Two opposing groups on a controversial issue, each thinks it has the more logical and rational point of view, one based on evidence. How can that be? It stems from the fact that most people are not very quantitatively oriented. Thus, a propaganda style opinion, say by Sean Hannity on Fox is perceived by conservatives as factual when Hannity's opinion is completely untethered by evidence. Those so-called "facts" then become evidence in their minds, equivalent to contradictory scientific quantitative measurements. In this manner, many religions are untethered scientific evidence.
8
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Sounds like everyone, whether they be religious, agnostic, or atheist. There is no proof of any of this. It all comes down to what you believe. That's why people are so adamant about their beliefs. And why every group (atheists included) think they're right and everyone else is wrong, delusional, or whatever insult they wish to use.
marga
Level 7
Apr 23, 2018
0
@kcuhcortsa You are correct--from your point of view. All I'm saying is that everyone feels as strongly about their beliefs as you do about yours. And while you, quite logically, say that science is vastly superior, you still have no definitive proof.
@kcuhcortsa I have never seen definitive proof that there is no god. Where did you find that?
@kcuhcortsa Sorry, I thought you were talking about proof: feelings vs scientific observation.
Sounds like what is going on in the mind of someone of faith.
ArthurPhillips
Level 6
Apr 22, 2018
0
And in the minds of everyone else.
Yep. The mentality doesn’t restrict itself to conservatives. I’ve met plenty of fringe liberals that feel strongly about some kooky conclusions they think they have”evidence” for. Chemtrails, Moon Landing hoax, “the law of attraction”, etc... conservatives have their hoaxes too, flat earth seems like mostly right wingers, but there are plenty of out to lunch liberals too.
Anemynous
Level 7
Apr 20, 2018
0
FauxNews is viewed almost (literally) religiously by true believers. Therefore>>>GIGO!
phxbillcee
Level 10
Apr 20, 2018
0
Thats probably why he could never finish College. Like his alter ego Rush Limbaugh they are professional script readers and horse shit saleman. You only have to remember how many newsworthy persons were fired for telling the truth.
Nevermind345
Level 7
Apr 20, 2018
0
It's true, but I think we can all be susceptible to this in various areas of our lives. For example, even CNN and MSNBC were pushing to bomb Syria, despite the facts that the UN investigation hadn't even begun and the last time we bombed Syria, the gas attacks were admitted to be unverified as well. Yet many liberals jump on board as if the official narrative were undisputed fact. I think we should all take a step back before committing ourselves to actions we can't take back and analyze the actual evidence to be sure we don't make a terrible error... Fox is the worst, though.
CalebMarion
Level 5
Apr 20, 2018
2
The U.S. has been trying to overthrow Syria for a long time. People have short memories. It reeks of the Iraq situation too.
Ah... no. I agree it’s not useful to bomb Syria. But, Assad is an even worse piece of shit than Trump. There is a lot of propaganda flowing through liberal circles right now defending Assad... I feel like these kids HAVE NOT done their research. There are numerous well documented incidents (we’re talking hundreds of separate attacks killing hundreds of thousands of people over several years) of attacks from Assad and allies upon civilian populations. Basically anything dropped from a plane came from Assad or allies as the opposition has no Air Force... pretty easy to demonstrate who’s responsible there.
@Anemynous Even if true (I'm not convinced that he did any of those things, and doubly not convinced that bombing Syria will make things better), until we stop gassing our own citizens (Standing Rock) and poisoning our own citizens (Flint, MI), I think we have no room to be throwing stones from our glass house, and should fix things here first. The fact that we aren't doing that is telling about our motivations. I'm against the bombs.
@CalebMarion I'm against bombs also... all of them. From all sides. I was at Standing Rock from 11/20 - 12/7. I don't remember any lethal gas attacks or barrel bombs. Flint is a sorry state of affairs and I see it more as severe neglect, incompetence and corruption rather than a malicious attack on the citizens of Flint. It's an outrageous state of affairs, but not comparable to what is happening in Syria. It's certainly not a justification for the ruthless brutality of the Assad regime. Again, the rebel faction does not have planes and helicopters... at the very least any munition that comes from an aircraft is a result of Assad and Allies (excluding US missile and drone strikes). Now, it seems that the rebels may be intermingled with ISIS, though ISIS is a faction which split from the rebels as a result of internal (probably ethical) disputes within the Syrian rebel factions. The rebels do not seem to be actively opposing ISIS at this time which makes it difficult to support them. Basically, it's shit on all sides... innocents in the middle. . a terrible place to be a civilian.
I'm just saying... don't assume Assad is a good guy just because Trump is a bad guy.
Here's a video I have been sharing which gives you a little history of the situation, the pieces, and their position on the map. It's a year old and does not cover anything after Aleppo... but the history is clear and relevant.
The photo is a lovely sunrise I captured from a November morning at Oceti Sakowin camp.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.