A view from the center.......OK left center

[shagdrum]

Scientists, who are generally apolitical....

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

That is one of the most absurd statements I have read here is a long while! Thanks for the laugh...

 

[04SCTLS]

Well we'll see who will be laughing next week

 

[cammerfe]

I’m sorry, being at the low end of the intellectual scale I must have been mistaken about how this works. I thought that I wrote something and then others would come in and write a response or comment on what I had wrote. I had no idea that the idea was to write extensions of others thoughts. I guess I should give this up now because I don’t have the ability to read minds and I don’t have a crystal ball.

I do want to thank you, I didn’t know the meaning of a couple of the multi-syllable words you decided to use so I had to go find the dictionary in the computer I was using. I never had to use it before so it was good to learn how it works. I guess that if I’m going to be interacting with the intellectually superior I should get accustom to it.

In my first sentence I clearly wrote that if you chose to read what I was writing it was nothing more than my perceptions. I thought it was clear anyway. From what I have seen here I thought that was permissible. I didn’t know that I had to be able to write a biography of both the candidates before I was allowed to express my opinion on this site. Someone really should write down these rules somewhere. Being a posting amateur I’m sure that would have helped me out a lot.

I did manage to pull my head out of my ass long enough to look at exactly what the definition of Marxism was. Being at the low end of the intellectual scale and to compound things its been a very long time since I was in school with my intellectually superiors I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. As it turns out this must have been the only thing I had right. Unfortunately after looking into this I was unable to find what it is that makes him a Marxist. Oh well, I guess I will continue on in my ignorant bliss.

By the way, a fine tip sharpie will work very well at filling back in that comma key when the paint wears off.

Sorry again about not understanding how all this works. I hope my limited IQ didn’t drag down the forums average to far.

I just wiped out several sentences I'd written in reply to your attempts at sarcasm. I realized that my comments were too close to 'kicking a man when he's down'. However, you must accept that this is a forum in which your words on the screen form the picture of you which is the foundation from which we judge what you have to say. The, ahh, 'elisions' you offer us seem, in my view, to fit well with your statements.

You are trying to play poker when you only have about forty cards.

I'd be happy to have coffee with you, and argue all these subjects face to face. I live in Metro Detroit.
KS

 

[cammerfe]

The disdain of religion towards science goes back to Galileo.
Einstein said religion was a childish product of the weakness of man and wishful thinking.
We need an administration that will move science forward if we are to remain
competitive with the rest of the world which doesn't seem to suffer from this religious handicap.

As a scientist, my life is a refutation of your premise. You've made the mistake of fuddling 'some' and making it 'all'. Thus your generalization won't hold up.
KS

 

[shagdrum]

As a scientist, my life is a refutation of your premise. You've made the mistake of fuddling 'some' and making it 'all'. Thus your generalization won't hold up.
KS

Good point.

I think the idea that the right is "anti-science" was dispelled in the "Expelled" thread, and has also been done in numberous discussions here on global warming.

the right isn't "anti-science", it simply doesn't have absolute faith in science; like many on the far left do. The right doesn't view science and scientists as "beyond self interest", corruption or other negative (or potentially negative) influences.

Science at it's best is an incredible tool for discovering (or at least pointing us in the right direction of) the truth through empirical means. But, being created and conducted by humans, it is open to flaws and corruption (both intentional and unintentional). Certain theories can make assumptions (like methodological naturalism) that take them away from being empirical and turn them into fallacious circular reasoning. Any research on that theory is thus a self fullfilling prophacy. Also, when the federal government and politicians hold the purse strings to the vast majority of research grants, science and scientists become inherently political. They have to justify getting grants to make money to live (self interest). So research into ideas based mostly on fear mongering are funded and become a cash cow for scientists.

There is a reason that Ike warned of the "scientific-technological elite" in his farewell address:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. ​

There is a huge difference between keeping science in perspective (and recognizing corrupting influences and agendas when they are present) and being "anti-science". 04SCTLS, your argument and the articles you cite over simplify and greatly mischaracterize conservatives on this. At best you can say we are, by and large, skeptical of science.

 

[04SCTLS]

I'll stick with Einstein as part of those "some"

 

[04SCTLS]

Good point. I think the idea that the right is "anti-science" was dispelled in the "Expelled" thread, and has also been done in numberous discussions here on global warming.

the right isn't "anti-science", it simply doesn't have absolute faith in science, like the left. The right doesn't view it as "beyond self interest", corruption or other negative influences.

