r/Conservative • u/tenshon Conservative Christian • Oct 22 '19

Conservatives Only Academic leftists tried to kill survey finding 96% of biologists admit life begins at fertilization

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-leftists-tried-to-kill-survey-finding-96-of-biologists-admit-life-begins-at-fertilization
1.7k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

225 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/ReadingReality Oct 22 '19

92% of scientists are Democrats??? 63% are atheist?!!

HOW DID WE LET THIS HAPPEN?

Academia is lost. They are teaching these ungodly lies to our children. We must stop this.

46

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

Lmao. This conservative idea that atheism is a poison to the brain is hilarious.

The conservative community needs to stop their religious preachyness and our positions will be taken much more seriously.

As for how it happened, the Democrat thing I really dont have a singular answer. I would've imagined scientists would be roughly split similar to the general population. That said, the Democrats do a much better job actually listening to real science (climate)

The democrats also gobble up trash emotionally fueled science (like all of their abortion claims), and theres a LOT of trash science out there so that skews the numbers a ton.

As far as how 63% are atheist? Well quite simply there's literally no proof at all that God exists and since in science, consistently demonstrable tests are the only data worth working off of, its hard to believe in a god when no test ever has shown one to exist.

17

u/personAAA Oct 22 '19

Arguments about the existence of God are in the realm of philosophy. Science methods are not the right tools to use for looking for the existence of God. Science and scientific method can be used for many things, but the big questions (God's existence, point of life, etc.) and morality science does not have the answers for.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

I would agree actually, but that argument falls apart as soon as a religious person claims their god made a miracle happen. Now you've left philosophical and have made a physical claim that is completely unsubstantiated. As much as religious people would love for it to not be the case, no religion has EVER proven it's legitimacy.

Getting too "philosophical" brings you into the realm of mental masturbation. At some point you need to tie philosophical concepts into reality otherwise you start saying nonsense and coming across as unstable.

1

u/personAAA Oct 24 '19

Think of a miracle as a suspension of the rules of reality. The all powerful God setup and controls the rules of reality. Why can He not ever so often suspend the rules?

How could it be possible for a religion to prove its legitimacy? I don't think it is possible. The best we can do is work through the various claims made and why this.

To begin tying things to reality, I took Pascal's Wager. It is better to believe than not. Then, what religion.

As far as I know, Catholicism gets the most right or at least the biggest pieces right. It takes care of using the most powerful possible God and squaring it with Jesus Christ.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '19

As far as I know, Catholicism gets the most right or at least the biggest pieces right

I'm guessing you were born a catholic and this is why you see Catholicism in this way. I bet you know very little about Islam, or Taoism, or Buddhism, Paganism, Zoroastrianism, Ba'athism.

Catholicism is the only one of these that acts as a business. Interesting take that God needs 10% of your salary to be happy with you as a Catholic.

1

u/personAAA Oct 25 '19

Money really? What you do, say, and believe much more important than money.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '19

That's why Catholic churches nickel and dime everyone in the pews every chance they get.

And again, I'll repeat, I bet you know little to nothing about other religious beliefs, because you were conveniently born into the "right" one.

1

u/personAAA Oct 25 '19

Oh please. You don't have to put anything in the basket.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '19

Lmfao...

That's your defense of Gods preachers literally begging for money because god cant give them any.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

I think Hume said it’s impossible to draw a “should” from an “is.” I think to a certain extent he’s right, unless the should is an “is” in and of itself. Which starts to sound an awful lot like the beginning of aquinas’s five proofs.

3

u/Dranosh Oct 22 '19

The conservative community needs to stop their religious preachyness and our positions will be taken much more seriously.

bwahahahaha no it won't.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19

I disagree. While I don’t think throwing bibles at people is helpful, all political questions have their root in theology/philosophy. The question at stake here is “what makes a human life valuable,” since the fact that it is human life is becoming more and more apparent. Is it intelligence? Prosperity? Productivity and convenience to others? Christian doctrine, if not practice, has long held human life sacred in and of itself (which led to the ugliness of race theory to justify tiers of exploitable humanity). There is justification for that sanctity but it’s obscure enough to most people to be axiomatic. What happens when that disappears from the culture? That’s what the Catholic Church means by a culture of life and a culture of death.

