Creationists Demand Equal Airtime Over Cosmos Content

[Disposed]

OK, well in spite of what the bible says, you say, and your so-called common sense I'm going to rely on literal, human history.

As far as who seems to be delusional...I'm the one citing actual history and you're the one citing the bible. So you're going to have to ask yourself where that puts each of us on the continuum of delusion.

Speaking of delusion... you're not citing history you're talking out your ass.

According to the bible and history he's right. Just about every war in history spawned from religion. Most religious literature portrays women as barely more than slaves (Christianity included).

Have you actually read the bible?

 

[mope54]

Speaking of delusion... you're not citing history you're talking out your ass.

According to the bible and history he's right. Just about every war in history spawned from religion. Most religious literature portrays women as barely more than slaves (Christianity included).

Have you actually read the bible?

Yes, I have read the bible.

I never said that the things he listed didn't occur. Try reading someone's post for what is written rather than with your lil axe to grind.

I wrote that the same justifications for those kinds of things have *also* been used in the other direction.

While the bible has been used to start wars it has also been used to justify peace.
Some prominent abolitionists were Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, and Charles Finney. If you knew half of what you think you know on this topic you'd actually already know who these men are.

The early abolitionist movements were started by Quakers, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian denominations. The Roman Catholic popes were outspoken against slavery from the beginning of the 1700's.

The women's suffrage movement in this country was *started* by Christian women. The first mass women's movement was Christian based.

It's amazing how ignorant some of you are on the history of Christianity yet would presume to question anyone else on their knowledge of it. You don't even know our own country's history. It's appalling and pathetic, really.

 

[QwertyJuan]

Speaking of delusion... you're not citing history you're talking out your ass.

According to the bible and history he's right. Just about every war in history spawned from religion. Most religious literature portrays women as barely more than slaves (Christianity included).

Have you actually read the bible?

You have never read Ephesians 5:25 have you? In the "OLD" Testament what you say might have been true concerning husband/wife relationships... after Jesus? Not so much.

If Jesus can say to love your NEIGHBOUR as yourself, you think he would be happy with treating their wife any less than that? I think not.

 

[JaiWebb]

You have never read Ephesians 5:25 have you? In the "OLD" Testament what you say might have been true concerning husband/wife relationships... after Jesus? Not so much.

If Jesus can say to love your NEIGHBOUR as yourself, you think he would be happy with treating their wife any less than that? I think not.

Ephesians 5:23-24


lol

 

[SRTie4k]

Speaking of delusion... you're not citing history you're talking out your ass.

According to the bible and history he's right. Just about every war in history spawned from religion. Most religious literature portrays women as barely more than slaves (Christianity included).

Have you actually read the bible?

That's a complete load of BS, perpetuated by people looking to move the blame from our own instincts as humans and place it on some abstract concept instead. Claiming that an intangible construct of man is the primary reason for all the suffering in the world is such an ignorant and short sighted conclusion, it's hard to argue without thinking you'll completely miss the point of the counter.

If we completely eradicated religion tomorrow, mankind would continue to kill each other under the banner of some other concept. In fact, politics seem to be the popular flag to fly into battle these days.

Look at the causes behind every major genocide that has occurred in the world, and you're going to find that the primary motivators behind every one of them had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion in those cases were completely secondary to the build up to those atrocities (and really only applied in the Armenian genocide). And ironically, one of them, the Cambodian genocide, was a genocide perpetrated against religion from a fanatically atheistic regime.

Blaming religion for as the primary cause of war is just plain ignorant. It doesn't take a psychologist or a sociologist to see that the primary cause of conflict in our world is us ourselves, regardless of what justification we may have.

 

[JaiWebb]

That's a complete load of BS, perpetuated by people looking to move the blame from our own instincts as humans and place it on some abstract concept instead. Claiming that an intangible construct of man is the primary reason for all the suffering in the world is such an ignorant and short sighted conclusion, it's hard to argue without thinking you'll completely miss the point of the counter.

