Burning Money

[Hans Blaster]

Did I tell you I am against funding other research?

The first research you mentioned in the OP as "burning money" is *NOT* SETI research. It standard astronomical research trying to understand the nature of planets and planetary systems in the local part of the Galaxy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks for being accurate.
My question is still the same, basically, as that changes nothing.

Are you saying it's cool wasting 10 potatoes because it is not the same as wasting 390,000 potatoes., or are you saying it is nothing if we waste 10 potatoes?

I still haven't gotten your point.

I was listening to an NPR broadcast (one of their podcast formatted shows) a few weeks back. It was, more or less, about misguided or guilt-tripped thinking.

The example was, "should you take your Hummer on a 2 hour drive on a Sunday". The guy presented some number of kg of CO₂. The point was that this number was n number of orders of magnitude CO₂ smaller than of the amount of CO₂ that humans are pumping into the atmosphere. One trip makes no difference. If you are doing this every day or every weekend, maybe you should rethink your plans, but if it's a question of whether I should do this today, then the act is inconsequential.

Now the SETI example is not straight forward. Your interlocutors have indicated, and I agree, that this sort of research has down stream benefits to society as a whole. You don't think so.

But, it feels like you want the poor man with one sheep to give it up to the rich man to feed his guests (2 Sam. 12). Or, in this example for SETI to give up 1 potato so the military (or some other enterprise with arguably more wasteful practices) can have 39,001 potatoes.

It's like the guy with the Hummer telling me I should bike to work.

Hell, various CEOs have pay packages better than SETI's entire budget.

 

[CoreyD]

The first research you mentioned in the OP as "burning money" is *NOT* SETI research. It standard astronomical research trying to understand the nature of planets and planetary systems in the local part of the Galaxy.

True.
“This discovery could be a significant piece in the puzzle of finding habitable environments, places that are conducive to life,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of the agency’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. “Answering the question ‘are we alone’ is a top science priority and finding so many planets like these for the first time in the habitable zone is a remarkable step forward toward that goal.”

Why do you say it is "standard astronomical research trying to understand the nature of planets and planetary systems in the local part of the Galaxy"?

 

[CoreyD]

I was listening to an NPR broadcast (one of their podcast formatted shows) a few weeks back. It was, more or less, about misguided or guilt-tripped thinking.

The example was, "should you take your Hummer on a 2 hour drive on a Sunday". The guy presented some number of kg of CO₂. The point was that this number was n number of orders of magnitude CO₂ smaller than of the amount of CO₂ that humans are pumping into the atmosphere. One trip makes no difference. If you are doing this every day or every weekend, maybe you should rethink your plans, but if it's a question of whether I should do this today, then the act is inconsequential.

Now the SETI example is not straight forward. Your interlocutors have indicated, and I agree, that this sort of research has down stream benefits to society as a whole. You don't think so.

But, it feels like you want the poor man with one sheep to give it up to the rich man to feed his guests (2 Sam. 12). Or, in this example for SETI to give up 1 potato so the military (or some other enterprise with arguably more wasteful practices) can have 39,001 potatoes.

It's like the guy with the Hummer telling me I should bike to work.

Hell, various CEOs have pay packages better than SETI's entire budget.

The example seems to suggest that SETI makes one trip, amounting to dropping one potato.
That is not reality. One potato plus one potato , plus one potato, plus... you get the point.

You still have not answered my question, but perhaps you got confused with the calculations, though I don't know how that happened, since you mentioned SETI's normal budget (20-25 million).

Now that you understand, that this is a little over 4 decades of $$$... not counting government spending, before Congress pulled the plug.
Will you answer the question. Or perhaps you were not making any relevant point?

 

[Tinker Grey]

The example seems to suggest that SETI makes one trip, amounting to dropping one potato.
That is not reality. One potato plus one potato , plus one potato, plus... you get the point.

You still have not answered my question, but perhaps you got confused with the calculations, though I don't know how that happened, since you mentioned SETI's normal budget (20-25 million).

Now that you understand, that this is a little over 4 decades of $$$... not counting government spending, before Congress pulled the plug.
Will you answer the question. Or perhaps you were not making any relevant point?

What question was that? Whether it is still ok to waste a potato?

Part of the contention is that SETI is not a waste. But what is wasting a potato compared to wasting 39000 potatoes?

If you can do something to reduce waste, you should. Is SETI such a thing that getting rid of it is worth it? Well, the argument here is that it is not.

 

[CoreyD]

What question was that? Whether it is still ok to waste a potato?

Part of the contention is that SETI is not a waste. But what is wasting a potato compared to wasting 39000 potatoes?

If you can do something to reduce waste, you should. Is SETI such a thing that getting rid of it is worth it? Well, the argument here is that it is not.

