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

thompsonx -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:32:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx I have already addressed your assertions and asked you to validate them, something you are either unwilling or unable to do. Thus your comments about crack pipes hardly rise to the level of validation of your assertions. You mean the numbers of deaths for the wars, by Hitler, and Stalin? Common facts. If you doubt them, they are easily discernible through a Google search. They are hardly facts, they are simply your assertions. As eyesopened said before, I'm not your research assistant. Validating your assertions would not make you my anything If you aren't aware of the numbers, then it's a matter of you cleaning up your ignorance, not me "proving" a damn thing. Most of the numbers I gave were on the conservative side of modern estimates, or gave the range that is often accepted. Commonly accepted by morons and ignorant fools. You do not fall into that catagory but you often consider others to be so. Go fish, thompson. Quit trolling around here. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 I don't really see the point of quoting other sources for the most part full stop, I'm sure each of us could find a source to support anything we could possibly want to say. Are we giving our views or those views of the authors we read? Comes down to how convincing your argument is at the end of the day and given the short time most people spend here it has to be concise if nothing else. Concise version: Darwinism supported both Marxism's reordering of society and Hitler's eugenics programs. Supporters of both claimed "science" as the basis of their attempts to reorder society to their liking. Many scientists of the time supported those concepts, even if they didn't support the specific programs. Some still do. Most Marxist still claim that Marxism is based on science. The result has been endless misery, massive deaths, and at least two world wars. Therefore, the number of human deaths attributed to "science" outnumbers anything that "religion" has caused. There is a counter-argument which no one has yet broached, but I'm hoping. [8D] Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:37:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You? The guy who wants us to select a "master race" according to your "scientific" standards? uh huh. Firm Yeah I never said that or anything like that. Ok. Please summarize your position, then? Firm

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:41:48 PM)
My position was explaining to luckydawg how the historic meaning of 'master race' in terms of what Hitler wanted to achieve isn't subjective in nature. dog = dawg

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:46:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 My position was explaining to luckydawg how the historic meaning of 'master race' in terms of what Hitler wanted to achieve isn't subjective in nature. If Hilter's "master race" wasn't subjective in nature, then you mean it was objective? Based on scientific principles? Firm

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:50:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Darwinism supported both Marxism's reordering of society and Hitler's eugenics programs. I didn't know this, what a bearded bastard he was. quote: Supporters of both claimed "science" as the basis of their attempts to reorder society to their liking. Many scientists of the time supported those concepts, even if they didn't support the specific programs. Some still do. Most Marxist still claim that Marxism is based on science. The result has been endless misery, massive deaths, and at least two world wars. Therefore, the number of human deaths attributed to "science" outnumbers anything that "religion" has caused. There is a counter-argument which no one has yet broached, but I'm hoping. [8D] Firm I also hear there is this scientology cult named after science also; doesn't mean it has anything to do with science or scientific reasoning. In my view the only difference between the words cult and religion is that the word religion was invented first.

dcnovice -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:51:21 PM)
quote: Darwinism supported both Marxism's reordering of society and Hitler's eugenics programs. Fwiw: The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Darwinism supported both Marxism's reordering of society and Hitler's eugenics programs. I didn't know this, what a bearded bastard he was. Darwin was vehemently opposed to Marxism. Darwinism isn't Darwin. edited to add: "vehemently" is not appropriate. I was remembering classes 30 years ago, in which I understand Darwin to have told his wife that he didn't really want anything to do with Marx and/or Engels, and used some pithy language to say it. I still think it's true, but I can't find a source right now, and am not going to waste anymore time looking. quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Supporters of both claimed "science" as the basis of their attempts to reorder society to their liking. Many scientists of the time supported those concepts, even if they didn't support the specific programs. Some still do. Most Marxist still claim that Marxism is based on science. The result has been endless misery, massive deaths, and at least two world wars. Therefore, the number of human deaths attributed to "science" outnumbers anything that "religion" has caused. There is a counter-argument which no one has yet broached, but I'm hoping. [8D] I also hear there is this scientology cult named after science also; doesn't mean it has anything to do with science or scientific reasoning. In my view the only difference between the words cult and religion is that the word religion was invented first. Bingo! Close enough. That is the counter-argument i.e. it isn't real science. My comment is that all the "religious based wars" and conflicts you mentioned aren't real religious wars, either. Just as people use "religion" as a base and as subterfuge to justify wars and conflict, so do people use science to do the exact same thing. Now where are we? Firm

