Believing in psychology isn't blind faith, because it's a reference to authority, plus many of us know people (or are people) who have received psychotherapy and have benefited from it, which provides evidence.

But yes, people do maintain blind trust in people, especially when it comes to personal loyalties, like nationalism or sticking with one political party.

Just for reference, I do not know of any people who have been to a psychotherapy. If I believed they worked, would that be an example of blind faith?

Maybe if it would help, here's an example that might be easier, no one here has been to the sun, is it blind faith to accept what someone else says the sun is made up of? Assuming no here here researches stars.

Second part, do religious people have evidence of benefits? Plenty of people know someone of a religion after all.

Sure, that happens, probably a lot. Side note, does it really matter who you vote for in the US? A two party system where both groups are so evenly matched means they have to give and take on so many things. Essentially, they would have to help each other so that both parties get what they want. Fair statement?

No, actualy voting is statistically one of the most pointless things in existence.  For multiple reasons ;)

I would consider accepting authority as NOT blind faith. So if my dad or my doctor says something, I don't consider that blind, because it's built on the trust I have. Although perhaps I'm wrong in thinking so. I don't imagine I'm an authority for you, so if you took my poor report and assumed it's absolutely true, that would seem like blind faith to me.

I do also research stars. I write for a science fiction RPG, so I do look over (lay-man's versions of) scientific tests and reports.

I was thinking a bit about the difference that people imply when they refer to 'faith' rather than 'belief.'  I'm definitely not at the point where I feel like I can properly express the difference, but one thing I came up with that I wanted to toss out and see what people thought was this:

For a 'belief' you can imagine being wrong, and you could come up with a list of things that would change your mind about the belief if they were true (ie, beliefs are falsifiable), whereas 'faith' would be things that you can't imagine being wrong, and for which you couldn't come up with anything that could change your faith (ie, faith is not falsifiable).

What do people think of that as a difference?

That's a really tough question, Tycho.

One can certainly believe something and recognize that they could be wrong, but I don't think all beliefs are falsifiable (I don't see how the existence of God is falsifiable, for our canonical example). Personally, I see belief as agreeing with statements that are logically independent of current evidence, but I don't expect anyone else to subscribe to that definition :)

Faith, to me, seems a very close word to trust: you can have 'faith in humanity' or can be 'faithful to your spouse', and these are not absolutes and can be easily lost.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:00, Tue 25 Sept 2012.

I think though that there are different degrees of falsifiable though. I can say the contents of a star is falsifiable based on spectrometer readings. But it could be that the readings where wrong because of red-shifting or some other factor. I can also say the existence of God is falsifiable because if I have faith in God and flip a coin, it will always come up heads.

In reply to katisara (msg # 54):

The types of god for which there is falsifiability have more or less all be falsified.  Those which can't betray their vast improbability.

The problem is the moving target.

If the bible god is real, then evolution cannot be true (for a host of reasons)

Evolution is shown to be true.  "No, that's scientific evidence of deception" ...g-d just wanted it to LOOK like there was evolution.

Bingo, ex post facto fix.

Evolution and the biblical god can absolutely co-exist and indeed do for a great number of people.  It's only those who hold to a particular understanding of the text that have difficulties with it.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 56):

To be clear:  OF COURSE what you've said is right.

But it's just a special case of special pleading.

The Bible is true and reliable (even about outrageous and fantastical things) except when it's not.

So, you can decide that "Paul is wrong"(and there are many, many even good xian reasons to believe so) about sin coming to the earth though one man ...and death.  AND so by poetic? (or literal) balance one many's death brings life and the end to sin.

The topic is even more challenging when we have to decide which bible god we're talking about.  To be clear, I do mean the Xian one in this examination.

Evolution being true means, death is not a curse.  It existed before humankind.  And in fact, humankind exists (as we understand it) because of it.

To add fuel to the debate:
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-m...-rarely-prevail.html

Moderates don't win followers, and generally aren't as self-sustaining. So in many ways they don't 'count'.

