5 edits
Originally posted by jaywillit starts off saying:
Some creationist's scientific contributions.
(Better lower your volume just a tad)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBlYu_NRWB4&feature=related
“What did the 'biased' scientific minority' ever do for us?”
it then lists a number of creationists that have contributed to science.
In that list, it includes Werner von Braun who was known to work for the Nazis in WW2 -the video certainly scored an own-goal there!
His “contributions” included the V2-rockets that killed many men, women and children.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbraun.htm
“...These rockets killed 2,724 people and badly injured 6,000. ...”
-yes, we SHOULD recognise the contributions of creationists! -such delusional people have already demonstrated that they are dangerous and potentially evil as a result of their delusions. And Werner von Braun is proof of this.
If you have one delusional absurd belief then it becomes easier to convince yourself of others.
Once you believe the absurdity of creationism in this age of reason then that makes it easier to convince yourself of other absurdities such as some races are inferior to others. From there it is just one short step to convince yourself that these 'inferior' races should be eliminated.
It also fails to mention the obvious fact that their contributions didn't come BECAUSE they were creationists but DESPITE it!
It says at the end “without them, you would be freezing, starving and dying of horrific diseases” which, of course, is all false. That is false because if one had not contributed or made a discovery then all that would mean is that somebody else would have eventually made the discovery or contribution and that other person needn’t be a creationist. In fact, not being a creationist would make it more likely that you would contributed for research as consistently shown that the average IQ of theists is less than that of atheists.
It also fails to mention that most scientists that contribution to science are not creationists and the contributions of these non-creationist have made a bigger advancement to our understanding of the world.
2 edits
Originally posted by humy
it starts off saying:
“What did the 'biased' scientific minority' ever do for us?”
it then lists a number of creationists that have contributed to science.
In that list, it includes Werner von Braun who was known to work for the Nazis in WW2 -the video certainly scored an own-goal there!
His “contributions” included the V2-rockets that killed many men of these non-creationist have made a bigger advancement to our understanding of the world.
it starts off saying:
“What did the 'biased' scientific minority' ever do for us?”
it then lists a number of creationists that have contributed to science.
In that list, it includes Werner von Braun who was known to work for the Nazis in WW2 -the video certainly scored an own-goal there!
His “contributions” included the V2-rockets that killed many men, women and children.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbraun.htm
“...These rockets killed 2,724 people and badly injured 6,000. ...”
So then why don't you rail against scientific inventions ?
-yes, we SHOULD recognise the contributions of creationists! -such delusional people have already demonstrated that they are dangerous and potentially evil as a result of their delusions. And Werner von Braun is proof of this.
So, if the science yields a desctructive result, it is charged to the fault of the creationist, should he/she be the inventor.
But if the science yields constructive results that your humanism smiles upon, well then of course it is to the praise of atheistic scientists.
Selective blame / selective praise.
If you have one delusional absurd belief then it becomes easier to convince yourself of others.
Once you believe the absurdity of creationism in this age of reason then that makes it easier to convince yourself of other absurdities such as some races are inferior to others. From there it is just one short step to convince yourself that these 'inferior' races should be eliminated.
Sorry, but I don't view your selective blame / selective praise as "sound reasoning" . Sound bigotry perhaps.
So let's take Von Neumann and his "Von Neumann machine". And I have no idea as to his views of creation or non-creation. But his scheme of the Van Neuman machine storage scheme is the basis of nearly all modern computers.
Now computers have done some good things.
And computers have done some bad things.
Like rockets have done some good things and rockets have done some bad things.
Without knowing the position of Van Neuman on the whether he was a creationist or not, tell me before hand, is the computer a source for good or for evil ?
(I said WITHOUT, knowing where Von Neumann stood the creation concept )
It also fails to mention the obvious fact that their contributions didn't come BECAUSE they were creationists but DESPITE it!
That is just your big fat opinion on the matter.
Why should I accept that on your skeptical say so ?
You don't know that, IE. G.W. Carver's work with the peanut was all "in spite" of his views on a Creator.
It says at the end “without them, you would be freezing, starving and dying of horrific diseases” which, of course, is all false.
That may have been a bit of hyperbole.
You do exact same bigoted thing above asserting that you know belief in creation is a delusion. Your sheer arrogance is you own delusion.
That is false because if one had not contributed or made a discovery then all that would mean is that somebody else would have eventually made the discovery or contribution and that other person needn’t be a creationist. In fact, not being a creationist would make it more likely that you would contributed for research as consistently shown that the average IQ of theists is less than that of atheists.
