Is your point of view loaded? Responses to comments.
Some of the comments back from recent posts have really caught my attention. For instance:
"How do we know that Global Warming is a hoax? Who decided to invent it? What do they get out of it? How have they recruited so many scientists to their nefarious cause? The Anti-Global-Warming side needs to start answering these questions if they want me to take them seriously."
Its gotta be Gore. Or Hillary. Or (put name of another democrat here). They (pick one: don't believe in God, hate the bible, eat their children, or have a parent killed by the oil companies).
Oh, wait. Strike that. Its gotta be ACLU. Aren't they to blame for everything?"
Uhm, didn't you follow the link? Most of the people who were objecting to the idea of "Global Warming" as a done deal were meteorologists, yep, those people who study the weather. Your sarcasm aside, Mr. Commenter, you have no real argument. How many of the "Global Warming" crowd were warning of a New Ice Age twenty years ago? There simply isn't enough evidence to detect a trend towards warming or cooling that is anything other than normal variation.
As to their possible agenda, it is possible Al Gore was just looking for another fifteen minutes of fame and perhaps another way in to the White House. Who knows? But I do know that radical measures to stop "Global Warming" will hurt our economy and are disastrous for some third world countries like Madagascar, who cannot utilize many of the natural resources due to struggles with do-gooder environmentalists who sometimes seem to value termites above humans. I suppose some are just crusading idiots with little common sense, but then, that is just an opinion...as is the idea that there is such a thing as "Global Warming."
Here's another excerpt:
"So I've got some sympathy with the idea of giving the FCC its teeth back. "Public interest" is a little hard to define, but I think it could work if we had a genuinely nonpartisan agency like the GAO to oversee it.
On the other hand, the broadcast spectrum isn't as important as it used to be. Maybe it would be better to just throw out all pretense that the airwaves belong to America-as-a-whole, and just sell everything off to the highest bidder with no restrictions at all.
I do think the current set of restrictions are unfair. I mean, how can we let Rush Limbaugh tell whatever lies he wants with his bare face hanging out, and then turn around and tell Janet Jackson, "You can't expose your breast at a football game! It's not in the public interest!" Can we all agree that the FCC was being disgustingly hypocritical there?"
Whoa, did I just here a call for government control of the content of the airwaves because of the politics of the broadcaster? Who is to say that Rush Limbaugh is lying about anything and Al Franken tells the truth? They are both people with admitted agendas and they are giving opinions on talk radio! Opinions! Do you really wish to allow government to decide whose opinions are allowed to be broadcast? Yeah, that worked for Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin and it is standard fare in Iran but it is decidedly un-American. Unbelievable!!!
"Radar said: "Again I say, the scientist who is able to consider both natural and supernatural solutions to scientific problems is the better scientist, for he is able to come to the best conclusion unfettered by the prejudices of the naturalistic materialist. Let truth win out!"
Let's say, for simplicity's sake, there are three types of scientists.
(1)Atheist scientists who completely deny the existence of God.
(2)Agnostic scientists who claim that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists or not.
(3)"Religious" scientists. We will say they are YECs for the purpose of this discussion.
You seem to be concerned with the biases and prejudices of the atheist scientist- that they are unable to consider the supernatural. Isn't there a like problem with our "Religious" scientists? If the inability to consider the supernatural in atheist scientists is a probelm, then unwavering faith in truth of the Bible and God is a similar problem. The YEC will only see the YEC solution. They are subject to an opposite, but equally important, prejudice. Thus, following this line of reasoning, the only scientist who is free from prejudices is the agnostic scientist.
Let us only read and believe what the agnostic scientist has to say then. (OK- I don't really believe this- I think scientists' beliefs are immaterial to their worth as scientists as I've said before)"
Perhaps you are a slave to your point of view to the extreme that you cannot understand what I am saying. I am saying that the best scientist begins with no pre-existing prejudices before examining evidences and making hypotheses. You think it is perfectly fine for a scientist to begin by saying to himself, "No matter what, I must eliminate the supernatural from all possible solutions to the problem I am about to approach scientifically." You cannot see the bias there? Wow.
Suppose we have a scientist who says, "No matter what, I must eliminate the natural from all possible solutions to the problem I am about to approach scientifically." The all you are going to get is Scientology and Psychics. Wow again. No, the best scientists are willing to find the truth no matter where it leads them. Now, in most fields of study the supernatural is not relevant. But most is not all, and so some areas of study suffer from a preponderance of naturalistic materialists who will ignore Occam's Razor for the sake of their own belief systems, truth be damned!