Years after Congress pulled the plug, they now seem to agree with you.
Congress Wants to Spend $10 Million to Search for Aliens
That's right, Congress is talking about spending a bunch of money on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (or SETI) for the first time in 25 years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

True.
“This discovery could be a significant piece in the puzzle of finding habitable environments, places that are conducive to life,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of the agency’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. “Answering the question ‘are we alone’ is a top science priority and finding so many planets like these for the first time in the habitable zone is a remarkable step forward toward that goal.”

Why do you say it is "standard astronomical research trying to understand the nature of planets and planetary systems in the local part of the Galaxy"?

Physics studies the nature of reality. Astronomy studies everything no on Earth. The rest of the sciences have the Earth to study.

Now for a serious answer...

Understanding other planetary systems helps us understand the mechanisms that made ours. The same with the possibility of finding life on those planets. (If we did find life we would expect something like plant life, not necessarily intelligence.)

 

[CoreyD]

Physics studies the nature of reality. Astronomy studies everything no on Earth. The rest of the sciences have the Earth to study.

Now for a serious answer...

Understanding other planetary systems helps us understand the mechanisms that made ours. The same with the possibility of finding life on those planets. (If we did find life we would expect something like plant life, not necessarily intelligence.)

We don't seem to be on the same page.
It looks like you have turned a couple pages, to look at something other than what we were looking at.
Why are SETI searching for ETs? Please provide a source with your answer.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We don't seem to be on the same page.

You have been trying to characterize your anti-science position as only targeting SETI. A review of your earlier posts, stating with the OP demonstrate that not to be correct. In the OP, the *first* science listed is exo-planet research.

It looks like you have turned a couple pages, to look at something other than what we were looking at.
Why are SETI searching for ETs? Please provide a source with your answer.

I don't care. I'm not particularly interested in SETI and I am not here to defend it.

 

[CoreyD]

You have been trying to characterize your anti-science position as only targeting SETI. A review of your earlier posts, stating with the OP demonstrate that not to be correct. In the OP, the *first* science listed is exo-planet research.

You don't really believe that anything I said is anti-science.
You are just following the Atheistic attitude of attacking people's character, who do not say the things that make you feel comfortable.

If by saying certain beliefs and pursuits are not worthwhile, I am anti-science, then scientists, philosophers, historians, and other brilliant individuals are anti-science, in your view.
Mind you, I have not said that SETI's pursuits is not science... but they have.

Quote:

Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY – City College... who asked in 2010 whether SETI is "uncomfortably close to the status of pseudoscience" due to the lack of any clear point at which negative results cause the hypothesis of Extraterrestrial Intelligence to be abandoned, before eventually concluding that SETI is "almost-science", which is described by Milan M. Ćirković as Pigliucci putting SETI in "the illustrious company of string theory, interpretations of quantum mechanics, evolutionary psychology and history (of the 'synthetic' kind done recently by Jared Diamond)", while adding that his justification for doing so with SETI "is weak, outdated, and reflecting particular philosophical prejudices similar to the ones described above in Mash and Basalla?​

Quote:

Nature - SETI is arguably not a falsifiable experiment.​

Quote:

George Basalla, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Delaware, is a critic of SETI who argued in 2006 that "extraterrestrials discussed by scientists are as imaginary as the spirits and gods of religion or myth"​

I posted these, not to say SETI or any other research is not science, but to show that criticism comes not only from people like me, but highly educated professors.
Even those in government felt the way many people do, today.
In 1978, the NASA SETI program had been heavily criticized by Senator William Proxmire, and funding for SETI research was removed from the NASA budget by Congress in 1981

In 1992, the U.S. government funded an operational SETI program, in the form of the NASA Microwave Observing Program (MOP).
MOP drew the attention of the United States Congress, where the program met opposition and canceled one year after its start.

While the common attack of most Atheists is used to demean, and claw at posters, as if the poster will run away, from the Atheists' anger... which won't happen. it only demonstrates emotional biased thinking, and is also far from the truth.

Those who read the OP, with an unbiased view, can see, that I am not anti-science, because I referred to two categories where money is burnt - Entertainment, and Science.

Those in the field of science, expressed their view, based on research, that money is wasted, and should be better utilized.
That makes them anti-science as well, in your view.

Anyway, I am not here to confront Atheists' anger.
It takes too much effort for me to calmly respond to this kind of behavior, without fighting the urge to "put you in your place".
Unfortunately, whenever a thread mentions science, Atheists clamor on and flood that thread, as if science is their beloved...

So what I would suggest, if you are here to converse, is to ditch the false accusation, which you commonly use when confronting those whose ideals you hate.
No one here is anti-science, or holds an anti-science position.
We are discussing burning money in all areas... including Nationalism.

