Three complete fucking idiots.

McCain is lying is ass off. He had to totally pause and go.. hmm.. which will get me more votes.. YES!

Only three idiots? Or only three with the balls to admit they're idiots?

So people who don't believe in evolution are idiots?

^ no, the two just strongly correlate ; )

If the clip were longer, you would see McCain quickly explain that he believes in God. In the Philippines, we would call him a "balimbing", after the fruit with many faces.

Yes Sylvester. People who don't believe in evolution are idiots. Actually they're more than that. They're complete ignorant fucking morons.

I find that hard to watch. Three candidates don't believe in Evolution... Was Bush ever asked this question?

The better follow-up question is what do Brownback, Tancreado, and Huckabee believe in? Creationism? A young Earth? Intelligent Design?

You don't necessarily have to accept without question the concept of the Selfish Gene or even Darwinian natural selection, but to raise your hand on this question is akin to raising your hand in support of a flat Earth. It is an irrational act.

I really don't understand the outrage in these comments. Saying "No" gets checkbooks out across the Midwestern and Southern USA, so many variants of Protestantism coming full circle to buy salvation with a "donation".

Brownback's the only guy I actually believe when he claims NOT to accept evolution. Even Bush's denials ("the jury's still out") sound evasive, like he's just being sensitive to the beliefs of his base.

Sending money to Christian causes makes old people and religious nutters feel slightly less afraid of death. That's how that works.

man at least none of these asshats are actually in the running

The form of the question betrays an intended bias. I don't BELIEVE IN evolution either. There's nothing to believe IN, it's not a religion that demands of me that I believe IN it. Do I think the preponderance of evidence toward the validity of the theory of evolution is OVERWHELMINGLY RIDICULOUSLY ABSURDLY HUGE? yes. I believe the theory of evolution is true. beyond a shadow of a doubt. The subtle difference in the way the question was phrased reveals the questioner to be ignorant of the difference of belief based on faith, that is, for no particular reason other than the fact that other people believe IN it too; and believing something to be true because one has reasonable cause and evidence to do so.

"McCain is lying is ass off. He had to totally pause and go.. hmm.. which will get me more votes.. YES! "

If he wanted more votes, he probably would have said no.

Agreed gluonium, A more fitting form of questioning would be "Do you dispute evolution"

Yet answering "no" on that question still marks you as a complete idiot, and Sylvester, in order to understand why, read a book on evolution to understand what it actually means. No sane person could dispute such a claim more than they could dispute the claim that the earth is not flat.

i agree with james roe. ive only heard of brownback in that bunch, and he doesnt stand a chance.

Why anyone would believe we descended from cockroaches is beyond me.

I've read up on it plenty. I've done quite a bit of research for several years now, and I still do not believe that the current theory of evolution is the proper explanation for the existence of humanity on Earth.

People scoff at this comparison all the time, but it is like the theory of gravitation. (Yes, I know I'm going to get a lot of "OMG, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY???" nonsense.) We can see the effects of gravity. You let go of a penny at arms length and it's falls to the ground. The Moon orbits the Earth which orbits the Sun. Yet there are enough discrepancies that scientists are unwilling to firmly say what the cause of this is. That's fine, because the theory of gravitation has been changing since Newton's time as different observations are made with better equipment. Even today scientists are looking into other possible explanations. (String Theory has a major basis as an attempt to refine the theory of gravitation.)
However, we are satisfied to say that there is some force that causes objects to gravitate together, and we're relatively certain that the current theories as to why this happens are correct, but we are still continuing to study and change the theories as we get more refined information.

This is the exact same thing with evolution. We see the effect, which is our existence here, and thus we seek an explanation. For some people, the current theories of evolution are a more than sufficient explanation. However, there are still enough discrepancies that scientists are still searching for better explanations. The theory of evolution has changed many times since it was first proposed, and I expect it will change several times more.
So the reasoning is the same as the reasoning behind the theory of gravitation. We see the effects, yet we're still looking into the causes. To jump conclusions and declare anything absolute would be unscientific.

As for me, I do agree that the theories behind micro-evolution/natural selection are sufficient explanations for the adaptability of various animals. Not only is there sufficient information, but it's been observed in the field.

However, I don't believe the theories behind macro=evolution are sufficient enough to claim that all life evolved from a smidgen of a single-celled organism in the sea, or that humans evolved from apes. There are enough discrepancies that one can be skeptical. However, there is enough information that some can view those theories as sufficient explanation, and that's fine as well. True ignorance would stem from one insisting that their views are correct and that all that don't agree are idiots.

