RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science

RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

luckydawg -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 4:58:53 PM)
Hey, if you learned in grade school that, "Nonsense we all know that some people are naturally better than us". We don't have much ground for discussion. You clearly are missing the link between removing genes from the gene pool and affecting the Gene pool. And that "master race" or "better" is purley subjective. So I am not going to waste my time trying to show you.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:02:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Ironically, your definitions of Scientific Communism came from Wikipedia, but your discussion of Darwinism as it relates to Communism came from a religious source. Very disingenuous of you Firm. You can't expect people to take your arguments seriously if you don't use unbiased sources. Using even one calls in to question your credibility. Your degrees mean nothing if you can't be intellectually honest. Here, you like this one better? Institute for the Study of the Science of Society The Institute for the Study of the Science of Society was founded in 1994 to encourage the ongoing study of Marxism as the science of society, through schools and study groups. Here's what they say about the subject: Institute Resource Paper #2 Marxism as the Scientific Current Within Communism Marxism is a science; communism is a goal. Grasping this relation, on the one hand, liberates us to unite with the practical, spiritual or historical strivings of our people for a just and peaceful world, the actual strivings for communism. On the other hand, it commands us to use the science of society to sharpen our understanding of the inevitable development of the line of march of the revolution and to act more effectively as conscious revolutionaries. If you have any balls (oops, metaphorically speaking, anyway), you can pick the sources you want: Stalin scientific basis of communism (27,900 results) Scientific Communism ( 2,150,000 results) scientific foundations of socialism (110,00 results) marxism darwinism (2,410,000 results) Good luck on disproving my point. You've exposed your total ignorance on the subject so far. Maybe you can "man up" and make up for it. Firm

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:02:03 PM)
Well a master key is better than a key because it opens more doors. Semantics isn't really my specialist subject.

luckydawg -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:04:18 PM)
well if thats all you got....

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:07:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub I picked two more of your sources at random. From the Discovery Institute: "The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature; the principles of representative democracy and public service expounded by the American Founders; free market economics domestically and internationally; the social requirement to balance personal liberty with responsibility; the spirit of voluntarism crucial to civil society; the continuing validity of American international leadership; and the potential of science and technology to promote an improved future for individuals, families and communities." "From Darwin to Hitler" by Richard Weikart, a well known Christian author. Ironically, your definitions of Scientific Communism came from Wikipedia, but your discussion of Darwinism as it relates to Communism came from a religious source. Very disingenuous of you Firm. You can't expect people to take your arguments seriously if you don't use unbiased sources. Using even one calls in to question your credibility. Your degrees mean nothing if you can't be intellectually honest. btw .. .when are you going to argue the facts, rather than the source? Firm

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:07:33 PM)
Most people would define it as obvious traits such as errm better intellectual capacity, better athleticism. You know the obvious human traits we all find desirable, it's not so subjective most people have a pretty good idea by what they deem this antiquated term to mean. I'll also throw in physical attractiveness and freedom from disease if you like.

brainiacsub -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:13:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY btw .. .when are you going to argue the facts, rather than the source? Firm You don't get it. I am denying that they are indeed facts because your sources are biased. This discussion goes beyond just the Wikipedia definitions of common terms that every middle school student should know. The meat of your position is grounded in your religious sources. I am not here to argue. And debate with you inevitably ends down some rat hole of misdirection and obfuscation. I am not up for it tonight. Someone else is welcome to pick up the torch and carry it though.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:16:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Most people would define it as obvious traits such as errm better intellectual capacity, better athleticism. So, my youngest son, who is handicapped, and therefore has no "athleticism" shouldn't be allowed to breed, because it messes up the gene pool? I know people who have kids with Down's Syndrome. Guess they should be euthanized, or at least sterlized? quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 You know the obvious human traits we all find desirable, it's not so subjective most people have a pretty good idea by what they deem this antiquated term to mean. It's always subjective. quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 I'll also throw in physical attractiveness and freedom from disease if you like. Ugly people shouldn't be allowed the same opportunity as the more "blessed" members of the species? Someone who got Hep C through a blood transfusion no longer qualifies as a "real human being"? What a morality you want us all to have. Firm

brainiacsub -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:18:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Brainiac, I should not have forgotten you. You in fact, should have been number one on the list, with your bizzare idea that "morality" can be determined scientifically. You never answered me on that thread. What are the scientifically determined criteria for the "best" way to live? Answer, there are none, its 100% subjective. It is a rhetorical trick to attempt to give your personal likes the "backing of Science". And when you run into conflict, you get mad, and turn to The Trolls to end the conversation. While giving them cyber high fives. lucky, I am honored that you would include me among some of the most esteemed thinkers in the world. I wish scientific based morality was my idea, but I cannot in good conscience take credit for it. There was an entire thread complete with links to the the TED discussions on this topic offered to you. If you chose not to view any of it, then you can't blame me for not wanting to discuss it with you.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:19:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY btw .. .when are you going to argue the facts, rather than the source? Firm You don't get it. I am denying that they are indeed facts because your sources are biased. This discussion goes beyond just the Wikipedia definitions of common terms that every middle school student should know. The meat of your position is grounded in your religious sources. I am not here to argue. And debate with you inevitably ends down some rat hole of misdirection and obfuscation. I am not up for it tonight. Someone else is welcome to pick up the torch and carry it though. This is a numbnuts argument. You are way out of your depth here, hon. Need to go back and actually study some history and philosophy. The "rat hole" is your ignorance of the subject, and inability to even crack your mind to the possibility you could learn something. Hell, you don't even know what my argument is. Firm

