sinewav wrote:You regularly go to the grocery store and get food to sustain yourself. One day you go the the store and see they stopped selling food and became a gun shop. When you ask the owner why they turned the grocery store into a gun shop, he says "I just felt like guns were more important. Don't worry, there are a few little shops down the street that sell groceries." So you go to these other shops only to find that they have a very poor selection, in fact, none of them even sell fruit and vegetables[, just] meat. So the only way you can get nutritious food it to drive to a far away town, and even then there are serious food shortages.
Making that little edit, that paragraph pretty much describes your experience moving to Texas, doesn't it?
And you're right on. I completely neglected to address the privatisation aspect.
Nelhybel wrote:When people use science to present arguments that science intellectuals don't agree with (eg: pertaining to creationism / evolution, whether global warming is man caused or not, etc.), those intellectuals tend to resort to attacks on Christianity, conservative culture, etc.
Bullshit alert. There are no valid scientific "arguments" for creationism or against climate change (and by "arguments," I mean empirical evidence, because, after all, science deals with evidence, not philosophical arguments—the best argument doesn't "win;" the best evidence does). Any claim that is made against evolution or climate change can be, has been, and continues to be evaluated on the basis of the evidence
, not cultural criticism or "attacks." So, fail there.
That said, the source of the arguments for creationism, and against evolution and climate change (for a firmament, I suppose) is
all but exclusively activist, political (as opposed to personal, where it belongs) conservative Christianity. Therefore, once the "argument" has been assessed scientifically and dismissed, it only follows that where one would critique these beliefs and their incessant, belligerent use in attacking science and science education, of course that movement will be the subject of that critique. They're the source of it. Like, duh.
I can't even respond to the rest of that post. Really just too much embedded absurdity and ignorance to untangle. You clearly don't even understand what science is, what it covers, or how it works.
Word wrote:I think atheists are angry about the things [the Pope] didn't say.
Science shouldn't be anti-religious
Science itself, by its very nature, is neither anti- nor pro-religious. That's like saying "mathematics shouldn't be anti-religious." Well, I suppose if you're someone who sees science as undermining your religious superstitions you may well think of it as "anti-religious" (hence so much irrational, vitriolic backlash) but that's another gross misunderstanding of the nature of science (hence the ignorance inherent to, underlying, and producing said backlash).