Did anyone else watch the whole debate? What a difference between the Dems and Repubs. I remember hearing "no difference between the two" from Nader supporters. Different belief systems and different lobby-support systems.

"No, I do not, I dont know how someone could look at this panel of gentlemen standing here and claim that evolution is real."

I lawled ^
But yeah... that's pretty impressive.

and pray tell where are these mysterious and fabled discrepancies sylvester?

Aren't paradigms wonderful things?

Downvote for socialist sham pretending to be a balanced debate. God created evolution.

wow

Evolution is the basis of much of our understanding of biology, so let's just throw that out and chalk it up to God, too.

If you want to reject science, fine - but no more typing on this computer, using your cell phone, your TV, your car, your toothpaste...all the ways that you benefit from science have to go, too.

Evolution is a pretty wild idea.

I choose never to mock individuals who don't think it is the guiding force of nature. Its an exceedingly humbling idea, and for many other reasons I can understand why some people might choose not to believe independent of some very compelling evidence. And as long as they don't want to be researchers in a biological discipline, teachers of a biological discipline, paleontologists, or veterinarians, they have the freedom to be comfortable in my opinion.

The argument that a supernatural force might have interceeded in putting together some RNA and a couple of proteins a billion years ago and then just let it stew seems rather silly to me, but whatever floats your boat.

(bonus! most primative primate fossil link ; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/yu-pdm012307.php )

Sam Brownback always seemed like a nice enough gent, in a grandfatherly, "back in my day..." kind of way. Tancredo is kind of an ass, though.

videosiftbannedme ......what a wonderful name....Look agnosticators.....

The dems are weak-ass posers, like the repubs, in that, they play for their team....the job of both is to convince you all that there is one team, better than the other, on points near, and dear, to your confused little hearts-

you folks who place some contrived, semantics-twisted faith in the dems over the repubs, place your faith in another beast poised to ass-rape you for all you can give, for they are ass-rapers ready to whore to whomever will suit them for the moment........I am embarrased to live in a country with so many morons....who would bother to waste valuable muscle, grey matter, and time, to picking one that best suits.....you who pick have been engineered to follow and parrot, the mythical lemming, who suprisingly, shows more balls than brains, when it comes to survival......PICTURE A ROOMFULL OF HUMAN BANGING THEIR HEADS AGAINST A WALL AND CALLI911NG IT GOVERNMENT.....and you have America......

ego is so easily fed, with a happy meal-Junk Food is the anitchrist, and minions are her red carpet, to oblivion....

oh and atheists....get a fucking room, who gives a fuck if a president belives in evolution....What the fuck IS evolution anyhow, and who gives a fuck......don't you know what religion is yet?????!!!! Jesus H. Fucking Christ.....why does one feel they need to prove there is no god anyhow......(ask this about a christian who feels they must prove there is, and then buy yer atheist ass a new fucking mirror, cause yours is BROKEN!!!

(seriously thought this atheist shit was over, when Madelyne Murray O'fucking dysfunctional Hare, was dead and gone, good whining-ass riddance!!!) Why is faith in anything so abhorrent???? You folks who feel you must take a stand on god need therapy.......

Proving there is no god is about as necessary as proving there is no santa claus.

Creationism is nothing new no matter what religion your talking about.
Here is a list of the top 10 creation myths
http://www.archetype-productions.com/nfo/religion/Top_10_Intelligent_Designs.doc

"Proving there is no god is about as necessary as proving there is no santa claus."

... two things real quick: I'm making sure you understand that this analogy can be rewritten as 'there is no need to prove either exists because God is as imaginary as Santa Claus', and nobody is out there with NSF money working to prove there is no God, its just some kids who like to explore what turns them off about religion.

Maybe explaining what you like about your own faith, what need it fulfills, would be more constructive.

Like Dawkins says, we're all atheists, I just take it one god further. There's nothing special about your particular imaginary friend that requires me to prove he doesn't exist. That would be like asking me to disprove the existence of Loki and Thor.

I don't have any faith. Faith is a dangerous and stupid concept, not to mention one of the most faked and false attributes of people who claim to believe in God.

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because anyone with enough insight can see that God is a myth created by men to control other men. In that way, God is just like Santa Claus: once you reach a certain level of maturity you should see God for the tool of manipulation that he is. If you don't you're either not intelligent enough, or your childhood brainwashing was truly effective.

EVERYTHING about religion turns me off, so there's not much to explore. All religions are insidious tools of maniuplation and mind control. I pretty much write off the sanity of anyone who voluntarily participates on any level.

Thank you budzos, for saying pretty much exactly what I wanted to express.

