Obama State of the Union

[Maluco]

...I'm not against religion simply because it's different from my beliefs (and atheism is not a belief - it's a lack of it), and I'm not intolerant - I just think that at times it's anti-intellectual. And I think that's a shame...

dude, some of the most fundamental fathers of science were religious or had faith or some version of what you might still argue against. In his Principia Newton stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

There's plenty of others; Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel...

and even of Einstein: "although never coming to belief in a personal God, recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

say what you will, but your arguement about someone with faith or a religious person being anti-intellectual is ridiculous.

More up to date, there's Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership, under the Clinton admin, of the Human Genome Project.

He actually once considered himself an atheist but is now an evangelical Christian. I recommed his book to anyone interested. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

As a Christian, I can admit it's hard for me to grasp how someone argues against evolution, although I don't believe in evolution to the extent that some are referring to it. In my studies and faith, I can see why some do not believe in God, but on the same hand I don't understand how those same people cannot believe in a creator. Personally, I believe science and faith can co-exist. Science does not dissprove God, yet science explains a lot and allows us theories on which to continue studying and learning. Having faith is just that, and while I think it's a bit wrong to word it this way, for scientist who support theories, which are in place until something dissproves it, why not take a leap of faith or examine it, and wait to be proven wrong.

Then again that would be useless as faith without action is nothing, or a false faith is not faith at all.

I guess I was somewhat referring to the Murphy's Law application of faith in that last statement, but that would be an inappropriate arguement for faith anyways.

Edit: Furthermore, for those talking shit, these discussions, when kept respectful, honest, and hopefully somewhat factual, are nothing short of greatness. I can respect and appreciate a lot of you guys' thoughts.

[KenC]

My bad on the editing. I meant to imply our PhDs fall in rank with the crises du jour, such as H1N1 and climate change without tangible evidence, yet still rally against creationism. I have discussed current-event politics (from which I extrapolated my opinion concerning their leftist lean) with them. Europe is screwed, though. I think we can all agree on that one. :D Arguing on the web is kinda dumb..

You don't believe in H1N1? It's a genetic strain that you can physically view. Perhaps you were referring to the threat of a pandemic. I don't see how one with a PhD in a physical science can be considered a valid authoritative voice on the matter. The fact of the matter is that the strain seems to be affecting average healthy youth more than infants and the elderly (groups that are generally affected by seasonal strains). As one who works in health care (in the hospital now), I can certainly say that there is concern among physicians. Will it be as disasterous as the 1918 pandemic? Probably not due to social conditions nowadays (general cleanliness). However, it's still nothing to scoff about as I see people admitted to the hospital every week with it.


In regards to the faith comment, I don't have an issue with my leader being religious, however, when they consult their "God" during their decision-making processes for a diverse nation, it is absolutley unacceptable and reprehensible. Countries with "Spiritual Leaders" are doomed for generations.

[KenC]

dude, some of the most fundamental fathers of science were religious or had faith or some version of what you might still argue against. In his Principia Newton stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

There's plenty of others; Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel...

and even of Einstein: "although never coming to belief in a personal God, recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

say what you will, but your arguement about someone with faith or a religious person being anti-intellectual is ridiculous.

More up to date, there's Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership, under the Clinton admin, of the Human Genome Project.

He actually once considered himself an atheist but is now an evangelical Christian. I recommed his book to anyone interested. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

As a Christian, I can admit it's hard for me to grasp how someone argues against evolution, although I don't believe in evolution to the extent that some are referring to it. In my studies and faith, I can see why some do not believe in God, but on the same hand I don't understand how those same people cannot believe in a creator. Personally, I believe science and faith can co-exist. Science does not dissprove God, yet science explains a lot and allows us theories on which to continue studying and learning. Having faith is just that, and while I think it's a bit wrong to word it this way, for scientist who support theories, which are in place until something dissproves it, why not take a leap of faith or examine it, and wait to be proven wrong.

Then again that would be useless as faith without action is nothing, or a false faith is not faith at all.

I guess I was somewhat referring to the Murphy's Law application of faith in that last statement, but that would be an inappropriate arguement for faith anyways.

In reference to Dr. Collins' book, one example of a physican who believes in "God" is hardly evidence that the medical/scientific community has a religious belief system. As one who is immersed daily within said community, I can assure you that the overwhelming consensus is intact the opposite.

Religion and science can coexist, as long as religion doesn't meddle in science. Stephen Jay Gould authored many books/articles on the subject.

