09 Jul 14
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiejudging by history, most evil people in this world are NOT scientists but theists. The Nazis, who were clearly christian, and the terrorists behind 9/11, are just two examples of that. Therefore, there is more reason to label mad or evil theists as being "mad" or "evil" and no reason to exclusively pick on just the few rare scientists that just happen to be mad or evil. There is statistical evidence that scientists and other clever people are less likely to commit crime or atrocities than less intelligent people. I can give links proving this on request but here is just one to start with:
I think scientists should be labeled in terms of their dangerousness, for example, 'mad scientist', or 'evil scientist with a mind ray hidden far in the hills'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
"...Studies comparing religious belief and IQ
In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity, a negative relation between intelligence and religiosity was found in 53 out of 63, and a positive relation in the remaining ten. Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.[11][12]
In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence, demonstrated that atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than agnostics, 3.82 points higher than liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than other dogmatic persuasions.[13]
The relationship between countries' belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.[14]
Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries.[14] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 IQ points higher than non-atheists.
Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17😵 had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which was determined to be “highly statistically significant”.[14]..."
and statistic show most criminals have below average IQ and are more likely to be theist.
If you think that scientists are more prone to being "mad" or "evil" than non-scientists let alone theists, then this is not only NOT supported by the evidence but the evidence actually shows the exact opposite and you are just being delusional.
09 Jul 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasBecause you told us you would not eat anything labelled GM. That is irrational. That you would not eat it suggests you are frightened of eating it.
If I haven't told you why, why do you then think I am irrationally frightened about it?
Why do you think I am frightened to eat GM products? All I want is information so I can avoid it. Is this so hard to understand?
Why will you avoid it if you are not frightened?
Why all these secrets? Do you know something that I am not aware of that makes GM so frightening so you don't want me to know?
What secrets?
You make me suspisious, and therefore I will do anything to avoid GM, even if I have to boycot every US product eatable? So inform me!
So now you are admitting to irrational fear. A moment ago you were denying it. Make up your mind.
09 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid I really write 'eat'? Or did I write 'buy'? That's two different things. Explain the difference and you maybe understand what I say.
Because you told us you would not eat anything labelled GM. That is irrational. That you would not eat it suggests you are frightened of eating it.
[b]Why do you think I am frightened to eat GM products? All I want is information so I can avoid it. Is this so hard to understand?
Why will you avoid it if you are not frightened?
Why all these ...[text shortened]... o now you are admitting to irrational fear. A moment ago you were denying it. Make up your mind.
But don't invent reasons and put them into my mouth, please. That's bad rhetorics. That's what fundamentalists do. That's what they do in the Spiritual Forum.
"What secrets?"
Haven't you read what I wrote? The secret of what products are GM and what products is not.
"So now you are admitting to irrational fear"
I'm afraid of bad rhetorics. Is that irrational? Keep on topic, please. You are better than that. Why go below your usual standard of debating?
09 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI agree, and I probably overstated things with my "rights" argument. It was just an attempt to counter the argument that someone has a "right" to have their particular brand of pseudoscience labeled on food. I figure I have as much right to a label free from such labeling as any particular pseudoscience has a right to demand their specific labeling, and also companies have just as much right to not want to put bad or misleading information on their labels.
I don't think GMO labeling would infringe on my "rights," but from a consumer protection point of view, labeling suggests that there is something wrong with GMO's. It is thus a form of misleading advertising.
I also think that once one particular pseudoscience gets a foothold on a label, what is to stop the rest of them from also demanding space on the label?
I have no major problem with voluntary labeling, but the government should not mandate bad labeling, because like you say, it implies official governmental support to the idea that something is wrong with GMO's.
09 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by humyThis is such an epic fail i don't know where to start, lets see? ahhh yes, Mein Kampf, translated as 'My struggle' an idea directly traceable to Darwinian evolutionary theory of which Hitler was a proud exponent in a social context often termed social Darwanism. The Nazi programs of forced euthanasia for those they deemed unworthy of life like the disabled or the mentally ill, again are directly traceable to their obsession with Darwinism. One of course could mention Mengele and his work on 'genetics' and the Nazi rocket scientists the United states harboured after the war and who contributed much to the US space program. Shall i stop now or would you like me to go on?
judging by history, most evil people in this world are NOT scientists but theists. The Nazis, who were clearly christian, and the terrorists behind 9/11, are just two examples of that. Therefore, there is more reason to label mad or evil theists as being "mad" or "evil" and no reason to exclusively pick on just the few rare scientists that just happen to be mad ...[text shortened]... e evidence but the evidence actually shows the exact opposite and you are just being delusional.
Lets look at the Fuhrers words, shall we?