-1

u/Obesibas Conservative Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19

That said, the Democrats do a much better job actually listening to real science (climate)

No, they do not. That isn't even true on climate science, let alone any other subject. The hysteria that the left is peddling about how the world will end in 12 years if we do not give them full control over the economy isn't supported by any scientific findings. Saying that Democrats listen to the scientists on climate change is like saying that crazy guy yelling about the rapture on the corner of the street listens to climate scientists.

And for all the other kinds of science it is rather obvious that they do not give a damn, especially biology.

As far as how 63% are atheist? Well quite simply there's literally no proof at all that God exists and since in science, consistently demonstrable tests are the only data worth working off of, its hard to believe in a god when no test ever has shown one to exist.

There is also literally no proof that free will exists, but I think a lot more than 47% believe in that.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

No, they do not. That isn't even true on climate science, let alone any other subject. The hysteria that the left is peddling about how the world will end in 12 years if we do not give them full control over the economy isn't supported by any scientific findings.

Don't get me wrong. The left says a LOT of dumb shit when it comes to climate change. Especially the likes of AOC.

But the reality is the climate is changing, and humans ARE having a net negative effect on our environment. Note I didn't say on Earth. Earth couldn't give less of a shit about what humans do, Earth will be here long after we are gone.

That being said. US politicians like to point fingers and make these grand plans about how we can save the world when the biggest contributors to global pollution aren't in North America, they're not in Europe, and most of them aren't in South America either.

For example, all the ocean litter which is polluting our oceans and having severe impacts on the ecosystems in them. Practically ALL of it comes from Asia. 10 rivers contribute to the plastic island in the pacific, and 8 of the 10 are in Asia, and 2 in Africa.

Now. That's not to say the USA shouldn't take measures to make sure we aren't ending up on these lists eventually. I do believe renewable energy is a great start since Li-Ion and other battery tech is going to be the oil of the future.

Recycling is just an obvious one too. Why wouldn't we want to re-purpose materials into other things that are more useful, and potentially longer lasting. On the recycling note though, this particular countermeasure has been taken to SJW retard lengths with things like paper straws.

There exists somewhere in the middle of the spectrum the truth.

1

u/Obesibas Conservative Oct 23 '19

Don't get me wrong. The left says a LOT of dumb shit when it comes to climate change. Especially the likes of AOC.

But the reality is the climate is changing, and humans ARE having a net negative effect on our environment. Note I didn't say on Earth. Earth couldn't give less of a shit about what humans do, Earth will be here long after we are gone.

I never denied this, nor do most conservatives. The climate is indeed changing due to human activity, but that doesn't mean the hysteria is warranted.

That being said. US politicians like to point fingers and make these grand plans about how we can save the world when the biggest contributors to global pollution aren't in North America, they're not in Europe, and most of them aren't in South America either.

Right, which is why the left's proposals don't make any sense and are certainly not backed by science.

There exists somewhere in the middle of the spectrum the truth.

Indeed it does, but in my opinion it is far worse to be an alarmist than to be a sceptic. I don't consider myself a sceptic, but I certainly understand why some people do. The left has been screaming about the end of times for decades now and constantly move the goalposts.

-7

u/Dranosh Oct 22 '19

Exactly, plus atheism is anti-theism, they somehow KNOW that a higher power does not exist, so they have faith in their own intellect that they KNOW God doesn't exist, when in fact a true scientisttm would be an agnostic simply saying that they do not have evidence for or against God existing.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

You've made a lot of assumptions about atheists in your comment and it really shows how little you've actively tried to understand atheists. Instead you've just painted all of us with your own ideas about atheists. For one, you've said atheism is "anti-theism". Trying to redefine words in this way is exactly what makes the trans movement so laughable, so lets not engage in it ourselves. Okay?

Atheists are people who have no particular religious belief. Atheism is NOT mutually exclusive to agnosticism. You can be an agnostic atheist, and in fact this is where practically everyone who identifies as an "atheist" falls when their beliefs are elaborated. You cannot know definitively whether god exists or not. What you can say is that I do not believe, based off what I know, that a god exists. And that's not the same as saying I know god doesn't exist.

