>Computers do not have a consciousness, much like an apple doesn’t nor a doorknob.</p>

<p>The mystery of consciousness has never really been unraveled, as its pretty damn hard to do experiments on something only you individually experience and can never actually detect or prove in others.</p>

403

<p>

If your story was supposed to be analogous to “God and the evidence that he is not likely involved”, which it obviously is, then yes, it’s very likely that the brother is omnipotent. :P</p>

<p>

Which basically means that we are assuming the probability is extreme with no basis whatsoever except what it “feels” like i.e. intuition. Intuition is not always correct, though. I think that lazily asserting that “Oh, we have all these naturalistic explanations for so many things that it makes the existence of God highly unlikely, but we don’t really need to get specific” is much more dishonest than trying to get a real, valid assessment of the situation, especially when you are supposed to be arguing from the perspective of science and reason.</p>

<p>

Oh, I understand his assertion. But is this really your argument? I think that God is not unlikely because I haven’t studied those fields extensively? If only I were smart and informed enough, I would accept the atheist position as the most valid one? And of course, you oh enlightened one are too busy to bother educating a plebian like me, so I’ll just have to wallow in my ignorance? Tsk tsk, typical Neo-Atheist response.</p>

<p>

Yes yes, reduce the concept of God to a trivial situation so that I may see how ridiculous my belief is…boring tactic. I could argue that most people are simply so invested in their intuitions and inferences from previous experiences that they would of course decide in such a way. Just because most people tend to assert something, does not make them correct. Just because someone is highly intelligent and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of modern science and philosophy, does not make them correct in any assertion that they make.</p>

<p>@peter_parker</p>

<p>…what’s with you and death? Feeling a little alone in our concept of a finite existence are we? The Deist position on death is generally that it is impossible to know what happens after death. Yes, you can bring out your papers on neuroscience and the effects of brain damage, responses to various stimuli, etc… but they will not likely prove anything to me unless we agree on a number of premises.</p>

<p>@legend, again

Yes, very elaborate. We don’t think of computers as having souls because we know that they are designed and built by humans…</p>

404

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve run into PLENTY of Christians who will outright claim that evolution is a lie, science is full of conspiracy and collusion “past a certain point,” and that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that humans lived alongside dinosaurs. They’re really more numerous than you’d expect, and it’s really shocking to me.</p>

<p>Regarding your scientific examples, don’t you see what you’re doing? Instead of formulating a hypothesis and then testing it, you’re assuming something to be true and then shoving it in a different direction so that it fits the evidence. This is the biggest problem with God. No matter what science is uncovered, “God of the Gaps” will always exist to plug up what we don’t know. “We don’t know what X is, so we could assume God did it.” Even if you look at the science and admit, “Alright – this is all pretty convincing and I understand how everything, including humans, were natural processes that required no creator. But look at the Big Bang – we have no proof that God didn’t make our universe to begin with!”</p>

<p>This has a few fundamental issues. Namely, it doesn’t solve the problem. If we assume God “willed” science into motion and made the universe, then what made God? You may say “Well, he’s outside of time and always existed” – but in the words of Sagan, if you’re going to assume God always existed, then why not save a step and assume the universe has always existed? If you assume that God was born from nothing, then why not save a step and assume that the universe was born from nothing? We don’t get ANYWHERE by invoking God. Whatever we attribute to God we could just as easily attribute to the universe itself.</p>

<p>There is the famous “fine-tuned knobs” analogy where you can think of a universe as a sum product of an array of “knobs” that adjust the various cosmological constants and properties of the laws of physics and so forth. Many permutations of these settings, it could be argued, could not result in a livable universe. There are certain “necessary conditions” for observation to even take place to begin with. The other way to see it is that existence may not be possible in any other way. In quantum mechanics, even the concept of “nothing” is “something.”</p>

<p>Not to get off-track (in an already-derailed thread), the point is that you can always push God back further and further as you uncover more and more about the universe, always claiming that God could be hiding in shadows uncharted. It doesn’t get us anywhere even if it could be true, much like the unicorns-in-the-pillows argument.</p>

<p>The fact-finding in the goldfish cash is supposed to be analogous. You never directly see what caused the goldfish’s death. You can gather a massive load of evidence to suggest a variety of plausible explanations that explain what could have caused it. The more evidence you gather, the more likely it is that the cause was something natural as opposed to something supernatural like an omnipotent brother. Clearly you’re not going to seriously think the brother omnipotently killed your goldfish because the evidence you have is easy to understand and shows we don’t have to rely on supernatural explanation. Similarly, many people aren’t going to seriously think God influences/causes things in our universe because the evidence we have shows he isn’t necessary in the same fashion.</p>

