02 Aug 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrassNo, Darwin has said that our noble nature demands we care for the weak and feeble.
WOW. That's a new one. You're blaming the holocaust on Darwin?
Hitler, however, had no such reservations. Hitler was only interested in science. He had no interest in what is unscientific, such as what is "noble".
You see, it is not enough to find science that empowers us and use wisdom to then restrain an immoral use of such findings. For you see, someone, like Hitler, will come along and use your knowledge for their own unwise use. Knowledge must be guarded with lock and key for those who are unscrupulous.
02 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassWait....wut?
Yes, it's been said already. It's all about the application.
Religion is not moral. Religion is dogmatic. It can still be a tool for great things. It brings communities together, generates a sense of collective purpose, provides charitable services etc etc.
But religion also create borders and "sides" and an Us vs. Them narrative with very high stak ...[text shortened]...
And again, science is just methods for creating new knowledge. It does not justify violence.
Religion is not moral? Every word we speak illustrates a morality, whether it be amoral or otherwise. Nothing we do and say can escape this fact, even when it comes to scientific investigation.
For you see, facts are useless to us by themselves. If we say the global temperature is increasing, so what? What implications does that have if any? Who cares? Science is merely the interpretation of facts used to determine if a particular knowledge is "good" or "bad" or "useless" and then use that knowledge accordingly. So if the global temperature is increasing, we may deem that "bad" but science gives us no such judgmental moral edicts.
Science can't escape morality either.
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyWrong. The concepts of eugenics and natural selection are not the same thing. Natural selection, evolution, orthogenesis etc. are considered Darwinian concepts. They are fundamental to modern biology and genetics. These concepts indicate that species diversity is essential for its survival.
No, Darwin has said that our noble nature demands we care for the weak and feeble.
Hitler, however, had no such reservations. Hitler was only interested in science. He had no interest in what is unscientific, such as what is "noble".
You see, it is not enough to find science that empowers us and use wisdom to then restrain an immoral use of such find ...[text shortened]... you see, someone, like Hitler, will come along and use your knowledge for their own unwise use.
Eugenics far precedes these, by at least 2000 years. This concept opposes natural selection, suggesting that traits can be unnaturally selected.
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassSo they were not killing off handicapped kids?
Not even close.
02 Aug 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassDarwin pointed out that farmers breed their animals for strength from what we know about genetics through science.
Wrong. The concepts of eugenics and natural selection are not the same thing. Natural selection, evolution, orthogenesis etc. are considered Darwinian concepts. They are fundamental to modern biology and genetics. These concepts indicate that species diversity is essential for its survival.
Eugenics far precedes these, by at least 2000 years. This concept opposes natural selection, suggesting that traits can be unnaturally selected.
He then goes on to say that human beings are not bred in such a way and that it would not be "noble" to treat human beings like we do animals.
Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why?
How does science distinguish us from animals?
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyYes. Religion is not moral. I though your post would explain why you disagree, but it does not. Why do you think religion is moral? Just because everything is?
Wait....wut?
Religion is not moral? Every word we speak illustrates a morality, whether it be amoral or otherwise. Nothing we do and say can escape this fact, even when it comes to scientific investigation.
For you see, facts are useless to us by themselves. If we say the global temperature is increasing, so what? What implications does that have i ...[text shortened]... " but science gives us no such judgmental moral edicts.
Science can't escape morality either.
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @eladarYes, they did. They would take the sick and feeble to the basements of hospitals in the Third Reich to do away with them.
So they were not killing off handicapped kids?
These were people who's gene pool was viewed as flawed or those who would never again be productive citizens for the state. They were viewed as a drain on the system, much like the Veterans in Arizona who were put on secret death lists because they were simply too sick to treat and care for due to limited resources.
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe Bible is full of moral teachings, such as the Golden Rule.
Yes. Religion is not moral. I though your post would explain why you disagree, but it does not. Why do you think religion is moral? Just because everything is?
Have you ever read or studied the Bible?
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassSo cows are different from pigs on a genetic level, yet we treat them the same.
Its based on genetics.
Again, what makes humans different from cows or pigs? Or are you a PETA person who thinks animals should have human rights?
02 Aug 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @wildgrassActually, not wrong.
Wrong. The concepts of eugenics and natural selection are not the same thing. Natural selection, evolution, orthogenesis etc. are considered Darwinian concepts. They are fundamental to modern biology and genetics. These concepts indicate that species diversity is essential for its survival.
Eugenics far precedes these, by at least 2000 years. This concept opposes natural selection, suggesting that traits can be unnaturally selected.
There are a considerable amount of scholarly research papers which consider the topic, nearly all of them concur on the point...
Historians disagree about whether Nazis embraced Darwinian evolution. By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution.
They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection.
They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism.
The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought, Richard Weikart
02 Aug 17
Originally posted by @whodeyYes I have read the Bible. It's a book, not a religion. Literally hundreds of religions are based off it. These religions don't have morals. They have teachings and values that differ from each other.
The Bible is full of moral teachings, such as the Golden Rule.
Have you ever read or studied the Bible?