Agreed.

Views based entirely on facts can be proven / disproven whereas views based upon faith or religion, do not fall into this category and should not lead to a person being considered stupid.

If a belief isn’t testable, then there is no way, not even in principle, to know whether it is true or false. Not only that, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true, because all observable phenomena behave the same regardless of whether it is true.

This means that while I can’t prove god doesn’t exist, nor can a religious believer prove god does exist. Therefore any religious believer — if they say their beliefs aren’t testable — must, if they are to be rational, acknowledge they don’t know if god exists.

But some religious beliefs are testable. For example, some people eschew modern scientific evidence-based medicine in favour of faith healing, often with tragic and predictable results. I consider it entirely reasonable to call such people stupid.

Or take young-earth creationism. This rejects modern geology and the fossil record, which is very useful in deciding where to prospect for oil and other raw materials. If young earth creationists were honest, they’d set up oil prospecting firms that drilled where the oil ought to be according to their beliefs, and tyhey’d score a bettter hit-rate than science-based drilling does. Of course the creationists don’t do that; it’s as if sub-consciously they know they are full of shit.

Religion is rather peculiar but, for example, I wouldn’t suggest that a Hindu who worships an elephant god is stupid for doing so. It might seem a bit strange to me but there again so might the monoatheistic faiths or even creationism.

If religion were merely harmless, I wouldn’t be that bothered by it. But it isn’t harmless. For example, relious people often try to ban medical research that will eventually save millions of lives every year. That’s right — they want millions to die every year from horrible diseases — so they can carry on believing that humans are fundamentally different from other animals. This they call “morality”.

Well if that’s morality, I want none of it. These shits don’t know the meaning of the word.

I just find the view that Calvinists are any less mad than the “Jedi” quite peculiar.

Regarding your comment @106:

Did you have a “little frisson of delight” when posting?
It sounded like Frankie Howard’s comment that cream cakes were “naughty but nice”.

Regarding your message @102:
I don’t think my point came across clearly enough last time, so here goes again:

People hold many differing views, some of which have considerably more substance than others. Views based entirely on facts can be proven / disproven whereas views based upon faith or religion, do not fall into this category and should not lead to a person being considered stupid. Religion is rather peculiar but, for example, I wouldn’t suggest that a Hindu who worships an elephant god is stupid for doing so. It might seem a bit strange to me but there again so might the monoatheistic faiths or even creationism.

However I conceed a person must be stupid if they believe themself to be a Jedi Knight – even when filling out a census.

And no, I don’t believe in THAT one either. Did Joseph never notice his son’s Roman nose?

It’s not just me who thinks Philips is wrong regarding creationism, it’s essentially all competent scientists, including many thousands of people who’re more intelligent than Philips.

The weight of scientific evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. Anyone who disputes this either believes that (1) they are cleverer than all the world’s top scientists put together, or (2) that the entire scientific establishment, hundred of thousands of people worldwide, is part of secret conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Either of these beliefs is literally incredible. Creationism has therefore about as much intellectual credibility as loony nonsense such as: holocaust denial, the theory that 9/11 was caused by Mossad (and thousands of Jewish workers were secretly tipped off not to go to work at the WTC on 9/11), AIDS was a plot by the US government to kill black people, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, flat earthism, or homeopathy.

All creationists, by definition, are incapable of understanding complex issues or of weighing competing evidence. Their judgement on all other complex issues is therefore suspect; they can simply not be relied upon to get it right. Or to compress it into one word, they are “stupid”.

However, you might wish to ponder whether a person is more likely to be deemed to be stupid if they are being offensive?

I suspect few intelligent people think I’m stupid (I’ve never been called it by anyone whose intellect I respect). If I come across as offensive, it’s often because I try to tell the truth as I see it, in as direct and obvious way as possible, without pulling any punches; this means that some people think I’m blunt or even rude.

Regarding your message @100:
Just because you think a person is wrong it doesn’t necessarily mean they are stupid.

However, you might wish to ponder whether a person is more likely to be deemed to be stupid if they are being offensive?

She’s a creationist. Therefore she is stupid.

Your goat appears to be most definately gotten by the very mention of El-Rushbo.
I take it that you are a ‘dittohead’ of the other kind.
Whilst he is well known in the USA media, as he towers over the wreck of the Republican party, I thought worth mentioning him here to contrast his provocative manner with the polite tone of Melanie Phillips.

As far as my having had a “little frisson of delight” whilst posting my message – I sense you rather liked my remark but couldn’t resist belittling someone who might express an opinion different to yours.

Off now to savour my Chianti and alfafa beans.

But I can only give you a C+ for lazy use of a mock academic grade. And while your punctuation is above average, the bizarrely extended ellipsis after you confess to being stupid enough to spend any time at all listening to Rush Limbaugh means I have to mark you down. Overall, a B-, I think.

Actually, maybe C+ after all – you lose another mark for assuming you’re the only person to have heard of Rush Limbaugh.

The writer of the article’s explanation of events concerning the plight of pre-war Czechoslavakia is worth C+ for Wiki-effort but somewhat less for relevance to the content of Melanie Phillips’s article. None of the points she made were answered, indeed they were deliberately avoided.

I have seen Melanie Phillips on TV, heard her on the radio and read some of her articles and none of it is either ‘thick’ or ‘nasty’. Quite the opposite. To call it ‘nasty’ or ‘thick’ reveals the working of an unquestioning conformist mindset.

Now, if you really want a challenge: listen online to Rush Limbaugh ………. he really will get your goat.

Sally, you’re half the reason I come here.

But what gets my beef about the Right, and is the single largest reason why I’d never vote for any Rightist party, is its almost complete reliance on hysteria and the politics of the backlash in order to progress its – frankly warped – goals.

I can’t remember any well argued rightwing positions on any subject. Its economic philosophy is now bullet-ridden; its tendency towards reactionary social conservatism busted beyond all recognition. Around the world, rightwingers heap scorn upon themselves as more of their number deny man-made climate change.

In Britain, about the clearest policy stand the Right seems to have is Euroscepticism, another creed completely out-of-tune with reality. British conservatism stands way out of kilter with fellow mainstream European conservatives on the issue of the EU. And before any of their number complain that this is just, it is the British Conservative Party that is in the wrong.

The decline of the rIght will be noisier than the collapse of the left, given the stake many wealthy and powerful individuals have in rightwing political philosophy (including too many of our daily newspapers). But a decline in conservative influence is certainly happening, and not a moment too soon.

This might not be speculation for long…

Barack Obama’s 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Pandemic Flu was revised and passed by the full committee:

• $3.6 billion, matching the request, to expand and improve capabilities of the Afghan security forces

• $400 million, as requested, to build the counterinsurgency capabilities of the Pakistani security forces

• Afghanistan: $1.52 billion, $86 million above the request

• West Bank and Gaza: $665 million in bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza

• Jordan: $250 million, $250 million above the request, including $100 million for economic and $150 million for security assistance

• Egypt: $360 million, $310 million above the request, including $50 million for economic assistance, $50 million for border security, and $260 million for security assistance

• Pakistan: $1.9 billion, $591 million above the request

• Iraq: $968 million, $336 million above the request

• Oversight: $20 million, $13 million above the request, to expand oversight capacity of the State Department, USAID, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan to review programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq

• Israel: $555 million of the $2.8 billion 2010 request for security assistance, $555 million above the supplemental request. (Note: that means Obama’s original request did not include any money for Israel in 2009)

• Lebanon: $74 million [...]

• Refugee Assistance: $343 million, $50 million above the request, …including humanitarian assistance for Gaza. Funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency programs in the West Bank and Gaza is limited to $119 million (Note: Gaza = Hamas) [...]

• Department of Justice: $17 million, matching the request, for counter-terrorism activities and to provide training and assistance for the Iraqi criminal justice system…

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary05-07-09.pdf

Hello Morton, lovely fork you have there. There are many on the right, myself included, that do care about people but recognise that state imposed solutions seldom work and can even be counterproductive.

The typical kernel of a left wing solution is to throw other people’s money at the problem. The basis of a right wing solution is to help people get into a position where they can solve their own problems. In a modern state you probably need a mixture of both but we have had a great deal of the former and precious little of the latter for too long.

Simply because others dissagree with your way of doing things, particularly when your methods tend to have adverse effects, does not make them “thick or nasty”, suggesting that it does will put you firmly in the “nasty” catagory.

All that said, Melanie Phillips is dreadful.