Yes, and materialism.

I don't care. I'm not particularly interested in SETI and I am not here to defend it.

Okay. What do you care about? What are you here for? What are you here to defend? Or, What interests would you like to discuss, within the subject of the thread?

 

[Hans Blaster]

You don't really believe that anything I said is anti-science.

In the OP (which I suspect is mostly cut-and-paste from some blog), you preface by putting the blame on "Satan" who is apparently in charge according to you. After an item on the entertainment industry, the next "burner of money" and first in the "Science" category is exo-planet research. This precedes the second item about SETI.

In post #19, you again attack exo-planet research as burning money.

Attacking a legitimate science like exoplanet astronomy as "burning money" is anti-science in my book.

You are just following the Atheistic attitude of attacking people's character, who do not say the things that make you feel comfortable.

I will come back to this in a later post because I feel these bigoted comments (including those later in the post) deserve response.

If by saying certain beliefs and pursuits are not worthwhile, I am anti-science, then scientists, philosophers, historians, and other brilliant individuals are anti-science, in your view.
Mind you, I have not said that SETI's pursuits is not science... but they have.

Quote:

Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY – City College... who asked in 2010 whether SETI is "uncomfortably close to the status of pseudoscience" due to the lack of any clear point at which negative results cause the hypothesis of Extraterrestrial Intelligence to be abandoned, before eventually concluding that SETI is "almost-science", which is described by Milan M. Ćirković as Pigliucci putting SETI in "the illustrious company of string theory, interpretations of quantum mechanics, evolutionary psychology and history (of the 'synthetic' kind done recently by Jared Diamond)", while adding that his justification for doing so with SETI "is weak, outdated, and reflecting particular philosophical prejudices similar to the ones described above in Mash and Basalla?​

Quote:

Nature - SETI is arguably not a falsifiable experiment.​

Quote:

George Basalla, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Delaware, is a critic of SETI who argued in 2006 that "extraterrestrials discussed by scientists are as imaginary as the spirits and gods of religion or myth"​

I posted these, not to say SETI or any other research is not science, but to show that criticism comes not only from people like me, but highly educated professors.
Even those in government felt the way many people do, today.
In 1978, the NASA SETI program had been heavily criticized by Senator William Proxmire, and funding for SETI research was removed from the NASA budget by Congress in 1981

In 1992, the U.S. government funded an operational SETI program, in the form of the NASA Microwave Observing Program (MOP).
MOP drew the attention of the United States Congress, where the program met opposition and canceled one year after its start.

As I said in a previous post, I am not going to defend SETI as science or the SETI Institute or SETI funding. I am far more disturbed about the other things you wrote.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[In this post, I will reply to the attacks on "Atheistic attitudes" and other disparagements. I covered the "anti-science "response above. all removed sections are noted]

[cut]
You are just following the Atheistic attitude of attacking people's character, who do not say the things that make you feel comfortable.

That is quite the accusation. First, I didn't attack your character. I did not call *you* anti-science, only your stated position in the OP was an anti-science position. I stand by that assessment.

Second, attacking people's characters is not the primary way that atheists engage with those they disagree with, here or elsewhere, nor are attacks on character limited to or even primarily a tool of atheists in debates and arguments.

Third, my position had nothing to do with my non-belief in your god or any other. If instead of displaying my "religious status" the little marker under my avatar gave my position, would you have instead counterattacked by claiming I was just trying to protect my revenue stream?

Fourth, I don't come to CF to feel comfort. People say things that I don't agree with here all the time.

If by saying certain beliefs and pursuits are not worthwhile, I am anti-science, then scientists, philosophers, historians, and other brilliant individuals are anti-science, in your view.

Your initial post characterized certain expenditures (not just government) as wasteful "burning" of money. Other than a specific movie that started your post, the rest were all science or science adjacent.

[SETI snipped out]

While the common attack of most Atheists is used to demean, and claw at posters, as if the poster will run away, from the Atheists' anger... which won't happen.

Again this is character assassination of atheists that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. (A topic which seems to be the ethics of wasting resources on things that don't matter, thought the OP reads like a blog post from a non-ethics blog.) These tactics you claim are being used against you have nothing to do with non-belief.

it only demonstrates emotional biased thinking, and is also far from the truth.

The only emotionalism I see here is the lashing out at "atheist tactics".

Those who read the OP, with an unbiased view, can see, that I am not anti-science, because I referred to two categories where money is burnt - Entertainment, and Science.

Given that you prefaced you OP with something about Satan being in control and then discussed waste going to making a particular movie, then into a section labeled "Science" it not only feels like an anti-science attitude, but as if the writer thinks science is controlled by "Satan". I'm sorry, but the whole OP comes off as an attack on science from multiple levels.