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 6:55:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If Hilter's "master race" wasn't subjective in nature, then you mean it was objective? Based on scientific principles? Firm He had a clear objective but was putting emotion into the expected outcome i.e. he never questioned what physical attributes would influence athletic ability and such like. He equated certain physical appearances as being good athletes just from his skewed prejudices. If you can't understand how this is far removed from a dispassionate scientific approach then I worry.

brainiacsub -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 7:03:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Religion never has and never will be about 'live and let live.' Jainism? Good catch. You are right. Also, don't recall the last time the Wiccans killed anybody, either.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 7:09:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Darwinism supported both Marxism's reordering of society and Hitler's eugenics programs. Fwiw: The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, as was Engels. Marx and Darwin lived about 20 miles apart, even if they never met. I think Engels sent a first copy of Das Kapital to Darwin. I'm sure it's on the web. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 7:11:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If Hilter's "master race" wasn't subjective in nature, then you mean it was objective? Based on scientific principles? Firm He had a clear objective but was putting emotion into the expected outcome i.e. he never questioned what physical attributes would influence athletic ability and such like. He equated certain physical appearances as being good athletes just from his skewed prejudices. If you can't understand how this is far removed from a dispassionate scientific approach then I worry. How did Hitler justify his selective attributes? Firm

GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 8:05:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Good catch. You are right. Also, don't recall the last time the Wiccans killed anybody, either. I'm not sure if Joel Leyva counts. But another example would certainly be the Amish.

GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 8:51:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 OMG! as they are saying in the world of texting. The whole "my god" thing bothers me because while most of us get that we aren't always right and completely perfect some people invent the concept of a being who holds all their same views and positions and is completely perfect. I've seen too many examples where that turns into people thinking they are infallible by proxy.

heartcream -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/9/2010 10:28:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 OMG! as they are saying in the world of texting. The whole "my god" thing bothers me because while most of us get that we aren't always right and completely perfect some people invent the concept of a being who holds all their same views and positions and is completely perfect. I've seen too many examples where that turns into people thinking they are infallible by proxy. This is not God you are talking about but people fixated on a God. Which really is mostly guilt if you break it down. God Himself doesnt claim perfection although there was time period where He presented like that because He misunderstood denial, especially of the emotions. Today, if you asked Him, He would tell you He is not perfect and that if you think He is, or if you think because He is God with no process or cannot be questioned He would tell you you gots da wrong guy. I see Wiccan, for example, as religious in the way my grandfather explained to me the definition of religion many years ago. He told me that religion really breaks down to mean, relationship and therefore religion meant my own private relationship with God. Religion in the more common meaning of the word is for the most part highly toxic, and where the nastiest of the nastiest hide out. I say "hide out" because in essence they could not be further from anything to do with the enlightenment, well-being or freedom of us Manifested Spirits but more to do with putting forward their unloving reptilian agenda. Science and my God are the same. Anything Light or Love is God. And the parameters including Love need to expand to include many things like deep dark feelings. My God is mine because I feel Him, I hear Him and I was born that way. I was born having a natural connection. Fighting my way through all the misperceptions and heavy shit has been a journey that has lead me to be much closer to Him, and all Four Parts of God. Mother/Will, Father/Body, Loving Heart and Spirit/God. I feel in the coming times the horror of what has been religion will vaporize and we will find it much simpler and easier to relate the the real thing and not all this guilt ridden hocus pocus empowered by our own denials. We will regain our personal power and all the loving acceptance we need for ourselves to have our heart's desires manifest.