[Maluco]

In reference to Dr. Collins' book, one example of a physican who believes in "God" is hardly evidence that the medical/scientific community has a religious belief system. As one who is immersed daily within said community, I can assure you that the overwhelming consensus is intact the opposite.

I don't see where I was debating that but ok...

[KenC]

I don't see where I was debating that but ok...

Pehaps I misinterpretted your previous paragraph, I tend to read very quickly (read: skim) when scrolling through posts in my iPhone screen.


I though you were referencing select notable scientists with religious faith to give basis to an assumption that faith in God is widespread in the scientific community.


I sound like a heretic in these posts, but can assure you I'm not haha

[Bill 84 318i]

dude, some of the most fundamental fathers of science were religious or had faith or some version of what you might still argue against. In his Principia Newton stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

There's plenty of others; Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Mendel...

and even of Einstein: "although never coming to belief in a personal God, recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

say what you will, but your arguement about someone with faith or a religious person being anti-intellectual is ridiculous.

More up to date, there's Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership, under the Clinton admin, of the Human Genome Project.

He actually once considered himself an atheist but is now an evangelical Christian. I recommed his book to anyone interested. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

As a Christian, I can admit it's hard for me to grasp how someone argues against evolution, although I don't believe in evolution to the extent that some are referring to it. In my studies and faith, I can see why some do not believe in God, but on the same hand I don't understand how those same people cannot believe in a creator. Personally, I believe science and faith can co-exist. Science does not dissprove God, yet science explains a lot and allows us theories on which to continue studying and learning. Having faith is just that, and while I think it's a bit wrong to word it this way, for scientist who support theories, which are in place until something dissproves it, why not take a leap of faith or examine it, and wait to be proven wrong.

Then again that would be useless as faith without action is nothing, or a false faith is not faith at all.

I guess I was somewhat referring to the Murphy's Law application of faith in that last statement, but that would be an inappropriate arguement for faith anyways.

I didn't say that all people that are religious are stupid, but religion, in and of itself, is anti-intellectual. It makes no effort to advance learning; it actually tries to substitute itself as an equal in some cases. This fundamentally opposes science.

As for Einstein, lots of people have said he is religious, and a lot of his quotations can be interpreted that way...but his view of religion is much different than the faith we're discussing. I'll go with this quotation myself: "It was of course a lie what you read about my religious convictions; a lie that is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this, but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which be called religious, is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." I don't think at all that Einstein was referring to the supernatural when he referred to god. And to finish your Spinoza (a pantheist, btw) quotation: "...not in a god who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

I know of Frances Collins (though I've yet to read that book) and I think it's a damn shame that he was appointed as the head of NIH. I'm sure he's a well-meaning man and that he'll do a fine job, but he's very vocal about his Christianity, and I don't think that someone agenda driven by religion should have such a scientifically significant job.

I think most scientists have analyzed faith - examining things from all angles is in their nature. Ones that reject it have their own reasons...lack of evidence, more knowledge with which to fill gaps that other people fill with God, etc.

...and look what the institution of religion did to Galileo. You're telling me that faith and science can co-exist when discovery is treated like that?

In regards to the faith comment, I don't have an issue with my leader being religious, however, when they consult their "God" during their decision-making processes for a diverse nation, it is absolutley unacceptable and reprehensible. Countries with "Spiritual Leaders" are doomed for generations.

I like that. I might be able to meet you there.

[jeff_b]

Good luck to you folks in Europe, keep and care for as many radical Muslims as you wish. When you get scared of them, America will be there to answer your screams for help, just as we've always been. We love nothing more than fucking people up on their turf.

[Hallen]

Thanks for being civil. It seems like everyone has two speeds lately.

We'll go with the religion bit first. First, conceptually, I personally don't agree with consulting a higher power when making any decisions. When you do anything because it's "God's will", I think it's presumptuous - and when you use this "higher power" to justify things like going to war (how come God thinks that we should win instead of the other guy?), terrible things can happen. I will say that things such as war aren't necessarily caused by religion specifically - it's more often things like socioeconomic factors - but calling on that higher power as a rallying cry is manipulative at best and downright evil at worst. Now when you internalize it in a spiritual sense, that's different. But I don't like it when people in power consult an all-knowing deity in general. I can see how this can be construed as bigoted, but in a sense that's not the right word...I'm not against religion simply because it's different from my beliefs (and atheism is not a belief - it's a lack of it), and I'm not intolerant - I just think that at times it's anti-intellectual. And I think that's a shame.