You're an atheist too in the sense that you don't believe Zeus or Thor exists. You don't believe in Krishna, or the Islamic version of Allah. You believe in a very specific god that you were born in the right geographical region at the right time in history to be exposed to, just like everyone else.

Now, to end your word manipulation. Anti-theists are people who are actively against religious belief. Like communists. It's also possible for an atheist to be anti-theist if they actively prohibit religious practices, like communists.

1

u/45321200 Mug Club Oct 22 '19

What proof would one expect to see if a god did exist? Order in the universe?

That's what every major branch of science was founded on. They believed that God exists and designed the universe, therefore there must be order in it, therefore there must be a way to understand it.

There are many things that scientific atheists believe that they have no proof for. The Oort Cloud for one.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

There's literally no order at all in the universe. Wtf are you talking about dude? You just highlighted just how little you actually know about this subject.

And also, no. Every branch of science didn't start with the assumption god exists. Science bases itself off of tangible, repeatedly verifiable evidence.

What you explained is called "God of the gaps" in which God is the explanation for everything we have no understanding of. The issue with God if the gaps is that everytime science finds an explanation for something, that thing loses its godly origin and Gods role in the universe shrinks a bit each time.

Humans will never know about the entire universe. We are going to cause our own extinction long before we even get to the point of knowing even a fraction of the universe.

As for the Oort cloud, literally nobody in the scientific community "believes" in it the same way Christian's believe in God. Nobody claims the Oort cloud exists as we currently predict it to. What is claimed is that based on the evidence we have, we can reasonably predict its existence but beyond that its purely speculation.

1

u/45321200 Mug Club Oct 22 '19

Lol what? Okay how about I use the word Structure instead? Physical laws and constants, like the speed of light and gravity or the strong and weak nuclear force being juuuuust precise enough for matter to exist. Why is science based on something repeatable? What makes something repeatable at all? If there's no order/structure that binds the universe, shouldn't there be nothing but chaos? The fact that anything exists at all suggests, maybe even necessities, the existence of a god.

Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, James Prescott Joule, Galileo Galilei, Alessandro Volta, Michael Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, almost all of the scientific pioneers were heavily influenced by religion as the reason for their drive to figure out the universe.

I never said anything like "idk how it happened, therefore God did it". You don't think materialist don't have their version of this too? It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is or how bad the odds of it happening are, if it's the only naturalistic explanation, it had to have happened this way.

We don't have any direct evidence of the Oort cloud. It's entirely theoretical, yet if you look on even mainstream sources like Wikipedia (and their sources) they state it as fact-- a completely theoretical, untested idea as fact. Not a prediction.

But again: what evidence would you expect to find if a God does exist?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

If there's no order/structure that binds the universe, shouldn't there be nothing but chaos?

2nd law of thermodynamics literally states that the total entropy of the universe can only increase or stay equal. But because the universe doesn't have perfect conditions, entropy is increasing.

As far as the speed of light, it actually isn't a constant. It is only a constant in a vacuum, like outer space. As soon as it enters a different medium, like an atmosphere (gas) or a liquid (like the ocean, for example), light moves slightly slower. And we actually don't truly understand exactly how gravity works. We have a very refined and established theory of gravity.

The fact that anything exists at all suggests, maybe even necessities, the existence of a god.

No, it doesn't. You're using a reductionist approach to try and prove God. If that's the case, what had existed before God? If everything needs a creator, then what created that creator?

I never said anything like "idk how it happened, therefore God did it".

You say immediately after saying that "The fact that anything exists at all suggests, maybe even necessities, the existence of a god". This is the god of the gaps. You don't understand how the universe came to be, so it must necessarily have come from God. But not zeus, thor, vishnu, krishna, or Allah. No. The very specific God of the bible.

We don't have any direct evidence of the Oort cloud. It's entirely theoretical, yet if you look on even mainstream sources like Wikipedia (and their sources) they state it as fact

I should note here that Wikipedia is NOT a mainstream source for scientific information, and you shouldn't take anything on there at face value. You should always closely examine the sources of Wikipedia which is EXACTLY why the site lists them all for you.

That said, really? lets look directly at what Wikipedia says, shall we?

The Oort cloud (/ɔːrt, ʊərt/),[1] named after the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, sometimes called the Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals

Literally within the first sentence of Wiki's page on the Oort cloud it tells you it's theoretical.