If we completely eradicated religion tomorrow, mankind would continue to kill each other under the banner of some other concept. In fact, politics seem to be the popular flag to fly into battle these days.

Look at the causes behind every major genocide that has occurred in the world, and you're going to find that the primary motivators behind every one of them had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion in those cases were completely secondary to the build up to those atrocities (and really only applied in the Armenian genocide). And ironically, one of them, the Cambodian genocide, was a genocide perpetrated against religion from a fanatically atheistic regime.

Blaming religion for as the primary cause of war is just plain ignorant. It doesn't take a psychologist or a sociologist to see that the primary cause of conflict in our world is us ourselves, regardless of what justification we may have.

The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages through to the end of the Late Middle Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

And today.

Last time I checked religious leaders use their flock to improve their own political power around the world. Religion and politics go hand in hand with controlling the peasants. So if you took away all religions today (like has been done with older religions before) someone would make a new one tomorrow, and then proceed to use it for their own benefit.

Humans have been making human sacrifices to the sun (thinking it was god) before we can even date it. When a certain group goes to slaughter another group, I'd call that war. It's all the same.

 

[JaiWebb]

EDIT: Humans have been making human sacrifices to the sun (thinking it was some god) before we can even date it. When a certain group goes to slaughter another group for their personal beliefs, I'd call that war over religion. It's all the same though, for power and control, using any means necessary.

 

[SRTie4k]

As I said, it doesn't take religion for people to kill other people, whether in small skirmishes or in massive wars. Eradicating religion from the face of the Earth is not going to solve that problem - both the Khmer Rouge and the Soviet Union tried to do that, and look what the result was...millions dead. Ironic, really.

 

[JaiWebb]

As I said, it doesn't take religion for people to kill other people, whether in small skirmishes or in massive wars. Eradicating religion from the face of the Earth is not going to solve that problem - both the Khmer Rouge and the Soviet Union tried to do that, and look what the result was...millions dead. Ironic, really.

It doesn't take religion but it sure as hell makes it a lot easier as history proves. You can get common men to die for what they believe in a lot faster than you can get non-religious well educated people to do the same. It may just be a vehicle to get the job done but it has benefited those that have ever led, the world.

Eradicating all religions today (impossible) from the face of the Earth would only create newer religions to replace them tomorrow. It's been done before with only some religions and it'll happen again with some religions. Christianity is going to lose its status as the biggest religion in only a short time from now. There will be only two options once it does. War over it or get dominated by the other side. I'd claim that someone will be warring over religion, again, myself excluded.

I don't believe it's purely coincidental that all the countries our mostly Christian nation (The US) has bombed one way or another recently all being Islamic areas. To me, it's warring over religious powers right now this very day. However none of the people on top actually believe in their religions, they just use it as a vehicle to motivate stupid people to do their bidding for them.

Give a man a proper education and he'll question everything, prevent a man from a proper education and he'll believe everything he's told is true.

You may be right that humans don't necessarily need religion to fight with one another however you're dead wrong that they don't use it as the biggest way (currently) to fight with one another.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

As I said, it doesn't take religion for people to kill other people, whether in small skirmishes or in massive wars. Eradicating religion from the face of the Earth is not going to solve that problem - both the Khmer Rouge and the Soviet Union tried to do that, and look what the result was...millions dead. Ironic, really.

Replacing religion with a state cult of personality is just a variation on the same concept. It's the exact same thing.

To quote an earlier statement in the thread:

...the great thing about faith is that I get to choose what I believe.

Is it reasonable? Is it rational?
Of course not. That's the point.

And as I said, that's a serious problem. Magical thinking allows people to justify any human impulse. Science does not. Science proves that our innate racism and dislike of outsiders is wrong, it allows us to objectively compare the morality of ideas and actions, and it forces us to question ourselves. You don't see scientists burning people at the stake.