[stuff about scientists against SETI removed]

Anyway, I am not here to confront Atheists' anger.

You are imagining that anger from what I can tell, but your continued efforts might spark some...

It takes too much effort for me to calmly respond to this kind of behavior, without fighting the urge to "put you in your place".

And how would you do that? Put us in our "place"? You are in a hole. I'd recommend you stop digging.

Unfortunately, whenever a thread mentions science, Atheists clamor on and flood that thread, as if science is their beloved...

People who like science defend it. I can't help it that anti-science people on this forum are far more likely to be christians than the pro-science people. (I can't really think of any anti-science non-Chrisitian posters here, but I know plenty of pro-science Christian posters.)

FYI: I found this site because I got a link to a thread about a particular form of pseudoscience (not creationism) while reading a thread about it on another forum. I looked around and decided to stay awhile. I later expanded my reading and then posting to the politics and current events portions. I occasionally check out the "ethics" section, but most of the threads here are boring questions about what is or is not a "sin", rather than real ethical concerns. And I am drawn to threads about science outside the science section because it is my profession. It ain't got nothin' to do with being an atheist.

So what I would suggest, if you are here to converse, is to ditch the false accusation, which you commonly use when confronting those whose ideals you hate.

I don't know what your "ideals" are other than you attacked funding for science. You are not familiar to me.

No one here is anti-science, or holds an anti-science position.

I'd have to check the full roster of participants (including those I might have on "ignore") to know about this thread, but there are *definitely anti-science people on CF (I don't know if you are one of them as I know almost nothing about your except this thread) and the position you put in the OP is an anti-science position.

We are discussing burning money in all areas... including Nationalism.

I must have missed the nationalism part, but I do recall the part about science, SETI, and one particular mediocre Disney movie remake. (One of my favorite movies of all time wrecked over 100 cop cars and it was glorious.)

Yes, and materialism.

Well, that came out of nowhere. Which one is it? The one where people know that things are made of stuff or the interest in having expensive things?

Okay. What do you care about? What are you here for? What are you here to defend?

Science (and now apparently atheists) against unwarranted attacks.

Or, What interests would you like to discuss, within the subject of the thread?

I already have.

 

[CoreyD]

In the OP (which I suspect is mostly cut-and-paste from some blog), you preface by putting the blame on "Satan" who is apparently in charge according to you. After an item on the entertainment industry, the next "burner of money" and first in the "Science" category is exo-planet research. This precedes the second item about SETI.

In post #19, you again attack exo-planet research as burning money.

Attacking a legitimate science like exoplanet astronomy as "burning money" is anti-science in my book.

I believe you saw what is not there, because of your views about Satan, God, etc.
In your book... I can certainly understand that. I hope you see the connection, then.

I will come back to this in a later post because I feel these bigoted comments (including those later in the post) deserve response.

Bigoted comments? Do you mean like this:
You have been trying to characterize your anti-science position
There is nothing in my comments which are like that. Not even close to.

As I said in a previous post, I am not going to defend SETI as science or the SETI Institute or SETI funding. I am far more disturbed about the other things you wrote.

I believe you are more bothered about the Satan aspect.
I cannot help that you do not believe in Satan, and so it disturbs you that people attribute the cause of mankind directing their interests in the wrong direction, to something you do not want to hear about.
People act foolishly, or make foolish decisions for a reason.

You may not agree with the reason, but others do.
Notice...
You did not mention any disturbance about this:
Billions of dollars are spent annually on repairing ecosystems damaged by people. A new meta-analysis of 400 studies that document recovery from such large-scale disturbances worldwide suggests that while ecosystems can bounce back, they rarely mend completely, with the final stages of recovery being most difficult. The study also found that more costly active restoration efforts did not consistently result in faster or more complete recovery.

That was said by experts.
If they used my language, they would say, money is being burnt.
"Our findings do not diminish the importance of active restoration efforts but instead suggest they can be planned more judiciously to maximize gains per dollar spent," added Jones, who holds a joint appointment with NIU's Department of Biological Sciences and the university's Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability and Energy.

The point made about "burning money", to use my terminology, does not disturb you.
These people are not anti-science, because the recognize that fact.
Attributing the cause of mankind's failings, to Satan, is what bothers you.

Can you demonstrate that I am wrong?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I believe you saw what is not there, because of your views about Satan, God, etc.
In your book... I can certainly understand that. I hope you see the connection, then.

I didn't give any consideration to your views about a god or a demon until you started attacking atheists for not agreeing with you about "burning money". Posts that did not mention anything to do with non-belief or belief. It is only after you started casting aspersions about us for being atheists, that I took notice of that part of your post about your Satan.

Simply put, I find your OP to be anti-science because it attacks science as a waste of money.

