News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
I would say those with strong religious beliefs tend to feel threatened by a worldview that marginalizes faith, especially when its some of its most vocal adherents are overtly hostile to religion.
Absolutely and understandably true.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
bc dems have a long and strong history of being hand in hand with eugenicists. so maybe they accept anything "science" says.
Okay, I'll bite. How are democrats working hand in hand with eugenicists? And would it be too much to hope your example is relevant to, say, the last twenty years?
 

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
Okay, I'll bite. How are democrats working hand in hand with eugenicists? And would it be too much to hope your example is relevant to, say, the last twenty years?
Well I'll skip Margaret Sanger and Planned parenthood just to make this more difficult.

How about science czar john holdren and his infatuation with a certain harrison brown. how about justice ginsburg's comments about roe v wade.
how about this article:
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/201...-to-compensate-mostly-black-eugenics-victims/

just google eugenics and democratic party and you will get a plethora of stories. whether you believe any of them or not is up to you.

of course, i consider both parties to be run by the same people so really they just go about it in different ways.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
Well I'll skip Margaret Sanger and Planned parenthood just to make this more difficult.

How about science czar john holdren and his infatuation with a certain harrison brown. how about justice ginsburg's comments about roe v wade.
how about this article:
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/201...-to-compensate-mostly-black-eugenics-victims/

just google eugenics and democratic party and you will get a plethora of stories. whether you believe any of them or not is up to you.

of course, i consider both parties to be run by the same people so really they just go about it in different ways.
I can't believe I wasted five minutes of my life looking at this. Let me get this straight. John Holden is a eugenicist because one of the dozens and dozens of people he has said he was inspired by is Harrison Brown, and in "The Challenge of Man," in which Brown attempts to predict the problems mankind will face over the next thousand years, he postulates that we could sterilize people with "serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs"?

Do you think it's possible that Holden admired Brown for reasons other than this? Like, say, Brown's scientific contributions to the Manhattan Project? (The back cover of "The Challenge of Man," by the way, features an endorsement from Albert Einstein.)

The other links I followed were even more cuckoo for cocoa puffs, if that's possible. The basic premise seems to be that by fighting to keep abortion legal, liberals are actually trying to wipe out the black race. Awesome. I suppose I was only a click or two away from reading that conservatives, by supporting the death penalty, were trying to do the same.

Poor black people.
 
Last edited:

lazlohollyfeld

1st Team
Jul 20, 2010
828
0
0
Allen, TX
Well I'll skip Margaret Sanger and Planned parenthood just to make this more difficult.

How about science czar john holdren and his infatuation with a certain harrison brown. how about justice ginsburg's comments about roe v wade.
how about this article:
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/201...-to-compensate-mostly-black-eugenics-victims/

just google eugenics and democratic party and you will get a plethora of stories. whether you believe any of them or not is up to you.

of course, i consider both parties to be run by the same people so really they just go about it in different ways.
How about http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf by Ezekiel Emanuel?

“Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.”
 

BamaInMo1

All-American
Oct 27, 2006
2,012
481
102
53
Cumming, GA
First off, I am a Christian who believes GOD did create the universe, Secondly I am conservative (just really can't stand to be told by liberals that I HAVE to give my hard earned money to someone too lazy to get off their rump and get a job). I have been in church most all my natural born life and have never once heard a Southern Baptist, Independent Baptist or any other preacher say the earth is only a few thousand years old. Are there groups out there who proclaim this? Sure there are. Just like Al Gore and all his crazy stuff. Like others on here before I have no problem with true science (really and honestly trying to get to the truth of something instead of cheating or misrepresenting data to get their own predetermined results). To label all conservative Christians as loons who hgate science is utter nonsense. Do we see if it jives up with the BIBLE? Sure we do. But 99% of us are not gonna burn your books if we don't agree.

Now, for any of you on here who truly believe that the gvt is your Savior and is the answer to all our problems................GOD BLES YOU.
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
The belief that religiosity is a mental defect is not so much a "scientific finding" as an opinion. I cannot speak for all atheists or all scientists, but my bias is in favor of rationality, and as such, my beliefs are subject to change as evidence accumulates and logical explanations are presented. If preferring the scientific method to religious faith as a means of determining objective truth is biased, then I am happy and proud to be biased, because faith makes no sense.
aren't you holding out faith that science will one day be able to explain the origin of the universe? because until science can explain how all this got here in the first place, we are right back to whether it is easier to believe that in the beginning there was a creator.... or in the beginning there was a big pile of cosmic goo.....
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
aren't you holding out faith that science will one day be able to explain the origin of the universe? because until science can explain how all this got here in the first place, we are right back to whether it is easier to believe that in the beginning there was a creator.... or in the beginning there was a big pile of cosmic goo.....
The same unanswered question also applies to any creator you might postulate. Where did the creator come from?
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
The same unanswered question also applies to any creator you might postulate. Where did the creator come from?
i know... but you keep asking that question of anybody who postulates a creator as if that is some flaw in their logic, yet you have the same issue with yours
 