Science at it's best is an incredible tool for discovering (or at least pointing us in the right direction of) the truth through empirical means. But, being created and conducted by humans, it is open to flaws and corruption (both intentional and unintentional). Certain theories make assumptions (like methodological naturalism) that take them away from being empirical and turn them into fallacious circular reasoning. Any research on that theory is thus a self fullfilling prophacy. Also, when the federal government holds the purse strings to the vast majority of research grants, science (and scientists) often becomes inherently political. So research into ideas based mostly on fear mongering are funded and become a cash cow for scientists.


There is a reason that Ike warned of the "scientific-technological elite" in his farewell address:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.​

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.​

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. ​

There is a huge difference between keeping science in perspective (and recognizing corrupting influences and agendas when they are present) and being "anti-science". 04SCTLS, your argument and the articles you cite over simplify and greatly mischaracterize conservatives on this.

You can dance around this all you want Shag, but the perception is that Conservatives are anti science because it intereferes with their religious views.
Nobody is accusing the Democrats of being anti science.

 

[foxpaws]

the right isn't "anti-science", it simply doesn't have absolute faith in science, like the left. The right doesn't view it as "beyond self interest", corruption or other negative influences.

thanks for editing your post Shag - this is how I copied it - as I was getting to really give you a bad time about the bolded text...

your new edit is much better

 

[shagdrum]

You can dance around this all you want Shag, but the perception is that Conservatives are anti science because it intereferes with their religious views.

I am not "dancing around" anything. I think you know that. What you are doing is echoing a dishonest attempt to marginalize conservatives.

That perception you cite as proof of you point is foster by the strawman mischaracterization you are echoing here. It does not reflect the truth, and is ultimately circular reasoning.

Are you more concerned with perception based on specious arguments and circular logic or the truth?

If all you have as proof is that public perception supports you, then you have no argument.

Nobody is accusing the Democrats of being anti science.

No, people are accusing them of being anti-religion and specifically anti-christian.

While this is somewhat of an exaguration, the reason for it is the athiest and anti-christian wing of the left that does put absolute faith in science. Science is effectively put on a pedastal and above criticism, then that view of science is used as an intellectual blugdon to force their views and agenda on society while stifling desent.

If anything, conservatives are against that infallible view of science. It is a very dangerous thing to make policy on.

Science should be looked at with skepticism, not as infallible.

 

[shagdrum]

I'll stick with Einstein as part of those "some"

Appeal to authority? i assume you ment that in jest.

 

[04SCTLS]

I think the voters are going to marginalize the conservatives and put them out to pasture for a while.
To me this would be an overall good thing.
I have faith in science but not in religion.
Science isn't perfect but there is observation and results and data that can be analyzed and acted upon to satisfy curiosities.
There are discoveries in science that when applied in the real world add to the ease and quality of life.
What has religion ever discovered that has been helpful to mankind.
Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.
Religion tells you to believe it's fantastic tall stories on nothing more than faith.
This is comforting to some people because they don't have to do any critical thinking. It's all laid out for them.
I'm with Einstein when I say I agree with the "some" who consider religion a product of the weakness of man.

 

[shagdrum]

I have faith in science but not in religion.

You might wanna reconsider that statement. You are admitting that you trust science beyond what reason and common sense would dictate. That is inherently irrational.

Science isn't perfect but there is observation and results and data that can be analyzed and acted upon to satisfy curiosities.
There are discoveries in science that when applied in the real world add to the ease and quality of life.

No, it isn't perfect. So why assume science (in a broad sense) is perfectly trustworth beyond what reason would dictate?

What has religion ever discovered that has been helpful to mankind.
Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.

That is a pretty obvious smear. I will let fossten rightly tear you a new one on that, though.

I will say that religion has historically been the greatest force for good in the world.

Religion tells you to believe it's fantastic tall stories on nothing more than faith.
This is comforting to some people because they don't have to do any critical thinking. It's all laid out for them.

Another specious mischaracterization. religion and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive. You are creating a false dilemma

In fact what you claim people are doing with religion (trusting in religion to avoid critical thinking), is what you just admitted you are doing with regards to science. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

I'm with Einstein when I say I agree with the "some" who consider religion a product of the weakness of man.

Thank you for showing your ignorance, intolerance and arrogant condescension.

People with ignorant, vindictive and elitist views of religion like you are why the left is viewed as anti-religion.

