Originally posted by humy

why? because i have not personally examined it and therefore i have no choice but to take it upon trust.

That doesn't answer my question:
Why do you “ take it upon trust” despite “not personally examined it” if, as you claim, it is irrational to believe something solely on the bases of indirect evidence i.e. without personal direct obse ...[text shortened]... tion? [/quote]

the rest of your post is irrelevant because it doesn't answer the question.

Alas even water if it drips with constancy can make a hole in a large rock! You have ground me down Humy, it was fun, you win, till we meet again, pistols at dawn, for the honour!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Alas even water if it drips with constancy can make a hole in a large rock! You have ground me down Humy, it was fun, you win, till we meet again, pistols at dawn, for the honour!

you win

No, I loose! Because I infer, from your “till we meet again, pistols at dawn”, you have chosen to go away without learning anything new. To be more specific, you go away with your harmful and dangerous misconception intact that nobody can rationally know anything from indirect observation/evidence alone without observing it for themselves. With such a dangerous delusion absurd belief, you can convince yourself of any other absurdity, such as disbelieve any scientific fact that you please just because it goes against your religious beliefs, as long doing so doesn’t violate this extremely severely delusional erroneous warped belief.

History shows, once you convince yourself of absurdities, you are just one small step away of being convinced to commit atrocities ( 9/11 and the Nazis are just two examples of that )

So, if you don't learn to dump this dangerous misconception, I loose! you loose! everyone looses! We ALL loose!
So I beg of you, look at my question and try answering it to yourself and then think about the implications of that and see how it shows your concept to be wrong and then post me a private message so I can know what progress you have made.

Originally posted by humy

you win

No, I loose! Because I infer, from your “till we meet again, pistols at dawn”, you have chosen to go away without learning anything new. To be more specific, you go away with your harmful and dangerous misconception intact that nobody can rationally know anything from indirect observation/evidence alone without observing it for them ...[text shortened]... oncept to be wrong and then post me a private message so I can know what progress you have made.

Rather interestingly I think that if you dig deep enough you will find that the Nazis were rather taken with the idea of social Darwinism, infact, I am quite sure that the Fuhrer himself made several references to it in his book 'My struggle'. Interesting title that I wonder where he got the idea, meh probably a mere coincidence that Darwins ideas was also based upon the concept of struggle!

I am neither harmful nor dangerous, infact i am essentially a harmless jester, a ragged clown that likes to chase shadows, if the truth be known. Please dont be bitter, feel easy who knows what may have percolated from your posts into my psyche 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Rather interestingly I think that if you dig deep enough you will find that the Nazis were rather taken with the idea of social Darwinism, infact, I am quite sure that the Fuhrer himself made several references to it in his book 'My struggle'. Interesting title that I wonder where he got the idea, meh probably a mere coincidence that Darwins ideas w ...[text shortened]... e dont be bitter, feel easy who knows what may have percolated from your posts into my psyche 😀

Wait a little here...

Hitler used darwinism as a base of his horrific act, so you say, then darwinism must be evil.
Anti-Balaka uses the bible as a base ofh their horrific actions, so I say, then the bible must be evil.
Exactly the same arguments, but this time against the bible and the whole christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-balaka

You and I know, right, that this is only rhetorics to make 'the others' to look bad.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Wait a little here...

Hitler used darwinism as a base of his horrific act, so you say, then darwinism must be evil.
Anti-Balaka uses the bible as a base ofh their horrific actions, so I say, then the bible must be evil.
Exactly the same arguments, but this time against the bible and the whole christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-balaka

You and I know, right, that this is only rhetorics to make 'the others' to look bad.

I have not said that Darwinism is evil and you are free to express your opinions as anyone. But i cannot be more dangerous than all those scientists engaged in weapons programs.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Rather interestingly I think that if you dig deep enough you will find that the Nazis were rather taken with the idea of social Darwinism, infact, I am quite sure that the Fuhrer himself made several references to it in his book 'My struggle'. Interesting title that I wonder where he got the idea, meh probably a mere coincidence that Darwins ideas w ...[text shortened]... e dont be bitter, feel easy who knows what may have percolated from your posts into my psyche 😀

the Nazis were rather taken with the idea of social Darwinism, infact,

Yes, and social Darwinism was an absurd CHRISTEN belief and never a scientific one. This proves my point. So? Are you now trying to confuse here biological Darwinism, which IS scientific, with social Darwinism, which is NOT scientific? If so, just look up each and come back to us.