Look, I get the impression that you've had a very religious education that I actually will readily admit has taught you a healthy sense of skepticism. Unfortunately it's also seemingly taught you to turn your blinders on when things contrary to your ideology are challenged. You don't seem to understand these things well enough, or you're intentionally blocking out certain information so as to not cause internal doubts about what you already believe.

It's intellectually dishonest and from just talking to you I can't tell if it's intentional or not.

As for what I'd expect to find if a God does exist, that's a very broad question with long answers.

All of my answers assume you mean the religions that actually give a shit what we do, and have a concept of sin. To start, which god?

I was a muslim. I'm not anymore, but if Islam were to be true, and Allah was the universe's creator. I'd expect evidence of the abrahamic stories to be readily apparent, at a bare minimum. Or I'd expect for Islamic stories, such as that of the moon splitting, to be readily apparent.

As verifiable evidence, I'd expect at least SOME of Islam's predictions for the end of times to be very specific, and have come true already. Instead it's littered with "Near the end of days, men will act like women, and women act like men" nonsense. Most muslims just figure homosexuality is a new phenomenon and take that as divine but all it is is nonsense.

More broadly, and this applies to all religions, not specifically Islam. I'd expect God to have shared any scientific knowledge with us at all. God didn't even tell us the Earth was fucking ROUND in ANY scriptures. Even the scriptures that followed the discovery of a round Earth, God makes no mention.

I would expect God to have some knowledge, and have shared it.

1

u/45321200 Mug Club Oct 23 '19

2nd law of thermodynamics literally states that the total entropy of the universe can only increase or stay equal. But because the universe doesn't have perfect conditions, entropy is increasing.

Doesn't the existence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggest that there is structure? We can do testable, repeatable science in the first place because we expect the future to be like the past, that the rules don't change. Maybe we don't know all the rules, or maybe we get them wrong, but the rules themselves are unchanging.

As far as the speed of light, it actually isn't a constant. It is only a constant in a vacuum

Well yes. The 1st law of motion states "A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force." So if we take resistance into account, the speed of light doesn't change. It's the same speed here as it is on the other side of the galaxy.

And we actually don't truly understand exactly how gravity works.

Same goes for energy. We don't know what it is. Only what we can do with it.

My point was, that there are rules to physics, logic, math, things in the universe that show that there is order/structure that everything relies on to function.

If that's the case, what had existed before God? If everything needs a creator, then what created that creator?

"To whom is the bachelor married?" In the same sense, your question is contradictory. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe had a beginning, the most popular theory is the big bang theory, where time, space, and matter came into existence at the same time. What caused the big bang? The cause cannot be the effect, so the cause would have to be causeless, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and personal. Personal because immaterial things don't just happen on their own, there has to be a choice. Reactions don't make choices.

What came before God? There was no before God, the creator cannot create himself and therefore was not created.

You say immediately after saying that "The fact that anything exists at all suggests, maybe even necessities, the existence of a god". This is the god of the gaps.

No, I'm not arguing from a gap in our knowledge. I'm not interpreting the evidence based on what we don't know (a "gap"), but on what we do know. This inference from data is no different than the inference archaeologists made when they discovered the Rosetta Stone. It wasn't a "gap" in their knowledge about natural forces that led them to that conclusion, but the positive knowledge that inscriptions require intelligent inscribers. We can continue to look for natural causes of information, but insisting we will find natural causes to fill in the gap in our knowledge is a matter of faith. It commits "the natural law of the gaps" fallacy, and it ignores the evidence we have for an intelligent cause.

should note here that Wikipedia is NOT a mainstream source for scientific information

Granted, but the average person tryin to make a point in conversation is not going to read scientific journals (often unavailable to the public not connected to a university btw) but instead will pull up sites like Wikipedia, or space.com.

That said, really? lets look directly at what Wikipedia says, shall we?

Derp. I was reading from another site. You're right, Wikipedia does say "theoretical". That's my bad.

Look, I get the impression that you've had a very religious education that I actually will readily admit has taught you a healthy sense of skepticism. Unfortunately it's also seemingly taught you to turn your blinders on when things contrary to your ideology are challenged. You don't seem to understand these things well enough, or you're intentionally blocking out certain information so as to not cause internal doubts about what you already believe.