The stronger must rule; it must not unite with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own stature. Only the born weakling can think this cruel, and that is why he is a weak and defective man; for if this law did not hold, any conceivable evolution of organic living things would be unthinkable. (p. 278)
Always struggle is a means to improve the health and stamina of the species, and thus a cause of its evolution. By any other process all development and evolution would cease, and the very reverse would take place. (p. 278)
But little as Nature wishes a mating of weaker with stronger individuals, still less does she want the fusion of a higher with a lower race, since otherwise the whole labor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)
09 Jul 14
8 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is such an epic fail i don't know where to start, lets see? ahhh yes, Mein Kampf, translated as 'My struggle' an idea directly traceable to Darwinian evolutionary theory of which Hitler was a proud exponent in a social context often termed social Darwanism. The Nazi programs of forced euthanasia for those they deemed unworthy of life like the ...[text shortened]... bor of selective evolution, perhaps through thousands of years, would be set at naught. (p. 279)
ahhh yes, Mein Kampf, translated as 'My struggle' an idea directly traceable to Darwinian evolutionary theory of which Hitler was a proud exponent in a social context often termed social Darwinism.
Yes, this unscientific and religiously based social Darwinism, not to be confused with the scientifically bases biological Darwinism, was an evil Christian belief not supported by any true science nor by Darwin himself. So what? That confirms what I just said so thank you.
Both social Darwinism and Nazism are not atheist philosophies but theist (mainly Christian ) philosophies and where produced by theists (mainly Christians ) , NOT atheists.
The Nazi programs of forced euthanasia for those they deemed unworthy of life like the disabled or the mentally ill, again are directly traceable to their obsession with Darwinism.
Which Darwinism? Just biological Darwinism generally supported by atheists or social Darwinism widely rejected by most atheists but supported by the Christian Nazis? Answer; the latter. Yet again you confirm what I just said although I suspect you are desperately trying to dishonestly confuse the scientific biological Darwinism with the unscientific, and supported by the Christian Nazis, social Darwinism.
One of course could mention Mengele
-who was a known Christian Nazi, NOT an atheist -yes, thank you for giving me yet another excellent example for me to use.
Lets look at the Fuhrers words, shall we?
The Nazis had a form of Christianity that said we evolved with God guiding evolution to create a superior race (themselves, of course! ) and the Nazis, including Hitler himself, condemned atheism in support of Christianity. So the rest of you post only confirming that so I thank you again for confirming what I just said.
So, yes, lets see what the Christian Fuhrer has to say on this:
1, “ it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will."
2, “ God does not follow the principle of granting freedom to a nation of cowards”
also:
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/HitlerNazisAtheismSecularism.htm
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.
- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
Isn't what you are trying to do? i.e. like Hitler himself, trying to “undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,”?
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0835Hitler.php
"...
all the Nazi leaders were born, baptized, and raised Christian, mainly in authoritarian, pious households where tolerance and democratic values were not valued. Catholic Nazis, besides Hitler, included Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Joseph Goebbels. Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann had Protestant backgrounds. Roughly two-thirds of German Christians repeatedly voted for candidates who promised to overthrow democracy. Protestants had given the Nazi party its main backing leading up to 1933. Evangelical youth was especially pro-Nazi. 90 percent of Protestant university theologians supported the Nazis. Christians were Nazis and took part in Nazi atrocities. Any who turned to outright criticism of fascism made their last appeals from the death cell.
..."
-all this being well known, undisputed and documented historical events.
also, Hitler was known to be a Creationist:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/28/hitler-the-creationist/
09 Jul 14
Originally posted by PatNovakBut your earlier post justified the list of ingredients on an argument based around nutrients, which counts as equivocation. In the U.K. and I assume this is an E.U. rule specific hazards are mentioned separately from the main list of ingredients. So a packet of salted peanuts will have the list of ingredients: "peanuts, salts", a nutritional list, and will then have the statement: "warning: may contain nuts.". So stating that a specific ingredient is a GMO shouldn't cause panic in consumers since the warnings list is separate.
The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act covers both nutrients and ingredients, as was indicated in my previous post. I specifically quoted a section which stated "The food ingredient panel, serving sizes, and terms such as "low fat" and "light" are standardized."
I am going to assume you keep focusing on minor details of my posts (which you are always wrong about, BTW) because you are unwilling or unable to address the substance of my posts.
I'll make a post later on about my specific concerns with GMO's (or more precisely genetically engineered organisms) and why I'm not impressed with arguments which rely heavily on scientific consensus on this issue.
09 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot as far as I'm aware. However, the Nation of Islam have a racial theory that white people were created, through a process of forced breeding on Patmos, by an evil scientist called Yakub:
Is there a passage in Mein Kampf about GMO's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Teachings_on_race
09 Jul 14
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat's interesting even if it is about idiotic nonsense beliefs. Fascinating rubbish!
