@Dynamo Frokane and science is your only method of measuring levels of 'smartness'? You don't think a creationist can be clever, genius in their own way, for example philosophies, spiritual guidance to troubled people, maths, literature, history, etcetera.

I think you're thinking too much about this on the religious side. Religion has nothing to do with ones capabilities to be smart or not. History has proven that time and time again. You claim that these people go against science but you yourself are going against history, which in my eyes is a far more clear sign of stupidity.

There are many benefits to religion that have nothing to do with religion. Social ties. Helping troubled people. Providing guidance for those that need. Providing hope for those that can't find it elsewhere. Creationism doesn't mean you're stupid. It just means you have a different idea on the world.

Your lack of being able to process that, that too signals to me that you're not yet mature enough to even consider entering a discussion with these people.

It reminds me of what Trump said when he used Mussolini (the father of fascism) his quote 'better to live one day as a lion than a hundred as a sheep' or something among those lines.

'It's a great quote,' and with that I want to say; even dumb people can say genius things, even geniuses make mistakes and/or say stupid things, even evil people have a shred of good, and even good people have evil hidden deep inside of them.

Discrediting people based on their religious views - well, let me say, it already puts you in the same department as you put them in. Listen to what people say and not to who you think they are.

It might work wonders for you.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

Atheism VS Theism is a different thing, you dont get plus or minus points for either as you cant really prove if there is or isnt a god either way, its sort of just what reasoning you use to presume which is more logical.

Creationism DOES make you stupid, as creationism isnt a simple as I believe in a higher power, its anti-scientific biblical literalism. Its believing things that have been proven false. The correct correlation would be creationism vs rationalism or scientific method. Any one running for president who thinks god 'magicked' the world in 6 days is a moron, period.

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

Online polls were regularly declaring, like, 90% for Bernie back in the spring. Of course, the Media isn't exactly a better judge, but they seem to know that, and most media personalities I have seen have been tossing in grains of salt with their reports. You know, always talking about how bizarre this election is and how they ultimately can't figure out what is going on, before they go on with their opinion. I think the real indicator will be how the professional polls look, and we got at least a week if not two before those come out in large enough numbers to tell a story.

My own opinion, I expected him to do well, but I don't think he did well at all. I was surprised by it actually. He is good on the offensive but petulant and weak in the defensive, so I assumed he'd take the offensive. But instead he played his weakest hand and came off like he was way out of his league.

Hillary came off as robotic (The way she awkwardly felt her way up to that "I call it trumped up Reaganomics" line was like watching a blind man having sex for the first time). She always has seemed robotic. This is especially true when she is answering a moderator question. Clinton's debating style always comes off to me like a college freshman who practiced a few choice lines in a mirror and sort of ad-libbed the rest, because it always feels like she is setting herself up to deliver the line she had practiced. It's awkward and unimpressive. She did better when rebutting Trump's ideas, especially that one time where she did that aside to America's allies, I felt that made him look like a little boy getting apologized for by his mother.

But Trump comes off exactly like a cartoon villain in an old saturday morning cartoon. He starts off cocky, then slowly looses his cool, spouts generically evil lines, and starts falling apart near the end. It sorta felt like Batman should jump up any minute, kick him into the lava, say some corny line, and then credits role. He also has this thing for petulance. Like, let your supporters bitch about the media, don't do it yourself. A presidential candidate whining about the media... i mean, here you have a bunch of spineless milquetoast upper-middle class reporters and you're going to say they are being mean? How the fuck you gonna lead the free world if those people are enough of a challenge for you to call time-out? A billionaire whining about how the election is too hard... that doesn't inspire anything but disgust in me, guy. Man the fuck up.

The biggest danger for Trump in these debates I think will be himself. Clinton is not charismatic enough to do him in, he has to do it himself. He said Trumpy things in August and had bad polls. He toned it down in September and had really good polls. But if that is how he is going to act in a debate, he really is in danger of saying Trumpy things again, and he can't afford to do that in October. This is the home stretch. What happens in this next month will actually stay with the voters. He did really well with the TPP line, actually managed to choke her up, so whatever he did there he'll have to learn how to hold if he is going to win this thing. But if he plays it, like, basically the rest of that debate, he's going to have to hope for outside forces to get him the swing votes. Pray for an economic collapse (again), or something like that.

Meanwhile, I can say that the debate only really reinforced my resolve to vote third party this year. The next president is going to be some sort of disaster or another, so fuck it.

Y'all racist as shit.

@Jotunn Draugr

Well you dont know the man personally so lets not start calling him polite, or that he saves kittens in his spare time. There is not enough time to consider every wacky alternative view, would you honestly be taking him just as seriously if he thought that the stork delivered babies or that the earth was flat? These arent even religous veiwpoints by the way.

And you are presenting a false dhicotomy, everyone who isnt a creationist is an 'elitst' unless you are calling everyone with a school level understanding of science an elitist. I'm not saying Ben Carson is an evil man because he has stupid ideas, but a stupid idea is a stupid idea. You roast democrats and liberals on far less for their opinions on how they think the world should be run, I dont call you an elitist for not considering the perspectives of a socialist or a communist. You've clearly considered the views and you think they are dumb, hence you dont think they should run the country, regardless of their academic acheivements in economics.

And this 'huge portion' thing is a lie, most people ARE NOT creationists. Most Christians believe in evolution and the scientific method, and most people who believe in the scientific method ARE christians. You undermine everyday church going people when you attactch creationism to their wordviews, your majesty.

@Jotunn Draugr You havent adressed my points and comparisons(Stork and Flat Earth, Stupid Ideas of Liberals, Ability to run a country) so sadly the discussion ends here, plus you are calling creationism a religous tradition after admitting this has nothing to do with religion. Stick to the Trump stuff, this might not be your bag.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Dude, you're hearing what you want to hear, and have missed the point on everything I said. I might as well be talking to a brick wall. And to top if off, you're being an elitist prick about it.

"Sweet dreams, lilac."

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

I'm not hearing anything, I'm reading.

If thinking stupid flat earth nonsense is stupid makes me an elitist, then I wear the elitist badge proudly, prick.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

@Dynamo Frokane So basically you are saying that because he is a creationist, he is unfit to rule the country. Therefore your solution is to write him off as stupid, and in the process, write off creationists as stupid?

What if I told you that there's a better solution, namely not voting for him?

Do you feel that Socrates or Da Vinci were smart men? Surely so, right? They're some of the smartest men we've known in history.

Then you'd feel blessed to know they are both creationists and believed it 100%. Ergo, smartest men in the world were also creationists. Ergo, not every creationist is a babbling idiot that rams on and on about 6 days.

I'd like to propose a thought experiment.

There are a bunch if people stuck on an island. All of normal intelligence. They know as much about wilderness survival and escape as your average person.

Except one guy.

He's a scientist, clearly capable of rational thought. Without his efforts, many of the medicines we enjoy today would not exist. He also knows a lot about survival and getting help in a stranded setting. However he's also superstitious, and believes in faeries. He also thinks that all imagination comes from another dimension, and he's invested money in creating a device that can open up a portal to that other world.

When everyone is rescued, he alone is credited for everyone's salvation. He made sure everyone had water to drink and food to eat, and he also devised the device that successfully called for help.

Is he smart or stupid?