Bigoted comments? Do you mean like this:
You have been trying to characterize your anti-science position
There is nothing in my comments which are like that. Not even close to.

You cast various aspersions about atheists and our "methods" and how we attacked your character in the atheist fashion and what not. That was bigotry against non-believers because you saw that we were non-believer, not because we stated anything about your religion. (Religion/gods/atheism didn't come up at all until you mentioned them when discussing us.)

I believe you are more bothered about the Satan aspect.

I cannot help that you do not believe in Satan, and so it disturbs you that people attribute the cause of mankind directing their interests in the wrong direction, to something you do not want to hear about.
People act foolishly, or make foolish decisions for a reason.

I don't care about your Satan. I don't think it exists. What your reference to it does show me is that you seem to view these wasteful efforts as under the control of this "satan". Given that I know what Christians mean by such statements, it does tell me a lot about your position on the topic.

You may not agree with the reason, but others do.
Notice...
You did not mention any disturbance about this:
Billions of dollars are spent annually on repairing ecosystems damaged by people. A new meta-analysis of 400 studies that document recovery from such large-scale disturbances worldwide suggests that while ecosystems can bounce back, they rarely mend completely, with the final stages of recovery being most difficult. The study also found that more costly active restoration efforts did not consistently result in faster or more complete recovery.

That was said by experts.
If they used my language, they would say, money is being burnt.
"Our findings do not diminish the importance of active restoration efforts but instead suggest they can be planned more judiciously to maximize gains per dollar spent," added Jones, who holds a joint appointment with NIU's Department of Biological Sciences and the university's Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability and Energy.

Notice what? You have some other things you think are wasteful. I'm not sure what you hope to gain from this.

The point made about "burning money", to use my terminology, does not disturb you.

I haven't discussed whether anything is wasteful or not in this thread, only your attitudes towards the things you singled out. (Where did you copy the bulk of the OP from?)

These people are not anti-science, because the recognize that fact.

I don't know who these people are and I haven't called any person "anti-science" yet. (*You* are getting close, though.)

Attributing the cause of mankind's failings, to Satan, is what bothers you.

Can you demonstrate that I am wrong?

I think it is a cheap cop-out to blame others for your failings, whether that is another person or supernatural being.

 

[CoreyD]

[In this post, I will reply to the attacks on "Atheistic attitudes" and other disparagements. I covered the "anti-science "response above. all removed sections are noted]


That is quite the accusation. First, I didn't attack your character. I did not call *you* anti-science, only your stated position in the OP was an anti-science position. I stand by that assessment.

Your anti-science position is not an attack on someone's character.
If I said to you that you hold an anti-education position, I am attacking your character.
I am saying you are against education.
That is a character attack.
I don't see how you can deny that.

Second, attacking people's characters is not the primary way that atheists engage with those they disagree with, here or elsewhere, nor are attacks on character limited to or even primarily a tool of atheists in debates and arguments.

Are you telling me that you know what I have experienced? Or are you saying that you have had my experience, and know the facts about it?

Third, my position had nothing to do with my non-belief in your god or any other. If instead of displaying my "religious status" the little marker under my avatar gave my position, would you have instead counterattacked by claiming I was just trying to protect my revenue stream?

I'm glad you and others identified your "religious status", because it helps me understand the reason for the response.
Earlier, before I checked the status, I thought one who identified as Christian was displaying the attitude I am so familiar with among atheists on internet forums.

This was my response to that person:

I understand that criticism is not something people like to hear, especially when they have strong views on what is being criticized, and some people get really angry at not hearing what they would like people to say, but the Christian accepts criticism, as they understand why criticism is given.​

Because people disagree, this is no reason to make unfounded statements against those who do not agree with us.​

​

Especially here at CF, we are encouraged to Address only the content of the post and not the poster.​

I will however, try to not see you as atheist.
Perhaps that will help me.

Fourth, I don't come to CF to feel comfort. People say things that I don't agree with here all the time.

I know you don't come here to feel comfortable. You do not identify as Christian, so why should you feel comfortable on a Christian forum.
I did not say you feel comfortable here. I meant in your belief system.

Your initial post characterized certain expenditures (not just government) as wasteful "burning" of money. Other than a specific movie that started your post, the rest were all science or science adjacent.

I just mentioned two categories.
The posters after me, mentioned others.
One mentioned war. Another mentioned materialism....

Again this is character assassination of atheists that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. (A topic which seems to be the ethics of wasting resources on things that don't matter, thought the OP reads like a blog post from a non-ethics blog.) These tactics you claim are being used against you have nothing to do with non-belief.

I said some atheists. They use an atheistic tactic. That is not all atheists.
So, what I said is not a character assassination of atheists.