" If a creationist had not thought of it, well an atheist eventually would have. "
So if a atheists contributes to science, we give credit immediately. But if a creationist contributes to science, well then we withhold appreciation and assume an atheist surely was just a little late in making the contribution.
And I'm suppose to be impressed with your "sound reasoning?"
As I said, I'm impressed with your "sound bigotry."
It also fails to mention that most scientists that contribution to science are not creationists and the contributions of these non-creationist have made a bigger advancement to our understanding of the world.
It was a short little video that "failed" to menion a lot of things. And what constitutes a "contributionto science" depends on a lot of socio - economic - political factors.
Ie. The Industrial Revolution needed something like Darwinwism to rationalize racism. So your good old boy Charles Darwin's great "contribution" to science certainly provided rational to the concept of racial superiority.
I expect you to respond by saying "religion did the same thing," which of course would be true.
The full original title to Darwin's thesis:
On
The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
First Edition
by Charles Darwin
See "Talk Origins" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
6 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...So then why don't you rail against scientific inventions ? ...”
[quote]it starts off saying:
“What did the 'biased' scientific minority' ever do for us?”
it then lists a number of creationists that have contributed to science.
In that list, it includes Werner von Braun who was known to work for the Nazis in WW2 -the video certainly scored an own-goal there!
His “contributions” included the V2-rockets that k Talk Origins" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
I don't. Do you not read my post?
“...So, if the science yields a desctructive result, it is charged to the fault of the creationist, should he/she be the inventor. ...”
where did I say this? I CLEARLY didn't.
It was not “science” that “yields a destructive result” but stupid delusional religious nuts like Werner von Braun and potentially people like you.
It is PEOPLE that do evil, NOT science!
“...
Ie. The Industrial Revolution needed something like Darwinwism to rationalize racism. So your good old boy Charles Darwin's great "contribution" to science certainly provided rational to the concept of racial superiority. ...”
no, Darwinism does not “rationalize racism” but rather stupid morons like Werner von Braun and potentially religious nuts like yourself are so deluded as to think that Darwinism gives a rational bases for racism. “Darwinism” here, of course, refers to the REAL Darwinism i.e. biological Darwinism and NOT the stupid unscientific “social Darwinism” that was made up and supported by morons ( religious nuts ) including Hitler ( who was a THEIST and NOT an atheist ) .
Rational atheists know that Darwinism does NOT give a rational bases for racism.
The fact that you think it supports racism means you are a MORON.
P.S. NOWHERE does Darwin say nor imply in his origin of species book that racism is justified. Darwin was NOT racist and neither is any rational person that is not so stupid as to not understand what this simple hypotheses says.
If you are an atheist then you are less likely to be racist because you are less likely to be a delusional person with low IQ. Research has confirmed that atheists, on average, have higher IQ -so no surprises that it is the THEASTS that are more often racist.
In fact, research has also confirmed that atheists are LESS likely to commit evil acts such as crime:
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
Originally posted by humyThe writer of the article makes statements like this:
“...I don't have to prove it because it is stated in the article that they made
assumptions ...”
I point out for the third time: they made one assumption that was proven right. They didn't make that assumption effect the analysis of the evidence but mere made it there MOTIVE for their research.
Anyway, back to my question again on your previous claim:
...[text shortened]... is no part of scientific method that you understand that they do not. You are simply lying.
"The research claimed Christians were intellectually inferior to atheists."
Even I can claim things, right or wrong. That is not part of the scientific method. Using Gallop polls is not part of the scientific method. They do not even claim to do any scientific experiments. They are only doing studies of
some other peoples data that was gathered by polling. Then they claim a
conclusion based on their real motive, which is the claim mentioned above.
This is circular reasoning and not science.
Originally posted by humyShow me any news report that says Werner von Braun killed anyone with a rocket.
“...So then why don't you rail against scientific inventions ? ...”
I don't. Do you not read my post?
“...So, if the science yields a desctructive result, it is charged to the fault of the creationist, should he/she be the inventor. ...”
where did I say this? I CLEARLY didn't.
It was not “science” that “yields a destructive result” but stupid delusi ...[text shortened]...
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
I think you are just making irrational claims without proof. Where is the proof?
7 edits
Originally posted by humyNow, you say PEOPLE DO EVIL and not science.