But more to the earlier point, to cite a specific example of why someone like Palin's denial of evolution is a bad thing - how can we trust her to make any decisions based on evidence? It's clear that the jury is still out on climate change - I haven't taken the time to evaluate all evidence like I'd like to myself - but if she looks at the evidence of evolution and still turns back to Genesis, why on earth should she be trusted to look at the evidence for climate change? And to that extent, when does it end?

I agree that the poor girl's stupidity has been exaggerated by the media, but I don't think at all that she is fit for any position of power or influence.

As for the economy, I see your point, and thanks for elaborating on the analogy. And I will admittedly take a step back and say that I'm a layman when it comes to the economy, and I'm probably due for a course in macroeconomics. From what little I do know, a lot of what you said makes sense - but the one thing that you didn't address was a short term kick in the ass of the economy vs. long term plans and policies. i.e. - if we had raised interest rates as soon as the shit hit the fan, how would that have helped anything? Long term I see what you're getting at, and I'm not saying that the stimulus package was successful - it obviously didn't do everything they said it would - but I don't necessarily agree that the Obama administration is as one-sided as everyone implies.

Unemployment is still up and is the talk of the moment, but on the whole, the economy is looking pretty good, isn't it? Granted that I personally have not been affected in general (I've joked that I've chosen not to participate in the recession) so my perception might be a bit skewed, but things are on the up and up after only what, 15 months or so? That ain't bad.

I don't think that drawing a parallel between faith in god and Obama's faith in what he believed was the right solution is fair, because I don't think that they're equals. Yes, both people think that they're right, and some people will call it logical and some people won't; that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. Obama might have been wrong and made a bad decision - holding that and religion in the same light just isn't equal in my mind.

I'm not religious, so I actually do agree with some of the stuff you are saying. I find it very awkward and uncomfortable when somebody makes statements like "God wanted me to...", or "It was God's will that...". You do have to realize that it is some people's way of saying, it is what it is, or it was destiny. But it still makes me wonder if they're a bit loony talking to a voice in their heads or something. I believe that if there is a God, he/she/it expects us to make our own decisions and to exercise free will. I also don't take a lot of those comments literally so I am more willing to accept.

Religion has done a lot in the past to surpress science. No argument. That has changed a lot over the years and I doubt that most churches try much to subjugate science. They may still believe that God created man, but the bible isn't specific in describing how that happened. Evolution just might be the path that he used. Anyway, I do find people that take the bible literally and extremists to be sick people. They have been brainwashed or they have some kind of mental disorder. Like the family here in Oregon who let their teenager die of a urinary tract infection that could have been easily and safely treated. I think most religious people would agree. Those people were negligent and undeserving to be parents and practice a form of religion that is distorted and extreme. Praying to God to save your son is OK as long as you take him to a doctor.

My point about Obama was simple. His belief in unproven (and disproved) theories and policies show his ability to make a decision based on evidence to be just as flawed, if not more flawed, than Palin's. Palin believes in the unprovable and that belief will most likely color her perceptions of some other things, like evolution because it can been seen as a direct conflict with her religion. Obama believes in things that are provable, but he chooses to ignore the evidence and go with what he believes to be right. Which one of those two situations has more implications for leadership?

On the Economics, yes, you are correct in that long term wise, the stuff I talked about works better. After all has gone to hell in a hand basket, it still works. It's just that the adjustments happen quickly and painfully if the right things are done. The right things would have been to let businesses fail, raise the interest rates (actually, it would be much better to let the market set the interest rate), and let the monetary supply start to decline. It would be painful, but it would have seen us past this problem by now.

The economy is still on very fragile ground. The government's efforts have only shifted and delayed the impacts. They will still come. There is a bit of hope in that if enough sectors of the economy recover enough, that the impacts of other things hitting bottom won't hurt so much (except to the people that get hit). But the point is, the market has to reach equilibrium and it hasn't done that yet. That's why we see such weird market indicators where some things are going up and other are still going down. It doesn't make any sense, even to economists. The reason for that is the government's interventions. We will still have more problems, and those problems could drive things down even more. We just have to wait and see now.

If more people understood what the Fed did, maybe we could make it stop. Every boom/bust cycle we have had in the last 100 years has been directly traced back to the Fed's actions. The Fed causes boom/bust. It isn't a "normal" aspect of the economy. That's a complete fallacy perpetuated by the Fed in order to allow it to continue as it is.