Science replaces blind faith in some sort of authority with testing ideas against observations. It's only been a few hundred years since the enlightenment began, and in that time we've practically eliminated slavery worldwide, made great strides towards equality in terms of both gender and race, and we've reduced warfare and the rate of violent deaths to the lowest levels in human history. At the same time we've doubled our lifespan and dramatically improved our quality of life. We learned how to cure disease. We learned how to fly. We built tools that allow us to see to the edge of the visible universe. It's gradually replacing religion because it actually works, and I think it's undeniable that the world would be a better place if we all used the scientific process of testing ideas against reality rather than magical thinking.

 

[SRTie4k]

It doesn't take religion but it sure as hell makes it a lot easier as history proves. You can get common men to die for what they believe in a lot faster than you can get non-religious well educated people to do the same. It may just be a vehicle to get the job done but it has benefited those that have ever led, the world.

Eradicating all religions today (impossible) from the face of the Earth would only create newer religions to replace them tomorrow. It's been done before with only some religions and it'll happen again with some religions. Christianity is going to lose its status as the biggest religion in only a short time from now. There will be only two options once it does. War over it or get dominated by the other side. I'd claim that someone will be warring over religion, again, myself excluded.

I don't believe it's purely coincidental that all the countries our mostly Christian nation (The US) has bombed one way or another recently all being Islamic areas. To me, it's warring over religious powers right now this very day. However none of the people on top actually believe in their religions, they just use it as a vehicle to motivate stupid people to do their bidding for them.

Give a man a proper education and he'll question everything, prevent a man from a proper education and he'll believe everything he's told is true.

You may be right that humans don't necessarily need religion to fight with one another however you're dead wrong that they don't use it as the biggest way (currently) to fight with one another.

You're using a very small bubble of modern day war as a catch-all. Iraq and Afghanistan are infinitesimally small compared to the amount of murder that occurs every day the world over. Other fighting in the world that may include Islamic fighters aren't necessarily entirely religious-centric. You're also making a huge assumption that people join the military in the US because they want to fight a holy war, which is also laughable. The massive wave of people into the military after the 9/11 attacks was not because "they were doing their Christian duty", it's because they were pissed off that our country was attacked. If anything, OEF and OIF was motivated by national pride, not religious pride.

There is absolutely no science behind the primary motivations for killing throughout the world in any given period of time. Another irony, really, considering the topic of this thread. In the meantime, you can continue to claim that religion kills more people in the world without scientific merit all you like. It's still unsubstantiated anecdote.

 

[SRTie4k]

Replacing religion with a state cult of personality is just a variation on the same concept. It's the exact same thing.

To quote an earlier statement in the thread:



And as I said, that's a serious problem. Magical thinking allows people to justify any human impulse. Science does not. Science proves that our innate racism and dislike of outsiders is wrong, it allows us to objectively compare the morality of ideas and actions, and it forces us to question ourselves. You don't see scientists burning people at the stake.

Science replaces blind faith in some sort of authority with testing ideas against observations. It's only been a few hundred years since the enlightenment began, and in that time we've practically eliminated slavery worldwide, made great strides towards equality in terms of both gender and race, and we've reduced warfare and the rate of violent deaths to the lowest levels in human history. At the same time we've doubled our lifespan and dramatically improved our quality of life. We learned how to cure disease. We learned how to fly. We built tools that allow us to see to the edge of the visible universe. It's gradually replacing religion because it actually works, and I think it's undeniable that the world would be a better place if we all used the scientific process of testing ideas against reality rather than magical thinking.

An entirely scientific authority would probably be as oppressive as an entirely religious authority.

Let's also not forget that science is the biggest tool we've used to perfect killing, maiming or "curing" people. Pure science does not always take into account the idea of morality, which is why operations like Unit 731 existed, or why thousands of psychiatric patients back in the 70's received treatments like an ice-pick through their eye sockets, or why millions were killed by the insecticide Zyclon-A that was modified to remove the odor during the Holocaust, or why a process that synthesized nitrogen for farming was later modified by it's creator to gas tens of thousands of troops in WWI.

Science alone is not an authority, and never should be. If we look at the world through a factual lense all the time, it leads to moral black and white decisions when the world is actually a shade of grey.

