While I disagree with the assertion that science-minded people will automatically gravitate towards Kerry, I do see more of the wacko religious vote going to Bush. Don't you?

Sure, religious Christian whackos tend to be right wing.  But that doesn't mean science is the opposite.

Afterall, those who claim to be "secular humanists" can be just as whacko and they're on the left usually.

Ahhh . . . good point. I just keep thinking of Marvin.

I think it also shows a total blind spot to the fact that many, many religious people also feel that it is possible to believe in scientific explainations for creation. It is intellectually deficient to say that a belief in God is unscientific, considering a belief that something DOESN'T exist is patently unscientific, and inherently a BELIEF in and of itself.

Faith vs. Fatih, they irrationally believe that their definition of the universe is complete, and disavow the possibility that there could be a God. The religious person at least understands that they are harboring a "belief". The pig-headed, adamant atheists think that they are somehow privy to "truth"..

Like any fringe group, pseudo-intellectual atheists are threatened by the idea that there is a moderate stance, that just as rain can be described scientifically and attributed to God, so can creation.

BakerStreet:
It is as unscientific to say something does not exist because there is no evidence of it's existance, as it is to say that something does exist without evidence thereof.

Draginol:
"Yesterday Bill Maher demonstrated the kind of attitude that is all too common with liberals: Intellectual arrogance. They believe that they have a monopoly on enlightened thinking."

"I could go on and on but I think the point is made. It's not that liberals are bad. They're not. They're just ineffectual in the real world. They are too busy trying to do emotionally satisfying deeds rather than deeds of practicality."

Hmm.. I really think that you should rethink doing these "liberals are this, conservatives are that" posts. They really are a false dichotomy, and they fall into the trap of not show differences between the two ideologies, but instead portrying one side negatively and the other positively.

Oh yes, and Bill Maher does not represent the left.

Yesterday Bill Maher demonstrated the kind of attitude that is all too common with liberals: Intellectual arrogance. They believe that they have a monopoly on enlightened thinking.

I don't think that this is unique to liberals. Nearly everyone is absolutely convinced that they are the only people who are capable of enlightened thinking. You claim a special insight into liberals and their fluffy thinking; I can equally claim that most engineers have no understanding of anything outside of their trade. It doesn't mean that either of us are right. It just helps our self-esteem to judge others as mentally deficient.

Sure there are people who claim to be impartial, that always say stuff like, "Your opinion is valid, but..." or "Wow, that's clever, but..." but nearly always they're really thinking, "You stupid naive moron. Don't you understand anything? Let me try and avoid hitting your thick skull by using some cheap flattery."

At least Bill Maher wears his arrogance on his sleave.

Intellectual arrogance is certainly not a left-wing characterising trait, as cactoblasta eloquently points out. You only have to a comparitive overview of world politics to see that.

And since when is it a bad thing to be "whacko?" Last time I checked, we're a country whose idealology was dictated by whackos. Bring on the whackos! Left, right, red and white. . . maybe even blue, to change things up a bit. But seriously, any belief system or ideology taken to an extreme is dangerous. We see it over here on the left and we have more than ample illustration of it on the right. Somewhere in the middle is level ground where all of this is just an absence of chaos, regardless of whether if comes from a higher power or a team of scientists wearing drab lab coats.

How funny Labels are labels nothing more. Your comments just make me laugh really hard. I love what you write dude but please. Who was it that said he is president on a mission from God? Bush is nothing but a joke any republican would be better then this bozo. Liberals indeed, much better then this compassionate conservatisim!! Heck there are far more Right wingers that fit in with this statement then liberals.

As it happens, I was reading an editorial in the Dallas paper the other day about this sort of thing. The instance being described was of two older women. When one said she would be voting for Bush, the other exclaimed "And I thought you were intelligent!".

I've seen this type of thing quite often, both in 'real life' and on blogs, articles, etc. The premise that one would have to be of inferior intelligence or have muddled thinking to vote for the right. Yes, claiming surperior intellect happens on the right as well, but, in my experience, it occurs a lot more frequently on the left.

I am a devout atheist and proudly voting for Bush. I also believe in gay marriages. Not some washy, split the baby position of being for "civil unions", so as to cover over my political rear like Kerry. Being a politician is truly prostituting. Nevertheless, I vote for Bush simply because he is the right man for the imminent job: protection.

Kerry is cheap substitute for Bush. Offer a real alternative like Nader and maybe the world in not implode over a fight for oil. Right around the corner is t he day when 2 billion Chinese consumers are going to value oil as much as Americans enjoy gushing it into their SUVs. Kerry has five. Hypocrites. The yoke of Mideast oil must be shed. Let us resolve to fuel our economy on an alternative source. Like loose change, Kerry is in the pocket of big oil. Mobile or Getty? Bush or Kerry? What’s the difference? If it is oil to which we are bound, then Bush must lead.

Let us resolve to fuel our economy on an alternative source.

Such as... ?

, equating or inferring that "religious Christians = whackos" is another fine example of Intellectual arrogance.

The Woolworth family made their fortune in supplying the fuel for lanterns (before electricity). The fuel was derived from Whale blubber and lit up many a household. Then, Standard oil in Pennsylvania struck oil and the Woolworth family invested their fortune in retailing.

My point is that technology can muster new means to supply demands. But big oil has not been put to task. We can't afford to wait for a Rockefeller to strike oil. The cliché: if we can put a man on the moon... is true. But big oil won't bend easily. The hue and cry must emanate from below. I welcome education on the subject of alternative fuel sources, as I'm sure do must Americans.

Draginol:

The problem with your argument is that it is anecdotal. "Most" engineers requires some kind of evidence. How many engineers do you know out of the millions that are Americans?

BTW: Wouldn't an attitude like that constitute an "Intellectual arrogance" all by itself? Hmmmm......

Agreed. I am a Montrealer that works with around 300 Engineers in a big game development house and I doubt ANY of them would vote for Bush. In fact, most would find Kerry WAY too right wing for them. This is probably true in all of Canada and along the entire Eastern Seaboard of the U.S.. Oh, and the rest of the
world too. In fact, if you look at the rest of the world, you WILL notice a STRONG association between dominant right wind politics and fanatical religiousity. That's not fuzzy marijuanna smoked leftist thinking, its just true.