405

<p>@peter_parker and itachirumon: you must be kidding me! The trillion dollar “stimilus” packake advocated for, created by, and passed by and under OBAMA!!! U two must be seriously confused. It includes things like the american recovery and reinvestment act…r u serious? u two have to be living under rocks. </p>

<p>@ itachirumon: If you recall, Obama promised to keep the unemployment rate below 8%. But what’s another broken promise by Obama? And the unemployent rate is actually higher cause obama spent al of our taxes and pulled us into major debt to create a minimal amount of…PUBLIC SECTOR jobs! (you should look up the diff. between public and private, and that massive stimulus bill opbama passed…since this might be too complicated for someone as ignorant as yourself.)
But thanks for telling me that there can’t be a 0% unemployment rate (btw, there actually CAN be. learn some economics 101). I didnt mention that there can be a 0% unemployment anyhow, so stop trying to make me look dumb by responding random facts to things i havent said. </p>

<p>NEXT:</p>

<p>"I applaud Obama for having the stones, YES THE STONES to admit we screwed up, and we’re sorry for screwing up. Cause that’s the sign of a strong leader. "</p>

<p>Me: screwed up is a highly subjective termt he way you used it in context. First prove to me that America did indeed, “screw up”. </p>

<p>NEXT: </p>

<p>“Okay, NEVER go to the hospital again, NEVER use our roads again, ANY roads. I better not see you in the library ever. And so help me God if you got your diploma from a public school, it ought to be ripped up and your grades from said school nullified, since public schools are socialist institutions as well!”</p>

<p>Me: lol, ur ignorance is caracking me up. A public system, i.e. the hospital, roads, library you mentioned does not constitute the country socailist!!! Even the most laissez-faire supportive ppl in the world admit there needs to be a governemtn, and one that supplies basic public institutions. I dont think you would call adam smith socialist, now would you? exactly. Obama’s socalist agenda includes his entire attempt at manipulating this recession to stuff his big governemtn hand into everything and providing more power for the government. Ex; anythign from a public socailized healthcare to the mortagege bailout plan to the stimulus screw up to cap and trade …and the list goes on. ONce again, take an economics 101 course, and while ur at it look up what socalism is. </p>

<p>NEXT:</p>

<p>“A majority thought Iraq had WMDs, I guess we know who was right there now didn’t we?”
Me: if ur trying to make some kind of “us liberals were right” commment there, once again , check ur facts. Ur very own Hilary clinton voted to go into Iraq. Ya, and theres many more democrats as well. </p>

<p>Next: </p>

<p>Me: of course approval rating s and majority doesnt prove whats right, but it does say something , that the only ones left in favor of obama are the blacks, hispanics, gays, hippies, tree-huggers, pida-lovers, and die-freakin’-hard liberals who all would vote for him unconditionally.</p>

406

<p>

</p>

<p>What does it mean to be conscious?</p>

<p>If something is able to take in visual data, aural data, tactile data, scent data, process it and then channel those reactions through to other internal processes and/or motor functions, how is that any different from a computer? Consciousness, in a way, is <em>defined</em> by the sum product of all those signal interpretations, internal processes, and signal feedback. It isn’t like “consciousness” is a sort of “soul” that inhabits a machine. The machine itself – via all its subcomponents – comprise and develop what we interpret as the consciouss as a necessary condition.</p>

<p>Would I say a computer is “conscious”? Only to the extent that we’ve programmed it – we control exactly how it memorizes things, processes data, interprets signals, and so forth. The processes are not governed by the causal push/pull of the environment nor evolutionary feedback/natural selection. As a result, it won’t evolve a sort of “mental monologue” in quite the same way that we have it. </p>

<p>Consider the rather disturbing example here: [Anencephaly</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly]Anencephaly”>Anencephaly - Wikipedia)
These babies have no consciousness to speak of and only have very basic-level functions. In conscious humans we can use electric charges to basically knock out whatever parts of the brain we want in order to temporarily inhibit that function. The “conscious mind” is henceforth altered as a sum product of the state of the available brain functions.</p>

407

<p>

</p>

<p>I highly doubt you would say that the brother omnipotently killed the goldfish. Nobody would, save the mentally deficient. I am pretty sure you’re ■■■■■■■■ at this point.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again, consider the goldfish example. What you call “intuition” is, in this case, really called “evidence.” Do you think that evidence needs to be 100% direct in order to make a reasonable claim, even if there is countless amounts of evidence in favor of something? In a murder case, is the only way to deduce a murderer in a homicide case to have someone see it happen or to have it caught on tape? </p>

