The bad news: 1 out of every 34 YouTube viewers wants to see Rick Perry grow up to be President.That number of dislikes makes me feel good about humanity.
He's got my vote.
How can you factually disprove an anti-intellectual assertion? I never get why people fall into this rabbit-hole.I enjoy the fact that the entire religions of Christianity and Catholosism can be factually disproved in today's society and yet people cling to it as something with merit. Merit enough to use it as grounds for your entire Presidential Campaign.
Look if you want to ignore facts and go off "faith", then more power to you, but don't insult the rest of us by trying to run for President on that motto.
This is a trap I often fall into as well - disproving a specific religion vs disproving faith in general, or the existence of a creator.How can you factually disprove an anti-intellectual assertion? I never get why people fall into this rabbit-hole.
I don't disagree with your conclusion, religion really has no place in politics, especially not "elect me because I'm closer to god holla-back-yall."Easily, by proving that most of the fundemental stories that the entire belief is based upon are plagiarised from older stories (not similar, straight out plagiarism) and that dates used and locations for certain events have been scientifically and factually disproven multiple times.
So yeah, it can be and has.
That is not the discussion here, I've already stated that if someone wants to have faith in something regardless of facts, that is entirely their choice but they can't expect it to be the grounds for a Presidential election because just like any major religious official, when confronted with the fallicies in their religion, they'll have nothing to fall back on and stumble on what they "believe" that it makes the entire "base" of their campaign weak.
OK, I've just done the same thing. Thanks, I did not seriously consider doing it before.I downvoted it and flagged it as hate speech against homosexuals. I hadn't realized he'd completely gone off the deep end. It's like he wants to out Bachman Bachman.
You do realise that using that as proof relies on assuming the stories are made up in the first place, right?Easily, by proving that most of the fundamental stories that the entire belief is based upon are plagiarised from older stories (not similar, straight out plagiarism)