 

[mespock]

Oh the Joy's of the Political Forum ....

 

[04SCTLS]

"You might wanna reconsider that statement. You are admitting that you trust science beyond what reason and common sense would dictate. That is inherently irrational."

You're putting words in my mouth.
I said I trust science but you added the not beyond what reason and common sense would dictate.
Nor did I say science was perfectly trustworthy either.

Religion has never discovered anything because that is not part of it's mission.
It already has all the answers (like the sun revolves around the earth which is the center of the universe from Galileo's time) so it is not on a quest for newfound knowledge because that may undermine it's authority and power.
Religion in and of itself may be good for those that want or need it but the competition of various religions has visited a lot of misery upon the world.

"In fact what you claim people are doing with religion (trusting in religion to avoid critical thinking), is what you just admitted you are doing with regards to science. Thank you for demonstrating my point."

Science is critical thinking and religion is faith in the incredible and supernatural so I don't see myself demonstrating your point here.

Einstein did call religion a product of the weakness of man so I don't see where the ignorance, intolerance and arrogant condescension come in.

From previous posts it's obvious I'm anti religion.

We've even all agreed believers and non believers that radical Islam- an organized religion, is a threat to the free world.

Obama says he's a religious person but doesn't invoke it much,wear it on his sleeve, or call himself blessed or say that God told him to run.

This is as much religion as I want to see from a candidate.

It's really looking like McCain and Palin are finished and the Republicans may even be routed in a humiliating defeat that will set a new tone for this country for generations to come.

 

[mespock]

I love the religion discussion.. funny how Christains can't accept other Christians ....

Sounds the same as Politics to me.. who's right who's wrong ... I doubt they'll ever agree. Got to love it...

 

[shagdrum]

You're putting words in my mouth.
I said I trust science but you added the not beyond what reason and common sense would dictate.

That is what faith is at it's core; trust beyond reason. I was trying to help you out; All you have to do is replace "faith" in your statement with"trust".

Religion has never discovered anything because that is not part of it's mission.

Now you are changing the focus of your statement. Here is what you said:

Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.​

the part about religion having no discoveries is the premise! I am attacking the conclusion.

The fact is that the conclusion in that statement in no way follows that premise; it is an obvious non sequiter.

I was saying that your conclusion [religion...doesn't add anything new and better to society overall] is wrong.

It already has all the answers (like the sun revolves around the earth which is the center of the universe from Galileo's time) so it is not on a quest for newfound knowledge because that may undermine it's authority and power.

Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. You are once again making a specious argument; this time by attributing a wrong scientific view to religion.

Science is critical thinking and religion is faith in the incredible and supernatural so I don't see myself demonstrating your point here.

Science is not critical thinking. They are separate ideas. Now you are attempting to redefine science?! Another specious argument.

Einstein did call religion a product of the weakness of man so I don't see where the ignorance, intolerance and arrogant condescension come in.

Einstein's views and what he said don't prove, in any way, that the view you expoused is not ignorant, intolerant or arrogantly condesceding. All it shows is that Eistein shared that view. Einstein could have been just as ignorant, intolerant and arrogant as anyone else in his views on religion.

From previous posts it's obvious I'm anti religion.

I never said you were "anti-religion". I said your views were ignorant, vidictive and elitist. That is rather clear from the posts you have made here. To imply that people of faith don't think critically is absurd, and insulting because it is condescending. You are smart enough to know that, yet you posted that. That action comes across as vindictive. Your views expressed here are also exceedingly ignorant, as demonstrated by you attributing of the idea that the sun revolves around the earth to religion.

 

[ford nut]

I love the religion discussion.. funny how Christains can't accept other Christians ....

Sounds the same as Politics to me.. who's right who's wrong ... I doubt they'll ever agree. Got to love it...

You think different then I think so you must be wrong !
On top of that because you don't think as I do you will forever burn in hell !!!!!!!

The difference is in Politics you don't rot in hell if your wrong !
Unless you vote for Obama....he is a Muslim .

 

[04SCTLS]

Since religion has no discoveries or critical thinking it doesn't add anything new and better to society overall.

The fact is that the conclusion in that statement in no way follows that premise; it is an obvious non sequiter

You may not agree with my conclusion but I fail to see your contention that this is an obvious non sequiter.

"Has no discoveries" follows through to the conclusion "doesn't add anything new and better"

"Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. You are once again making a specious argument; this time by attributing a wrong scientific view to religion.

