- Joined
- May 19, 2009
- Messages
- 28,721
- Reaction score
- 6,738
- Location
- Redneck Riviera
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
That would leave the Department of Education, though.
Sarah hears them better and more frequently than most. She has her god radar tuned right in.
Tell us what FACTUAL things religion has proven true. I bet I can list more facts from science than you can facts from religion.
That would leave the Department of Education, though.
I'm not sure if you want to compare those lists...LOL!!! Science has been wrong about a buncha stuff.
If you separated science from state you would need to shut down the military. And NASA. And the FDA. And the CIA. And the NSA. And the FBI. Wait, I'm starting to like this idea!
Sure it has, however, it has been proven right and factual FAR more than religon has.
I ask again, what has religion proved as FACT from religion?
I'm not sure if you want to compare those lists...LOL!!! Science has been wrong about a buncha stuff.
I don't know many republicans that support Olympia Snowe. She's been elected in a very liberal state. A state that isn't liberal because it's avante guard. Maine is liberal because it's uneducated north of Portland.
While some of that is ok, I'm fine with government funding of scientific research. Our economy is technology based now, so we need to continue to develop technologies of many flavors. You can only do that through new understandings of base science, and the funding of base science is not something which the private sector (since we got rid of monopolies) can not handle. Some could handle the money, but none could handle the time scale, only the government has that ability (decades maybe even, a company can't support something which the base of which takes 10 years to figure out). Plus there's all sorts of good stuff which comes from science and its study, it can't be divorced from government. The military is a necessity, and the government is specifically charged with it as well. Not only authorizing it the ability of a military, but demanding they provide for the common defense; which can only be accomplished by continual refinement and advancement of our military's hardware and capabilities. Though, as you point out with things such as the CIA and NSA, the government can go too far and necessarily needs to be restricted in its use of science and technology against its own People.
Ah, that makes complete sense... :dohI believe that the sentiment is that legislation by science is just as bad if not worse than that done by science. Despite the fact that many acts of legislation, especially as it relates to food and drug, are made with science and understanding the interactions. It was then claimed that there needs to be a forced separation of science and state, despite the obvious consequences of destroying the Republic.
You think religion got us high rises, penicillin, pasteurization, inoculations, etc? Did religion extend the life span of the human? Has humanity only grown through advancement in religion? Or is the very base of our nature that of science? Have we come this far in such a short amount of time, been to the moon, sent probes into space, understand some of the basics of nature, because we are inclined towards science and have pursued it aggressively ever since we came out of our caves. Hell even then. Most animals don't know how to make a spear, and certainly didn't learn how to make a sling for one in order to take down huge prey.
You want to say "which one is wrong more", well how about "which one is right more" or "which one has advanced and benefited the human race more".
Now, you're trying to say that I'm claiming that religion based legislation is better than science based legislation and that's not true.
I see you have no idea about the political climate in Maine. It's even more obvious that you are basing your criticism on 1 vote that both Snowe and Collins crossed the aisle in support of. They aren't RINO's, but if you knew anything about their voting record you would know that. They are moderate Republicans, and they both have an approval rating of around 70%.
The Republican party isn't happy with them right now because they don't buy into their "You're for us or you're against us" mentality. The problem for the RNC in dealing with them is there isn't any way to unseat them because a comfortable majority of voters in Maine have got the representation we want, and there isn't a damn thing the party can do to change it.
Though we are known as a liberal state we are also known for being Independent voters. Party affiliation don't play as big a role in our state as you are suggesting. We have had 2 successful Independent governors, so party affiliation isn't a given in the voting booth.
As for people being uneducated north of Portland, iF don't know anything about politics in Maine, you obviously don't know anything about how educated we are.
Ah, that makes complete sense... :doh
Science also brought us the Polio vaccine, understanding of DNA via the discovery of the double-helix, Quantum Mechanics and massive understanding of life.You're wrong. I think that one is just as full of **** as the other.
Don't forget, it was science that brought us nuclear weapons, frontal labotomies, snake pits and electro-shock therapy.
Science also brought us the Polio vaccine, understanding of DNA via the discovery of the double-helix, Quantum Mechanics and massive understanding of life.
Well what would you like them to base policy decisions on? Scientific theory is pretty sound. You do realize that there is a theory of gravity, right?I'm not rejceting the good things that science has done, just like I'm not rejecting the positive effect that religion has had one our society. However, I feel it's just as bad to base governmental policies on scientific theory as it is to base goevernmental policies on religion. Because, just like religion, there is more than one scientific opinion.
Well what would you like them to base policy decisions on? Scientific theory is pretty sound. You do realize that there is a theory of gravity, right?
Now, you're trying to say that I'm claiming that religion based legislation is better than science based legislation and that's not true. I'm saying that one is just as bad as the other, when it come to using that information to create legislation.
You're wrong. I think that one is just as full of **** as the other.
Don't forget, it was science that brought us nuclear weapons, frontal labotomies, snake pits and electro-shock therapy.
And don't forget that it was Religion that brought us witch burnings, book burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, the complete extermination of the Arawak Indians, and many other atrocities. Nothing scientific about that at all.
Again, I'm not placing religion above science. Please read what I've said.
You obviously don't read entire threads before jumping in with stupid criticisms. It's kinda obvious where I live. Angus King sucked as a governor. Where are all the jobs in this state? Oh yeah, kids go to school here and then head on down to Massachusets to work. Look at the insurance problems here. The ridiculous regulations make small business a challenge at best. This state has been mismanaged for decades because either no one's watching or no one knows any better. It's a great place for old people and raising kids. It's not a place to have a career. That is the great failure of the people elected to manage this state.
And since you live here, you are well aware that there are 2 Maines. Greater Portland vs everywhere else. Mid coast isn't bad. It's beautiful. But if you're not a fisherman, inn keeper, doctor, nurse or restauranteur, there's not a lot else to to support a career.
No, but you are placing them on the same level as if they are even remotely similar. Religion is faith-based. Science is theory-based. Theory isn't infallible, but it does have fact to back it up. Religion doesn't.
If theories had facts to back them up, they wouldn't be theories anymore.
Scientific theories are conclusions based on the evidence. Religion is faith based on the evidence.
The Nazis used scientific evidence to prove that Jews were inferior. That's no different than using religious dogma to prove that a paticular race is inferior.