religion

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In many ways, epistemology is like an economic system. With all the right theoreticians in all the right places, one can arbitrarily bestow epistemological primacy upon those paradigms that are most socially and politically expedient. In such a climate of epistemological suppression, academic and institutional barriers prevent competitors from accessing the ideational marketplace. Meanwhile, a self-proclaimed cognitive elite monopolizes the economy of popular thought. This oligopoly of knowledge, in short, amounts to an epistemological cartel, promoting its anointed ideologues and squelching cognitive dissenters.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Eliseus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Something that just popped into my head is I think the issue I personally have is you can almost never claim science to be false, because science claims it is always evolving and since we don't know everything, we must accept the knowledge we have till a later date. For example, evolution could be completely 100% fabricated, but we have to accept that is what it is that this time, even more so if you don't believe in God. Maybe the belief in God extends to that people need something else to believe in because science is false at time.

This is actually fairly similar to my beef with creationism. It's an unfalsifiable argument; no matter what the advancement in science reveals, no matter how heavy the hammer blows of scrupulous experimentation and hard, scientific results, the creationist can always attribute it to a supreme creator of the universe. An argument such as this, an argument which can always explain away any new discovery by saying it was made by a grand, unfaltering creator, no matter how ignorant we were of said new discovery's existence before we discovered it, is absolutely unfalsifiable and therefore unsound.

Evolution on the other hand makes no claims without due evidence. Evolution doesn't even claim to be right - everything within the purview of evolution and science is completely falsifiable. You are free to go conduct any experiment you so desire in order to achieve results that fall contrary to the consensus, and in doing so you also have the opportunity to debunk the consensus. And scientists would love that. Scientists love new evidence, they absolutely love it when the consensus changes and they are proven wrong, because this is the unfailing sign that humanity has progressed and our minds have expanded.

[iruinedyourday]

If you guys keep it up the energy produced in the rapped page numbers increasing on this thread it will create a second big bang and all our DNA will be imprinted into a norrathian/earthlike planet and all shall live in harmony, except for some of the more serious raiding guilds.

[paulgiamatti]

I'm done, not out of disrespect but because I've said enough. I might still post a response to Toofliss though, as I thought his posts were very honest and it would pain me to turn down the chance to dissuade a deist from creationism altogether.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm done, not out of disrespect but because I've said enough. I might still post a response to Toofliss though, as I thought his posts were very honest and it would pain me to turn down the chance to dissuade a deist from creationism altogether.

You're taking your scientist and going home?

Man I was about to show the deep rooted spiritual nature of the ideology of Darwinism.
Oh well.

[iruinedyourday]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[iruinedyourday]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[RobotElvis]

Darwinism itself was always a social theory, not a scientific one. It was designed according to Darwin’s presuppositions, which were already oligarchical in character. Darwin was surrounded by aristocrats, technocrats, and other elitists. Freemason T.H. Huxley, who was involved in the establishment of the oligarchical Round Table groups, is just one case in point. The influence of such elements is evident in the Darwinian concept of natural selection itself. Ian Taylor observes that:

the political doctrine implied by natural selection is elitist, and the principle derived according to Haeckel is “‘aristocratic in the strictest sense of the word'” (411).

Darwinism facilitates the revolutionary dialectic of “[f]reedom followed by Draconian control.” First, it appropriates currency to moral relativism, an economy of thought already bankrupted by self-refuting logical contradictions. H.G. Wells reiterates:

If all animals and man evolved, then there were no first parents, no paradise, no fall. And if there had been no fall, then the entire historic fabric of Christianity, the story of the first sin, and the reason for the atonement collapses like a house of cards. (The Outline of History 616)

Subsequently, the architects of revolution establish their “sociocracy” over the thoroughly demolished “house of cards.” Jane H. Ingraham explains:

“His [Darwin's] shattering “explanation” of the evolution of man from the lower animals through means excluding the supernatural delivered the coup de grace to man’s idea of himself as a created being in a world of fixed truth. Confronted with the “scientific proof” of his own animal origin and nature, Western man, set free at last from God, began the long trek through scientific rationalism, environmental determinism, cultural conditioning, perfectibility of human nature, behaviorism, and secular humanism to today’s inverted morality and totalitarian man.” (Qutd. In Jasper, Global Tyranny. . .Step by Step 262-63)

William Jasper eloquently synopsizes this observation:

The rejection of Divine revelation and the sovereignty of God has resulted in the enthronement of man’s “reason” as the ultimate source of truth and the apotheosis of the State as the supreme authority. (Global Tyranny. . .Step by Step 263)

[leewong]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Darwinism itself was always a social theory, not a scientific one. It was designed according...

Lol, lifted straight from:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/201...-dictatorship/

Did you read any of the page long copy/pastes I posted to mock you? I bet not. Why do you think anyone is going to read this tripe and respond to it point by point? You are being intellectually lazy. At the very least, have the decency to paraphrase the arguments and cite sources.

[RobotElvis]

In essence, Darwinism was an epistemological weapon for sociocratic revolution. As such, it was destined to merge with the rest of the technocratic social sciences. This was a prearranged marriage and one that was made in Hell. In the contemporary religious milieu of sociolatry, the golden calf of the Israelites has been exchanged for the golden ape-man of Darwinism.