Well Galileo broke new science and was suppressed and imprisoned

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.[7] Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition.

"Your views expressed here are also exceedingly ignorant, as demonstrated by you attributing of the idea that the sun revolves around the earth to religion"

You're making a false attack here as the church did suppress Galileo and my ignorance re sun revolves around the earth to religion does not invalidate my arguement

And I was refering to "some" people of faith and not "all" people of faith not thinking critically because they have it all laid out for them.

"I said your views were ignorant, vidictive and elitist. That is rather clear from the posts you have made here. To imply that people of faith don't think critically is absurd, and insulting because it is condescending. You are smart enough to know that, yet you posted that. That action comes across as vindictive"

So ignorant and vindictive don't fit but I don't mind being called arrogant and elitist.

To me it's much better than being a "Joe 6 Pack" no offense intended.

 

[fossten]

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, because generally I am not enamored with organized religion.

Jesus Christ Himself railed against organized religion, calling the Pharisees "hypocrites" and "vipers" and told them that their Father was the Devil.

That said, I'm not sure 04SCTLS (if that is his real name) understands the difference between organized religion and Christianity per se.

However, trying to compare science and "spiritual faith" is like comparing apples and oranges. They are two different animals. Putting all credence into one and not the other is a mistake and leads to an unbalanced outlook. I have a healthy respect for science, and I also have a strong faith in my God. It would appear that 04SCTLS has a disdain for people who have any faith in God. That's elitism, and as such is short sighted and sad. Science is not an end unto itself. It is a methodical way to explore and understand God's creation, not a way to deny it.

Anyone who has debated me on evolution knows that I don't make arguments that start with the Bible, but rather I use science to back up my assertions. This tends to go against the stereotype that what's-his-name is perpetuating, that Christians are a bunch of Bible thumpers who make their women wear long skirts and live like the Amish.

 

[Mavrick]

I’m sorry, being at the low end of the intellectual scale I must have been mistaken about how this works. I thought that I wrote something and then others would come in and write a response or comment on what I had wrote. I had no idea that the idea was to write extensions of others thoughts. I guess I should give this up now because I don’t have the ability to read minds and I don’t have a crystal ball.

I do want to thank you, I didn’t know the meaning of a couple of the multi-syllable words you decided to use so I had to go find the dictionary in the computer I was using. I never had to use it before so it was good to learn how it works. I guess that if I’m going to be interacting with the intellectually superior I should get accustom to it.

In my first sentence I clearly wrote that if you chose to read what I was writing it was nothing more than my perceptions. I thought it was clear anyway. From what I have seen here I thought that was permissible. I didn’t know that I had to be able to write a biography of both the candidates before I was allowed to express my opinion on this site. Someone really should write down these rules somewhere. Being a posting amateur I’m sure that would have helped me out a lot.

I did manage to pull my head out of my ass long enough to look at exactly what the definition of Marxism was. Being at the low end of the intellectual scale and to compound things its been a very long time since I was in school with my intellectual superiors I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. As it turns out this must have been the only thing I had right. Unfortunately after looking into this I was unable to find what it is that makes him a Marxist. Oh well, I guess I will continue on in my ignorant bliss.

By the way, a fine tip sharpie will work very well at filling back in that comma key when the paint wears off.

Sorry again about not understanding how all this works. I hope my limited IQ didn’t drag down the forums average too far.

I just wiped out several sentences I'd written in reply to your attempts at sarcasm.

“Attempt” at sarcasm, this thing was dripping with it.

I realized that my comments were too close to 'kicking a man when he's down'.

You need to clear this up for me.Am I supposed to be down? Because I sure don’t feel like I am. In fact I’m real comfortable with my position.

However, you must accept that this is a forum in which your words on the screen form the picture of you which is the foundation from which we judge what you have to say.

Here was something else I didn’t know. I come onto an open political forum to express my personal perceptions and share a few of my reasons for them and you’re “judging” me. Agree, disagree, be indifferent I really don’t care. I haven’t asked for anybody on this forum to “judge” what I have to say nor did I know that was this forum’s purpose. If this is the purpose which of these statements that you made should I judge you by?

Obama is a ****ing MARXIST. It's not difficult to understand unless you have your head up your ass!!!!

Or maybe this one is the one I should use.

Nice-y, nice-y won't work with someone like BHO, who's full of platitudinous ponderosities that on exploration mean nothing but sound so wonderful that they create great excitement in the low end of the intellectual scale.

