Santorum wants a spiritual war against liberal Protestants

[Shane for Wax]

Many of us, many of us thought like Santorum does and we 'grew out of it'. Don't accuse us of something without even knowing who you are speaking to.

Besides, all you're doing is throwing Pascal's Wager in our face as if we have no experience with it or been hurt by it. Many of us were forced using the scare tactic of 'what if you're wrong and God does exist?' to stay with our respective churches. I for one do not appreciate such things.

Belief out of fear is no belief at all.

Not what I'm doing at all, since I'm not actually suggesting he IS right. Forget it, go back to reflexively disagreeing with him on principal, you'll be fine.

I just asked if people had considered he might be right, the answer is either yes or no, no reason to get personal.

No, we're disagreeing with him based on what he's saying, not because he may have said a couple things that were icky to us. Nobody has to consider that racist from bumfuck Arkansas might be right about how them damn darkies are a lesser being than whites. We've already received that answer ages ago. Protip: it's false.

But hey, whatever gets you happy.

[Podkayne]

Being open-minded does not mean treating every possible idea as equally valid.

I think it does, actually, until the idea is shown to be invalid. But if you're really open minded, you have to start from a position that an idea might be correct, at least. If you're just dismissing an idea without considering the possibility it might be correct, you aren't open minded. Not all ideas are correct, obviously, but dismissing any idea before considering it, and just assigning it to the wrong column because you personally object to the idea is pretty much the definition of fundie thinking, I think.

Its what fundiess do regarding evolution, that is, start with the idea that evolution is wrong and go fom there, because they find the idea morally objectionable. And unfortunately, we don't live in a world where ideas can be judged right or wrong because they confir to a particular model of morality or not. That's why Lysenkoism was so bad for the Soviets, and why Creationism is so bad for the fundies. And any number of other examples where people start with the idea that something is wrong and go from there, rather than starting with the possibility that something may be right, and then setting out to see whether it is or not.

Sorry, but evidence based practice has been pretty firmly drilled into me the past few years.

[Podkayne]

So, you want us to open-mindedly accept the idea... that Satan is using abortion debates to destroy American culture.

No.

Let me remind you the OP:

A speech former Senator Rick Santorum delivered at a Catholic college in 2008 began burning up the left-wing blogosphere Friday afternoon. At Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, Santorum argued that Satan was using the national debate over abortion as a tool to destroy the institutions of American culture — including universities, churches, the popular culture, and the government.
“This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war,” Santorum said during his August 29, 2008 speech. “And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America.”
The portion of his remarks that have attracted the most attention — including scorn from the liberal People for the American Way, which identified the university’s podcast of Santorum’s speech on Friday — concern his view that Protestant churches have been compromised by that “spiritual war” over the question of when life begins.

Open-mindedness doesn't mean treating all bullshit as something valid enough to consider.

No... I don't want you to accept anything, I asked if you had ever considered the possibility that it was correct before dismissing the idea.

See the difference, or am I explaining it badly? There's a reason I'm not an author.

Add: Calling something bullshit before considering it is th opposite of open minded, I think.

[Eniliad]

Okay, fine, the possibility. In order for me to be able to accept the possibility, I would need to first assume the existence of god (or at least satan), that satan would have an interest in influencing political events in the United States, and that he would have anything at all to gain from the ordeal. Unfortunately for him, and you, I am atheist, so it takes a fair amount of open-mindedness to even consider the possibility of a creator of the universe. This is something that I am in fact open-minded enough to consider "possible", even though I do not believe it, and if the topic is broached will argue the point that there is no satisfactory evidence for the existence of such.

In other words, open-mindedness to Santorum's idea requires several prerequisites to be accepted - ones which I'm willing to consider... but unless I accept them as true, I cannot be open-minded to the idea that satan is trying to destroy America with abortions.

That, and the entire argument smells of bullshit even from a Xian perspective.

[Undecided]

So, you want us to open-mindedly accept the idea... that Satan is using abortion debates to destroy American culture.

No.

Let me remind you the OP:

A speech former Senator Rick Santorum delivered at a Catholic college in 2008 began burning up the left-wing blogosphere Friday afternoon. At Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, Santorum argued that Satan was using the national debate over abortion as a tool to destroy the institutions of American culture — including universities, churches, the popular culture, and the government.
“This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war at all. This is a spiritual war,” Santorum said during his August 29, 2008 speech. “And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies, Satan, would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country, the United States of America.”
The portion of his remarks that have attracted the most attention — including scorn from the liberal People for the American Way, which identified the university’s podcast of Santorum’s speech on Friday — concern his view that Protestant churches have been compromised by that “spiritual war” over the question of when life begins.

Open-mindedness doesn't mean treating all bullshit as something valid enough to consider.

No... I don't want you to accept anything, I asked if you had ever considered the possibility that it was correct before dismissing the idea.

See the difference, or am I explaining it badly? There's a reason I'm not an author.

Add: Calling something bullshit before considering it is th opposite of open minded, I think.

Many of us, many of us thought like Santorum does and we 'grew out of it'. Don't accuse us of something without even knowing who you are speaking to.

Besides, all you're doing is throwing Pascal's Wager in our face as if we have no experience with it or been hurt by it. Many of us were forced using the scare tactic of 'what if you're wrong and God does exist?' to stay with our respective churches. I for one do not appreciate such things.

Belief out of fear is no belief at all.

Not what I'm doing at all, since I'm not actually suggesting he IS right. Forget it, go back to reflexively disagreeing with him on principal, you'll be fine.

I just asked if people had considered he might be right, the answer is either yes or no, no reason to get personal.

Would you like an analysis?

