Absolutely and understandably true.I would say those with strong religious beliefs tend to feel threatened by a worldview that marginalizes faith, especially when its some of its most vocal adherents are overtly hostile to religion.
Absolutely and understandably true.I would say those with strong religious beliefs tend to feel threatened by a worldview that marginalizes faith, especially when its some of its most vocal adherents are overtly hostile to religion.
Okay, I'll bite. How are democrats working hand in hand with eugenicists? And would it be too much to hope your example is relevant to, say, the last twenty years?bc dems have a long and strong history of being hand in hand with eugenicists. so maybe they accept anything "science" says.
Well I'll skip Margaret Sanger and Planned parenthood just to make this more difficult.Okay, I'll bite. How are democrats working hand in hand with eugenicists? And would it be too much to hope your example is relevant to, say, the last twenty years?
I can't believe I wasted five minutes of my life looking at this. Let me get this straight. John Holden is a eugenicist because one of the dozens and dozens of people he has said he was inspired by is Harrison Brown, and in "The Challenge of Man," in which Brown attempts to predict the problems mankind will face over the next thousand years, he postulates that we could sterilize people with "serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs"?Well I'll skip Margaret Sanger and Planned parenthood just to make this more difficult.
How about science czar john holdren and his infatuation with a certain harrison brown. how about justice ginsburg's comments about roe v wade.
how about this article:
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/201...-to-compensate-mostly-black-eugenics-victims/
just google eugenics and democratic party and you will get a plethora of stories. whether you believe any of them or not is up to you.
of course, i consider both parties to be run by the same people so really they just go about it in different ways.
How about http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf by Ezekiel Emanuel?Well I'll skip Margaret Sanger and Planned parenthood just to make this more difficult.
How about science czar john holdren and his infatuation with a certain harrison brown. how about justice ginsburg's comments about roe v wade.
how about this article:
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/201...-to-compensate-mostly-black-eugenics-victims/
just google eugenics and democratic party and you will get a plethora of stories. whether you believe any of them or not is up to you.
of course, i consider both parties to be run by the same people so really they just go about it in different ways.
aren't you holding out faith that science will one day be able to explain the origin of the universe? because until science can explain how all this got here in the first place, we are right back to whether it is easier to believe that in the beginning there was a creator.... or in the beginning there was a big pile of cosmic goo.....The belief that religiosity is a mental defect is not so much a "scientific finding" as an opinion. I cannot speak for all atheists or all scientists, but my bias is in favor of rationality, and as such, my beliefs are subject to change as evidence accumulates and logical explanations are presented. If preferring the scientific method to religious faith as a means of determining objective truth is biased, then I am happy and proud to be biased, because faith makes no sense.
The same unanswered question also applies to any creator you might postulate. Where did the creator come from?aren't you holding out faith that science will one day be able to explain the origin of the universe? because until science can explain how all this got here in the first place, we are right back to whether it is easier to believe that in the beginning there was a creator.... or in the beginning there was a big pile of cosmic goo.....
i know... but you keep asking that question of anybody who postulates a creator as if that is some flaw in their logic, yet you have the same issue with yoursThe same unanswered question also applies to any creator you might postulate. Where did the creator come from?
i know... but you keep asking that question of anybody who postulates a creator as if that is some flaw in their logic, yet you have the same issue with yours
One method actually improves knowledge.That ax swings both ways, my friend.
When that ignorance creates a vacuum with unexplained / unexplainable questions then people will always fill it with assumptions in order to explain the unexplained.
Theists choose to fill it with assumptions of spiritual or supernatural explanations. Atheists choose to fill it with natural or chaotic explanations.
No it doesn't. There is absolutely no difference between the two. An assumption doesn't increase knowledge, it replaces knowledge. An increase in knowledge can replace the assumption(s) over time, but the assumptions themselves do nothing except replace ignorance with a person's favorite [and most likely unfounded or at least unproven] belief regarding whatever unexplained question(s) those assumptions are about.One method actually improves knowledge.
Very well said. I believe the problem usually happens when a possible conclusion to a hypothesis is stated as fact when the hypothesis has not been fully proven. People in all four of your categories tend to do this when they have made their conclusion. The dogmatic ones just tend to do it earlier.No it doesn't. ...
If you think science and faith are equivalent with respect to knowledge improvement and revising belief to fit empiric observation, you're sorely mistaken. Boiling down scientific knowledge to a series of assumptions is disingenuous.No it doesn't. There is absolutely no difference between the two. An assumption doesn't increase knowledge, it replaces knowledge. An increase in knowledge can replace the assumption(s) over time, but the assumptions themselves do nothing except replace ignorance with a person's favorite [and most likely unfounded or at least unproven] belief regarding whatever unexplained question(s) those assumptions are about.
I don't think his statement was in reference to science, itself, but rather to those portions of science that are still unproven (even if they are potentially accurate)If you think science and faith are equivalent with respect to knowledge improvement and revising belief to fit empiric observation, you're sorely mistaken. Boiling down scientific knowledge to a series of assumptions is disingenuous.
We will have to agree to disagree here.If you think science and faith are equivalent with respect to knowledge improvement and revising belief to fit empiric observation, you're sorely mistaken. Boiling down scientific knowledge to a series of assumptions is disingenuous.
Somehow I don't think we mean the same thing by 'knowledge'We will have to agree to disagree here.
Faith has led me to just as much knowledge as empiric observation. In fact empiric observation has let me to more faith than less. I can understand someone with no faith making this statement, but as someone who has faith I see this as a very uninformed and inexperienced opinion.