Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Poll: Which is worse?

Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Which is worse?
Climate change/global warming denial 59%  59%  [ 20 ]
Birthers 12%  12%  [ 4 ]
Creationism 29%  29%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 34

adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

10 Jan 2014, 12:40 pm

I'm not a progressive and I can't speak for them, but I personally find "creationism" to be the most offensive. Creationism embraces dogma and denies the methodology of science, which I cannot abide.

As for "birthers" and "climate change deniers", my problem is limited to the dogmatic approach. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical, but I have little tolerance for intellectual dishonesty on either side of the issue. Disregarding skepticism is no better than dogmatic skepticism. Both lack consideration of opposing viewpoints.

I don't find the evidence supporting the human effects on the climate to be indisputable. I also don't find Obama's eligibility to be indisputable. I do find the falsehood of Christianity to be indisputable. None of what I think matters in the least, however, since I don't care to do anything about any of it outside of occasionally posting on fairly irrelevant forums.



klausnrooster
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Not my favorite place, I can tell you that.

10 Jan 2014, 8:34 pm

adb wrote:
... (it's above, just read it) ....

Yeah, pretty much what he said.



appletheclown
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,378
Location: Soul Society

10 Jan 2014, 8:50 pm

adb wrote:
I'm not a progressive and I can't speak for them, but I personally find "creationism" to be the most offensive. Creationism embraces dogma and denies the methodology of science, which I cannot abide.

As for "birthers" and "climate change deniers", my problem is limited to the dogmatic approach. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical, but I have little tolerance for intellectual dishonesty on either side of the issue. Disregarding skepticism is no better than dogmatic skepticism. Both lack consideration of opposing viewpoints.

I don't find the evidence supporting the human effects on the climate to be indisputable. I also don't find Obama's eligibility to be indisputable. I do find the falsehood of Christianity to be indisputable. None of what I think matters in the least, however, since I don't care to do anything about any of it outside of occasionally posting on fairly irrelevant forums.


Then don't believe in it! Thank you, thank you, all of you, I'm so glad to be here!


_________________
comedic burp


adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

13 Jan 2014, 9:20 am

appletheclown wrote:
adb wrote:
I'm not a progressive and I can't speak for them, but I personally find "creationism" to be the most offensive. Creationism embraces dogma and denies the methodology of science, which I cannot abide.

As for "birthers" and "climate change deniers", my problem is limited to the dogmatic approach. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical, but I have little tolerance for intellectual dishonesty on either side of the issue. Disregarding skepticism is no better than dogmatic skepticism. Both lack consideration of opposing viewpoints.

I don't find the evidence supporting the human effects on the climate to be indisputable. I also don't find Obama's eligibility to be indisputable. I do find the falsehood of Christianity to be indisputable. None of what I think matters in the least, however, since I don't care to do anything about any of it outside of occasionally posting on fairly irrelevant forums.


Then don't believe in it! Thank you, thank you, all of you, I'm so glad to be here!

This is a stupid response. Why behave like this to someone rationally answering a poll? If you disagree with someone's reasoning, provide an argument.