“...So then why don't you rail against scientific inventions ? ...”
I don't. Do you not read my post?
“...So, if the science yields a desctructive result, it is charged to the fault of the creationist, should he/she be the inventor. ...”
where did I say this? I CLEARLY didn't.
It was not “science” that “yields a destructive result” but stupid delusi
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
Does it also work that PEOPLE DO EVIL and not religion? Or is that different? In that case it is really RELIGION that is evil and not the people ?
Or is it also that neither RELIGION or SCIENCE can be blamed or praised for good and evil but only PEOPLE ? Why are you upset with religion any more so than science ?
Now since you are in this elite percentage of smarter Atheist human beings, you should be able to explain this pretty easily.
And if you don't like Von Braun for his creationism, perhaps you can tell us what you find moronic or delusional in the inventor of the Polio Vaccine - creationist Jonas Falk.
Enlighten us on what was delusional or moronic in George Washington Carver.
On
The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
First Edition
by Charles Darwin
It looks like you're the one who is delusional.
In the face of clear evidence you insist that "Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection" which Darwin said an Alternative title "OR ... The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (my emphasis) has nothing to do with proposing a biological foundation for racism.
DELUSIONAL:
Psychiatry . maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.
Seems to discribe you to the detail, as you try to explain away the racist undercurrent that Charles Darwin specified as the meaning of his own writing.
Oh so much more intelligent atheists ? Like yourself ?
Hmm. You'll have to do better than that if you want to impress me.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“!...Show me any news report that says Werner von Braun killed anyone with a rocket. ...”
Show me any news report that says Werner von Braun killed anyone with a rocket.
I think you are just making irrational claims without proof. Where is the proof?
he designed the rockets that he KNEW would be used against innocent civilians.
He also KNEW that people where being killed making his rockets.
And yet he did no action nor said anything against these murders nor did he choose to stop working for the Nazis.
He therefore shares collective responsibility for the murders that his rockets were used for.
Do you deny any of these facts?
Do you think it would have been all right for you to say or do nothing against murders while doing something that you know will make the murders happen? Is this morally right merely if you don't knowingly murder directly but only knowingly murder indirectly? Would you condone knowingly do murders indirectly?
-it doesn't surprise me at all that you resort to supporting a Nazi to defend creationism; Nazism and creationism are more than compatible for one absurd belief is oxygen to another.
5 edits
Originally posted by humy
“!...Show me any news report that says Werner von Braun killed anyone with a rocket. ...”
he designed the rockets that he KNEW would be used against innocent civilians.
He also KNEW that people where being killed making his rockets.
And yet he did no action nor said anything against these murders nor did he choose to stop working for the Nazis.
He theref m; Nazism and creationism are more than compatible for one absurd belief is oxygen to another.
he designed the rockets that he KNEW would be used against innocent civilians. He also KNEW that people where being killed making his rockets. And yet he did no action nor said anything against these murders nor did he choose to stop working for the Nazis.
He therefore shares collective responsibility for the murders that his rockets were used for.
Should Einstien have stopped working for the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton NJ for the United States when he knew his physics would be used to build an A-bomb ?
Now Einstien believed in no personal God. But the questions as to whether he believed in God as a grand organizer of some sort of the universe, was an insult to him. Of course he believed in that kind of God.
Now, I grant you that Einstien was more vocal on war.
Do you think it would have been all right for you to say or do nothing against murders while doing something that you know will make the murders happen? Is this morally right merely if you don't knowingly murder directly but only knowingly murder indirectly? Would you condone knowingly do murders indirectly?
Einstien warned the US president - paraphrased " you better do something. I know the German physicists know how to make an atom bomb. You better do something about it."
He also knew then of thousands of men, women, and children (non-combatants) could be burned up in an atomic explosion. (Hiroshima & Nagasaki ).
Do you make the same charges against Einstien? And he was at least some kind of Diest believer in an impersonal Creator God.
Do you lump Einstien in with Werner von Braun in this blaming of yours ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillActually the evidence generally indicates that Einstein was an atheist in all but name however the
[quote] he designed the rockets that he KNEW would be used against innocent civilians. He also KNEW that people where being killed making his rockets. And yet he did no action nor said anything against these murders nor did he choose to stop working for the Nazis.
He therefore shares collective responsibility for the murders that his rockets were used for. ...[text shortened]... l Creator God.
Do you lump Einstien in with Werner von Braun in this blaming of yours ?
debate on the subject is pretty pointless and irrelevant.
