Ben Carson is a Creationist

a reply to: burdman30ott6

wut?
Sorry, you lost me.

Please educate me on whatever that is you're talking about.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Isn't that the problem though? Carson's irrational belief in magical goings on being part of WHO he is?

Again, the real problem is bigotry. Unfortunately, the modern age of *ahem* "enlightened" inteligencia bristles at criticism of most belief structure... except for the beliefs of the Abrahamic Faiths, which are fair game for some reason. To be honest with you, I find it much, MUCH more dangerous to elect one of the AGW adherents whose beliefs are based on a con game directly intended to separate people from their money and instill artificial parity around the globe than I find electing an individual of Faith. Faith is neither rational nor irrational when viewed by someone who houses a different faith because it is entirely personal and subjective... Narrow mindedness and bigotry, however, can be spotted from a mile away by people of all faiths.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It was a nice(r) way of telling you your massive ego is getting in the way of others applying any credence to your opinions about others.

Lookup the Eastern philosophical concept of Ahamkara and then read a bit of Freud. Not sure if counselors are well versed in Freud, but they probably should be at least to keep their own selves in check...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

my massive ego?

Wow.

Take over the thread then, burdman.
Tell us how Carson is the bee's knees.....

Not sure if counselors are well versed in Freud, but they probably should be at least to keep their own selves in check...

Uh, yes, we are. And I'm not going to derail this thread by bringing up how his theories have been deconstructed and studied and challenged and debated for the last several decades......

Any other poo to throw at me?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It made for one hell of a google search results page for me.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I am not the person mocking another's religious underpinnings and then waving some educational background and career in the air as a personal banner of authority here.

I have and will again in the future do exactly that on issues of engineering and economics which I am qualified to do so on and which are quantitative in nature because that's something that is tangible and provable... these hystrionics about "irrational beliefs," accusations of belief in magic or calling someone else's religious tomes "fairy tales" is bigoted, ego driven horsecrap with absolutely ZERO quantitative or demonstrable support outside one's own narcissistic masquerade. In other words, it's telling one person that faith is silly and irrational based on nothing but your own personal faith.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

There is zero difference between Carson affirming his beliefs and how they align with his platform and Bernie Sanders stating his agnostic position and alignment within his platform

I have to completely disagree with this. An agnostic view does not require someone to adhere to any belief or a position rooted in a belief, as does Carson's. Being agnostic means that you don't believe, or disbelieve. It doesn't give someone a "base" that informs their political ideology.

Agnosticism means that religion is a non factor and they can devote their focus on other things. That is pretty basic, elementary stuff, Mr. Burd. I'm surprised that you said that.

a reply to: introvert

That is only valid if the believer is prostyletizing. I've not seen Carson doing this.

Otherwise, both are still an internal belief structure which the adherent may or may not decide to be open and forthright with.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

waving some educational background and career in the air as a personal banner of authority here.

I tried to avoid addressing the allegation that I was less intelligent, and less informed, and that my "authority" to 'judge' sanity was lame.

I know better than to take that bait.
Still, when one is confronted by allegations of not knowing what they are talking about or being too ill-equipped to address issues of "national debate", one gets pushed into a corner. To defend myself and explain my perspective and the education that led me there does NOT make me a martyr or a fake know-it-all.

But go ahead, ad hom, man. Ad hom.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

"irrational beliefs," accusations of belief in magic or calling someone else's religious tomes "fairy tales" is bigoted, ego driven horsecrap with absolutely ZERO quantitative or demonstrable support outside one's own narcissistic masquerade.

While I do respect each individuals faith, without any quantitative or demonstrable support for what the bible says or what people personally believe, we cannot exclude the possibility of their belief being fairy tales or irrational.

Can you prove that god exists, the world was created in x amount of days and that there is a heaven waiting for the faithful when they die? If not, it is not beyond logical for some to say that it may be simply made up nonsense.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Check out the links posted early in the thread.
Proselytizing is there.

originally posted by: introvert
Can you prove that god exists, the world was created in x amount of days and that there is a heaven waiting for the faithful when they die?

