We know exactly what Socialism does to a society, here in American we will stick with our Liberal Constitutional Democracy that secures our individual rights.
Socialism = just (equitable) access to the world's resources (not the same as equality of outcome). And what's that got to do with capacity to discuss science?
If you don't understand the devastation and hundred million deaths wrought by socialism, as so clearly demonstrated in the Twentieth Century, you can't possibly understand all the data and facts presented in various branches of science, much less interpret them rationally and correctly. Everyone has the same data available to them, but the same data can be and are interpreted very differently depending on who you ask. Some pursue their political agendas, while others refuse to admit that they were ever wrong. Pride goeth before a fall. It was in fact the original sin.
This is WAY overboard, as we are absolutely NOT becoming socialist. We do have social programs. But, your dire outcmes do NOT come from having a social safetynet, working to give people healthcare, bailing out banks, providing support for those impacted by natural disasters, etc. ALL first world countries have such programs, and it is not causing them to kill millions of people or do the other stuff you would like to use in your attempts at argument. If you want to argue against helping people who need help, you have to do WAY better than marshalling the dead of past despots.
I think the biggest problem people of faith have with science is when scientists claim to know things that they couldn't possibly know. Or that the best theory constitutes fact until something better comes along. I am ok with working on the basis of a theory for the purposes of scientific exploration but when it comes to public policy we need to be careful calling things scientific fact when they are really only theories. Another problem with science is that it's all based on himan observation and therefore requires faith, faith that experiments were conducted properly and faith that the dats was interpreted properly. Same could be said for faith. Ancient texts are often misinterpreted sometimes with an agenda, sometimes out of ignorance. Some people read into them what they want to hear. Lots of bad science out there and lots of good science. Lots of bad faith out there lots of good faith. Pick your poison carefully.
Theories are the very best truth science is able of creating. In science, there is nothing better that a theory. It's been tested by multiple scientists. It's been reviewed by experts. It's been proven to be dependable in further investigation. It's been shown to be superior to other candidate explanations. It is absolutely and totally unlike what people outside of science mean by a theory - that is, just an idea. THAT kind of theory doesn't even make the grade as a simple hypothesis in science. If we're not going to consult science as an input to our public policy decisions, then what the HECK are you suggesting we use instead? Scientific method takes this one exceptionally seriously. It's solution includes layers of testing specifically designed to remove false ideas as soon as humanly possible. It includes duplication and independent testing by unrelated scientists or groups of scientists, for example. We're STILL testing Einstein's theory. We're STILL testing evolution theory, even as it has earned its place as a foundation of all modern biology. Those doing this kind of work at all levels have their careers riding on it. If they screw up, it's a hit on their careers. If they prove some finding wrong (such as Einstein and Darwin did) we know their names - possibly forever. THAT is where the reward lies. The major rewards do not go to those who simply followed some accepted answer. This isn't faith. Faith doesn't require this kind of activity. Faith is just ... faith. [/QUOTE] Lots of bad science out there and lots of good science. Lots of bad faith out there lots of good faith. Pick your poison carefully.[/QUOTE] This I do agree with. We do need to improve how we go about identifying dependable sources of information.
I have been taking a break from this forum, for perceived censorship, but i will reply and converse, some. I intend to avoid posters who are hostile and intolerant of diverse opinions. My 'right wing zealotry', is just pro American ideals, that originated in the Enlightenment, and found expression in the American Experiment. It is the PRINCIPLES, that America was founded upon, that i am a 'fan' of, not merely a geographical location or a population. But in this thread, i have tried to make a distinction between what we BELIEVE, and what is empirical fact. Most people do not make that distinction, but move easily between the 2, blending them when it is convenient. The false narrative that has been promoted by the State Religion of Progressivism, is that, 'Atheists have science! Christians have religion!', when both are philosophical beliefs, about the nature of the universe. There is no conflict with belief in God, and scientific methodology. Many (most?) of the greatests scientists and thinkers have been theists, and it was not a deterrence to their research, experimentation, or conclusions.
Throughout history, the overwhelming majority of great scientists have been followers of Abrahamic faith. More recently, with the widespread brainwashing and indoctrination of socialist colleges in America, atheism has reared its ugly, destructive head, and moved far too many educated people to the absurd contention that the universe made itself and Christians, the largest single organization in human history, are ignorant and primitive. But godless Leftists use their arrogant and domineering lies as pretenses for intellect.
Of course they were because that was a requirement for employment and in the case of the Catholic Church not being branded a heretic. Kind of exactly like society And the rulers treated Vietnam war protestors and who of course turned out to be right.
What part of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" do you not understand? Those protesters were of course dyed in the wool Democrats, like LBJ and his incompetent Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, who gave advance notice to North Vietnam of what America's pilots would be bombing the next day, so they could move their anti-aircraft weapons to the target area.
Said I, “Mom, what will it be like for me when I die?”, Said Mom, “What was it like for you before you were born?”.
I did. I was nothing. It was boring. So I created everything, purged myself of the beginning and I embedded myself in my creation, to live by the rules of existence I created. It was better than the boredom of nothing. When I cease to exist in my creation, my creation will return to the nothing I was. Then, knowing me, and my aversion to nothing... In the meantime... enjoy. Have faith.
Yes, real life shows the divide between following the rules of religion and following the rules of science. Many great scientsts certainlh were religious. However, they didn't muddle the the rues of science and the rules of religion. Instead, they used the appropriate rule set - religion for understanding the supernatural and science for investigating how our universe works. We need to see that as important, because when the two different sets of rules a mushed together, what comes out is extremely likely to be garbage - from the point of view of both religion and science.
Except “ we have met the enemy and he is us”. Just because your industrial/ military complex government says a country is the enemy doesn’t make it so. Here is a challenge for you. Post the real reason why we were in Vietnam.