"All religions are insidious tools of maniuplation and mind control. I pretty much write off the sanity of anyone who voluntarily participates on any level."

Thank you, budzos. You pretty much said everything a frustrated, faithless human being desperately seeking some form of actualization would say....as predictable as any born-again christian......

"Why is faith in anything so abhorrent????"

Because faith is for the fatuous. To have faith by definition means you've decided to believe something despite a lack of evidence or reason, or even in the face of contravening evidence. All it takes for most people is a few "Santa's not real?" moments to see that most of what we are asked to take on faith is for the sake of manipulation or indoctrination.

And why is atheist and End of Faith author Sam Harris a follower of Buddhist and Hindu teachings?

Faith.

Once you enter the realm of 'spirituality', then you are swallowed by conceptions of 'faith' almost by definition. And I would argue that many atheists (including myself) are interested in issues of spirituality.
Which is just to say that I hate overly broad attacks on 'faith' almost as much as I hate spurious attacks on 'sinners' by supposed 'people of faith.'

It seems like you are railing against a particular form of political dogma rather than faith. In my experience, no one is a pure rationalist. We all place a certain level of unsupported trust in others via human interaction.

Of course I put faith in other people, systems, the brakes on my car, etc... it's religious faith I find ridiculous. I sort of thought that went without saying.

And I would argue that a lot of religious persons are placing their faith in that kind of orderly universe -- the brakes are going to work, children will be well, relationships with fantastic sex attached will work out, good food will be eaten -- because incomprehensible universal powers have, in effect, their and our backs.

Of course, many other religious people (some of my relatives, for instance) place their faith in the idea that homosexual cohabitation will lead to the End of Days and that women should be shrouded and silenced. But that invariably involves a perverse intersection between religion and polity.

So I guess my quibble is that I find religious faith can be inescapably human while I find religious polity (Save Terri et al.) to be invariably ridiculous.

"because incomprehensible universal powers have, in effect, their and our backs."

Yeah, I know, that's where you lose me.

I suppose what irks me about the beliefs of religious people is their notion that it takes some leap of faith to NOT believe something. Religious people make this assumption because their own beliefs require a huge leap of faith.

Despite believing that we and monkeys share a common ancestor, I have enough faith in my fellow human beings to stand with my back to someone in front of subway tracks. That's not the same kind of faith required to attribute a supernatural basis to the very fabric of reality.

There many things that neither science or faith can fully explain. And this why spirituality exists.

I don't believe that religion should exist without science, nor science without religion.

"There many things that neither science or faith can fully explain. And this why spirituality exists. "

Exactly. Spirituality and the religions that extend from it serve to explain that which cannot be explained. In other words it's shit people made up in order to provide explanations, build up their own authority, and control the minds of the masses. Wishful thinking in a pretty package, backed up by closed-loop reasoning.

"I don't believe that religion should exist without science, nor science without religion."

Science vs Religion is an example of the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. They are not mutually exclusive, nor does one require the other.

Religion is completely irrelevant to science. It's about as relevant to science as astrology is to astronomy, or alchemy is to chemistry. Meaning, the only way they are related is that knowledge of science tends to eradicate belief in religion for most people, as science supercedes religion on the hierarchy of rationality. So there is a negative causal relation but no entwinement. Religion can go away completely and science will not suffer one bit.

"once you reach a certain level of maturity you should see God for the tool of manipulation that he is. If you don't you're either not intelligent enough, or your childhood brainwashing was truly effective. ... I pretty much write off the sanity of anyone who voluntarily participates on any level."

So take your ideas to their logical conclusion. Theists' minds are twisted and broken, and since the elevated status of humanity depends on the power and integrity of our minds, theists cannot be considered human. (and because their kind oppresses and steals from us it must be destroyed.)

There's nothing logical about your conclusion at all. It's based on the idea that humanity has some kind of "elevated status" to preserve. That's the thinking of religious people. The desire to feel special and elevated is one of the main contributing factors to the spread and longevity of religion.

Atheists are happy in the knowledge that humanity has no elevated status aside from possessing the most complex brains yet to evolve on the planet. We are merely another species of ape, and quite aware that a large percentage of the non-religous population is also insane. There is nothing to preserve, and thus no peole or minds to be destroyed.

One of the few things I have faith in is that rationality will win out over time as each successive generation of humanity learns from the folly of their ancestors. After all, there was a time when most societies believed in multiple gods, and modern christians, muslims, etc.. look back and see it as a quaint, ignorant set of beliefs. So shall the children of our children's children's children look back on the current religious models.