 

[JaiWebb]

You're using a very small bubble of modern day war as a catch-all. Iraq and Afghanistan are infinitesimally small compared to the amount of murder that occurs every day the world over. Other fighting in the world that may include Islamic fighters aren't necessarily entirely religious-centric. You're also making a huge assumption that people join the military in the US because they want to fight a holy war, which is also laughable.

What is laughable is that you think it matters why regular people join the military, as they don't give orders, last time I checked, they follow orders. I guess it's purely coincidental most (90% ore more) of our soldiers ever killed are buried with the Christian cross. And the last time I checked we the people were lied to about what actually happened that day...lol. Purely coincidence though...lol.

They're soldiers and led by people with the most money. Rich religious people that pay lobbyists to do their bidding for them. Tax exemption status allows a religious organization to acquire quite a bit of wealth, in reality.

The massive wave of people into the military after the 9/11 attacks was not because "they were doing their Christian duty", it's because they were pissed off that our country was attacked. If anything, OEF and OIF was motivated by national pride, not religious pride.

Because we were attacked by 'Islamic extremists'....from Saudi Arabia. A country we never warred with, and buy oil from? However we attacked up to five Islamic countries because of, ummm, war on terrorism. I mean, on Muslims. Our current competition, globally.

There is absolutely no science behind the primary motivations for killing throughout the world in any given period of time. Another irony, really, considering the topic of this thread. In the meantime, you can continue to claim that religion kills more people in the world without scientific merit all you like. It's still unsubstantiated anecdote.

I'm 100% sure history and reality disagrees with your personal view on the matter.

 

[Modred189]

Yea, we don't want a scientific authority. Science, for better or worse, lacks morals for the most part. Yes, there are ethics in science, but they are imposed from outside sources. They don't originate within science.

For example, under a scientific regime, we might finally take responsibility for our own gene pool. While it is something I believe we eventually must do, it's not something that would be pretty without ethical and moral considerations to temper it. How does one weed out certain deleterious conditions from the human gene pool in an ethical and moral way? Science would simply say, "stop their procreation," independent of the individualized effects.We need the counterbalance that morality, which stems mainly from religious traditions, provides.

 

[JaiWebb]

An entirely scientific authority would probably be as oppressive as an entirely religious authority.

Let's also not forget that science is the biggest tool we've used to perfect killing, /QUOTE]

Which religious views started. Didn't Kane kill his own brother Abel over being jealous of his own god? And all while religion has perfected burning witches and stoning adulterers and preaching how the world is always going to end, someday!

I've never even seen a witch IRL...lol.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

An entirely scientific authority would probably be as oppressive as an entirely religious authority.

Let's also not forget that science is the biggest tool we've used to perfect killing, /QUOTE]

Which religious views started. Didn't Kane kill his own brother Abel over being jealous of his own god? And all while religion has perfected burning witches and stoning adulterers and preaching how the world is always going to end, someday!

I've never even seen a witch IRL...lol.

Should meet my wife.

 

[JaiWebb]

Originally Posted by Dekoth-E-

Should meet my wife.

“You shall not permit a sorceress to live. - Exodus 22:18

Kill your wife, the bible okayed it.

And until you kill her you have to put her outside with the dogs.

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." - Revelation 22:15

And your excuse in court should be...

"As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one" - Romans 3:10

The bible loves burning people or stoning them so start there. Do both, maybe there are extra points involved for stoning someone then burning them, after.

 

[ManofGod]

“You shall not permit a sorceress to live. - Exodus 22:18

Kill your wife, the bible okayed it.

And until you kill her you have to put her outside with the dogs.

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood." - Revelation 22:15

And your excuse in court should be...

"As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one" - Romans 3:10

The bible loves burning people or stoning them so start there. Do both, maybe there are extra points involved for stoning someone then burning them, after.

Ah yes, the close your eyes, open the Bible and point theology, better known as taking things out of context joke.