<p>You’re seriously missing the point if you’re, again, asking for a specific number. Did you not read my response?</p>

<p>We could all say that in the real-life example of the goldfish, there is a high probability that the fish died from natural processes and that your brother is not an omnipotent being who can kill fish at will. And yet, under your logic, you could not make this assertion without putting a sort of specific number to it? Do you not understand what it means to say that the probability in the goldfish analogy is “Much higher than 99%, but we don’t know the precision?” </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Irrelevant comments aside, the short answer is yes. If you didn’t understand how far away “across the country” was or that people can’t be in two places at once, or that people cannot, say, teleport, or if you didn’t know that video footage captures real-life, real-time data, or if you didn’t understand how to interpret DNA/toxin evidence, or if you didn’t understand how to leverage eyewitness testimony or what a plane ticket implied or what it means to note that your brother never entered the room with the fish (and so on and so forth), you would probably think the “omnipotent brother” conclusion was more likely than it really was. Same goes for science. The less you understand science, the more plausible God seems. An easy example from the older eras would be where people thought bad weather, for instance, was indicative of an angry God, yada yada yada.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Then I advise you to take a step outside a fifth-story window. After all, just because we all think gravity exists doesn’t mean it’s necessarily correct, right?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again you operate under this sort of framework that unless we can show something directly, we can’t know anything about it. Obviously you can’t permanently die and live to tell about it. But we have plenty of people who’ve died and then have been brought back within sufficient time. We know what people’s experiences have been like in hardcore comas where no consciousness is taking place – even after years and years of sleep (and guess what – those years feel instantaneous to them). It’s like undergoing anaesthetic. Likewise with birth. You didn’t experience anything before birth because your brain was nonexistent and non-functional. Death, therefore, will probably be just like life was for you pre-birth, which is to say, nothing. The atoms that compose your very being have been around for at least 13.7 billion years or so, and yet you didn’t notice a thing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>True, but we know what creates humans during the reproductive process very, very well. Humans are, technically, also made by humans – just in a different way. Are you to assume that God randomly “injects” souls into growing fetuses?</p>

408

<p>@del – ONCE AGAIN, in a Capitalistic society, 0% is IMPOSSIBLE, this IS Economics 101, Supply and Demand! This is known. I mentioned the fact that 0% is impossible because you seem to think Obama would magically make everybody employed, and I’m telling you it can NOT be done. There will always be a group who are unemployed. That’s the nature of the market. I think it’s you who ought to learn some Econ 101 kiddo. I’ll even be nice and include two links here to PROVE my point.</p>

<p>Zero Unemployment - Why is It Impossible? <a href=“http://knol.google.com/k/zero-unemployment-why-is-it-impossible#[/url]”>http://knol.google.com/k/zero-unemployment-why-is-it-impossible#&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Would 0% Unemployment Be A Good Thing? <a href=“http://economics.about.com/od/helpforeconomicsstudents/f/unemployment.htm[/url]”>http://economics.about.com/od/helpforeconomicsstudents/f/unemployment.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The fact that you don’t know it was Bush who passed the stimulus at the very end of his term makes me seriously ill, you’re really just not paying attention and you’re accusing US of being the ones who don’t know what we’re talking about? Okay, okay let’s see where you go with this. Cite your source, cite where you learned that Obama’s the one who passed the stimulus, reference the article. I want to see your sources.</p>

<p>“Prove America did indeed “Screw Up”” – Off the top of my head? Lying about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, not capturing Bin Laden when we had the chance… tearing up the letter from Iran in 2002/2003 telling Bush they wanted to negotiate for no other reason than as a display of power. Further out… dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki even though Japan had been bombed into submission, for nothing more than a display of power to the Soviet Union. That’s just a smattering. </p>

<p>Del, Del, Del, all those are considered socialist enterprises. Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, ALL of those are socialist enterprises. But ohhh, you don’t want them to take those away do you now? Cause they’re “acceptable socialism” so you’re going back on your own views! Sweety, I do believe you’re the one who needs to look up the definition of Socialism… because you clearly don’t know what it means beyond the talking points. </p>

<p>“Me: if ur trying to make some kind of “us liberals were right” commment there, once again , check ur facts. Ur very own Hilary clinton voted to go into Iraq. Ya, and theres many more democrats as well.”</p>

