Originally posted by @whodey
It sounds to me that you have adopted the Golden Rule given to us by Jesus Christ, which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you.

Is that correct?

I generally agree with don't do to others what you wouldn't like to do to yourself. I didn't get that from 'Jesus' nor any stupid religion but, like most normal people, independently from my own independent thinking and emotions.

Originally posted by @humy
why have you a need to follow someone's else's morality rather than, like me and independent thinkers, formulate your own?

Ultimately, I think morality is inherent in the individual regardless of religious affiliation. The same religious texts can be interpreted in any number of different ways, and you can gravitate towards the tribe that aligns best with your internal morality. Lots of people read the bible and do great things with its moral teachings, while others use it as justification for violence.

Originally posted by @whodey
Science is like the US government arming Iraq and Iran to wage holy war with each other.

Disgusting.

Hey. This is your thread so you can take it wherever you want. Is equating science with government really the direction you're headed here? It's been established that the application of science and/or religion is the problem, not the concepts. Remove the advanced weaponry, and the holy war would be still be waged with swords. Remove the religious sects, and lose the entire justification for the violence.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
What's the more well known phrase: Science war or holy war?

Science is a methodology. It is a way of approaching and solving a problem. If you think "Science" boils down to a bunch of nerds laughing at spirituality then you're sadly mistaken. We are often spiritual, introspective and reverent. Good scientists take time to think about their personal eth ...[text shortened]... d using science as a justification. Yet how many people have died because of organized religion?

Speaking of Darwin this is what he had to say about allowing the weak to corrupt the human gene pool.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So here we see Darwin exercise some of his "morality". He said that protecting and helping the weak, although detrimental to the human species, is because we have a noble nature.

Speaking of Hitler as you did, Hitler merely looked at the science of Darwin and decided to empty hospitals of the weak by killing them off. His aim was only to make the human species strong. Nobility was not a scientific concept, thus he rejected it entirely.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Hey. This is your thread so you can take it wherever you want. Is equating science with government really the direction you're headed here? It's been established that the application of science and/or religion is the problem, not the concepts. Remove the advanced weaponry, and the holy war would be still be waged with swords. Remove the religious sects, and lose the entire justification for the violence.

I see, so it is the application of science that is the problem, correct?

I would then assume you feel the same about religion. It is not the religion that is to blame but the application of religion, correct?

Originally posted by @whodey
Speaking of Darwin this is what he had to say about allowing the weak to corrupt the human gene pool.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the ...[text shortened]... the human species strong. Nobility was not a scientific concept, thus he rejected it entirely.

Most (if not all) independent thinking rational and normal people including I don't get there morality from Darwin nor anyone other individual except themselves so all your post is completely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with science. Darwin theory of evolution, which implies nothing about morality, is part of science. But his personal morality isn't part of science because science is evidence-based knowledge, not morality.
Regardless of how well they adhere to scientific method, different scientists have different opposing morality and there is no particular 'morality' supported by or 'favored' by 'science' because science evidence-based knowledge, not morality.

Originally posted by @humy
Most (if not all) independent thinking rational and normal people including I don't get there morality from Darwin nor anyone other individual except themselves so all your post is completely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with science. Darwin theory of evolution, which implies nothing about morality, is part of science. But his personal morality isn't par ...[text shortened]... ' supported by or 'favored' by 'science' because science evidence-based knowledge, not morality.

Right, so what is wrong with weeding out the weak from the human gene pool?

Why let the genetically inferior reproduce?

Originally posted by @whodey
Speaking of Darwin this is what he had to say about allowing the weak to corrupt the human gene pool.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the ...[text shortened]... the human species strong. Nobility was not a scientific concept, thus he rejected it entirely.

WOW. That's a new one. You're blaming the holocaust on Darwin?

Originally posted by @wildgrass
WOW. That's a new one. You're blaming the holocaust on Darwin?

I'd say more like the T4 program.

https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program

Germany benefits from this program and other 'improvements' implemented by the Nazis.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
WOW. That's a new one. You're blaming the holocaust on Darwin?

That is not a new link.

Originally posted by @whodey
I see, so it is the application of science that is the problem, correct?

I would then assume you feel the same about religion. It is not the religion that is to blame but the application of religion, correct?

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 stakes (literally life and death). These dichotomies are often exploited by bad people to justify violence (and a number of other horrors i.e. pedophilia). That's why religion causes conflict. That's why some historians argue that there would be less conflict if religion were removed as a justification for violence.

Faith, spirituality, karma, morality are all far superior concepts to religion, and exist independently of organized religions. We don't need religion to be moral.

And again, science is just methods for creating new knowledge. It does not justify violence.

Originally posted by @eladar
I'd say more like the T4 program.

https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program

Germany benefits from this program and other 'improvements' implemented by the Nazis.

Yeah I've heard that before, but there's no mention of Darwin.

"Nazi officials assigned people to this program largely based on their economic productivity." has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Yeah I've heard that before, but there's no mention of Darwin.

"Nazi officials assigned people to this program largely based on their economic productivity." has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection.

They were killing off people who would not be able to survive on their own. Is this not natural selection?

Originally posted by @whodey
Right, so what is wrong with weeding out the weak from the human gene pool?

its murder. Your point?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
That is not a new link.

Maybe not new but entirely absurd. Darwin wouldn't touch eugenics with a 100 ft pole. Natural selection is a completely different concept (in some ways the opposite). Socrates, though, talked about the benefits of eugenics 2000 years before him.