luckydawg -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:24:35 PM)
Actually all you did was point at web vidoes like realone does, brainiac. But I do get that if a 'sceintist" says something you believe it, because a "scientist" does. And you seem to think that is rationalism....

luckydawg -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Most people would define it as obvious traits such as errm better intellectual capacity, better athleticism. You know the obvious human traits we all find desirable, it's not so subjective most people have a pretty good idea by what they deem this antiquated term to mean. I'll also throw in physical attractiveness and freedom from disease if you like. I'm sorry, which people has better intelectuall capacity (and what metric is used to determine), atractiveness, freedom from disease, and athlecticsm?

thompsonx -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:32:52 PM)
quote: You always do this: try to discredit the source, rather than discuss the facts. Firm Are you saying that you never do this?

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So, my youngest son, who is handicapped, and therefore has no "athleticism" shouldn't be allowed to breed, because it messes up the gene pool? I know people who have kids with Down's Syndrome. Guess they should be euthanized, or at least sterlized? Now where did I say this? I'm not a proponent of this. I'm just pointing out what I and most other people understand the term master race to mean (from history). I never personally use the term in the modern sense because it's abhorrent. quote: It's always subjective. It's not subjective. I can personally live with the fact that some people in this world can do the 100m sprint faster than I ever will or ever could have. I don't have to pretend those people arn't better than me in some way. It's called being realistic. quote: Ugly people shouldn't be allowed the same opportunity as the more "blessed" members of the species? Whoa, who said that?[:D] quote: Someone who got Hep C through a blood transfusion no longer qualifies as a "real human being"? What a morality you want us all to have. Seems you've caught the end of a conversation between two people and are making judgements about the morality of one of them based on sketchy information.

Vendaval -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:36:23 PM)
Fast-Reply, Don't human societies need both belief and observation of facts? Why should it be one or the other?

luckydawg -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:36:56 PM)
No troll, he is not saying anything of the sort. reading comprehension is indeed way beyond your capacity. Why do you have to make up dumb shit questions to have anythng to say? But what relevance would him sometimes weasling(if even true) out have to do with this specific case?

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:40:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg I'm sorry, which people has better intelectuall capacity (and what metric is used to determine), atractiveness, freedom from disease, and athlecticsm? Freedom from disease in terms of hereditary diseases. Attractiveness based on cultural identity Athleticism based on sports prowess (not snooker) Intellectual capacity based on IQ and other such pointless testing.

thompsonx -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:42:52 PM)
quote: No one can ask you to kill in the name of "science"?! Hitler killed 6 million Jews, Gypsies and "others' in his scientific eugenics program. Stalin killed 20-50 millions of his own citizens in his quest to impose the "scientific" vision of mankind. And I'm not including the purely political wars of the 20th Century which easily resulted in the deaths of millions more (15 million in WWI, and 50 million in WWII for example). If there are massive deaths to account for, religious wars are a pimple of the ass of science, and pure old politics. Makes me wonder why you would spend so much effort to try to portray it the other way around? Firm PS. And I forgot Mao's attempt at a "scientific political revolution" where more than 20 million died. It amazes me that you constantly pull turds out of your ass and expect people to believe that they are pearls of wisdom. You want to justify hitlers genocide with the same psuedo science he used by calling it science. You claim 20-50 dead russians without any validation for the numbers and claim it was a scientific endeavor. You claim 20 million dead chinese with no validation for the numbers except your ex cathedra mouth and claim it was a scientific endeavor. Shit floats but not that shit.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:56:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: You always do this: try to discredit the source, rather than discuss the facts. Firm Are you saying that you never do this? I always question the source, and how something is presented. And I will usually mention it, giving specifics about how their conclusions can be biased, if I think it is. I don't, however, throw out the "facts" they present. I may point out if the facts are collected in such a manner as support their bias, without considering countervailing facts and information. Or if they use selective "facts" to build an argument that doesn't consider missing pertinent facts. I'm still waiting for BS to even tell me how any of the sources misrepresent the facts, or even summarize what "the facts" are that she disputes. And she's not going to, because she doesn't want to face the embarrassment of finding out that maybe she has staked out an unsupportable position. I gave her links to millions of sources which discuss "the facts" of my argument. And she ignores them. Firm

thompsonx -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 5:58:42 PM)
quote: I know people who have kids with Down's Syndrome. Guess they should be euthanized, or at least sterlized? Is it your position that those with down's syndrome should procreate?

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875