The only emotionalism I see here is the lashing out at "atheist tactics".

Making an observation is not lashing out.
It is pointing out something to a person, who may need to see or hear it.
When Jesus referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites, he was not lashing out at them.
Of course, when someone does not like something, the may complain about it - calling it an attack.

What do you call your accusing me of having an anti-science position?

Given that you prefaced you OP with something about Satan being in control and then discussed waste going to making a particular movie, then into a section labeled "Science" it not only feels like an anti-science attitude, but as if the writer thinks science is controlled by "Satan". I'm sorry, but the whole OP comes off as an attack on science from multiple levels.

Our understanding is sometimes affected by our mindset.
The mention of Satan had everything to do with burning money... regardless of if that is entertainment, sports, commercialism, science...

Do you see the problem here?
Is science God?
The way some people behave is as if there can be nothing negative in science.
They behave as if science is some religion, or god, an infallible deity. Mind you, this is said by scientists, philosophers, educators... and the list goes on.

Science is fraught with bias. Says experts.
There is greed, and pride in science. Getting a Noble Prize is the prime interests of some.
Science does not escape negative, because scientist are men. They make mistake. Some lie and cheat. Some are greedy.

If you need references, just shout.
So, because I included science in something negative, you take offense?
Would you like a quote mine of all that scientist have said about what goes on in science?
I am sure this is not hidden from you, but you do not react to them, do you.
You go on the internet and attack the layman that say the same thing the experts say.

Am I lying?
Just say the word.

You are imagining that anger from what I can tell, but your continued efforts might spark some...

I understand.

And how would you do that? Put us in our "place"? You are in a hole. I'd recommend you stop digging.

Thank you.

People who like science defend it. I can't help it that anti-science people on this forum are far more likely to be christians than the pro-science people. (I can't really think of any anti-science non-Chrisitian posters here, but I know plenty of pro-science Christian posters.)

I know I have. So I must like science.

FYI: I found this site because I got a link to a thread about a particular form of pseudoscience (not creationism) while reading a thread about it on another forum. I looked around and decided to stay awhile. I later expanded my reading and then posting to the politics and current events portions. I occasionally check out the "ethics" section, but most of the threads here are boring questions about what is or is not a "sin", rather than real ethical concerns. And I am drawn to threads about science outside the science section because it is my profession. It ain't got nothin' to do with being an atheist.

I know. You and all the other atheists.

I don't know what your "ideals" are other than you attacked funding for science. You are not familiar to me.

I'd have to check the full roster of participants (including those I might have on "ignore") to know about this thread, but there are *definitely anti-science people on CF (I don't know if you are one of them as I know almost nothing about your except this thread) and the position you put in the OP is an anti-science position.

I must have missed the nationalism part, but I do recall the part about science, SETI, and one particular mediocre Disney movie remake. (One of my favorite movies of all time wrecked over 100 cop cars and it was glorious.)

Well, that came out of nowhere. Which one is it? The one where people know that things are made of stuff or the interest in having expensive things?

Materialism?
Someone mentioned throwing away phones and computers, to upgrade to the latest.
This is something commercialism tries to force on the public.
Do you disagree?

Science (and now apparently atheists) against unwarranted attacks.

So you are here to defend science.
What are you defending science from, and how are you going about that?

Some atheists. All atheists are not the same.
I do not know if all go to internet forums, so I cannot say.

I already have.

Good.

 

[CoreyD]

I didn't give any consideration to your views about a god or a demon until you started attacking atheists for not agreeing with you about "burning money". Posts that did not mention anything to do with non-belief or belief. It is only after you started casting aspersions about us for being atheists, that I took notice of that part of your post about your Satan.

Simply put, I find your OP to be anti-science because it attacks science as a waste of money.


You cast various aspersions about atheists and our "methods" and how we attacked your character in the atheist fashion and what not. That was bigotry against non-believers because you saw that we were non-believer, not because we stated anything about your religion. (Religion/gods/atheism didn't come up at all until you mentioned them when discussing us.)


I don't care about your Satan. I don't think it exists. What your reference to it does show me is that you seem to view these wasteful efforts as under the control of this "satan". Given that I know what Christians mean by such statements, it does tell me a lot about your position on the topic.

Notice what? You have some other things you think are wasteful. I'm not sure what you hope to gain from this.

I haven't discussed whether anything is wasteful or not in this thread, only your attitudes towards the things you singled out. (Where did you copy the bulk of the OP from?)

I don't know who these people are and I haven't called any person "anti-science" yet. (*You* are getting close, though.)

I think it is a cheap cop-out to blame others for your failings, whether that is another person or supernatural being.

This is not a response to what I actually said.
It "edits" my post by breaking up connected sentenced, thus altering the context of the post.