Last edited:

bamacon

Hall of Fame
Apr 11, 2008
17,179
4,352
187
College Football's Mecca, Tuscaloosa
Regardless something was always there. I believe it was the creator, God. People of faith go by just that, faith in accepting the unknown. The non-religious have a belief too in accepting that something (matter) can come from nothing. I reject the premise that conservatives don't trust science. Science is based on fact. Just because we might question a THEORY doesn't mean we don't trust science. We don't blindly follow politically driven agendas that co-opt science to say what they want it to say, but that is hardly rejecting science.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL

That ax swings both ways, my friend.

When that ignorance creates a vacuum with unexplained / unexplainable questions then people will always fill it with assumptions in order to explain the unexplained.

Theists choose to fill it with assumptions of spiritual or supernatural explanations. Atheists choose to fill it with natural or chaotic explanations.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
That ax swings both ways, my friend.

When that ignorance creates a vacuum with unexplained / unexplainable questions then people will always fill it with assumptions in order to explain the unexplained.

Theists choose to fill it with assumptions of spiritual or supernatural explanations. Atheists choose to fill it with natural or chaotic explanations.
One method actually improves knowledge.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
One method actually improves knowledge.
No it doesn't. There is absolutely no difference between the two. An assumption doesn't increase knowledge, it replaces knowledge. An increase in knowledge can replace the assumption(s) over time, but the assumptions themselves do nothing except replace ignorance with a person's favorite [and most likely unfounded or at least unproven] belief regarding whatever unexplained question(s) those assumptions are about.



The bottom line is this:
1. There are things - many things - regarding the age, origin, function, etc. of the universe, this planet, and life on this planet that our current level of scientific knowledge and technology can neither prove nor explain and, therefore, are currently "unexplainable".
2. If you are a theist, then you choose to "explain" the "unexplainable" with spiritual or supernatural solutions.
3. If you are an atheist, then you choose to "explain" the "unexplainable" with natural or chaotic solutions.



However, there aren't two types of people represented in that instance, there are [at least] four:
1. Dogmatic (or "Religious") Theists
2. Dogmatic (or "Religious") Atheists
3. Logical Theists
4. Logical Atheists


The difference between the dogmatic and logical groups is that the dogmatic groups believe what they believe because they believe what they believe and nothing anyone says can convince them otherwise. The logical groups, meanwhile, believe what they believe because they attempt to use the information around them to form their conclusions, especially regarding the "unexplainable", but their beliefs can be changed by new information.

The dogmatic atheists are just as ardent, arrogant, and shallow as the dogmatic theists.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
No it doesn't. ...
Very well said. I believe the problem usually happens when a possible conclusion to a hypothesis is stated as fact when the hypothesis has not been fully proven. People in all four of your categories tend to do this when they have made their conclusion. The dogmatic ones just tend to do it earlier.
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
No it doesn't. There is absolutely no difference between the two. An assumption doesn't increase knowledge, it replaces knowledge. An increase in knowledge can replace the assumption(s) over time, but the assumptions themselves do nothing except replace ignorance with a person's favorite [and most likely unfounded or at least unproven] belief regarding whatever unexplained question(s) those assumptions are about.
If you think science and faith are equivalent with respect to knowledge improvement and revising belief to fit empiric observation, you're sorely mistaken. Boiling down scientific knowledge to a series of assumptions is disingenuous.
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
If you think science and faith are equivalent with respect to knowledge improvement and revising belief to fit empiric observation, you're sorely mistaken. Boiling down scientific knowledge to a series of assumptions is disingenuous.
I don't think his statement was in reference to science, itself, but rather to those portions of science that are still unproven (even if they are potentially accurate)
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
If you think science and faith are equivalent with respect to knowledge improvement and revising belief to fit empiric observation, you're sorely mistaken. Boiling down scientific knowledge to a series of assumptions is disingenuous.
We will have to agree to disagree here.

Faith has led me to just as much knowledge as empiric observation. In fact empiric observation has let me to more faith than less. I can understand someone with no faith making this statement, but as someone who has faith I see this as a very uninformed and inexperienced opinion.
 
Last edited:

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
We will have to agree to disagree here.

Faith has led me to just as much knowledge as empiric observation. In fact empiric observation has let me to more faith than less. I can understand someone with no faith making this statement, but as someone who has faith I see this as a very uninformed and inexperienced opinion.
Somehow I don't think we mean the same thing by 'knowledge'
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.