Darwin, the Destroyer

[PoliticalChic]

where did i ever mention religion?

try harder to be cute.

Well, this is the Religion and Ethics thread. I assumed you could read.

ha, you got me there.

i did not realize that this was placed in that section.

i assumed it was the rubber room.

so, i will answer your serious question and apologize for my shenanigans.

my religion is not enviromentalism.

any further questions?

And this: "Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong."
That's why I chose this forum.


Incidentally....love the avi....so glad you didn't go back to the scary ones.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Well, this is the Religion and Ethics thread. I assumed you could read.

ha, you got me there.

i did not realize that this was placed in that section.

i assumed it was the rubber room.

so, i will answer your serious question and apologize for my shenanigans.

my religion is not enviromentalism.

any further questions?

Is environmentalism a religion?

still trying to be cute?

 

[AquaAthena]

Is it being proposed that we maintain the rules and morality of religion without hierarchy? That's a step in the correct direction.

It still leaves folks with the false idea that these are externally imposed and not internally accepted.

Belief is choice.

Choosing to believe in a religion means that choosing not to is also an option.

Another thoughtful thread by PoliticalChic.

Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."

^^This has worked well for me. The Golden Rule, if you will.

Also: "Develop a profound belief in the universal law of cause and effect---the empowering belief that we all ultimately direct our own lives." And I do.

Also I am mindful of this wisdom: Cultivation of tolerance for other faiths will impart to us a truer understanding of our own.

"...the empowering belief that we all ultimately direct our own lives."

And that reinforces the point of the OP....that materialism, Darwinism, the idea that we are no more than the combination of biological systems, is false.

Thank you for that.

You're welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to offer other viewpoints.

I do not affirm or deny the existence of a god. Until scientific evidence is in, I won't be changing my mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Environmentalism can be religious in belief systems, as is atheism. Both require, like Christianity, leaps of faith.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, this is the Religion and Ethics thread. I assumed you could read.

ha, you got me there.

i did not realize that this was placed in that section.

i assumed it was the rubber room.

so, i will answer your serious question and apologize for my shenanigans.

my religion is not enviromentalism.

any further questions?

Is environmentalism a religion?

Sure it!

It's the love and worship of Gaia!


One spin-off of the Enlightenment was the desire to find new myths that would transcend daily existence and take one to a higher level of purification. Proto-fascist, and founder of ecology, Ernst Haeckel, invested nature-worship with the belief that all matter was alive and possessed mental attributes. In ‘monism,’ he brought together hostility to Christianity and propaganda for Darwinism, a nature cult and theories of hygiene and selective breeding.
J.W. Burrow, “The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914,” p. 218-19

 

[AVG-JOE]

a. The French Revolution, the Jacobin revolution, resulted in Reason replacing the Christian God.

You say that like it's a bad thing?!?

It is a 'bad thing,' Joe.

There is no morality to science. Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?


You might also like to consider why the French Revolution turned a nation into an abattoir,
while the American Revolution, led by religious folks, gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks’ windows whenever bankers come town."
Coulter, "Demonic."

Science doesn't need morality. Mankind comes with a certain developing morality that is his responsibility to bring to the table when using the tool of Science.

It's also his responsibility to bring whatever morality is reflected back on society by his use of the tool of Religion.

Has the clergy, the human face of Religion, been perfect with their responsibility to bring morality to their profession? Should we hold the men of God to a higher standard? These are valid questions.

There have been at LEAST as many dangerously immoral preachers as there have been 'mad scientists' in history....

 

[PoliticalChic]

You say that like it's a bad thing?!?

It is a 'bad thing,' Joe.

There is no morality to science. Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?


You might also like to consider why the French Revolution turned a nation into an abattoir,
while the American Revolution, led by religious folks, gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks’ windows whenever bankers come town."
Coulter, "Demonic."

Science doesn't need morality. Mankind comes with a certain developing morality that is his responsibility to bring to the table when using the tool of Science.

It's also his responsibility to bring whatever morality is reflected back on society by the tool of Religion.

Has the clergy, the human face of Religion, been perfect with their responsibility to bring morality to their profession? Should we hold the men of God to a higher standard? These are valid questions.

There have been at LEAST as many dangerously immoral preachers as there have been 'mad scientists' in history....

Really?

See post #44.

 

[percysunshine]

ha, you got me there.

i did not realize that this was placed in that section.

i assumed it was the rubber room.

so, i will answer your serious question and apologize for my shenanigans.

my religion is not enviromentalism.

any further questions?

Is environmentalism a religion?

still trying to be cute?

So tell me about Ethics. Would an ethical scientist subject themself to a religion?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Is environmentalism a religion?

still trying to be cute?

So tell me about Ethics. Would an ethical scientist subject themself to a religion?

you are moving into retard country.

i can play this all night.

 

[AVG-JOE]

No.