Also, be careful about taking macro economics classes. Some of the stuff is OK, but most colleges still teach the Keynesian theories, which are mostly wrong. Colleges stick with it because it provides the illusion that government is necessary to insure the economy works right. Find classes that teach either the Classical theory or better yet, the Austrian school theories.

[Anthrax]

Good luck to you folks in Europe, keep and care for as many radical Muslims as you wish. When you get scared of them, America will be there to answer your screams for help, just as we've always been. We love nothing more than fucking people up on their turf.

Where the hell do you find all these radical muslims. I´m sure there are some,
But they are drowned out by the rest of the ordinary muslims. It´s disturbing how you label them all in as the same.

By the way, the last time we "screamed for help" we basically got ignored. It took the attack of pearl harbor to get your goverment in gear.


All I hear from you is fear mongering.

[kronus]

Where the hell do you find all these radical muslims. I´m sure there are some,
But they are drowned out by the rest of the ordinary muslims. It´s disturbing how you label them all in as the same.

By the way, the last time we "screamed for help" we basically got ignored. It took the attack of pearl harbor to get your goverment in gear.


All I hear from you is fear mongering.

It's all he is capable of doing. Reason, logic, and rhetoric do not work.

Aptyp, that video is from the day after the SOU. You guys should really all watch it.

[mrsleeve]

Aptyp, that video is from the day after the SOU. You guys should really all watch it.

I will admit I have not gotten all the way through it and jumped around abit. Maybe I just hit the bad spots, but all I got from that is "I won" "You are gonna do as I want" "and stop fighting me"

[LBJefferies]

Good luck to you folks in Europe, keep and care for as many radical Muslims as you wish. When you get scared of them, America will be there to answer your screams for help, just as we've always been. We love nothing more than fucking people up on their turf.

Yeah we sure showed them Iraqi's, Afghan's, Vietnamese and Koreans. :roll:

[Massive Lee]

Yeah we sure showed them Iraqi's, Afghan's, Vietnamese and Koreans. :roll:

And will be known for the posterity as having been humiliated in most of them...

[Aptyp]

And will be known for the posterity as having been humiliated in most of them...

beats the fuck out of praising a queen

I will admit I have not gotten all the way through it and jumped around abit. Maybe I just hit the bad spots, but all I got from that is "I won" "You are gonna do as I want" "and stop fighting me"

I've watched about 20mins of it. I'd like to finish it. It only took a year for him to sit down with republicans and he did publicly. In the mean time, he met with a number of unaccompanied republicans in private sessions. It surely took him a long time and dive in approval to deliver bipartisanship.

[mrsleeve]

Yeah we sure showed them Iraqi's, Afghan's, Vietnamese and Koreans. :roll:

And will be known for the posterity as having been humiliated in most of them...

You 2 fucking idiots really must have failed history huh, along with little concept of how and why we were involved.


Korea, North invades south, South asks for help, the USA and the Brits come to the rescue. Once the allies begin to push the Commies back north of the 38th all the way to the Chinese boarder. The Chinese see this and throw 200,000 men into the party, a month latter another 1/2 a million, this pushed the allies back below the 38th, China admits that is cost them 390,000 Killed in action to gain that back, allies could not shoot them fast enough and were running outta ammo and getting over run. You also have to remember the ROE that the allies had, it was like fighting with a hand in a sling.

Nam, again North invades south, the French said fuck it and and bailed out. Then when the south askes for help again America to the rescue. The ROE there were like trying to fight with 1 armed tied behind your back, the other hand cuffed to it and one broken leg. You see US forces could not operate in a conventional manner to limit civilian losses. Issue being with that is No one had any idea when you came upon a civilian if they were friend or foe. The NVA used women and children as human bombs and shields to ambush US forces trying to protect them.

As for the 2 current issues, same things as nam but in a different place and difernat reason for involvement but with a more fanatical enemy, and even stricter ROE.

You see we have not won a major engagement in a truly decisive manner since WWII because the politicians Wont let them win. They make the ROE and the scope of action so narrow that it gives the enemy all the advantage and they know it and use it to the fullest.

To surmise, in the simplest way that your liberal brains will comprehend, Kinder and Gentler dose not MIX WELL with WAR. War and combat are dirty, horrible, terrible things to have to go through. But to come out on top you must press every advantage, show no quarter, and never stop till you win. Yes people that shouldn't have to will die, or get hurt and every one of those is a tragedy in and of itself. The bigger travesty is the men and women that put their lives on the line every day to protect those people and yours and mine, die in a futile effort, thanks to the Politico's not letting them do what is necessary to end it.