religion

[paulgiamatti]

Please. I can't believe you are honestly this daft. And I suppose because Jeffrey Dahmer drilled holes in his unconscious victims' heads and filled them with battery acid in an attempt to keep them alive while he had his way them, this can also be attributed to an apparent brainwashing scheme perpetrated upon humanity by the scientific community.

This is complete bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself for even making the comparison. In the second sentence of the Wikipedia article for Josef Mengele, his experiments are described as unscientific. Just because there are a thousand idiots like yourself attempting - very poorly I might add - to rationalize sickly and immoral creationist, religionist ideologies by fabricating this conspiratorial nonsense doesn't mean I'm inclined to take it seriously for a second.

[leewong]

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

You guys are joking right? I mean seriously, you guys are joking right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

You can even google real life experiences where people captured him claiming what he did "in the name of science".

We will start here, since you guys claim there was apparently no Nazi's that do anything in the name of science. I don't even know what to say, is this serious garbage?

The amount of horror stories you can find all due to "in the name of science" from the holocaust is momf blowing, just do 1 google search. Apparently it is all fake? I legitimately want to know, was all the science experiments that happened completely fabricated? Is the Holocaust real? I don't know anymore after being in this thread.

Let's assume you are 100% correct and EVERY act the Nazis committed was "in the name of science". Nevermind, that it is demonstrably false. How is the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, conclusion, peer review) responsible for the abuses? You keep giving the process personal traits which baffles me.

Should we also assume all abortion clinic bombings were committed "in the name of God". How about witch burnings? The Inquisition? The Crusades? How about the massacre of the Native Americans? What are the key differences between blaming religion and blaming a process like the scientific method?

[mtb tripper]

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

hey guys, its cool

[paulgiamatti]

It's just so, so very silly I can't even begin to even fathom the thought process that leads these conclusions. As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation - once you've carried out a scientific experiment of any kind you become a follower of the ghastly doctrine of science, now fully committed to perpetrating your wicked plans upon an unsuspecting population.

Should we point out again that the originators of the scientific method were entirely creationistic?

[mtb tripper]

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

It's just so, so very silly I can't even begin to even fathom the thought process that leads these conclusions. As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation - once you've carried out a scientific experiment of any kind you become a follower of the ghastly doctrine of science, now fully committed to perpetrating your wicked plans upon an unsuspecting population.

Should we point out again that the originators of the scientific method were entirely creationistic?

yeah haha its silly. As if those who use science and rationality were born to drive you toward the path of "sin"

[Patriam1066]

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

yeah haha its silly. As if those who use science and rationality were born to drive you toward the path of "sin"

http://lastresistance.com/7026/austr...-climate-data/

Not going to claim this is the most reputable source... But this is fairly controversial in Australia right now. The labour govt had scientists skewing climate data to show a warming trend when in fact there was a cooling trend. Why do you think scientists are perfect? They are human beings that can be manipulated by the prospect of tenure and grant money. You're advocating the idea that religion shouldn't be sacred. Fine. You should also retain a healthy level of skepticism for other aspects of our culture.

Many of you have said that religion was once used as a control mechanism. So if many elites had once used religious institutions to control or manipulate public opinion, what would they use to control a populace that was slowly denying their old traditions. Science, especially since you guys hold a science book to be as sacred as a Muslim with his Quran.

I'd like to reiterate that I believe in both evolution and the scientific method... But I am highly skeptical that, in a world where a weatherman can only tell me to 50% accuracy whether it will rain in a given day, that climate models, unaware presently of all of the feedback mechanisms and variables at work on the earth, can accurately predict the global climate in 100 years. It doesn't make sense to me. I think we should retain a healthy level of skepticism, especially when 90% of "climate change" in the U.S. is nothing more than El Niño being incorrectly attributed to this chicken little mentality that if we don't stop burning gas we're all going to die.

[leewong]

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

....

"As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation"

This is exactly why I think Eliseus has avoided my question for 60+ pages. I was trying to get him to realize the scientific method is neither good nor evil nor religious nor atheistic. It is only a process that humans use to make discoveries and learn about the world we live in.

Creationist dont like some of the data that process uncovers. Creationists dont understand some of the theories science has verified. I am fine with that. I think they are ignorant but I am fine with that. What I do despise is when they blame science and conversely the scientific method.

[RobotElvis]

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

It's just so, so very silly I can't even begin to even fathom the thought process that leads these conclusions. As if the scientific method itself is somehow this morally corrupting, evil incantation - once you've carried out a scientific experiment of any kind you become a follower of the ghastly doctrine of science, now fully committed to perpetrating your wicked plans upon an unsuspecting population.

Should we point out again that the originators of the scientific method were entirely creationistic?

The entire point was completely missed by yourself, though I expect intentionally.

Science is not evil. True science is on hormone with the bible, as truth associates with truth not falsehood.

Evolution is a form of sociocratic control perpetuated, not by science, but by totalitarian scientific dictators that have told you it is the path of humanity.

They want to remove the your reasoning ability and make you a manipulatable being.
And it seems to be working.

It is the religion of the new state.

And also Marx and Hitler were heavily influenced by the writings of Darwin.
Using his idea of social evolution to promote their radical ideologues as scientifically justifiable and moral.

[leewong]

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

The entire point was completely missed by yourself, though I expect intentionally.

Science is not evil. True science is on hormone with the bible, as truth associates with truth not falsehood.

Evolution is a form of sociocratic control perpetuated, not by science, but by totalitarian scientific dictators that have told you it is the path of humanity.

They want to remove the your reasoning ability and make you a manipulatable being.
And it seems to be working.

It is the religion of the new state.

And also Marx and Hitler were heavily influenced by the writings of Darwin.
Using his idea of social evolution to promote their radical ideologues as scientifically justifiable and moral.

Yeah, there is a worldwide conspiracy to dupe people into believing evolution just so a few elite can use it as a control device. Scientist, every single one of them, are complicit in this plot. They spend their entire lives producing false data and slaving away on experiments they know are lies only to grease the machine of evolutionary dominance. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of scientist all agreeing and being complicit in this plot! You folks cant even imagine how DEEP this goes! Thank goodness we have level headed folks like RobotElvis to shake us awake.

Religion is the saving grace of humanity and it has never been used as an instrument of control. Science is the tool of the devil and is only used to control.

You heard it hear first, folks. Now let's go build a great statue to salute our comrade RobotElvis. Humanity will never be the same now that we have received his message.

PS. UFOs are demons and HARP is used to produce hurricanes. 911 was an inside job and ISIS is just a puppet of Israel. I am pretty sure the Holocaust never happened either.

[paulgiamatti]

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

True science is on hormone with the bible, as truth associates with truth not falsehood.

The entire basis of science is predicated on falsehood. Stop being antihistorical. Stop inventing versions of what you want science to be in order to justify your sickly, immoral creationist worldview.

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am highly skeptical that, in a world where a weatherman can only tell me to 50% accuracy whether it will rain in a given day, that climate models, unaware presently of all of the feedback mechanisms and variables at work on the earth, can accurately predict the global climate in 100 years.

Every real scientist is highly skeptical of this as well. The death of skepticism is the death of thought and scientific inquiry. No scientist is claiming to be able to definitively predict the global climate in 100 years, nor does this fact discredit the scientific method in any way whatsoever.