What I liked about the atheism movement is that it went against the bigoted and narrow minded views of fanatical religious people, who assumed they can take a position of elevated standing due to their position/knowledge/influence and spout whatever to people and people had to obey.

However I disagree with your hostile stance to anyone who fails to absorb your exact view of the world. I think you should have a read of Albert Einstein's articles on Religion and Science. Linked here - http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Science is about rationality, but rationality doesn't encompass everything that it means to be human.

Religion clearly means something totally different to you then me, I have been born in a religious society but never was I beaten into accepting it's views, it was a choice. It's only lately that Christian/Islmaic/FSM fundamentalists have started to corrupt the word of the religion in some perverse system of thought control.

I've read those articles. I've been arguing about this on the internet for years

I'm not hostile towards people who don't have my exact worldview. I mainly keep my opinion to myself, bow my head if people are praying, even say "amen" if my host or guest chooses to bless the meal. On the inside, I'm thinking "ooo-kay we are actually speaking to an imaginary friend" but on the outside I behave as if nothing untoward is going on. What's more I'm able to see the whole spectrum from friendly grandma-believes-sincerely aww isn't that cute, to politician-is-telling-you-what-you-want-to-hear totally cynical revulsion.

"It's only lately that Christian/Islmaic/FSM fundamentalists have started to corrupt the word of the religion in some perverse system of thought control. "

mmmmkay.

Oh budzos, have some pride in your heritage. Humanity is unique and extraordinary; while biologically we may be "just another species of ape" our minds set us apart and, yes, elevate us.

Animals grope blindly through life, slavishly executing the commands of their instinct while we, the transcendental glory of the world, raise ourselves up; but there is another species on earth. Theists devote their lives to mal-thought and un-reason, wilfully corrupting everything beautiful in existence and worst of all, raping humanity of our evident lordship of the universe. They are ravagers and usurpers; the gnawing void that surrounds and enslaves us all. Resist, damn you.

What was this? A police line up??

Where's the debate? Damn, I hate getting sucked into watching a video.

same comment than the one i made for this video
http://www.videosift.com/video/Why-the-earth-is-not-6000-years-old

+ is very a shame than this kind of ''believer'' still have ruling post. if only the believer community listen the word of god instead of the one a long perveted church

And why is atheist and End of Faith author Sam Harris a follower of Buddhist and Hindu teachings?
Faith.

I don't know much about Hinduism, but I know that Buddhist teachings are just that - teachings about life. It does not require that you believe in a higher being, reincarnation, or any of that.

Having read Harris' books, he is a scholar of religion, not a religious person. You can apply religious teachings to your life without subscribing to the supernatural elements.

Agreed. And I would never claim that Harris subscribes to the supernatural (or faith as belief without reason) in his practice of Buddhism (I love his books). But in many of Harris' writings he does seem to display spiritual faith (faith as trust and commitment), even if he wishes to throw out the whole conception of faith in his latest book.

There is a place for spiritual and religious teachings in life without resorting to dogma or population control. The latest wave of "religion is the devil" books seem to bury that idea, though, because they are so frustrated and fed up with Western Christianity and radical Islam.

I came to the conclusion long ago that religion was just an emotional crutch used by people too afraid of uncertainty. They don't really want to know the answer to what happens when you die, if there is a special purpose to life, where the world came from, etc., because they are afraid of what the answer might be. Instead, they make up a group of stories to comfort themselves and come together in groups because they think if other people share their beliefs that makes them more true.

The truth is, there is ZERO proof of anything supernatural out there. Not one bit, none. It's no coincidence that none of the religions, the boogey monster, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, gremlins, nor anything else supernatural have ever been proven to exist in the entire course or human history. That's because *they're made up*.

As to why atheists are so negative in their opinions of religious people, think of it this way: what if there was a group in your town that honestly believed in Odin and Thor. Would you think their judgement might be a little suspect? Why is your god exempt from that?

I agree with farhad regarding the einsteinian sense of religion or spirituality.

It is a sad day indeed for mankind when we lose our astonishment, awe, and reverent appreciation for the absolutely stunning universe we find ourselves in. This awe and wonder is absolutely crucial to scientific endeavour, IMO. It would be fine to do away with the supernatural sorts of religions, but leave us at least the beauty and grandeur of a starry night sky, a beautiful vista, or the elegance of say, maxwell's equations.

We don't need a supernatural religion, but we do need a natural spirituality. Otherwise, why even bother doing science?

The question phrasing was fine.

"be·lieve (bĭ-lēv') pronunciation

v., -lieved, -liev·ing, -lieves.

v.tr.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

*election08

Adding video to channels (Election08) - requested by joedirt.