GotSteel -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/10/2010 2:53:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heartcream This is not God you are talking about but people fixated on a God. Which really is mostly guilt if you break it down. I take from this that you seem to recognize that other people aren't justified in attributing their opinions or musings to a deity. Which is why it's a little baffling that you immediately turn around in the quote below and do precisely the same thing. Do you honestly believe that every other person on the planet doesn't have the same feelings as you do, that you are actually uniquely special, that while these feelings are "mostly guilt" in others they are something completely different in you? Heartcream this is exactly what I was just talking about, because you unjustly attribute your emotional or intuitive feelings to an external source you claim an unwarranted validity for these impressions of yours. quote: ORIGINAL: heartcream God Himself doesnt claim perfection although there was time period where He presented like that because He misunderstood denial, especially of the emotions. Today, if you asked Him, He would tell you He is not perfect and that if you think He is, or if you think because He is God with no process or cannot be questioned He would tell you you gots da wrong guy. quote: ORIGINAL: heartcream Science and my God are the same. Anything Light or Love is God. And the parameters including Love need to expand to include many things like deep dark feelings. face palm [sm=ofcourse.gif]

eyesopened -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/10/2010 3:43:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened My God isn't the property of any specific religion nor is my God in opposition to science. However, I am opposed to people claiming ownership of a deity. If there is a god, he/she/it/they isn't yours. I understand your point but if I say "my mother" would you assume I am exluding her from being the parent of the gentlemen she also gave birth to? I say "my God" because the relationship I have with this Power is a personal relationship. I have never advocated that relationship for others nor have I ever excluded anyone from having their own relationship.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/10/2010 5:27:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY How did Hitler justify his selective attributes? I don't know: did he put a load of people with different ethnic backgrounds into a maze to test which one got out first? Did he create the ethnic Olympics a sport in which people from differing ethnic backgrounds compete against one another? However he decided on his perfect model in the first place it wasn't through any objective test. It's invalid to equate eugenics and theory of evolution as being closely related because that would be like us putting aside the crocodile because we already favour it. The crocodile has survived in the form it is on its own merits. It has proven itself to be able to adapt to the changing environments throughout history. No human manufactured microcosm of that is ever going to stand up to the same rigorous testing. How can Hitler justify his programme based on evolution? Only if his people have a very sketchy understanding of the theory of evolution in the first place. So when a religious leader misrepresents a religion do we assume those people he gets to follow him are ignorant of the religion he is using also. It's easy and understandable for the average person to be ignorant of science but they should have some basic idea of the religion if they think themselves a follower of it. Don't equate the misrepresentations of the theory of evolution with the misrepresentations of a religion. The difference is that credible individual scientists are not bringing their own interpretation to the theory of evolution. Everyone knows what it's about and therefore it's easy to spot when someone is misrepresenting it. Not the same with religion because the language used in religion is antiquated and vague. A bit like your English teacher telling you how Romeo and Juliet felt, opinion.

heartcream -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/10/2010 7:23:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I take from this that you seem to recognize that other people aren't justified in attributing their opinions or musings to a deity. Which is why it's a little baffling that you immediately turn around in the quote below and do precisely the same thing. Do you honestly believe that every other person on the planet doesn't have the same feelings as you do, that you are actually uniquely special, that while these feelings are "mostly guilt" in others they are something completely different in you? Heartcream this is exactly what I was just talking about, because you unjustly attribute your emotional or intuitive feelings to an external source you claim an unwarranted validity for these impressions of yours. Oh GotSteel you can be such an utter bore. No I do not think every other person at all feels what I do. I do think many of us have suffered at the hands of misunderstanding God though. Guilt has presented as God for so long many of us do not easily differentiate. I do think I am uniquely special, thanks, and do not feel that because there are billions on the planet that is cancelled out. There are hoards of uniquely special folks here. Lots of room for uniquely special. Think of snowflakes, each actually uniquely special aint they? I unjustly attribute, blah blah... ultimately my sources are internal darling, get with the program if you at all can. You are too young to be so locked down. It is within me always was. I have four parts just like God. Emotional is but one. I am not going to discuss this with you because like I said in another post, you are simply no fun (except the post on circumcision--that was cool) I have no desire at all to discuss God with you because in my actual unique and special perspective I find your pov medieval.

thompsonx -> RE: Hawking: Religion will be defeated by science (6/10/2010 7:34:12 AM)
quote: Most Marxist still claim that Marxism is based on science. What does marx claim?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875