View Thread

Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Will Obama help science?
RayvenAlandria
I hope Obama will untie the hands of our scientists. Let's hope this isn't just a bunch of talk.

http://ac360.blog...rm-future/
 
catman
I agree. It's about time that scientists didn't have to hew to an ideological-religious line.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
cheshiredragon
Yeah, lets hope! With the bastard already cutting NASA and other space funding I have given up on any new research being done by our WEALTHY government.
That's right, I said it...
 
Sinny
I hope so and I also hope Obama can allow for and find ways to help the younger generation to learn more. It may be too late for some older people and especially the xtians but it's not for kids. many children 10 to 16 years of age have no clue about the basics of science. Look at how many, even my own 14 yr old niece falls for the "well you can't see the wind or oxygen" so how do you know it's there except for the effects/ results of what it does. That came out of her from her christian Uncle who claims " you can't see god so he isn't real is like saying "you can't see the wind so that's not real". shit that just eats away at me. I would also like to see more special class children learning science and the importance of science on their level. they are left out more than regular class children are. These children grow up to become a part of society, working society and a voting society. Without learning the basics, at leas that much, of science they easily become conned by evangelicals with their stupid "you can't see the wind" bullshit like my BIL did with my niece and the two banana heads do with people on their way of the master asshat manipulator show.

I'd like Obama to give a green light to programs for kids of all ages and maybe someday have some cartoons, kids shows, teenager geared programs with some science mixed in so if they either don't learn in School or forget as they grow older due to not becoming scientists in the field of science they can still hold on the teaching for a lifetime. They get jesus, the Hs, ghosts, supernatural BS embedded into their brains all their lives and nothing about the basics of science to combat against idiocy.
 
jayon
Well, the whole point is that Science doesn't combat idiology. Just that when you think logically the religion/mythology doesn't make sense. Science merely shows us how reality is against tested data (among other things) and doesn't really combat anything. If they could present tested data for their religion, then maybe it would get into science, but that won't happen, because there is nothing testable as it's all imagination.
 
Sinny
Actually I think it does combat idioloty, religion/mythology and downright stupidity. When they compare not being able to see the wind and knowing it exists simply because we see the effects of it's existence to not being able to see the god but being able to see the effects of belief in a god then science wins....hands down. Simply put what is wind...oxygen, air. what is the god spirt. Neither one can be seen except when you add moisture and mix hot with cold you then can see oxygen, air in a different for and it's actually seeing with the eyes as well as physically feeling. Most adults let alone children don't think of that answer when told "you can't see wind/air and you believe in it" so you can't see the god that doesn't mean "he's" not real. See what I'm saying Jayon.
 
jayon
Sinny wrote:
Actually I think it does combat idioloty, religion/mythology and downright stupidity. When they compare not being able to see the wind and knowing it exists simply because we see the effects of it's existence to not being able to see the god but being able to see the effects of belief in a god then science wins....hands down. Simply put what is wind...oxygen, air. what is the god spirt. Neither one can be seen except when you add moisture and mix hot with cold you then can see oxygen, air in a different for and it's actually seeing with the eyes as well as physically feeling. Most adults let alone children don't think of that answer when told "you can't see wind/air and you believe in it" so you can't see the god that doesn't mean "he's" not real. See what I'm saying Jayon.


I know what you are saying, but I still disagree maybe just on the wording. You can use science to combat religion, however, it itself does not.
 
catman
It may not 'combat' it. That depends on the use its findings are put to. But it certainly contradicts it. You can't really have it both ways, although many people try to, causing cognitive dissonance.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Hypatia
I hope my thinking that Obama is intelligent enough to understand what the advancement in science means to this country is right.

 
catman
I hope so too. I was somewhat more confident before the Rick Warren thing. But I still think he probably is.:sigh:
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Sinny
Yeah it could be my wording Jayon, sometimes I get word meanings a little mixed up LOL. Oh well that's me whistle


Oh and it doesn't combat idiolatry but it could mythology and supernatural claims. I remember there was some scripture where some king or someone had a barge or ditch built around a cow and poured something into it then put the cow to sleep and called on the god to set it on fire and it got struck I think by lightening and caught on fire. Science has yet to have that exact description repeated and it still hasn't been proven it could be done. Also when they claim such things are real because they imagined it to be real then need to prove it real. Do we accept it when bipolar/schizophrenic people say voices are real or seeing things that aren't there to be real...no we expect them to prove what they see and when they can't we get them help.