This is actually in the OP.

Fixing damaged ecosystems: How much does restoration help?​

Billions of dollars are spent annually on repairing ecosystems damaged by people. A new meta-analysis of 400 studies that document recovery from such large-scale disturbances worldwide suggests that while ecosystems can bounce back, they rarely mend completely, with the final stages of recovery being most difficult. The study also found that more costly active restoration efforts did not consistently result in faster or more complete recovery.

"Our study suggests that, in many cases, once damaging activities are halted, the most economically expedient restoration strategy might be to let ecosystems repair themselves," Northern Illinois University scientist Holly Jones said. She led a team of researchers from five countries on the study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"Our findings do not diminish the importance of active restoration efforts but instead suggest they can be planned more judiciously to maximize gains per dollar spent," added Jones, who holds a joint appointment with NIU's Department of Biological Sciences and the university's Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability and Energy.

The science of ecological restoration is relatively young but important. Finding the best way to repair disturbed or damaged ecosystems is critical to stemming the biodiversity crisis. Every day, the planet's biodiversity is being lost at up to 1,000 times the natural rate, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A

This is not a response to what I actually said.
It "edits" my post by breaking up connected sentenced, thus altering the context of the post.

This is actually in the OP.

Fixing damaged ecosystems: How much does restoration help?​

Billions of dollars are spent annually on repairing ecosystems damaged by people. A new meta-analysis of 400 studies that document recovery from such large-scale disturbances worldwide suggests that while ecosystems can bounce back, they rarely mend completely, with the final stages of recovery being most difficult. The study also found that more costly active restoration efforts did not consistently result in faster or more complete recovery.

"Our study suggests that, in many cases, once damaging activities are halted, the most economically expedient restoration strategy might be to let ecosystems repair themselves," Northern Illinois University scientist Holly Jones said. She led a team of researchers from five countries on the study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

"Our findings do not diminish the importance of active restoration efforts but instead suggest they can be planned more judiciously to maximize gains per dollar spent," added Jones, who holds a joint appointment with NIU's Department of Biological Sciences and the university's Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability and Energy.

The science of ecological restoration is relatively young but important. Finding the best way to repair disturbed or damaged ecosystems is critical to stemming the biodiversity crisis. Every day, the planet's biodiversity is being lost at up to 1,000 times the natural rate, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

At this point I have lost any interest in discussing the material you posted in the OP.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your anti-science position is not an attack on someone's character.
If I said to you that you hold an anti-education position, I am attacking your character.
I am saying you are against education.
That is a character attack.
I don't see how you can deny that.

It's pretty clear I was commenting on the position in the text you posted. I have no idea what your overall position on science is. I will start giving assuming the favorable position, but you can argue your way out of that.

Are you telling me that you know what I have experienced? Or are you saying that you have had my experience, and know the facts about it?

I was talking about how atheists behave and argue. I have no idea who or what you are.

I'm glad you and others identified your "religious status", because it helps me understand the reason for the response.
Earlier, before I checked the status, I thought one who identified as Christian was displaying the attitude I am so familiar with among atheists on internet forums.

This was my response to that person:

I understand that criticism is not something people like to hear, especially when they have strong views on what is being criticized, and some people get really angry at not hearing what they would like people to say, but the Christian accepts criticism, as they understand why criticism is given.​

Because people disagree, this is no reason to make unfounded statements against those who do not agree with us.​

​

Especially here at CF, we are encouraged to Address only the content of the post and not the poster.​

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. You are clearly making assumptions about us based on our non-belief. I suggest you forget what you experience on other forums. As you note the place has standards.

I will however, try to not see you as atheist.
Perhaps that will help me.

I'd rather you didn't evaluate your position on what people post based on their religion or lack of religion. Either way I am a non-believer and this isn't going to change.

I know you don't come here to feel comfortable. You do not identify as Christian, so why should you feel comfortable on a Christian forum.
I did not say you feel comfortable here. I meant in your belief system.

My "belief system" has not come into this thread or my posts yet.

I just mentioned two categories.
The posters after me, mentioned others.
One mentioned war. Another mentioned materialism....

No such discussion has been part of our conversation. I haven't paid much attention to the other posts.

I said some atheists. They use an atheistic tactic. That is not all atheists.
So, what I said is not a character assassination of atheists.

This is exactly what I was talking about. None of these "tactics" (if they are being used" are unique to atheists. Christians use them plenty as well. Nothing discussed in this thread relative to the OP is tied to religion and there is no need to make it so.

Making an observation is not lashing out.
It is pointing out something to a person, who may need to see or hear it.
When Jesus referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites, he was not lashing out at them.
Of course, when someone does not like something, the may complain about it - calling it an attack.