The question as to the ethicacy of designing atomic weapons is an interesting one.
In which the religion (or absence thereof) of the people involved is irrelevant.
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually the evidence generally indicates that Einstein was an atheist in all but name however the
debate on the subject is pretty pointless and irrelevant.
The question as to the ethicacy of designing atomic weapons is an interesting one.
In which the religion (or absence thereof) of the people involved is irrelevant.
Actually the evidence generally indicates that Einstein was an atheist in all but name however the
debate on the subject is pretty pointless and irrelevant.
Well, you brought up the objection. So while I may not get into a debate, allow me to respond briefly.
It seems everyone wants to claim Albert Einstein is on THEIR side. Atheists of course want to claim him for the denial of the existence of God. Some theists want to make sure the smart guy is in their camp as a believer in God.
I take the man's own words to express his thought. I need really nothing else. And according to his own words, he believed in no personal God (so you can rest peacefully that he was no evangelical Christian). But he did believe in god / God -and wanted to know "his mind." That is some kind of Deist I suppose.
Now you can say "Oh no, no, no - He ATHEIST !!" It won't work on me. Sorry. I would advize you to just be happy he was no Bible thumper like me and not try to push it.
But that's your choice. I have no problem with Albert Einstein's own words on the specific subject. That is where one should consult first - HIS OWN WORDS SPECIFICALLY ON THAT SUBJECT.
The question as to the ethicacy of designing atomic weapons is an interesting one.
In which the religion (or absence thereof) of the people involved is irrelevant.
You may feel differently from humy. We'll see.
I believe the Bible that ALL have sinned and ALL have fallen short of the glory of God. I believe the Bible that ALL are sinners and that ALL are in need of the salvation and redemption in Christ.
So the bad atheist scientist, the good atheist scientist, the bad theist scientist, and the good theist scientist are ALL on equal standing in this matter.
"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillAh I wasn't clear...Actually the evidence generally indicates that Einstein was an atheist in all but name however the
debate on the subject is pretty pointless and irrelevant.
Well, you brought up the objection. So while I may not get into a debate, allow me to respond briefly.
It seems everyone wants to claim Albert Einstein is on THEIR side. Athe ...[text shortened]... this matter. [/i]
[b]"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" [/b]
I don't care if Einstein believed in god or not. I don't think he did and think he was being
metaphorical but I really don't give a damn one way or another.
It's just not relevant or important to me.
And there is no such thing as sin and even if there were I would not give a toss about it.
Sin is that which displeases or goes against the commands of a god or gods.
And gods don't exist. And even if they did, I still don't care what they command.
Don't conflate sin with morality because the two are not linked.
Morality is independent of sin.
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, I think you slipped that in there about Einstein really being an Atheist because you do care a little bit. Couldn't hurt just to mention it.
Ah I wasn't clear...
I don't care if Einstein believed in god or not. I don't think he did and think he was being
metaphorical but I really don't give a damn one way or another.
It's just not relevant or important to me.
And there is no such thing as sin and even if there were I would not give a toss about it.
Sin is that which displeases ate sin with morality because the two are not linked.
Morality is independent of sin.
I also think you don't like the word "sin" because that's religious talk. But call a moral infraction something else.
As I see it if you have evil it implies that you have good too.
If you have good and evil then you have some way or principle to discriminate one from the other.
If you have some way or law by which you discriminate one from the other than you must have a legistlator.
If the legistlator is not itself a moral agent then how could a moral prinicple have come into existence ?
This is the question I would like to see answer and not another.
If you respond with grumbles about religious people are bad then I'll know you are not addressing the question that I pose.
HOW did a moral principle come into existence by which you googlefudge discriminate between good and evil without a prior moral mind behind it ?
Are there bad atoms ?
Are there good molecules and evil molecules ?
Now if you come back and say "Hey, Athiests can be good" that is not the point.
How did a moral rule come into existence by which you personally discriminate between good and evil apart from a prior moral mind behind it ?
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill“...Should Einstien have stopped working for the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton NJ for the United States when he knew his physics would be used to build an A-bomb ? ...”
[quote] he designed the rockets that he KNEW would be used against innocent civilians. He also KNEW that people where being killed making his rockets. And yet he did no action nor said anything against these murders nor did he choose to stop working for the Nazis.
He therefore shares collective responsibility for the murders that his rockets were used for. l Creator God.