Just for giggles maybe I should use this one from another thread.

“Fox---
I can generally lump all the left-folk to be found here together simply by saying, "Nitwits with their heads in their asses, or those who simply hate this country.”

So if I was to “judge” you by just these three posts that you put up I could only conclude that you are a communist. After all it sounds to me you are advocating a one party system and if we don’t fall in line with your views we must hate our country. Now would any of that be anywhere near factual? I think not.

You have told me that because of my views I have my head up my ass, I’m a nitwit and by two posts that I have put up you have put me at the low end of the intellectual scale. So I’m supposed to read this and let it go unchallenged. You don’t know anymore about me than I know about you. I have no idea if you and I are any smarter or dumber than any one else on this forum. I have never met any of them or you for that matter. The only contact I have had is in this forum. I assume that very few of them live for politics. This is just a guess but I think there is a lot more to them than just their political views.

Here is a paragraph from the post I wrote to start this thread.

“This same line of thinking has been spread by a small percentage of GOP members towards our own citizens. Some of these people feel that if some of us don’t see things as they do then we are un-American. I would love to know who and when we made this very small percentage of people the countries consciences. I personally resent this. To the best of my knowledge we live in a country of free speech and the free flow of ideas I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I don’t expect everyone to even respect my views. I do expect the respect of my right to have my own views.”

Keep in mind that the only thing I have been responding to here has been your personal attacks. Not your views. Some of which we may even share.

So, attack my views. Tell me you don’t agree them. You don’t even need to tell me why. They’re your views and you have every right to them. Attack me personally and I’ll have something to say about it. I expect my right to have my own views be respected just as I do yours.

My son is currently serving in the armed forces to help protect this right for both of us. He knows I love this country. He also knew when he enlisted that I think the current administration will go down as one of the worst in American history. He was 17 when he decided to enlist and that required my signature. I never once tried to talk him out of it. After making him think it over for a few weeks and having him talk to some friends of mine that have served I signed them without hesitation. That was 3 years ago now, when things were not in nearly as good of shape as they are now. Why? I love my son, I love our country and our country needs these brave men and women that have elected to serve.

I know that some in this forum think that these types of personal attacks are a perfectly acceptable way to present their views. I also know that some are willing to let it slide. Not me. In my view this “if your not with us your against us” or “you have your head up your ass” type of argument is at the root of a lot of our problems both at home and abroad. If you want to engage me on my views, go for it. Let me have it. If you want to disengage, fine by me. If you want to keep up this tit for tat, go ahead. I got game.

I'd be happy to have coffee with you, and argue all these subjects face to face. I live in Metro Detroit.

If you happen to make it to the Seattle area before I make it to Detroit I’ll be happy to meet you for coffee. I suggest the Starbucks store #1 down by Pike Place Market. Seattle may not know anything else but it knows coffee. Maybe we can agree on that.

 

[shagdrum]

"Has no discoveries" follows through to the conclusion "doesn't add anything new and better"

"Having no discoveries" does not logically follow through to "doesn't add anything new and better [to society]". That is a huge logical leap.

Making a discovery is not neccessary to improve society. What "discovery" did Lincoln or Reagan make? What about the Framers? name any historical figure who changed society for the better, and 9 times out of 10 it will not be because of a new discovery. Or, if you want to go broader, ideas and ideals that changed society; Democracy (didn't make any "discoveries"), Capitalism (again, no "discoveries"). You wanna compare religion; the Reformation, the Great Awakening various revivals, heck, America being colonized. I could go on...

the point is, you are saying that society cannot be changed without discoveries that only science can offer. History proves that to be false. Most changes and/or improvements in society don't come from "discoveries" of the type only science can offer.

Your conclusion does not follow your premise. History has shown society to be changed for the better through means other then discovery, but your argument inherently excludes that possibility.

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle and the controversy engendered by Galileo's presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture. Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Roman Inquisition.

What you are citing an example of is the establishment refusing to change or confront new ideas, and instead simply trying to supress them. It is more analogous to modern day science refusing to question darwinism or accepting anthropogenic global warming as fact when it cannot be empirically proven.

The establishment at the time of your example just happened to be the Catholic church. The religion is that example is tangential at best.

It also doesn't show how the idea of the sun revolving around the Earth is religious-based.

You're making a false attack here as the church did suppress Galileo and my ignorance re sun revolves around the earth to religion does not invalidate my arguement

here is the original statement you made that started this part of the debate:

It [religion] already has all the answers (like the sun revolves around the earth which is the center of the universe from Galileo's time)​

You weren't saying anything about the church supressing anything. You were claiming that the view that the geocentric view comes from religion. Nothing you have offered shows that. The closest you have come is to show that the Catholic Church at the time did justify the view through a certian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't show that the idea came from religion. As your wiki(?) quote says, "The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle".

The church was working to supress heliocentrism much as the scientific community is working to supress Intelligent Design and any opposing scientific views to anthropogenic global warming today.

I also never said (or implied) that your ignorance invalidated your argument. I attacked your arguement and then pointed out that it was very ignorant. That ignorance leads to a flawed argument but doesn't make the argument flawed in and of itself.

And I was refering to "some" people of faith and not "all" people of faith not thinking critically because they have it all laid out for them.

You might wanna communicate that better next time. Your original statement didn't include any qualifiers to indicate that, and you agreed to a statement by Einstein that didn't leave any room for "some", but pretty clearly ment "all". You claimed religion was a "handicap" on society.

The view spell out is rather clear. You view people of faith as "weak" and unable to think critically because of their faith. Religion is a handicap on society, in your view. That view is exceedingly ignorant of the facts (except for your cherry picked ones I am sure), and inherently arrogant and condescending. If anyone is unable to think critically here it is most likely you due to your apparent hubris (when it comes to religion) clouding your judgement (like most elitists).

 

[Mavrick]

So, it looks like in the past you have voted GOP?

Sorry Foxpaws, I got a little distracted for a bit. To answer your question, yes. Regan’s “are you better off now than you were 4 years ago” when going for his second term is a classic. It’s a question that I looked at as our country in general and not necessarily just myself. The answer for both our country and my self was yes then and after opening my 401k statement, no now. It’s a gauge I use today to help me decide with whom to place my vote.

 

[hrmwrm]

from shag "You weren't saying anything about the church supressing anything. You were claiming that the view that the geocentric view comes from religion. Nothing you have offered shows that. The closest you have come is to show that the Catholic Church at the time did justify the view through a certian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't show that the idea came from religion."
"Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time"
"The church was working to supress heliocentrism much as the scientific community is working to supress Intelligent Design and any opposing scientific views "

unfortunately shag, your view on suppression of intelligent design is wrong. science is not out to suppress it, merely to make it prove itself as a scientific claim, which it refuses to do. it keeps claiming it is science, without taking the steps necessary to fulfill the claim. in science, this is called bad science.

and the heliocentric view had been empirically proven at a time when christianity held to it's views. the sun around the earth is a religiously based view. read the book of enoch, and not just the parables. other societies had and accepted a heliocentric view well before europe, which was propogated by RELIGION.

a geocentric view comes directly from scripture and god and creation, which puts man and earth central to all. it was christianity within europe that perpetuated the myth when copernacanism came to light. and it was religious powers that supressed the truth.

since it's written in scripture, this has nothing to do with catholic. it is something inherent within scripture itself and old outdated ideologies of past.

and discoveries of lincoln or reagan or the framers. they were scientists? your path here is a red herring. or a non sequitur.

from fossten"Anyone who has debated me on evolution knows that I don't make arguments that start with the Bible, but rather I use science to back up my assertions"

an awful lot of failed science. as i showed in the last evolution thread.

 

[04SCTLS]

"It would appear that 04SCTLS has a disdain for people who have any faith in God"

Appearances can be misleading.
I'm not disdainful of religious people who mind their own business.
My mother is very religious and I see the comfort and perseverence it gives her.
I'm disdainful of those who run for public office and try to get people to vote for them because of their faith.

 

[04SCTLS]

For instance "vote for her because she's one of us"

Hail Sarah
Palin courts believers in Virginia.

By Christopher BeamPosted Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008, at 2:17 PM ET

Sarah Palin and her husband, Todd, greet supporters at a campaign stop in Leesburg, Va.