"How do we know that Global Warming is a hoax? Who decided to invent it? What do they get out of it? How have they recruited so many scientists to their nefarious cause? The Anti-Global-Warming side needs to start answering these questions if they want me to take them seriously."
Its gotta be Gore. Or Hillary. Or (put name of another democrat here). They (pick one: don't believe in God, hate the bible, eat their children, or have a parent killed by the oil companies).
Oh, wait. Strike that. Its gotta be ACLU. Aren't they to blame for everything?"
Uhm, didn't you follow the link? Most of the people who were objecting to the idea of "Global Warming" as a done deal were meteorologists, yep, those people who study the weather. Your sarcasm aside, Mr. Commenter, you have no real argument. How many of the "Global Warming" crowd were warning of a New Ice Age twenty years ago? There simply isn't enough evidence to detect a trend towards warming or cooling that is anything other than normal variation.
As to their possible agenda, it is possible Al Gore was just looking for another fifteen minutes of fame and perhaps another way in to the White House. Who knows? But I do know that radical measures to stop "Global Warming" will hurt our economy and are disastrous for some third world countries like Madagascar, who cannot utilize many of the natural resources due to struggles with do-gooder environmentalists who sometimes seem to value termites above humans. I suppose some are just crusading idiots with little common sense, but then, that is just an opinion...as is the idea that there is such a thing as "Global Warming."
Here's another excerpt:
"So I've got some sympathy with the idea of giving the FCC its teeth back. "Public interest" is a little hard to define, but I think it could work if we had a genuinely nonpartisan agency like the GAO to oversee it.
On the other hand, the broadcast spectrum isn't as important as it used to be. Maybe it would be better to just throw out all pretense that the airwaves belong to America-as-a-whole, and just sell everything off to the highest bidder with no restrictions at all.
I do think the current set of restrictions are unfair. I mean, how can we let Rush Limbaugh tell whatever lies he wants with his bare face hanging out, and then turn around and tell Janet Jackson, "You can't expose your breast at a football game! It's not in the public interest!" Can we all agree that the FCC was being disgustingly hypocritical there?"
Whoa, did I just here a call for government control of the content of the airwaves because of the politics of the broadcaster? Who is to say that Rush Limbaugh is lying about anything and Al Franken tells the truth? They are both people with admitted agendas and they are giving opinions on talk radio! Opinions! Do you really wish to allow government to decide whose opinions are allowed to be broadcast? Yeah, that worked for Mussolini and Hitler and Stalin and it is standard fare in Iran but it is decidedly un-American. Unbelievable!!!
"Radar said: "Again I say, the scientist who is able to consider both natural and supernatural solutions to scientific problems is the better scientist, for he is able to come to the best conclusion unfettered by the prejudices of the naturalistic materialist. Let truth win out!"
Let's say, for simplicity's sake, there are three types of scientists.
(1)Atheist scientists who completely deny the existence of God.
(2)Agnostic scientists who claim that they do not know or are unable to know whether God exists or not.
(3)"Religious" scientists. We will say they are YECs for the purpose of this discussion.
You seem to be concerned with the biases and prejudices of the atheist scientist- that they are unable to consider the supernatural. Isn't there a like problem with our "Religious" scientists? If the inability to consider the supernatural in atheist scientists is a probelm, then unwavering faith in truth of the Bible and God is a similar problem. The YEC will only see the YEC solution. They are subject to an opposite, but equally important, prejudice. Thus, following this line of reasoning, the only scientist who is free from prejudices is the agnostic scientist.
Let us only read and believe what the agnostic scientist has to say then. (OK- I don't really believe this- I think scientists' beliefs are immaterial to their worth as scientists as I've said before)"
Perhaps you are a slave to your point of view to the extreme that you cannot understand what I am saying. I am saying that the best scientist begins with no pre-existing prejudices before examining evidences and making hypotheses. You think it is perfectly fine for a scientist to begin by saying to himself, "No matter what, I must eliminate the supernatural from all possible solutions to the problem I am about to approach scientifically." You cannot see the bias there? Wow.
Suppose we have a scientist who says, "No matter what, I must eliminate the natural from all possible solutions to the problem I am about to approach scientifically." The all you are going to get is Scientology and Psychics. Wow again. No, the best scientists are willing to find the truth no matter where it leads them. Now, in most fields of study the supernatural is not relevant. But most is not all, and so some areas of study suffer from a preponderance of naturalistic materialists who will ignore Occam's Razor for the sake of their own belief systems, truth be damned!