Thread: Energy Committee Chairman Candidate Says God Promised no More Catastrophic Climate Ch

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The effects of global warming are debatable, so let's use a topic that pretty much all of us can agree on.

Here's a hypothetical situation.
A political figure makes the following statement:
"I believe that 1+1=3"

A different political figure draws the same conclusion:
"God told me 1+1=3"

Who is smarter, and who is dumber?

That's not really the topic either though. The problem is that if someone says 1+1 = 3, because the Bible/God said so, then they're more likely to get a pass by our public than if they just say it, or than if they say that a purple magical unicorn said so. This isn't about stupidity, it's about the fact that you can get away with stupidity if you base it on religion.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

That's not really the topic either though. The problem is that if someone says 1+1 = 3, because the Bible/God said so, then they're more likely to get a pass by our public than if they just say it, or than if they say that a purple magical unicorn said so. This isn't about stupidity, it's about the fact that you can get away with stupidity if you base it on the correct religion.

FTFY

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

That's not really the topic either though. The problem is that if someone says 1+1 = 3, because the Bible/God said so, then they're more likely to get a pass by our public than if they just say it, or than if they say that a purple magical unicorn said so. This isn't about stupidity, it's about the fact that you can get away with stupidity if you base it on religion.

I should add, belief in fables shouldn't be seen any different because they're religious fables. If you met a person over the age of 6 who actually believed int he Easter Bunny, you'd think that something was wrong with them. This should be the same for someone who believes in the biblical flood.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Oh boy. Here we go again with the creationism vs science thread.

Well, while ignorance exists, it should be addressed. Belief in a literal biblical flood story should be met with the same scorn as belief in a flat earth.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Well, while ignorance exists, it should be addressed. Belief in a literal biblical flood story should be met with the same scorn as belief in a flat earth.

Especially when using that belief as reference when legislating.

Yes, definitely. This guy is on the energy committee, and he's using fables to justify his stance on legislation.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

I'm just saying we already had 2 HUGE threads on this subject. I suppose it's always only a matter of time before it starts again.

Well, first off, I disagree that this is the same subject, and second of all, how many threads have there been about Iran/Israel, or Glenn Beck, or the recent election? I'm not arguing about the existence of God or the validity of the Flood story (or any particular story). The existence of God is inconsequential to the topic, and the Flood story is taken for granted as disproven. If someone wants to argue that the Flood story was true, then they can open up a new thread. This thread is about how belief in fairy tales gets a pass if they're religious fairy tales. I don't know if people keep their mouths shut about it because they're worried about offending the sensitivities of the Religious Right, or if they actually accept belief in religious fables as as a valid viewpoint.