In reply to katisara (msg # 58):

Meh, in their model they hard-coded it so that people could only be convinced to go towards A or B, but the moderates couldn't convince people of anything:


It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a model where moderates cannot change anyone's minds results in all the moderates becoming extremists.

The statement about moderates not being able to rally people is demonstrably false.  If you look back over the presidential elections, for example, you will find that the vast majority of presidents who have won elections have been moderates.  A few exceptions (like Obama) pop into mind, but they made up for their extremism with charisma.  The majority flock toward a moderate approach in most cases.

In reply to Heath (msg # 60):

I know a lot of people really don't like Obama, but that doesn't mean he's not a moderate.  His healthcare law (the main thing his opponents call extreme) was taken from the other party's ideas, and in particular the other party's presidential candidate.  He's lowered taxes on every (with the exception of those who can afford health insurance but would rather pay the tax/fine for not having it, I guess), and his plan to raise the income tax rate on the wealthy is supported by a majority of people in the country.  You might feel it's a bad idea, but its not really fair to say it's not a moderate idea just because you don't like it.  He IS left of most republicans, but he is also right of most democrats.  He ran his first campaign on the idea of trying to get republicans and democrats to try to put aside their differences and work together.  That didn't work, but I'd argue that was largely due to republicans in congress making defeating Obama their "number 1 priority," rather than due to lack of trying on Obama's part.  Obama's continued many of Bush's policies, such as drone strikes and not having close gitmo, much to chagrin of people who voted for him.

I have no problem if you dislike Obama, dislike his policies, think he's a bad president, or whatever.  But calling him extreme is just factually incorrect.  Republicans have been doing it from the start, but they seem to think "extreme" is a synonym for "disagrees with me."  Republicans and Obama are fairly far apart on many issues, but that's largely due to the republicans moving further to the right, rather than Obama being far left.  Many people (including moderate republicans) have pointed out that the republicans have shifted farther to the right than they've been in a very long time ("Regan would be called a liberal today" and all that).  That doesn't mean people who didn't shift to the right are extremists, though.  Most of Obama's the policies that people now call extreme are ones that republicans supported very recently (in some cases, even the same republicans who are now calling Obama extreme).

So again, say you don't like Obama and his policies, that's fine.  But calling him extreme isn't accurate.  Extremeness isn't measured by how much you dislike a person or their policies.

It's a fair point, Tycho, comparing Obama to the whole spectrum and saying he's a moderate. Personally, I don't like him because he isn't a "moderate democrat", but a "conservative democrat".

This country is really lacking in liberal politicians.

As a Canadian I find the idea of calling Obama extreme absolutely hilarious. He pretty much defines "blah" outside of his charismatic personality.

EDIT:  And that's not to say Heath is the only one who feels that way, it's just a strange thing I've noticed in general.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:06, Wed 03 Oct 2012.

In reply to hakootoko (msg # 62):

Hakoo and Tycho are both correct.

I only wish the President were the caricature he's presented as.  Even an extreme black nationalist would please me!

You guys really think Obama is moderate in American politics?  That amazes me.  Even Clinton has a hard time agreeing with him because he is so far to the left.

Under Canadian politics, which is more socialized, he may be considered more moderate, but he is definitely far to the left of moderate in U.S. politics.  He is commonly called a "radical left wing" politician.  I probably should not have said "extreme" because that brings all sorts of crazies to mind, but what what I meant was someone too leftist or rightist to be considered "moderate."

Tycho: It's not fair of you to restate my position and accuse me of disliking Obama and trying to discredit me.  Obama is far to the left of center on anyone's radar in the U.S. and is not moderate.  You go on for two paragraphs chiding me without bringing anything of substance up, not a single fact to prove me wrong.  Have Republicans moved farther to the right?  Some have, surely.  But the Democrats have also moved much farther to the left.  Remember this:  "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." That was a Democrat, Kennedy, and now Obama has changed the tune to "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you" through entitlement programs that are far to the left of anything we've seen, not to mention the debt he sank the country into like socialist European countries.