 

[SRTie4k]

What is laughable is that you think it matters why regular people join the military, as they don't give orders, last time I checked, they follow orders. I guess it's purely coincidental most (90% ore more) of our soldiers ever killed are buried with the Christian cross. And the last time I checked we the people were lied to about what actually happened that day...lol. Purely coincidence though...lol.

They're soldiers and led by people with the most money. Rich religious people that pay lobbyists to do their bidding for them. Tax exemption status allows a religious organization to acquire quite a bit of wealth, in reality.




Because we were attacked by 'Islamic extremists'....from Saudi Arabia. A country we never warred with, and buy oil from? However we attacked up to five Islamic countries because of, ummm, war on terrorism. I mean, on Muslims. Our current competition, globally.

I'm 100% sure history and reality disagrees with your personal view on the matter.

Psst, I'll tell you a secret if you don't tell anyone else. Joining the military after 9/11 was a 100% voluntary action. There was no draft.

That fact pretty much invalidates that entire post.

 

[JaiWebb]

Ah yes, the close your eyes, open the Bible and point theology, better known as taking things out of context joke.

The bible is the joke. So the jokes on you....lol.

 

[SRTie4k]

Which religious views started. Didn't Kane kill his own brother Abel over being jealous of his own god? And all while religion has perfected burning witches and stoning adulterers and preaching how the world is always going to end, someday!

I've never even seen a witch IRL...lol.

Let's back up here...you're saying, religion started all killing in the world by pointing to a passage in the Bible...all the while railing against religion. In essence, you're trying to use examples from the very source that you're trying to invalidate.

There is no point arguing with someone who can't follow logic.

 

[ManofGod]

The bible is the joke. So the jokes on you....lol.

Well, I suppose anything that points to a person taking responsibility for their actions is a joke to you. So, there you go. The few posts of seen of yours in this thread have pretty much placed blame on someone or something else instead of on the real problem, man himself and his choices.

 

[JaiWebb]

Psst, I'll tell you a secret if you don't tell anyone else. Joining the military after 9/11 was a 100% voluntary action. There was no draft.

That fact pretty much invalidates that entire post.

I have a secret too, don't tell anyone, The men voluntary joining were lied to and fed propaganda. Oh wait, that's not a secret, it's just the reality we live in. We also never even attacked the country responsible but to you that doesn't matter.

These facts pretty much invalidate everything you state.

 

[JaiWebb]

Let's back up here...you're saying, religion started all killing in the world by pointing to a passage in the Bible...all the while railing against religion. In essence, you're trying to use examples from the very source that you're trying to invalidate.

There is no point arguing with someone who can't follow logic.

I think you missed the logic in it, not me. I'm making fun of the bible and you at the same time. Both are clueless to the real world.

 

[Modred189]

How is this thread still unlocked/not in the soapbox!?

 

[JaiWebb]

Well, I suppose anything that points to a person taking responsibility for their actions is a joke to you. So, there you go. The few posts of seen of yours in this thread have pretty much placed blame on someone or something else instead of on the real problem, man himself and his choices.

And the bible told you why, didn't it? God created flawed humans and then blamed them for their flaws by killing them off numerous times throughout history. Except the bible is made up and so is God. Get it, ManOfGod?

 

[SRTie4k]

I have a secret too, don't tell anyone, The men voluntary joining were lied to and fed propaganda. Oh wait, that's not a secret, it's just the reality we live in. We also never even attacked the country responsible but to you that doesn't matter.

These facts pretty much invalidate everything you state.

In think this pretty much points out the fact that you're a blatant conspiracy nut, so there's really no point arguing further.

 

[JaiWebb]

In think this pretty much points out the fact that you're a blatant conspiracy nut, so there's really no point arguing further.

I don't think you understand facts and name call in place of not understanding them.
See yourself out.

 

[Modred189]

I don't think you understand facts and name call in place of not understanding them.
See yourself out.

Says the 60-day n00bie.

 

[JaiWebb]

Says the 60-day n00bie.

Yes, because time on [H] means what exactly?


lol

 

[JaiWebb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_a6RjR_AHY&feature=share

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Yea, we don't want a scientific authority. Science, for better or worse, lacks morals for the most part. Yes, there are ethics in science, but they are imposed from outside sources. They don't originate within science.