His language pits his audience--the "good, decent" religious citizens of the United States--, against pro-choice Satanic subversives found in universities, churches, the popular culture, and the government. It carries undertones of religious authoritarianism, that the world would be right if only 'their' people were in power. It is also an ad hominem argument against liberal and pro-choice movements. I see absolutely no merit to his statements.

[Podkayne]

Okay, fine, the possibility. In order for me to be able to accept the possibility, I would need to first assume the existence of god (or at least satan), that satan would have an interest in influencing political events in the United States, and that he would have anything at all to gain from the ordeal. Unfortunately for him, and you, I am atheist, so it takes a fair amount of open-mindedness to even consider the possibility of a creator of the universe. This is something that I am in fact open-minded enough to consider "possible", even though I do not believe it, and if the topic is broached will argue the point that there is no satisfactory evidence for the existence of such.

In other words, open-mindedness to Santorum's idea requires several prerequisites to be accepted - ones which I'm willing to consider... but unless I accept them as true, I cannot be open-minded to the idea that satan is trying to destroy America with abortions.

That, and the entire argument smells of bullshit even from a Xian perspective.

Ok, so, the answer to my initial question is no? thats OK, its not a challenge to a fight or anything.

[ironbite]

No you're throwing Pascal's Wager at us and thinking we'll accept it.  We're not.  That's what's pissing you off.

Ironbite-and it's pissing us off as well

[Eniliad]

Geeze, you're as bad as nickerson at multi-posting. It's called the Insert Quote button. Scroll down and stop double-posting.

[Podkayne]

Would you like an analysis?

His language pits his audience--the "good, decent" religious citizens of the United States--, against pro-choice Satanic subversives found in universities, churches, the popular culture, and the government. It carries undertones of religious authoritarianism, that the world would be right if only 'their' people were in power. It is also an ad hominem argument against liberal and pro-choice movements. I see absolutely no merit to his statements.
[/quote]

No, see I don't actually want an analysis, because I actually disagree with him too, my point, and really, I'm surprised that people seem to be having such difficulty with this, was to ask if people ever considered the possibility he may be correct before writing him off? Thats not suggesting he's right, or asking for the reasons you think he's wrong, just asking to see if you start from the assumption that he is wrong initially, or if you came to the conclusion that he was wrong after fair and due consideration.

[Podkayne]

No you're throwing Pascal's Wager at us and thinking we'll accept it.  We're not.  That's what's pissing you off.

Ironbite-and it's pissing us off as well

Huh? No I didn't.

Pascal's Wager says be a Christian because there's either a God or there isn't, and if there is, you gain  heaven, and if there isn't, you lose nothing. Ass a logicl exercise, it fails because it's a false dichotomy.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. Saying consider all sides of a discussion is not Pascal's Wager. I'm really not sure how you think Pascal's Wager is in any way relevent.

[Undecided]

Would you like an analysis?

His language pits his audience--the "good, decent" religious citizens of the United States--, against pro-choice Satanic subversives found in universities, churches, the popular culture, and the government. It carries undertones of religious authoritarianism, that the world would be right if only 'their' people were in power. It is also an ad hominem argument against liberal and pro-choice movements. I see absolutely no merit to his statements.

No, see I don't actually want an analysis, because I actually disagree with him too, my point, and really, I'm surprised that people seem to be having such difficulty with this, was to ask if people ever considered the possibility he may be correct before writing him off? Thats not suggesting he's right, or asking for the reasons you think he's wrong, just asking to see if you start from the assumption that he is wrong initially, or if you came to the conclusion that he was wrong after fair and due consideration.
[/quote]
The answer to that is obviously no, I am not. The other statements I have heard him make bias me against him, which makes it ever more difficult to evaluate the statements he makes individually. To my knowledge, nobody is capable of that sort of objectivity.

[Podkayne]

Would you like an analysis?

His language pits his audience--the "good, decent" religious citizens of the United States--, against pro-choice Satanic subversives found in universities, churches, the popular culture, and the government. It carries undertones of religious authoritarianism, that the world would be right if only 'their' people were in power. It is also an ad hominem argument against liberal and pro-choice movements. I see absolutely no merit to his statements.

No, see I don't actually want an analysis, because I actually disagree with him too, my point, and really, I'm surprised that people seem to be having such difficulty with this, was to ask if people ever considered the possibility he may be correct before writing him off? Thats not suggesting he's right, or asking for the reasons you think he's wrong, just asking to see if you start from the assumption that he is wrong initially, or if you came to the conclusion that he was wrong after fair and due consideration.

The answer to that is obviously no, I am not. The other statements I have heard him make bias me against him, which makes it ever more difficult to evaluate the statements he makes individually. To my knowledge, nobody is capable of that sort of objectivity.
[/quote]OK. Thanks for answering.

[Eniliad]

Holy crap, it's nickerson with tits. Both in quality of post and quantity. Great.

Open-mindedness does not mean giving all ideas equal merit. It's being willing to accept new ideas. There's a huge difference between the two.

[Podkayne]

Holy crap, it's nickerson with tits. Both in quality of post and quantity. Great.

Open-mindedness does not mean giving all ideas equal merit. It's being willing to accept new ideas. There's a huge difference between the two.

Um, it Is being willing to accept new ideas. And that means all new ideas have to be given equal merit until you have reason to consider them less meritorious. I think we're talking about two slightly differing definitions of the same thing.

If you assume something is wrong without giving it any consideration, that's not open minded. Period.

I believe you're wrong because I don;t like what you're saying? Thats not open minded either.

[ironbite]

There's being open-minded and then there's being stupid.

Ironbite-guess which one you are right now.