<p>Now I know you just aren’t really reading what I had to say. MY POINT, dear Del-kun, was to point out that a large majority thought Sadam had WMDs, and a large majority were WRONG. QED: might doesn’t make right. Just because a majority believes something does not make it true. I’m… fairly positive I said these exact words in the last post… I was using that as an example to prove that… just because he has a low approval rating, it doesn’t necessarily translate to him doing a bad job, since the rating is subjective and along partisan lines… To wit: His low approval ratings aren’t necessarily indicative of his doing a poor job. The people don’t always know what they need. </p>

<p>"Me: of course approval rating s and majority doesnt prove whats right, but it does say something , that the only ones left in favor of obama are the blacks, hispanics, gays, hippies, tree-huggers, pida-lovers, and die-freakin’-hard liberals who all would vote for him unconditionally. "</p>

<p>Sorta like how the only people who still like Bush are NRA gun-toting rednecks, bigots, homophobes, southern white guys, evangelicals, people who rent The Rocketter, warmongers, big businessmen and died-in-the-wool conservatives? It goes both ways dear~</p>

409

<p>@ itachirumon- once again knit-picking instead of avoiding the crux of what i was saying. But ill adress the unemployment thing anyways: Yes, in techincal terms 0% unemployment is impossible as ppl are constantly entering and re-entering the workforce.BUt in context, you were responding to what i was reffering to as the “layoffs and jobs lost” portion that makes up the unemployment rate- and we both know that. And that is indeed possible. And once again, i didn’t expect the unemployment rate to be very low under obama , i clearly stated he’s simply not fulfilling his promise of 8% unemployment rate tops (which, of course, we conservatives knew he’d never end up accomplishing anyway.)</p>

<p>“Cite your source, cite where you learned that Obama’s the one who passed the stimulus, reference the article. I want to see your sources.” lol, this has got to be a joke. but ok, ill give you something. how about Recovery.gov -yah, that’s the government. itll mention the american recovery and reinvestment act, 747Billion dolars a bielive…and passed in 2009- correct me if im wrong, but i belive bush was not in office in 2009. </p>

<p>“Further out… dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki”
Me: really, cause i actually studied that scenario extensivly and would be delighted if u could have pointed out a better way to end the war with the japs. </p>

<p>Next;</p>

<p>and then once again, going with technical terms. In freakin’ CONTEXT, my freind. If u know what socalism is, and ill provide the definition here, a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. , Now obviously, as i said, each individual enitity and means of communal wtvr can technicly be charachterised as a “socalist” entity. But how do u distinguish between, say, America and Eu. countries, in terms of socalism? If acc. to you we’re all socalist? the answer is the AMOUNT of “soacialist” entities and projects and institutions. And everything i mentioned would make our country MORE and MORE socailst and give gvrnmtn a greater role to play. Once again would you call adam smith an advocate of socalism? stop getting hung up on technical terms and try to focus on the content. </p>

<p>And, btw: “Del, Del, Del,” “Del-kun” “dear” “Sweety” are all freaking me out. Keep your wierdness to yourself.</p>

410

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ve said before: the honest christian realizes that his belief in god is purely on faith. My point was that you can’t say: “electric and magnetic fields are created by charges and currents” and conclude “therefore god does not exist”. the christian is not doing science when he claims that god designed electrodynamics. however, neither is the atheist when he points to the same thing as ‘evidence’ that we don’t need god.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>to the religious, god is a lot more than just a device for explaining physical phenomena. scientists trying to learn more about how the world operates isn’t really a problem to many religious people. example: the pope is cool with evolution.</p>

<p>it’s not surprising that you see god in such a 1-d way, given that you don’t believe in him and intellectually look down on people who do. maybe baelor or someone who believes in god can better illustrate what i am trying to say.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>i don’t think that doing more science leads you to conclude there is no god. that’s why it’s a bad analogy. when you do science and conclude that there is no god, there are some other assumptions that you are implicitly using . …</p>

411

<p>@del – The crux is what this debate is about, you made a point and I nailed you on it! You’re claiming I’m ignoring the “heart” of your argument. My argument is that YOURS is wrong and “this” is why. Don’t get snippy just because I actually refuted your points. You’re claiming we shouldn’t use the “technical terms” for socialism/unemployment/etc… and instead you’re advocating it should mean… whatever you want it to at the time right? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. </p>