I think this is an unfounded assumption. Science certainly can answer moral questions, we can objectively compare behaviors and ideas based on their impact on the well being of people.

Flip the idea around. Where do religious morals actually come from? Because religion lacks the self-checking mechanism of science it is dependent on a form of natural selection. Natural selection favors those religions that are in line with the values of the society in which they exist. Nobody really thought much about the fact that the bible condones slavery, mistreatment of women, and stoning gays until the enlightenment came along, free inquiry became possible, and society changed. Religious morality was just a reflection of people's beliefs, the scientific revolution has taken morality much further. Now we see religions adapting into these odd philosophical teachings vaguely based on ancient texts where it's all about love and we just ignore all the weird stuff and bad stuff they used to believe in.

Sam Harris has discussed the topic of science and morality at length. His TED talk is a good introduction to the subject.

For example, under a scientific regime, we might finally take responsibility for our own gene pool. While it is something I believe we eventually must do, it's not something that would be pretty without ethical and moral considerations to temper it. How does one weed out certain deleterious conditions from the human gene pool in an ethical and moral way? Science would simply say, "stop their procreation," independent of the individualized effects.

Again, that's an unfounded assumption creeping through.

It was science that proved our innate dislike of outsiders/racism was not an accurate way of looking at the world. In less than a few decades we went from people trying to use science to support age-old racist beliefs to the realization that we are all very closely related and there are little to no identifiable correlations between race and things like intelligence. That's incredible. We've been killing and enslaving each other over this crap for the last million years.

Science does not say 'stop their procreation.' It says 'how can we find a way to let these people have a healthy child,' and in a short span of time we've gone from being able to simply screen out embryos with harmful mutations before implantation to being able to use donor genetic material to eliminate the defective gene in the first place. We use science to establish a system of ethics which keeps these procedures in line with the moral views of society at large.

 

[mope54]

In less than a few decades we went from people trying to use science to support age-old racist beliefs to the realization that we are all very closely related and there are little to no identifiable correlations between race and things like intelligence.

So if you know that even in it's own history, science has been used to discriminate for far longer than it's been used to promote equality, why would you argue against my point that religion has been used on various sides of that same issue?

 

[Tawnos]

Yes, because time on [H] means what exactly?


lol

It means that I shouldn't have lurked for a year before joining, because then I would have gotten free genmay access when it came back

 

[mope54]

It means that I shouldn't have lurked for a year before joining, because then I would have gotten free genmay access when it came back

if this is true then dammit! not even sure how many years I lurked

oh well, far more interesting than the thread :\

 

[SRTie4k]

I think this is an unfounded assumption. Science certainly can answer moral questions, we can objectively compare behaviors and ideas based on their impact on the well being of people.

Flip the idea around. Where do religious morals actually come from? Because religion lacks the self-checking mechanism of science it is dependent on a form of natural selection. Natural selection favors those religions that are in line with the values of the society in which they exist. Nobody really thought much about the fact that the bible condones slavery, mistreatment of women, and stoning gays until the enlightenment came along, free inquiry became possible, and society changed. Religious morality was just a reflection of people's beliefs, the scientific revolution has taken morality much further. Now we see religions adapting into these odd philosophical teachings vaguely based on ancient texts where it's all about love and we just ignore all the weird stuff and bad stuff they used to believe in.

Sam Harris has discussed the topic of science and morality at length. His TED talk is a good introduction to the subject.


Again, that's an unfounded assumption creeping through.

It was science that proved our innate dislike of outsiders/racism was not an accurate way of looking at the world. In less than a few decades we went from people trying to use science to support age-old racist beliefs to the realization that we are all very closely related and there are little to no identifiable correlations between race and things like intelligence. That's incredible. We've been killing and enslaving each other over this crap for the last million years.