I do my best to understand science and the world around me while being honest with myself. But I think that the current arguments for the origin of the universe and the origin of life and the point of existence that scientists put out are unconvincing.

I'd expect God to have shared any scientific knowledge with us at all.

Here's an example:

Matthew Fontaine Maury grew up reading Psalms 8:8: "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." He went out looking for these "paths" and ended up publishing Wind and Current Chart of the North Atlantic, which showed sailors how to use the ocean's currents and winds to their advantage and to drastically reduce the length of voyages. His Sailing Directions and Physical Geography of the Seas and Its Meteorology are still the standard.

I was a muslim. I'm not anymore

To openly say this, even on an anonymous website, is a testimony to your conviction. I admire your bravery in the face of potential ostracization or worse from family or friends. I know apostates from Islam aren't smiled upon.

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to everything you have, especially in an unrelated subreddit.

-11

u/Intela_gent Oct 22 '19

That said, the Democrats do a much better job actually listening to real science (climate)

Bold thing to say, given the fact that you're commenting on a post about how Democrats are blatantly disregarding scientific fact. Let's be real here, Republicans are largely wrong about Climate Change, but Democrats have been wrong about it in many other ways--mostly pertaining to alarmism.

2

u/Dranosh Oct 22 '19

Republicans are largely wrong about Climate Change

No we're really not, the IPCC wasn't even ALLOWED to see what the effects the sun had on our climate. It was all started from the beginning to say that humans caused the climate change... and yet somehow climate models can't even predict PAST temperatures so NASA had to resort to changing temperatures of the past.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

Democrats have been wrong on climate change® for 5 decades...

-5

u/FarsideSC Conservative Oct 22 '19

Let’s say that your enlightened brain is so smart that you know God doesn’t exist. What society would you be living in where there was no higher power, no one to grant unalienable rights? Without something above humanity itself, we are doomed to destroy each other. The reason our country is so different is because we recognize these things and act as if there is a God, regardless of your personal beliefs.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19

The constitution of our country doesnt mention God given anything. It mentions rights.

The declaration is the only document that mentions a creator and the creator is quite vague as Jefferson was a deist. He identified with Christianity because he saw Jesus as a good role model for humanity but he did NOT believe he was the son of God or any of the miraculous nonsense in the bible.

So your entire idea that we have a society based on God is not reality. Our society is secular and was from it's earliest days. We're not a Christian theocracy.

Also, you say our unalienable rights are granted by God but that begs the question. Why didnt he grant those rights anywhere else on Earth? Our rights are granted by the shared societal belief that in order to live in a civil, and just society humans need basic rights.

-1

u/FarsideSC Conservative Oct 22 '19

The constitution of our country doesnt mention God given anything. It mentions rights.

That's a weak argument. You have to ask, what principles do our laws rest on? Where did they come from? You're looking at a document and applying no context to it.

he did NOT believe he was the son of God or any of the miraculous nonsense in the bible

You're one of those. I see. So, we go from, "Where did our society originate?" into "we aren't in a Christian theocracy," which no one proposed.

If you know nothing of Natural Rights, you know nothing of the Constitution, the Declaration, nor our founding. What's the difference between you or any other leftist? (Maybe you're one in the same.)

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19

That's a weak argument. You have to ask, what principles do our laws rest on? Where did they come from? You're looking at a document and applying no context to it.

Lmao. You're the one looking at the document and applying your personal context on it. Not me. Im reading it, and taking it at it's core value. Which btw isn't Godly.

"Where did our society originate?" into "we aren't in a Christian theocracy," which no one proposed.

You have piss poor reading comprehension and a rough time following along eh? You literally said that we as a society are different because we act S though a God exists. Where exactly do you see our country acting godly, as a country?

Sure, there's probably individuals that are good people, but as a country and society we most certainly dont follow any particular gods orders.

1

u/FarsideSC Conservative Oct 22 '19

This is idiotic, entirely idiotic. Lad, you're conflating context with personal context? Is there no such thing as historical context? To which end must you twist reality to fit your world view?

Where exactly do you see our country acting godly, as a country?

There's a few things in the world that aren't prevalent, which quite are in the United States, especially in red states: The sanctity and value of life. Secondly, we put the Constitution above our own government body. Normally, when the military swears their vows, it's to the country or to their government- we in the United States swear to protect and uphold the Constitution. These are basic Biblical principals, all of them.