<p>Del-kun (which is how they’d REFER to you in Japan), the war with Japan could have been stopped by a simple bombing campaign. Japan had been bombed into oblivion, there was NO need for island hopping. A team of bombers could have done more damage and ended the war without dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. Arguing from that point, the only concievable reason we dropped the bomb was as a show of power to the Soviets. “Hey, check out our new toy? Look what we’ll do to you if you ever fight with us.” Hence, Japan became a giant demonstration for atomic weaponry. There is a plethora of evidence suggesting this and MANY historians now believe that the dropping of the bomb was a major travesty. You say you’ve studied it extensively… and you’ve missed this how?! You’re speaking to an Otaku, you’ll really have to do better. </p>

<p>Oh and let’s see… the ARRA was signed into law mid-February, the 17th to be exact… even if Obama DID sign it he wasn’t even in office one month yet. So you’re telling me the whole ARRA was on his head, and not Bush’s? Not even a little bit? Del-kun, all he did was sign it… It followed the TARP bailouts. While Obama signed it, it’s hardly on his head. If it were to magically pop up tomorrow and he were to sign it, yeah, it’d be on his head but the fact of the matter is it was signed Feb 17th, 2009.</p>

412

<p>Itachi-</p>

<p>You contradict yourself. We did have a conventional bombing campaign against Japan-it didn’t work. The whole “island hopping” strategy was a critical part of our bombing campaign; we had to seize islands close enough to Japan that our bombers could make it there and back. We killed more people in our conventional bombing of Tokyo than we did in either one of the a-bombs, and that didn’t do it. An invasion of Japan would have killed hundreds of thousands of our own troops and perhaps a million Japanese people. The a-bombs weren’t meerly necessary, they were the more humane decision.</p>

413

<p>^Maybe I used the wrong term, by “Island Hopping” I meant with troops themselves, discounting our bombers. I’ve never heard someone have the nads to say the A-bomb was “humane” at all. All the things I’ve read say Japan had been beaten down into submission, 1-2 more major bombing campaigns would have forced them to surrender in the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki did… with much less loss of life… and without radiating the entire area for however many years to come. </p>

<p>We can all agree I think, we SHOULD all be able to agree, that it was a mistake and a travesty.</p>

414

<p>

</p>

<p>No. It was a terrible, terrible tragedy, but it was an absolutely necessary one. Why, you ask? See below.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t say the A-bomb was humane, I said it was more humane than a land invasion would have been. More humane, because it resulted in far fewer casualties (Japanese and American) than the invasion would have caused. The Japanese were not ready to surrender when it came time to drop the bomb. They may have been largely beaten, sure, but they were prepared to resist to the last man, woman and child if an invasion force had been launched. Heck, they didn’t even surrender after the first A-bomb, it took two. </p>

<p>Also, I disagree with your assertion that more major bombing campaigns would have resulted in “much less loss of life” than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Look at Tokyo, for example. We firebombed the heck out of it with conventional munitions, and the casualty rates were enormous there. Much higher than either of the A-bomb attacks. Plus, as my old airpower professor said, our military was running out of targets in Japan as it is; we’d already hit everything.</p>

415

<p>Young people are generally immature and naive. The older generation is generally more mature and more knowledgeable. After all, the older generation has lived longer and generally has experienced more. There are quite a few exceptions to this statement, but it’s a decently accurate model. </p>

<p>And yes, this does imply one thing about the left, and another about the right.</p>

416

<p>The more educated one is, the more likely they are to be liberal. There are quite a few exceptions to this statement, but it’s a decently accurate model. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>And yes, this does imply one thing about the left, and another about the right.</p>

<p>PS: That (gstein’s post) isn’t quite accurate. It’s not necessarily the people that change, it’s the times. Our “conservative” parents who openly denounce segregation and embrace interracial marriage were quite radical for their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. Now, it is the norm. Only allowing interracial marriage is conservative whereas embracing same sex marriage is liberal. Who knows what it will be like in our children’s generation, but I can promise that at some point in the future, accepting same-sex marriage will be a perfectly normal conservative principle and the (today’s) liberal positions will be “conservative”.</p>

417

<p>Old does not equate to wise.</p>

<p>I just don’t understand how republicans can have so much faith in a Bush, or a Palin, or a Romney…I mean they’re just so obviously ****ing stupid it makes me question the intelligence of people voting for them.</p>

418

<p>

</p>

<p>Um, have you seen Joe Biden? Or better yet, ever listened to him?</p>

419

<p>If McCain had won the election not a single person (not even Joe Biden) would be talking about a possible 2012 Biden presidential campaign, he’s like Kucinich in which he runs for every election but never wins.</p>

<p>Palin on the other hand is about to spearhead the 2012 campaign against Barack Obama which blows my mind</p>

420

<p>^</p>

<p>No she’s not. She’ll never get the nomination.</p>