To someone else? No, I cannot... that's why it is called Faith.

If not, it is not beyond logical for some to say that it may be simply made up nonsense.

It's called tact. Outside of flexing and posturing, Belittlement of another's faiths (so long as said faiths impact only the individual believing, which in Carson's case is accurate) serves no good purpose.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Otherwise, both are still an internal belief structure which the adherent may or may not decide to be open and forthright with.

Agnosticism is not a belief in any shape or form.

A religious person believes in their god, book, etc.

An atheist believes there is no god(s).

An agnostic doesn't "believe" anything. They don't dwell or inform their ideology on any internal belief system.

I know it's hard for some people to understand, but we agnostics do not have any inner religious belief system, whether it's for or against, whatsoever. We do not consult out inner belief structure when making decisions because we don't have one.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Actually, Dr. Carson seems like one of the most intelligent, dare I say Presidential of all the candidates available. You may have a bias against Dr. Carson's beliefs, but that doesn't make him wrong and definitely doesn't make him ignorant. Don't vote for him if you don't want to, but the man is impressive as a human being if nothing else.

really?...
quote..."a lot of people that go into prison straight, and when they come out they're gay"...CNN interview march 4, 2015
there are many other un-intelligent quotes, that are easy to look-up.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
But go ahead, ad hom, man. Ad hom.

Ad hominem arguments are often appropriate and topical when they relate to one's attack on the beliefs and/or morality of another. If, for example, I started to criticize Muslims for believing in Allah and called Allah a "fairy tale", it would be appropriate for someone to snap back my chain and point out that I believe in God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and am being a hypocritical ass. That would technically be an Ad Hom, but it would still be appropriate and valid.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In other words, it's telling one person that faith is silly and irrational based on nothing but your own personal faith.

No. Telling someone that their beliefs are not substantiated by ANY science, or proof of ANY KIND, is simply educating them. I don't have a "personal faith." I outgrew it (outran it?) long ago.

It's the truth: there is NO evidence that the outlandish-sounding Bible stories are true.

It's okay, though. You go ahead......your credentials are duly noted...keep on awaving YOUR flag then.
I'll retire my "massive ego" from the thread. For now. Go, you!!

a reply to: introvert

You still have some manner of inner belief system... call it the ego or the self or the conscience, whatever. It's still an ethos. Human nature basically makes the concept of true neutrality impossible in essentially all things.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Believing in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, a talking serpent and subsequent curses upon the planet and mankind, simply because an ancient book says so, isn't really belief so much as blind faith that the book is historically true. It's the result of brainwashing, not belief after critical thinking.

To believe that scientific evidence that proves the theory of evolutionary processes, like carbon dated fossils, etc., were artificially planted by Satan, mankind's mythical and invisible adversary, in an attempt to confuse mankind and discredit the Bible, is fantasy that is comparatively no different than the fantasy of Don Quixote and his imaginary battle with giant windmills.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Uh, no. You mocked my education and tried to turn it against me as nonsense.
But you go ahead now. You belittled my "education" and "credentials", and then championed your own.

I understand. That's why I knew better than to bring up my actual abilities and knowledge. Did I say I'm perfect? Nope. I said that I was trained to spot crazy, and (if asked) to talk to people who need to get a grip on their own lives and realize that what they are doing is no longer productive toward THEIR OWN GOALS.

But - again. Seriously, I'm done here.
Ben Carson is a Bible-Thumper from an outlying fringe group of "Christians" (SDAs) who argue with EVERYONE ELSE who professes Christianity that they are all wrong and condemned. Because, you know...the sabbath -

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: introvert

You still have some manner of inner belief system... call it the ego or the self or the conscience, whatever. It's still an ethos. Human nature basically makes the concept of true neutrality impossible in essentially all things.

Fair enough. I can agree that I do have an inner believe system of what I find right, wrong and acceptable. But that is not informed by any outside religious dogma. My "system" is based on logic, common sense and experience.

How that can be compared to someone that looks to a divine entity or writings to inform their ideology or believe system is beyond me. There is a huge difference.