Do you lump Einstien in with Werner von Braun in this blaming of yours ?
No, because it wasn't HIM that developed the atom bomb!
Not only that, but he along with some other scientists pleaded with the US government to ONLY use the bomb for administration only; NOT actual use. He was actively and vocally AGAINST the use of the bomb!
“...He also knew then of thousands of men, women, and children (non-combatants) could be burned up in an atomic explosion. (Hiroshima & Nagasaki ). ...”
and he spoke up AGAIST it! and he didn't even know that his physics could be used to make an atomic bomb when he discovered that physics.
This contrasts with the Nazi RJHinds supports that did nothing and said nothing against the murders HE knew were being done as result of what he was doing.
You CANNOT compare Einstein with any Nazi!
P.S. Einstein was an atheist. He didn't like being called an atheist but the fact remains that for him the word “God” equated with the word “everything” and he did not believe there was a supernatural god nor even some kind of conscious non-supernatural god. Therefore, he was no more of a theist than I am. NOBODY as intelligent and rational as Einstein would believe in such stupidity as there being a supernatural god.
2 edits
Originally posted by humy
“...Should Einstien have stopped working for the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton NJ for the United States when he knew his physics would be used to build an A-bomb ? ...”
No, because it wasn't HIM that developed the atom bomb!
Not only that, but he along with some other scientists pleaded with the US government to ONLY use the bomb for adminis t and rational as Einstein would believe in such stupidity as there being a supernatural god.
P.S. Einstein was an atheist. He didn't like being called an atheist but the fact remains that for him the word “God” equated with the word “everything” and he did not believe there was a supernatural god nor even some kind of conscious non-supernatural god. Therefore, he was no more of a theist than I am. NOBODY as intelligent and rational as Einstein would believe in such stupidity as there being a supernatural god.
That is not atheism. That is you trying to expand the definition of Atheist to include Pantheism and/or Deism.
Try it in a standard college history of philosophy course and see what you get .
Now, I am not trying to indict Einstien as a Nazi. People are caught sometimes within the control of their country's political parties. Not all have a chance to escape. Not all have option to protest.
And there is some parellel. Einstien's contribution to the atomic age is I think without a doubt. And you have to take the good with the bad.
The argument you make for Werner von Braun is not altogether different from the case of Einstien in the US.
There may be differences. They are not that starkly different.
Now, I would like you to produce as was requested of you, evidence of Werner von Braun's staunch support of Nazism.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNo I 'slipped it in' about Einstein because I think you are wrong and I care about truth.
Well, I think you slipped that in there about Einstein [b]really being an Atheist because you do care a little bit. Couldn't hurt just to mention it.
I also think you don't like the word "sin" because that's religious talk. But call a moral infraction something else.
As I see it if you have evil it implies that you have good too.
If you have personally discriminate between good and evil apart from a prior moral mind behind it ?[/b]
I also did it to make the point that the jury is out, neither side can conclusively prove he
leant one way or another and that it doesn't matter anyway.
However on to the other thing...
As I said sin and morality are not the same thing.
I don't like 'sin' because sin is not defined as being good or bad.
It's defined as being with or against the will of god.
Fail to do whatever a god commands and you have sinned.
Morality doesn't enter it.
You are basically bringing up again the argument that you can't have objective (or any) morality without
god imposing it.
Which is both wrong and insulting.
And has been covered over and over again on these forums by a number of posters including me.
And I don't and have never said that 'religious people are bad'.
Religions are bad, but many if not most people are not.
Will you for the love of whatever god you worship please watch these videos (and read these links) and
actually pay attention to what is being said... (including if you will remember my obliterating the arguments
of your favourite apologist William Lane Craig)
I know this is a link bomb but damn am I tired of knocking down this same stupid argument over and over again.
If you really genuinely want to know how it's possible to create secular morality then these links cover the issue
several different ways in varying degrees of detail and show that it is indeed both possible and preferable to have
secular morality.
If when you have finished you want to discuss the issue starting from the arguments outlined here then fine.
But I am not going to start from scratch every single time you bring up this absurd and insulting argument.
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html
&feature=channel_video_title
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/euthyphro_dilemma/
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/wishful.html
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/evolpsych.html
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheismfaq.html
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/04/04/do-secular-moral-values-exist/
http://www.losingmyreligion.com/essays/lawsoflife.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_william_lan.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
EDIT: oh and btw atheist's is spelt e before i and is only capitalised at the beginning of a sentence.