So, back to my question; will you try band answer it and learn something new?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said that Darwinism is evil and you are free to express your opinions as anyone. But i cannot be more dangerous than all those scientists engaged in weapons programs.

Where did I say that you are dangerous? Never I would say such a thing. I respect you, even if we don't share views. You have the right to have any opinion, as long you give the respect to others not sharing yours. And that you do, as long I am concerned. Respect.

What I really did was to identified rhetorics, nothing more. If you use some special kind of rhetorics against darwinism, then exactly the same kind of rhetorics can be used against the bible. Exactly that was my point.

Some scientists are engaged in weapon programs, and you consider them dangerous. (Yes I do too.) But I would consider their bosses even more dangerous, albeit they are not scientists. To have a weapon is one thing, to use it is even more dangerous, especially if they are used against innocent people. The president of a certain country giving order to use these weapons is the most dangerous of them all. Especially if the weapons are nuclear. And moreover launched in the name of God.

I don't think a scientist would do science in a particular field if he knew that he is the one pressing the button destroying millions of lives and were there to see the result, I wouldn't. So who is the evil one in this game?

To point fingers at scientists saying that they are evil, and at the same time using the technology produced by scientists is hypocrisy, in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said that Darwinism is evil and you are free to express your opinions as anyone. But i cannot be more dangerous than all those scientists engaged in weapons programs.

I have not said that Darwinism is evil

-and you apparently attempt to confuse evil social Darwinism with the scientific fact of biological Darwinism with your quote; “Rather interestingly I think that if you dig deep enough you will find that the Nazis were rather taken with the idea of social Darwinism, “ in response to my post. So you are trying to say biological Darwinism is evil, right? If not, why mention social Darwinism at all there as it is irrelevant to my post?

But i cannot be more dangerous than all those scientists engaged in weapons programs.

Actually, you are more dangerous. A scientist that engaged in weapons programs does so because he gets paid for it. If no pay was offered, or if he was only paid to do some more useful science, he wouldn't do it. But who makes sure that he should get paid for it? Who really decides what money gets spent on destructive science rather than constructive science? It is the government. And who votes for government and puts voting pressure on them to spend much money on destructive science rather than constructive science? Voters that have paranoid delusional beliefs. The delusional way of thinking is ALWAYS extremely dangerous. It isn't the scientists that are dangerous but what delusional people make them do.

Originally posted by humy

the Nazis were rather taken with the idea of social Darwinism, infact,

Yes, and social Darwinism was an absurd CHRISTEN belief and never a scientific one. This proves my point. So? Are you now trying to confuse here biological Darwinism, which IS scientific, with social Darwinism, which is NOT scientific? If so, just look up each and come back to us.

So, back to my question; will you try band answer it and learn something new?

a Christian belief, wow and I thought that i was a joker! that just toooo funny, respect for that dude!

Originally posted by humy

I have not said that Darwinism is evil

-and you apparently attempt to confuse evil social Darwinism with the scientific fact of biological Darwinism with your quote; “Rather interestingly I think that if you dig deep enough you will find that the Nazis were rather taken with the idea of social Darwinism, “ in response to my post. So you ...[text shortened]... have paranoid delusional beliefs. The delusional way of thinking is ALWAYS extremely dangerous.

the man who makes the cannonball, the man who loads the cannon ball and the man who orders it to be fired are all complicit!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a Christian belief, wow and I thought that i was a joker! that just toooo funny, respect for that dude!

The Nazis where Cristian. The Nazi dogma was that the Cristian God make the master race evolve via evolution and the Jews are inferior as demonstrated by the fact that, according to the Bible, they betrayed Christ.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the man who makes the cannonball, the man who loads the cannon ball and the man who orders it to be fired are all complicit!

That makes people like you complicit.

Originally posted by humy
The Nazis where Cristian.

hardly, a christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, by definition, the Nazis were about as far removed from the teachings of Jesus as one could get! Now dude if you are going to continue to engage me in religious discussions i am going to have to demand respect! You realize that, right?

Originally posted by humy
That makes people like you complicit.

why? i have not made any cannonballs, loaded any canon balls into cannons or given the order to fire any cannon balls.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hardly, a christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, by definition, the Nazis were about as far removed from the teachings of Jesus as one could get! Now dude if you are going to continue to engage me in religious discussions i am going to have to demand respect! You realize that, right?

hardly, a christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus, by definition, the Nazis were about as far removed from the teachings of Jesus as one could get!

That is your opinion. They had a different opinion and where religious and just as Christian as any other Christian.