This is why I don't want you forget I am not a Christian. Your Christian aphorisms are meaningless to me.

What do you call your accusing me of having an anti-science position?

Poor reading. I didn't accuse you of that. I said the text in your post had an anti-science position or bias.

Our understanding is sometimes affected by our mindset.
The mention of Satan had everything to do with burning money... regardless of if that is entertainment, sports, commercialism, science...

Your satan reference meant so little to me that I ignored it when making my first post. It was only after you accused me of using "atheist tactics" that I noticed it when reexamining the OP and my response to it.

Do you see the problem here?
Is science God?

That's a very odd question. Science is a method for ascertaining the nature of things. It is not a supernatural being.

The way some people behave is as if there can be nothing negative in science.
They behave as if science is some religion, or god, an infallible deity. Mind you, this is said by scientists, philosophers, educators... and the list goes on.

I don't know who these people are and I have little tolerance for them.

Science is fraught with bias. Says experts.
There is greed, and pride in science. Getting a Noble Prize is the prime interests of some.
Science does not escape negative, because scientist are men. They make mistake. Some lie and cheat. Some are greedy.

If you need references, just shout.
So, because I included science in something negative, you take offense?

No. The only thing I have taken offense at is the "atheist tactics" nonsense.

Would you like a quote mine of all that scientist have said about what goes on in science?

No I do not need any "quote mines". I am well aware of what goes on in science. Far more so than you will ascertain from your quote mines.

I am sure this is not hidden from you, but you do not react to them, do you.

I am not interested in such responses.

You go on the internet and attack the layman that say the same thing the experts say.

To clarify, I have not posted about your posted material on SETI or ecological repairs, only on exoplanetary science.

Am I lying?
Just say the word.

No thank you.

I understand.


Thank you.


I know I have. So I must like science.

I have yet to assess that as I only have this thread to go by.

I know. You and all the other atheists.

No, not "all the other athests". What part of it being my personal story did you not notice?

Materialism?
Someone mentioned throwing away phones and computers, to upgrade to the latest.
This is something commercialism tries to force on the public.
Do you disagree?

I don't care. (But, hey, at least you weren't accusing me of being a physicalist/materialist/naturalist as if it were a bad thing as some have on this very sub-forum. Don't ask, it's not something I'd like to discuss.)

So you are here to defend science.
What are you defending science from, and how are you going about that?

In this thread, people who think it is burning money to do science, like the source of your OP.

Some atheists. All atheists are not the same.
I do not know if all go to internet forums, so I cannot say.

I don't go to any others. And to state one last time, being an atheist had nothing to do with my original post responding to your OP.

Good.

 

[CoreyD]

It's pretty clear I was commenting on the position in the text you posted. I have no idea what your overall position on science is. I will start giving assuming the favorable position, but you can argue your way out of that.

I was talking about how atheists behave and argue. I have no idea who or what you are.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. You are clearly making assumptions about us based on our non-belief. I suggest you forget what you experience on other forums. As you note the place has standards.

I'd rather you didn't evaluate your position on what people post based on their religion or lack of religion. Either way I am a non-believer and this isn't going to change.

My "belief system" has not come into this thread or my posts yet.

No such discussion has been part of our conversation. I haven't paid much attention to the other posts.

This is exactly what I was talking about. None of these "tactics" (if they are being used" are unique to atheists. Christians use them plenty as well. Nothing discussed in this thread relative to the OP is tied to religion and there is no need to make it so.

This is why I don't want you forget I am not a Christian. Your Christian aphorisms are meaningless to me.

Poor reading. I didn't accuse you of that. I said the text in your post had an anti-science position or bias.

Your satan reference meant so little to me that I ignored it when making my first post. It was only after you accused me of using "atheist tactics" that I noticed it when reexamining the OP and my response to it.

That's a very odd question. Science is a method for ascertaining the nature of things. It is not a supernatural being.

I don't know who these people are and I have little tolerance for them.

No. The only thing I have taken offense at is the "atheist tactics" nonsense.

No I do not need any "quote mines". I am well aware of what goes on in science. Far more so than you will ascertain from your quote mines.

I am not interested in such responses.

To clarify, I have not posted about your posted material on SETI or ecological repairs, only on exoplanetary science.

No thank you.

I have yet to assess that as I only have this thread to go by.

No, not "all the other athests". What part of it being my personal story did you not notice?

I don't care. (But, hey, at least you weren't accusing me of being a physicalist/materialist/naturalist as if it were a bad thing as some have on this very sub-forum. Don't ask, it's not something I'd like to discuss.)

In this thread, people who think it is burning money to do science, like the source of your OP.

I don't go to any others. And to state one last time, being an atheist had nothing to do with my original post responding to your OP.

Thank you.