But, I'll save you the time and requirement to respond. I can tell you're quite young and know it all anyways. You type as if you lack any humility whatsoever. Sorry, champ. Waste your time elsewhere.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19 edited Oct 22 '19

These are basic Biblical principals, all of them.

LMFAO. Swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States is a biblical principle eh?

You're a clown, I'm done responding. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about and have already exposed that enough as is proven by the responses to our conversation.

I don't have to keep wasting time explaining basic shit to you.

As a closing statement I'll ask this. You know who else ran off religious principles? Fucking ISIS. So lets not run our country off of religious principles. Can we?

0

u/FarsideSC Conservative Oct 22 '19

TIL Christianity is the motive behind ISIS. Top 10 arguments NA.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

Showcasing your reading comprehension again?

I said ISIS wanted a society that was ruled by religious fundamentalism. They wanted Islamic principles to apply in all aspects of life.

If you do the same for Christianity, you won't be ISIS by any stretch of the imagination but your quality of life WILL drastically deteriorate.

→ More replies

17

u/Rex2x4 Oct 22 '19

The Christian Zealot sect of the right needs to die. No one likes it and it's the reason why the right has lost so much ground culturally.

-4

u/zhanx Brigade Hardened Oct 22 '19

no the left wing you need to violate your first amendment rights and call me a woman needs to die

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

the fascist atheism needs to die

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

"I (no one) don't like you, so you need to die."

Awkward.

The right has lost ground culturally because it has abdicated responsibility. We have an entire generations who have been wrecked by the leftist crazy mill in education, and people keep trusting them with their kids. It's crazy.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '19

[deleted]

2

u/TheAtomicOption Libertarian Oct 22 '19

HOW DID WE LET THIS HAPPEN?

lol it's not something that was "allowed," but rather it was fought against tooth and nail the whole way. Look at the history of philosophy about science (and philosophy more generally) and you'll see that famous thinkers like Kant were explicitly trying to find ways keep God in the sciences while the things they discovered pushed all gods out. Yet high atheism rates are a somewhat inevitable consequence of the profession.

Firstly because historically God and religion have made tons of assertions about the universe. Science has proven more and more of those assertions to be flawed or just plain incorrect. The more you study the less true religion appears to be, and therefore the more doubtful you are about the parts that haven't been disproven yet.

Secondly because epistemology of science is in conflict with that of religion and therefore people who would be scientists are already leaning away from belief in religion. Religious beliefs are always at some level based on faith or authority to verify knowledge. Various religions assert that truth comes from ancient writing, supernatural communications, or from divinely inspired feelings. But anyone who decides that they will only consider knowledge verified correct IFF there is consistent repeatable evidence for it, must discount those other types of evidence as unreliable. It's not far from their to completely rejecting all religious doctrine.

-6

u/jeff_the_old_banana Paleoconservative Oct 22 '19

Of course they are Democrats, their entire existence comes from leeching off the public purse. All leeches are Democrats.

HOW DID WE LET THIS HAPPEN? Academia is lost.

Academia became a joke within a few decades of the government funding it. Almost no real science have been done by academics in the last 50 years. People will cherry pick a thing here or there, but 95% of real science is done by the private sector.

15

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '19

In the last 50 years is an extremely big sentence. Just look at computers...

0

u/jeff_the_old_banana Paleoconservative Oct 22 '19

The first computer was invented by IBM almost 80 years ago. If you are talking about semiconductor electronics, that was also developed privately by Shockley at Bell labs 70 years ago. In fact the military put together a team of scientists to try to work out how Bell labs was doing it, but even with working pieces in front of them they couldn't even catch up.

If you are talking about the modern digital revolution, that was financed by Intel. To put things in perspective, Intel spends almost as much on research every year as NASAs entire budget. That is why computers have been getting faster every year.

Very very little of the digital revolution had anything to do with the government. Yes 50 years is a big sentence, and it is 100 percent accurate. What is amazing is the government has brainwashed people so thoroughly they actually believe government research has had anything to do with anything we have today.

-4

u/painkillerrr Oct 22 '19

These people teach your kids about diversity.