Not as far as I'm aware. However, the Nation of Islam have a racial theory that white people were created, through a process of forced breeding on Patmos, by an evil scientist called Yakub:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Teachings_on_race
This, of course, as absolutely nothing to do with GM crops.
09 Jul 14
4 edits
Originally posted by humyHitler was a mad scientist high on the Darwinian theory of evolution, its demonstrable that he was no more a Christian than you, for a Christian is one who adopts and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was the Darwinian theory of evolution as I cited directly from his book which formed the catalyst for his murderous traits and megalomania. Suck it up Humy my man like the USA sucked up all those Nazi rocket scientists! ouch that gotta hurt!ahhh yes, Mein Kampf, translated as 'My struggle' an idea directly traceable to Darwinian evolutionary theory of which Hitler was a proud exponent in a social context often termed social Darwinism.
Yes, this unscientific and religiously based social Darwinism, not to be confused with the scientifically bases biological Darwinism, was an e ...[text shortened]... wn to be a Creationist:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/28/hitler-the-creationist/
09 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Hitler was a mad scientist high on the Darwinian theory of evolution, its demonstrable that he was no more a Christian than you, for a Christian is one who adopts and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. It was the Darwinian theory of evolution as I cited directly from his book which formed the catalyst for his murderous traits and megalomania. S ...[text shortened]... t up Humy my man like the USA sucked up all those Nazi rocket scientists! ouch that gotta hurt!
Hitler was a mad scientist
Dir -he obviously was NOT a scientist. Where the hell did you get that from? He was a mad theist.
Obviously, since he was never known to be qualified to be a scientist, you will convince nobody here the that he was a scientist without showing evidence of this! So please, show a link that shows his science degree....
What was he a qualified scientists in? Physics? Biology? What exactly?
As for the rest of your post; I have just shown you all the evidence that it is an undisputed historical fact he was Christian -undisputed that is by just everyone but you and a few religious nutters like yourself that deny the widely known history. Simply saying he was not Christian because, according to your opinion whether correct or not, he did not follow the teaching's of Christ, doesn't mean he wasn't Christian. Why can't someone simply be a very bad Christian? And, if he was not a 'true Christian' by some arbitrary definition of that term that the Nazis would surely have disagreed with, the fact would remain that he was theist, NOT an atheist. There is no disputing the historical fact that he believed there is a God even if he wasn't a 'true Christian'. How is that NOT being a theist?
Again, obviously, you will convince nobody here for is is merely a trivial observation that it is a historical fact that he was NOT atheist (already shown absolute proof of that -see last post ) and was Christian even if he was a very bad one!
I should also point out that the few evil scientists that preformed atrocities in WW2 where not atheist but generally where Christian Nazi scientists. The vast majority of scientists across the world, even back then at the height of Nazism, where not involved in such atrocities and would have condemned it and certainly no atheist scientists would have supported it because no atheist scientist would have believed that a god guided evolution and thus would not believe in social Darwinism. What atrocities did, for example, Scottish atheist scientists commit in WW2? In fact, it would have been not only theists but Christian creationists in particular that would be most prone to believing such unscientific rubbish! After all, Hitler was both a theists and a creationist.
09 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI provided three quotations from his book where he espouses evolutionary theory, now logically, rationally, either he came to the same conclusions as Darwin or he assimilated the material from somewhere else. Can you say which?Hitler was a mad scientist
Dir -he obviously was NOT a scientist. Where the hell did you get that from? He was a mad theist.
Obviously, since he was never known to be qualified to be a scientist, you will convince nobody here the that he was a scientist without showing evidence of this! So please, show a link that shows his scienc ...[text shortened]... to believing such unscientific rubbish! After all, Hitler was both a theists and a creationist.
09 Jul 14
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have already covered this twice now and you just ignore my posts yet again; -WHICH evolutionary theory? biological Darwinism or social Darwinism? Because they are NOT the same thing.
I provided three quotations from his book where he espouses evolutionary theory, now logically, rationally, either he came to the same conclusions as Darwin or he assimilated the material from somewhere else. Can you say which?
If biological Darwinism, that is what Darwin scientifically discovered and who would NOT have supported social Darwinism.
If social Darwinism, that is the religious belief Hitler believed in, NOT Darwin.
Darwin would have hated Hitler and Hitler would have hated the real Darwin!
Social Darwinism doesn't logically follow from biological Darwinism and, in fact, in the case of the Nazi idea of social Darwinism which is that a God necessarily constantly guides evolution as apposed to biological Darwinism as we scientists understand it where it can be explained purely by natural processes with no God constantly intervening, the two actually LOGICALLY CONTRADICT!
So Hitler didn't rationally derive social Darwinism from Darwin's biological Darwinism but rather the Nazis just lied about what Darwin said or implied to falsely make out that his theory either is or supports social Darwinism -which it logically isn't and doesn't.