Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Do Conservatives Really Hate Science?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 618 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 7:29:11 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Rover said:
"That's just ignorant."

LOL. Fine. Go back to using introspection to try to determine the nature of the universe. Meanwhile, the physicists will be finding out what is really going on.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 7:49:05 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Bill M. said:
"I suspect it's because Americans on the whole (including those who go to law school) largely seem to be lacking a basic understanding of science."

Coupled with a sense of self-entitlement and lack of responsibility. Americans love to talk about sacrifice; usually that just means that they want someone else's kid to go off to fight a war.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 8:26:09 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
BM:'Not all conservatives automatically side with the Republican party'

Doesn't matter, if more than 50% plus one do, that's the trend. And, if some conservatives are not pleased about that trend, then it falls to them to stand up for what they believe is the more accurate vision of conservatism.

'Personally, I don't see too much scientific thinking among EITHER party's politicians.'

When is the last time that any national or state Democratic platform specifically dissed science ? Until you can show examples of that, as *chosen party policy*, you are engaging in a fallacy of False Equivalence.

'I suspect it's because Americans on the whole (including those who go to law school) largely seem to be lacking a basic understanding of science.'

Among first world peoples, USians show the greatest willful ignorance of science and of science issues. That does not reflect well on them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 8:34:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 8:35:28 AM PDT
Bill M. says:
Andre quipped:

>>And, if some conservatives are not pleased about that
>>trend, then it falls to them to stand up for what they
>>believe is the more accurate vision of conservatism.

Just as long as we don't do it on this thread, is that?

>>When is the last time that any national or state
>>Democratic platform specifically dissed science ?
>>Until you can show examples of that, as *chosen party policy*,
>>you are engaging in a fallacy of False Equivalence.

Oh calm down already. Re-read what I actually wrote. If it's a right-wing you want to have an on-line debate with, you're in the wrong thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 9:33:33 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
BM:'Just as long as we don't do it on this thread, is that?'

I was being dissed for having placed the responsibility of willful foolishness on the correct party, the Texas Republican Party. Unless your participation here can get that Party to re-consider their policy, I submit that your participation here is not relevant to that issue.

'Oh calm down already. Re-read what I actually wrote.'

I did, and you remain wrong. Deal with it. If YOU wish to make an Equivalence between this Texas Republican Party policy and the Democratic Party, then the Burden Of Proof for such a claim is all yours. Refuse/fail to meet it, and your claim of such Equivalence fails.

'If it's a right-wing you want to have an on-line debate with, you're in the wrong thread.'

And, if you want to make specious political claims, a common tactic among the Faux Noise crowd, you are in the wrong thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 9:51:54 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
Actually, there is a view of mysticism, The kabbalistic writings, that do agree with science and actually attempt to answer the question of where the material of the big bang came from. Stephen hawking says that asking where the material from the Big bang came from was like asking what is North of the north pole? That is science for you. Rather than try to answer the critical questions that make science and religion so at odds, Science would rather avoid the issues. It has been shown that neither biogenesis nor abiogenesis can explain the beginning of life. Science has not been able to create more than simple amino acids, and does not even have a clue as to how DNA came to exist except in unprovable theory and without DNA there is no transfer of information or complex reproduction. Yet, people still hold to evolution as THE theory of the origin of life when it cannot explain the beginning any more than asking what is north of the north pole when describing the origins of the material that made up to Pre-Big Bang golf ball sized mass of swirling matter that made up all the matter we see in the universe. Of course, Science is a never ending search, an always open minded process of explaining natural phenomenon, and just does not have the advanced enough technology to explain the former. Just because things cannot be proven does not mean the theories are wrong. Even the religious should be open minded and be open to the possibility that in the end science may prove religion, or NOT, who can tell. We must all be open to every possibility.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 9:58:13 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
According to the kabbalistic writing before the be beginning of creation all that existed was pure light, Einstien proved the existence of many dimensions and the kabbalistic writing discuss other "worlds" (dimensions) of existence from which ours came to exist. In my opinion science and metaphysics seem to agree.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 10:10:03 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
OOps, sorry, i believe the Higgs Boson is the tie between matter and energy and the answer the the phenomenon of energy being made into matter, the key to the theory of everything. According to the kabbalistic writings Energy pervades everything. God pervades everything. Energy is all there is and we and all matter that exists are simply a vibration of energy that is constantly being created by the speech of God. Speech, which is energy must converted into vibration by the vocal cords in order to be manifest. The higgs Boson has also been called the God particle by scientists of faith. Keep an open mind because it still seems to me science is verifying metaphysics.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:06:09 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Mysticseal said:
"That is science for you. Rather than try to answer the critical questions that make science and religion so at odds, Science would rather avoid the issues."