Catman I have less confidence in him too now. He cuold have chosen not to and no one would have made a stink about it. Even if the evangelicals did they would eventually get over it....geez there's 4 years to get over it.
 
catman
I suppose he had to pick some religious figure to do an invocation to please the superstitious folk, but I wish he'd picked someone less objectionable than Rick Warren. First there was his own preacher whom he had to distance himself from during the election campaign, and now this imbecile. He sure knows how to pick 'em.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Bob of QF
catman wrote:
I suppose he had to pick some religious figure to do an invocation to please the superstitious folk, but I wish he'd picked someone less objectionable than Rick Warren. First there was his own preacher whom he had to distance himself from during the election campaign, and now this imbecile. He sure knows how to pick 'em.


Yeah, but if Obama has to have a weakness, picking religious leaders has got to be one of the lessor weaknesses he *could* have....

...at least he seems capable of picking qualified people to actually *run* the government....
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
As long as the religious leaders don't end up running the government! Actually, I'm much less afraid of that happening on Obama's watch than I was on Dubya's.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Sinny
catman wrote:
I suppose he had to pick some religious figure to do an invocation to please the superstitious folk, but I wish he'd picked someone less objectionable than Rick Warren. First there was his own preacher whom he had to distance himself from during the election campaign, and now this imbecile. He sure knows how to pick 'em.


Well it looks to me like he only had the choice of choosing who he knew. Since the first and only during his campaign turned out to be another nut and damaging to his campaign then the only choice he had would be Rick Warren. Who else did Obama know or meet to choose from other than the first and possibly only one? my guess either no one or no one who could please today's evangelicals. Graham is too old and his son isn't powerful enough to choose. Pope Benedict looks llke a gestapo and choosing him would send the end timers into a frenzie worse than we see now. Maybe he thinks Warren is the new Graham of today's evangelicals and much more radical, outspoken and much more filthy stinking rich than the others...money is power and writing a book that sells millions doesn't hurt for power he may just want to keep him on his side and close enough to watch. If he's too distant from Warren then he may be more inclined to attack Obama on all issues. Maybe Obama's thinking is keep you possible or potential enemies close. Just a thought.

Ok pussy cat is driving me nuts meowing for attention I'll have to come back and post later. My silly big baby boy. Smile
 
catman
Hey, Sinny, the election is over. He doesn't have to please the evangelicals unless he just wants to. I fear that Obama actually likes loose-cannon types who make outrageous rightist statements. I object, Your Honor! I could accept it more easily had his own pastor for 20 years not been such a firebrand.

We shall see. I still prefer Obama as the only choice, and hopefully he won't let the wall of separation down. He has said as much. Perhaps he is simply trying to be 'all things to all people' as much as he can.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Sinny
Yes me too Cat I much prefer Obama. I could see him wanting to be all things to all people. I just hope it's not what I was giving thought to. Maybe I'm just more suspicious since bush, I still feel shell shocked from that one.
 
catman
Sinny wrote:I just hope it's not what I was giving thought to. Maybe I'm just more suspicious since bush, I still feel shell shocked from that one.

I couldn't agree more. I know quite a few people who feel the same way. Trust in politicians is at an all-time low thanks to GWB & Co.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Video - Chuck Norris's dire warning of an Obama re-election Election 2012 (US) 5 09/04/2012 19:55
Obama certifies end of military's gay ban LGBT 3 07/23/2011 11:51
Mystery Science Theater 3000 T.V. Shows 10 03/07/2011 15:18
Can science and religion coexist peacefully? The Lounge 16 12/04/2010 11:01
Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like Religion Science articles, papers and posts 2 05/11/2010 09:28