Romney is a moderate, though, which is why the Tea Party has a problem with him.  But do you think a radical right wing group like the Tea Party (which is actually libertarian, not Republican) could ever get someone elected?  No.  Right or wrong, they are too right wing.

You say Obama is "right" of most democrats.  I have to call B.S. on that one. Sorry.  There are some who are more left than him, but not many.

I don't wish to belabor the point.  My point still stands that a moderate has a much better chance of being elected than a non-moderate, and this has been borne out throughout history, except in cases of revolutions or when the charisma of the leader can overcome his non-moderate views.

I'll just state a few things that Obama does which make him non-liberal. All of these are actions I expect of a conservative:

1) Drone strikes on foreign countries we're not at war with.

2) NDAA. The law that allow(ed) the US military to hold anyone, anywhere, indefinitely without trial.

3) The war in Libya.

Heath:

Wait, so if Obama is a radical and Romney is a moderate (your view, certainly not mine.), and moderates have a much higher chance of being elected then Romney should be looking in good shape right now should he not?

Obviously it's not a cut and dry thing, but that seems to be your stance correct?

(As a total aside I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats win the White House for the next 30 years in the US.  With culture changing as it is I don't see much hope for the Republicans.  Whether that's good or bad I couldn't tell you.  I'm not much of a political guy - I don't vote etc - but just going off the way I see culture changing everywhere, including the USA.)
This message was last edited by the player at 20:51, Wed 03 Oct 2012.

Unless, as I mentioned in my original post, they can overcome their more radical (i.e., left or right of moderate) stance through charisma, or can foster a revolution of sorts.  In Obama's case, he has a lot of charisma; he also is fostering a revolution of sorts by creating a class war where he is promising to take from the rich and give to the poor.  So he is doing everything as he should for a radical to get elected.

I don't know why you think the Democrats will keep power.  The elections of 2010 demonstrate that the Democrats weren't popular, though the Democrats say that was just that the incumbents weren't popular.  Either way, the "incumbency" issue makes the statement highly unlikely.

Yes, Obama has done some things which a conservative would do.  (You forgot that he failed to fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.)  Bush also spent money fiscally like a Democrat, yet no one is calling him a liberal.  Your points, hako, are based on foreign policy issues, and he changed his stance on those after coming into power and realizing he was dead wrong.  And though you would expect those acts from a conservative, I do not see them as conservative or liberal:  Clinton did the same things.

Which I why I said I wanted a liberal to vote for: I want a liberal foreign policy, and every democrat seems to have a conservative foreign policy.

No that have I any time for most of these discussions anymore, I might really enjoy getting behind a thread on this issue.

I think there's some good evidence to suggest we're having a "Party Switch" which has happened a few time in history.  And at least one party replacement (Wigs by Republicans -- that doesn't mean Wigs became Republicans, but rather that history and policy made the wigs unwelcome and Republicans were key to that)...

anyway, I think we're seeing a transformation of the parties and that's why almost everyone is unhappy with their party except that 20% who are PARTY PEOPLE

Obama is NOT liberal, he is a conservative corporatist.

One problem you may be having there "Mark Twain" is you don't know/get that social scientists have proven that the right has gone drastically to the right while the left has extended somewhat but not in either volume or in degree.  (That is both fewer are at the "edge" (a term I prefer in this context to extreme...) and they are not as "far moved" from center as those on the right.)

To Hokoo's list I would add a bunch of domestic issues.

* He had to devolve on gay marriage before evolving to the level of Dick Cheney.
* He voted for corporate immunity on FISA.  Now maybe you call domestic spying really a national security position (but that's half the problem) is domestic rights are under assault via-a-vis "national security")
* He's personally chosen to kill US Citizens in Pakistan for no known reason ...though he did have a very Islamic name.  Oh, and one was a 14?-year old boy!
* He wants to seem in favour of women by increasing law suits.
* He didn't fight for Employee Free Choice Act
* He won't fight for amnesty or open boarders
* He won't fight for trans-inclusive hate crimes legislation
* He didn't fight for (even less than fight, he give up without concession) either single payer or even the great, highly popular (but still a concession) -- public option.
* He has rarely (and I only know of one example at the convention) where he mentions the poor.  Their slogan even puts "Middle Class First" ...which is a class war action, I agree, it's class war fare against the POOR. (i.e. Republican Light)

I could go on and on, he's not radical.

Revolutionary, do you have a link to a report by those social scientists?

Speaking for myself, I consider myself conservative (although I've probably shifted more liberal than I was a few years ago). Obama may be liberal on his tax policy, but honestly, that's just an area I don't really care very much about. In all of the metrics I'm considered about (personal freedoms, foreign policy, etc.) he's leaned either right or fascist. (I don't mean fascist in a derogatory sense, but in the sense of opposite from libertarianism.)

Compared to other politicians in my area, he's VERY moderate. Compared to other presidents, he's probably about as left-wing as Clinton. I'd be happy of Obama was the degree of radical the Democrats continue to provide (and I'd request that they replace my local candidates with someone about that extreme).

Yes, but by whom?  I think you might have a sample bias, if people who call Obama "radical left wing" are what you consider to be "the center".


If you want to say you like Obama and his policies, feel free.  ;)


I have to disagree with you there.  He is left of center, yes.  But "far to the left" he isn't.  Perhaps what we need is to give a bit more of a definition of what "far to the left" means.  I'm talking about the median voter.  You seem to be talking about the median republican voter, or the median fox news fan.  Remember, more than half the voters in the country voted for Obama.  Even if he loses this time around, all indications are that it won't be a landslide.  Someone who's viewed as a radical left wing person by most americans isn't going to have that happen.


Perhaps you misread my post, as I count at least 4 facts I gave to back up my position:
1.  His health care plan is taken from the other party
2.  he's lowered taxes on everyone (usually a conservative desire)
3.  his plan to raise taxes on the highest earners is supported by most of the country
4.  he has continued many of Bush's policies that liberals dislike.
I realize it's not exactly a Ph.D thesis, but to say I offered no facts is, well, a <strike>lie</strike> exaggeration.  Which of us was it that was complaining about the unfairness of restating the other's position and trying to discredit them? ;)


here is one example of a political scientist who's studied this who says otherwise.  Here's the money quote:
[Emphasis added by Tycho.  Also, the two figures n the article show this very nicely graphically]
This is another article talking about it.  I'm not just making this up and pointing fingers here.  People who study this stuff, and try to find ways to quantify it are saying that the numbers show what most people can observe just by watching the news:  Republicans are moving much more quickly to the right than democrats to the left.


Really, did Obama say that, or did you just make that up?  And with the "entitlements" thing, you're sort of picking the wrong fight with this quote, I'd argue.  The biggest beef with Obamacare that conservatives have is that it makes you buy insurance.  It doesn't give you something for free, it requires you to do something so that the rest of us don't have to pay for it in taxes.  It's a "here's what you're going to do for your country," thing.  You may not like it, plenty of other people don't like it, and I'll admit it's not the system I'd pick if they asked me.  But that doesn't mean it's radically to the left, or much like a socialist European country (I happen to live in a socialist European country, and I can tell you, Obamacare isn't anything like what they have in the UK).  Oh, and there's that odd little issue, that Obamacare was more or less invented by a moderate republican, who now happens to be the republican presidential candidate.


Yes, Romney is a moderate (despite his attempt to brand himself as "severely conservative" back in the primaries), and the Tea party are not moderate.  That doesn't have much to do with Obama, though.


I think perhaps you have a somewhat skewed view of the democratic population in the US, then.  If you don't think there are many democrats more to the left than Obama, you're definitely not seeing a large portion of the country.


I'd agree that moderates tend to (or at very least have tended to in the past) have a better chance of winning presidential races.  I will grant that Obama also has charisma.  I still feel, however, that other than calling him such, you haven't really shown much evidence that Obama is "radial left wing."