LOL. Can you tell me anything that religion has been able to explain about anything?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:09:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 11:09:51 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Mysticseal said:
"The higgs Boson has also been called the God particle by scientists of faith."

The original title of Lederman's book was to be That Goddam Particle; the publishers changed the title.

The sad thing is the real world is a lot more interesting that the mystical one.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:16:33 AM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
D:'LOL. Can you tell me anything that religion has been able to explain about anything?'

Indeed: "I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religions one." - Sam Harris

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:37:23 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
I already did. The Kabbalistic writings I used as examples are answered by God. I also showed in three posts several examples of where the Kabbalistic Writings and Science agree. Just because you are too close minded to accept that the causes are explained by God does not mean there is no God, it simply means you do not accept the concept of God.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:41:16 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
Depends on your viewpoint. Just because Science seems more interesting does not mean that the Interesting theories explain what came before the Big bang, or the origin of life from the most basic, single celled organism. Science cannot show any link, by evidence, between simple amino acids and complex life at this time. Just because theories are interesting does not mean they explain anything.

Posted on Jul 5, 2012 11:44:30 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Mysticseal said:
"I already did. The Kabbalistic writings I used as examples are answered by God. I also showed in three posts several examples of where the Kabbalistic Writings and Science agree. Just because you are too close minded to accept that the causes are explained by God does not mean there is no God, it simply means you do not accept the concept of God."

Oh, you mean like this:

"Energy is all there is and we and all matter that exists are simply a vibration of energy that is constantly being created by the speech of God."

That would violate the law of conservation of speech of god.

Retrofitting your myths to fit science does not constitute proof of god.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:44:46 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:48:16 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Mysticseal said:
"Like I said, just because you do not accept a religious answer does not mean the religious answer is not the correct one."

Then show how it is correct - in the real world, not based on some mystics writings.

"If you get on a plane bound for Paris, France does not mean it will go to Moscow Russia just because you deny the true destination."

LOL. You should apply your aphorisms to your own religion.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:50:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 11:51:27 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Mysticseal said:
"Depends on your viewpoint. Just because Science seems more interesting does not mean that the Interesting theories explain what came before the Big bang, or the origin of life from the most basic, single celled organism."

It does a lot better than any religious explanation ever has.

"Science cannot show any link, by evidence, between simple amino acids and complex life at this time. Just because theories are interesting does not mean they explain anything."

And if you analyzed the world solely by religion, you would not even know about amino acids.

Religion has social and cultural functions - it doesn't you squat about the real world.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 11:53:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 5, 2012 11:55:09 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 5, 2012 11:58:54 AM PDT
Mysticseal says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:02:49 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
M:'Like I said, just because you do not accept a religious answer does not mean the religious answer is not the correct one.'

Yeah, actually it does mean that the religious answer is not the correct answer, because the religious answer has NEVER been the correct answer. That track record is very well established, and the train is long gone. Deal with it.

"I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religions one." - Sam Harris

'If you get on a plane bound for Paris, France does not mean it will go to Moscow Russia just because you deny the true destination.'

Paris and Moscow can be proven to exist. Thus, your pitiful and stupid analogy utterly fails.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:06:02 PM PDT
Mysticseal says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:08:05 PM PDT
Mysticseal says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 5, 2012 12:10:37 PM PDT
Mysticseal says:
Anadre, Yeah, actually it does mean that the religious answer is not the correct answer, because the religious answer has NEVER been the correct answer. That track record is very well established, and the train is long gone. Deal with it.

Science cannot answer the fundamental answers, either, therefore they, by the explanation you have given above, are not true, wither.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:11:04 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
M:'It is still true to say that just because you deny the plane goes to Paris doesn't mean it is going where you want it to go. That is THE POINT of the analogy.'

No, the 'point' of your willfully stupid analogy was to make it appear that there is as much evidence that your deity exists, as there is that Paris exists.

And, on that attempted connection, you are 100% WRONG.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 5, 2012 12:11:42 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
M:'Science cannot answer the fundamental answers'

-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 25 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  45
Total posts:  618
Initial post:  Jun 26, 2012
Latest post:  Aug 14, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions