Is Mr Poots Someone Fit To Lead A Political Party In The 1St Century?

[Atheist]

Someone who puts his religious belief above the scientific consensus.

[emmie]

perhaps he would have done better in the church..

[douglas9401]

What possible harm could an extreme, intransigent religious view cause in Norn Irn?

[emmie]

none whatsoever, ummm.

[Atheist]

9:58 Douglas.
Best answer, but I can't see how to do it!

[naomi24]

Click the bit on Douglas's post that says 'Mark as Best Answer'.

[naomi24]

Anyone - other than a fellow Creationist - would have to seriously question his rationality.

[Atheist]

Thanks, Naomi. It was right under my nose, so no wonder I couldn't see it.

[emmie]

they elected him, one must assume that he has qualities we can't see.

[Ellipsis]

This begs the question, was Tony Blair or Theresa May fit to be Prime Minister? Is the Queen fit to be Head of State? Do we get to pick and choose which bits of faith demonstrate rationality and which bits don't?

Fact is, the people who have elected him as leader wanted him as leader, and in our democracy as it stands that makes him fit to lead.

[emmie]

i suggest that the likes of Blair, The Queen aren't at heart creationists. they must see the world as it is. Its not 6000 years old, science has taught us that much.

[emmie]

lets see how he gets on, he is certainly monotone in his delivery, we will see whether he is a good leader or not soon enough.

[Ellipsis]

So it's OK to believe that Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine, but not OK to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old? Or don't Tony and Theresa believe that? Where do we go to find out which bits of their chosen religion they do believe in and which bits they don't?

[emmie]

i can't believe that anyone at all still believes in Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine, its fairy tales to keep the masses under control, it seems to work too.

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, since there's no evidence one way or the other of the first two, that's a poor analogy. That the world is more than 6000 years old is indisputable. We have the evidence.

[naomi24]

Oh, they believe it, Emmie. Millions of them.

[emmie]

i know, that is what makes me so cross, that with ALL the evidence there is, people still believe in this nonsense.

[Ellipsis]

> since there's no evidence one way or the other of the first two

You mean that Jesus might have walked on water or turned water into wine? Science says that he can't do that, so the only way that he could do it is deception or a miracle. Believers say that it was a miracle.

A (true) miracle by definition is beyond what's scientifically possible. Another one would be dying on the cross and then coming back to life. Ascending into Heaven. Reviving Lazarus. Curing blindness and leprosy. And a bunch of others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Jesus

Believers believe this stuff, and they run countries. I don't see that Poots's beliefs are any worse.

[emmie]

or any better ^

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, //You mean that Jesus might have walked on water or turned water into wine? //

No, I don’t mean that and I didn’t say that. I mean that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, people will still believe it - just as they believe in a God for which there is no evidence. Conversely there is irrefutable evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old.

[Ellipsis]

> Conversely there is irrefutable evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old

Clearly it is not irrefutable, as Poots does refute it. It's an act of faith, much like believing in any other miracle. If miracles were possible then they wouldn't be miracles, so anybody that believes in miracles is just as clueless (or clued up, depending on your POV) as Poots.