Sarah Palin's rally Monday in Fredericksburg, Va., began with a prayer. "Thank you for all you have given us," intoned Susan Stimpson, chairwoman of the county Republican Party. If she had really wanted to help, though, she would have prayed the polls are wrong.
A new Washington Post/ABC poll released Monday put Barack Obama up eight points in Virginia, one for every day left in the election. His advantage is even stronger in Northern Virginia, where he outpolls McCain 2-to-1. In the southwest, which a McCain adviser recently called "real Virginia," McCain is still leading. He's also up among veterans and people who go to church at least once a week. But overall, the state looks dangerously close to seceding—this time from the South.
You wouldn't know it from McCain's schedule. He and Palin have logged a total of four visits to Virginia in the last month. Three of them happened yesterday—first in the Washington exurb of Leesburg (enemy territory, according to the polls), then in the northern-ish town of Fredericksburg ("Don't call us north," pleaded a McCain supporter. "Please don't call us north"), and finally Salem, a town of 24,000 southwest of Richmond. And it wasn't McCain doing the visiting—it was Palin, solo.

It's no surprise the McCain campaign dispatched Palin, rather than McCain himself, to woo Virginia. She's been attracting bigger crowds—Fredericksburg drew an estimated 6,000 to the outdoor Hurkamp Park, and at least 10,000 people filled the Salem Civic Center, home of the Salem Avalanche. She's also better-suited to execute the strategy that's most likely to save McCain. The state's blueward swing owes much to demographic shifts, as immigrants and yuppies swell Northern Virginia's exurbs. Nor can McCain hope to match Obama's organization. The campaign's Hail Mary strategy, therefore, appears to be based on mobilizing the conservative base.
Palin has enthusiastically risen to the task. Her message on Monday was the usual folksy populism on steroids. Obama won't just raise your taxes, he's a socialist. He's not just unready to be commander in chief, he'll invite an attack. He doesn't just have bad ideas about Iraq, he never uses the word "victory." "Joe the Plumber" made an appearance in Palin's speech; Tito the builder, the newest member of the campaign's middle-class everyman super team (which, with "Rose the Teacher," "Doug the Barber," and "Cindy the Citizen," is starting to sound a lot like a commune) was there in person. Palin's folksy one-offs have now been seared into her teleprompters: At two events, she said Obama was "just kinda flip-floppin' around there" on taxes. (If that wasn't enough, there were bails of hay lining the stage in Fredericksburg.) And she touched on the messy stuff: "It is not mean-spirited or negative campaigning to call someone out on their record, on their plans and their associations."

She's also what political nerds might call a "validator" for McCain—she lets people know it's OK to vote for him. Just as white union leaders make their members feel more comfortable with Obama, so Palin makes religious conservatives more comfortable with McCain. She also validates their doubts—which, at this stage of the campaign, are mostly about the polls. Palin dismissed the media and Democrats who say Obama has the race locked up. "I'll tell you something about polls," said state Sen. Richard Stuart as he warmed up the Fredericksburg crowd. He described how he was down in the polls a week before Election Day and still won. I heard someone else posit the theory that pollsters poll only Democrats, so of course Obama is winning. One voter, Lori Haimel of Boones Mill, assured me that polls are wrong because they rely on home landlines during the day, while professionals are at work.
There are plenty of reasons to doubt polls, and this election has enough X-factors—race and turnout among them—to justify healthy second-guessing. But there's a difference between skepticism and denial. Obama has been surging not just in Virginia but everywhere, thanks largely to the flagging economy. And it's pretty clear that the Republican leadership believes the polls: The RNC is now buying ad time in Montana and West Virginia.
Luckily for Palin, this denial is accompanied by enthusiasm—both positive and negative. The negative energy, which seems to fuse with evangelical fervor, is directed at Obama. Deborah Cleaveland, decked in fur and leopard-print gloves and flanked by her grandchildren, carried a sign to the rally in Salem with a line from Proverbs: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, the people mourn." She doesn't think Obama is the Antichrist, she told me. But there's a decent chance he's a prophet sent to announce the coming of the Antichrist. As for why God would allow Obama to get elected, "He may be drawing things to an end."
Campaign officials tend not to dwell on End Times for practical as well as symbolic reasons. "Morale is good," said Tyler Brown, a McCain spokesman in Virginia. "We're gonna keep fighting it out." I believe him. When Palin's motorcade breezed by the football stadium in Salem, the crowd screamed. One fan shook a sign: "Why vote for Sarah? Because she's one of us!" When Palin stood under the giant field lights, the crowd chanting her name, fans in the stands wearing coordinated colors to spell out "USA," I couldn't help but think we'd suddenly fast-forwarded to 2012.
_________________________________________________________________

Not exactly the rainbow coalition she's courting here.
Luckily the republican base will not be deciding the election.