Science does not say 'stop their procreation.' It says 'how can we find a way to let these people have a healthy child,' and in a short span of time we've gone from being able to simply screen out embryos with harmful mutations before implantation to being able to use donor genetic material to eliminate the defective gene in the first place. We use science to establish a system of ethics which keeps these procedures in line with the moral views of society at large.

Yes it is true that science has proved that there is no genetic difference in people of different races, and in fact that race is merely a societal disposition towards people that look a little different.

But there will and have always been certain instances when the use of science as a solution has proven disastrous, although it may have been meant in good conscience. The science of eugenics was essentially what lead to the Holocaust, all because science at the time took the idea of natural selection and decided it would be appropriate to apply it to society.

As I've said, science and ethics are somewhat mutually exclusive. It's not uncommon for science to proceed at a rate faster than the ethics behind it can keep up. That's historically accurate.

 

[mope54]

a correction for everyone espousing the standard of the scientific method:
science never "proves." Science can only disprove

it's inaccurate to state things like, "science has proven...[anything]"


and more directly to this question of science and discrimination...modern slavery was not justified on the basis of exodus but rather on "science" like natural selection and rudimentary beliefs about evolution.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

a correction for everyone espousing the standard of the scientific method:
science never "proves." Science can only disprove

it's inaccurate to state things like, "science has proven...[anything]"


and more directly to this question of science and discrimination...modern slavery was not justified on the basis of exodus but rather on "science" like natural selection and rudimentary beliefs about evolution.

Did you actually read this before posting it?

 

[Disposed]

That's a complete load of BS, perpetuated by people looking to move the blame from our own instincts as humans and place it on some abstract concept instead. Claiming that an intangible construct of man is the primary reason for all the suffering in the world is such an ignorant and short sighted conclusion, it's hard to argue without thinking you'll completely miss the point of the counter.

If we completely eradicated religion tomorrow, mankind would continue to kill each other under the banner of some other concept. In fact, politics seem to be the popular flag to fly into battle these days.

Look at the causes behind every major genocide that has occurred in the world, and you're going to find that the primary motivators behind every one of them had absolutely nothing to do with religion. Religion in those cases were completely secondary to the build up to those atrocities (and really only applied in the Armenian genocide). And ironically, one of them, the Cambodian genocide, was a genocide perpetrated against religion from a fanatically atheistic regime.

Blaming religion for as the primary cause of war is just plain ignorant. It doesn't take a psychologist or a sociologist to see that the primary cause of conflict in our world is us ourselves, regardless of what justification we may have.

Nothing to do with religion? Come out from under that rock and look, even the shit war Bush started was about religion.

I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Religion is right there behind just about every war. Whether it's all justifications our not does not change this fact and goes right back to the reality of religion. It exists to control the masses keep them ignorant and keep the power away from the people.

Go around commanding people to do things and you'll get told to Fuck off. Go around saying good commands you to do these things and you'll get followers.

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Yes it is true that science has proved that there is no genetic difference in people of different races, and in fact that race is merely a societal disposition towards people that look a little different.

But there will and have always been certain instances when the use of science as a solution has proven disastrous, although it may have been meant in good conscience. The science of eugenics was essentially what lead to the Holocaust, all because science at the time took the idea of natural selection and decided it would be appropriate to apply it to society.

I feel like I'm having to repeat myself here. For all of human history, a million years or so, we've had a natural fear of 'others' that has led us to enslave and kill each other. For all of recorded history we've been making up justifications for this behavior. Initially we tried to carry over those ideas to science, but because of the self-correcting nature of science it only took a few decades to figure out that these ideas were completely wrong. That's incredible, no other idea in the history of the human species has been able to accomplish any sort of change like that so rapidly.

To argue that it was science that 'essentially led to the holocaust' is to be willfully ignorant of the facts. It was ignorance and hatred that led to the holocaust. There was never any real evidence for racial supremacy, people just wanted to dress up a deeply held belief in scientific terms. If you're going to argue that science caused the holocaust you might as well argue that it was science that led the Catholic Church to burn poor Bruno alive. Their ignorant view of the universe was widely believed by scholars of the time, after all.