Would you vote for an atheist president?

Originally posted by twhitehead
None of which had anything to do with her being a woman...

yes it did no male would of got away with it, and tho we never learn the next lot went back to being male

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
In what cases do we use science that has been proven wrong? There are cases where we are less sure than others, but I can't think of a case where science has been absolutely proven wrong, yet we still use it.

It is a shell game, if for example some part of evolutionary thought
was wrong, evolution is still useful in that it directs us towards ends
we get something out of. Can we say that 'science' was wrong even
under those conditions? Not really, since science never says anything,
but we 'people' do and we make assertions based on science. Besides
I was simply responding to AThousandYoung post here, I was more
than likely in error saying science was wrong here instead of scientists.
Kelly


Originally posted by AThousandYoung
“Depends what you mean by "wrong". Newton was "wrong"; that doesn't mean we didn't use his equations to get to the moon successfully!”

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
In what cases do we use science that has been proven wrong? There are cases where we are less sure than others, but I can't think of a case where science has been absolutely proven wrong, yet we still use it.

As Kelly has said, we used Newtons theories of motion and gravity to land on the moon in the 60s and 70s even though those theories had been shown to be wrong by Einstein over half a century earlier.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
As Kelly has said, we used Newtons theories of motion and gravity to land on the moon in the 60s and 70s even though those theories had been shown to be wrong by Einstein over half a century earlier.

--- Penguin.

The fact is, they haven't been proven wrong. They have been shown to only be accurate to within certain limits.

The fact that we can actually use them to go to the moon and back without very bad things happening shows that they are accurate enough to a very large degree.

Einstein's theory doesn't prove Newton's to be wrong, just only applicable in certain cases.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
The fact is, they haven't been proven wrong. They have been shown to only be accurate to within certain limits.

The fact that we can actually use them to go to the moon and back without very bad things happening shows that they are accurate enough to a very large degree.

Einstein's theory doesn't prove Newton's to be wrong, just only applicable in certain cases.

That's not true. They have been shown to be useful approximations within certain limits. Newton's equations ALWAYS have some error, even if it's very small.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That's not true. They have been shown to be useful approximations within certain limits. Newton's equations ALWAYS have some error, even if it's very small.

Yes, Newton's equations always have some error - but the error is negligible within a given range, when things get beyond a given scope then they become unusable.

Newton's theories were proven to not be accurate, yes, but I guess I'm seeing wrong as essentially being unusable or having no validity at all - newton's laws are valid to use as long as you're not going to a given accuracy.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I finally said, "Well I could never vote for a black because they all shiftless."

True colors?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Scientific consensus ever wrong, does it ever reach dogma?
Kelly

Of course it is wrong and reaches dogmatic standards...maggots come from meat you know.

Originally posted by Red Night
True colors?

I'm growing weary of your BS. Anyone with the slightest insight would have read my post and seen that I was making a point by being facetious. Yet you continue to stalk my posts in various threads and make insinuations about racism and the KKK where absolutely none exists.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
... but I guess I'm seeing wrong as essentially being unusable or having no validity at all ...

So your initial question - whether or not we use wrong science - is essentially meaningless.

Newtons Laws, if taken to be and accurate model of our universe, are wrong. Einsteins theories may be too. For example if you make the claim that a body will always move according to Newtons Laws of motion then you would be wrong.

However, if we take them to be an approximate model then they are perfectly OK and usable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So your initial question - whether or not we use wrong science - is essentially meaningless.

Newtons Laws, if taken to be and accurate model of our universe, are wrong. Einsteins theories may be too. For example if you make the claim that a body will always move according to Newtons Laws of motion then you would be wrong.

However, if we take them to be an approximate model then they are perfectly OK and usable.

My thought was just that they were suggesting that we were using science that was completely invalid.

I agree with everything you said about Newton's laws.

Originally posted by whodey
The question should be asked, would you vote for an atheist president? What would concern you about such a President? Would you be worried that his morals might be askew with the notion that there is not a higher authority to answer to so long as no one ever discovers what his vices are? Would you worry that they would have blatant disregard for those of v ...[text shortened]... he majority believes in God then should they not elect someone who identifies with such beliefs?

I actually find the fact you associate religion with morals scary. You can be a good person with good values without being religiouos!!

I actually find people who don't follow one particular religion or believe in a higher authority more tolerant. They take responsibility for their own lives and actions rather than having a fall back of blaming it on God's will. They question more and aren't so judgemental, have more open minds. They don't believe they are superior cos they are worshipping the "right" god and everyone else is wrong.
They don't act just because they were told to and have blind "faith" that it is right, they make reasoned judgements that they have to be able to live with. SOme of the worst atrocities in history have been committed inthe name of religion!! Science evolces as we learn more about the world around us religion just becomes more dogmatic and constrictive.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what does that say about all the people who voted for him in the last election? Are they also not very intelligent? Or do they not see intelligence as important for presidency? Or is it a flaw in the US political system (eg the other candidate was worse.)

Oh so he didn't rig the vote and make 1000s of people illegible to vote??

Originally posted by Lirael
I actually find the fact you associate religion with morals scary. You can be a good person with good values without being religiouos!!

I actually find people who don't follow one particular religion or believe in a higher authority more tolerant. They take responsibility for their own lives and actions rather than having a fall back of blaming it on God's ...[text shortened]... rn more about the world around us religion just becomes more dogmatic and constrictive.

Actually I never said that if one is not religious that they then have no moral fiber, rather, I merely was posing the question. In part I agree with you, however, the people that think they are right about everything are the intolerant ones regardless of you religious persuasion or lack thereof. I think a bit of humility is in order to be tolerant of others.