The issue that is being explored, or propounded, via the OP is that there is a philosophy that suggests that humans are no different from any lower organism....

...and, therefore, one should expect no different actions.


So, if one believes that we are very different from any other living thing, that we have the inexplicable ability to make moral decisions and derive satisfaction via individual purpose,...

...then each of us should be wary of subscribing to a view that endorses self gratification as the only 'reasonable' approach to life.


Of course, if one does have a view of a special character for human beings....it does direct one toward the idea of a Creator.

Mammals bleed red.

Pretty compelling evidence for a relationship between a boy and his dog that gets physical as well as emotional.

Why is the thought of being an animal from Earth so disgusting?
Earth animals are BEAUTIFUL!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WTNvsOczkc]Friends... - YouTube[/ame]

Why would you say it's disgusting?

What is disgusting is the view that we are just like the animals.

I find the animal inside humanity to be beautiful. I love the 'animal' things we humans do. The eating, the sex, the joy of running naked in the sunshine. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, PC.

 

[percysunshine]

still trying to be cute?

So tell me about Ethics. Would an ethical scientist subject themself to a religion?

you are moving into retard country.

i can play this all night.

Not answering can go on forever.

Well....maybe a few billion years.

 

[L.K.Eder]

So tell me about Ethics. Would an ethical scientist subject themself to a religion?

you are moving into retard country.

i can play this all night.

Not answering can go on forever.

Well....maybe a few billion years.

let's recap.

you made the bold statement about scientists and liberals.

Cause....Effect....

A scientist understands the relationship. A liberal does not.

you can back off anytime.

or you can double-down on dumb.

 

[Toro]

i am a liberal scientist.

You can't be both. I am guessing you are one of those closet scientists who are afraid of losing funding and wont admit they are conservative.

you can be both,

and you are wrong.

but you knew that.

All the scientists I know are liberal.

Well, that's one.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You can't be both. I am guessing you are one of those closet scientists who are afraid of losing funding and wont admit they are conservative.

you can be both,

and you are wrong.

but you knew that.

All the scientists I know are liberal.

Well, that's one.

you know one scientist?

and this scientist is me?

what a coincidence

 

[Toro]

you can be both,

and you are wrong.

but you knew that.

All the scientists I know are liberal.

Well, that's one.

you know one scientist?

and this scientist is me?

what a coincidence

You're not a liberal.

You have a sense of humour.

 

[L.K.Eder]

All the scientists I know are liberal.

Well, that's one.

you know one scientist?

and this scientist is me?

what a coincidence

You're not a liberal.

You have a sense of humour.

i thought scientists were the ones without humour.

i get my stereotypes mixed up.

 

[Toro]

you know one scientist?

and this scientist is me?

what a coincidence

You're not a liberal.

You have a sense of humour.

i thought scientists were the ones without humour.

i get my stereotypes mixed up.

A German liberal scientist with a sense of humour.

Yeah, right!

What next, conhog was on the up and up?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which is put into context by 43. She is doing things backwardly again.

It is a 'bad thing,' Joe.

There is no morality to science. Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?


You might also like to consider why the French Revolution turned a nation into an abattoir,
while the American Revolution, led by religious folks, gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks’ windows whenever bankers come town."
Coulter, "Demonic."

Science doesn't need morality. Mankind comes with a certain developing morality that is his responsibility to bring to the table when using the tool of Science.

It's also his responsibility to bring whatever morality is reflected back on society by the tool of Religion.

Has the clergy, the human face of Religion, been perfect with their responsibility to bring morality to their profession? Should we hold the men of God to a higher standard? These are valid questions.

There have been at LEAST as many dangerously immoral preachers as there have been 'mad scientists' in history....

Really?

See post #44.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You're not a liberal.

You have a sense of humour.

i thought scientists were the ones without humour.

i get my stereotypes mixed up.

A German liberal scientist with a sense of humour.

Yeah, right!

What next, conhog was on the up and up?

i am also brown-skinned, with brown eyes, and black hair.

but we are conserving a lot of water.

there might be a coinkydink.

 

[AVG-JOE]

How about the aspects of science that are not testable?

Then, the reality of the scientist is the same as the reality of the theologian.

Religion attempts to answer the questions of origins and afterlife. If science and its wonderful process of proving shit by repeating it in a lab could be applied, this discussion would be over.

There is no proof in either camp. Science does not apply.

Make up your own, or pick a story off the shelf that's believable to you at this moment in your life and remember... it's o.k. to change your mind if you discover additional evidence to base a theory on. It won't mean that you're a big ol' girl.

Big Bang theory? When will it be tested in a lab?

Evolution?

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

Accepted on the same basis as religion: on faith.

It's o.k. to change your mind if you discover additional evidence to base a theory on. It won't mean that you're a big ol' girl.

Like I said... Pick a story of origins and a theory of the afterlife that that appeals to you based on the evidence you see and understand. That's what's nice about living in America!

Choices!!