Is the Bible right, are we sheep?

[Votto]

You are prey. Now just pray and you will get hooked.

Whoa! Hold on thar, Hoss! Check please!

I am a reformed southern baptist, VERY reformed. That other thread defined me as a defacto athiest, cuz as a scientist I cannot deny the possibility of a God, just most likely not your God.

Who is your shepherd then, science?

No dummy, science is my religion. We don't have a shepherd, just posers. We DO have shepherds of the week!

So let me ask you about this quote from Darwin

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

One the one hand, Darwin seems to believe in eugenics. If you want a certain kind of live stock that is healthy and strong, then you breed them a certain way.

On the other hand, mankind is allowed to have the weak breed to make the gene pool weaker.

Should this policy be changed? Should we breed human beings like we do animals for a better result? Darwin seems to think that helping the genetically inferior is "noble". I'm fascinated by this reasoning that seems to be more derived from the Bible than from science.

"should we" is subjective

"better result" is subjective.

malformed question.

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

 

[Votto]

So science is based upon reason.

Glad we can agree.

Dont do that "so then" and then inject whatever you feel like.....thats how twats talk to one another....theres no need to be a twat.

Science is simply a tool. Its based on repeatable experimentation & results. Its a "reasonable" tool, but to say its "based on reason" is extrapolating too much. Its "based on" results.

What....wut?

Your god is a tool?

I dont have a god, wanna try again

Yes, just like Adam and Eve in the garden being asked by the snake, "Do you want to be as gods?" They became their own gods.

Does that mean you are not a sheep? I was tallying the score on my questionnaire and it seems no one has voted against the notion that we are all sheep. Do you disagree with this notion or do you agree with it thinking you are exempt?

My reasoning is me.

So, in so far as I lead myself and my decisions..
..


im safe to say....nope, not a sheep.


You mad?

No, just curious.

So would you say that the notion of people in general being sheep is wrong?

 

[G.T.]

Dont do that "so then" and then inject whatever you feel like.....thats how twats talk to one another....theres no need to be a twat.

Science is simply a tool. Its based on repeatable experimentation & results. Its a "reasonable" tool, but to say its "based on reason" is extrapolating too much. Its "based on" results.

What....wut?

Your god is a tool?

I dont have a god, wanna try again

Yes, just like Adam and Eve in the garden being asked by the snake, "Do you want to be as gods?" They became their own gods.

Does that mean you are not a sheep? I was tallying the score on my questionnaire and it seems no one has voted against the notion that we are all sheep. Do you disagree with this notion or do you agree with it thinking you are exempt?

My reasoning is me.

So, in so far as I lead myself and my decisions..
..


im safe to say....nope, not a sheep.


You mad?

No, just curious.

So would you say that the notion of people in general being sheep is wrong?

I stand by my first post in this thread.

case by case basis


Religious and Partisan folks are by far the worst offendors of collectivist mindset

 

[G.T.]

Whoa! Hold on thar, Hoss! Check please!

I am a reformed southern baptist, VERY reformed. That other thread defined me as a defacto athiest, cuz as a scientist I cannot deny the possibility of a God, just most likely not your God.

Who is your shepherd then, science?

No dummy, science is my religion. We don't have a shepherd, just posers. We DO have shepherds of the week!

So let me ask you about this quote from Darwin

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

One the one hand, Darwin seems to believe in eugenics. If you want a certain kind of live stock that is healthy and strong, then you breed them a certain way.

On the other hand, mankind is allowed to have the weak breed to make the gene pool weaker.

Should this policy be changed? Should we breed human beings like we do animals for a better result? Darwin seems to think that helping the genetically inferior is "noble". I'm fascinated by this reasoning that seems to be more derived from the Bible than from science.

"should we" is subjective

"better result" is subjective.

malformed question.

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

 

[Votto]

Who is your shepherd then, science?

No dummy, science is my religion. We don't have a shepherd, just posers. We DO have shepherds of the week!

So let me ask you about this quote from Darwin

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

One the one hand, Darwin seems to believe in eugenics. If you want a certain kind of live stock that is healthy and strong, then you breed them a certain way.

On the other hand, mankind is allowed to have the weak breed to make the gene pool weaker.

Should this policy be changed? Should we breed human beings like we do animals for a better result? Darwin seems to think that helping the genetically inferior is "noble". I'm fascinated by this reasoning that seems to be more derived from the Bible than from science.

"should we" is subjective

"better result" is subjective.

malformed question.

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

 

[boedicca]

Well let's hear it. Are we all just looking for a "good" shepherd?

Silly Wabbit.

People are either:

Dragons
Wolves
Stags
Lions
Snakes
Flowers
Trout
Falcons
Horses
and some are Lambs

If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?

A Weirwood, of course.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Matthew 4:19 ~ And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

That makes us prey

Sheep is looking better all the time.

You are prey. Now just pray and you will get hooked.

Whoa! Hold on thar, Hoss! Check please!

I am a reformed southern baptist, VERY reformed. That other thread defined me as a defacto athiest, cuz as a scientist I cannot deny the possibility of a God, just most likely not your God.

Who is your shepherd then, science?

No dummy, science is my religion. We don't have a shepherd, just posers. We DO have shepherds of the week!

So let me ask you about this quote from Darwin

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

One the one hand, Darwin seems to believe in eugenics. If you want a certain kind of live stock that is healthy and strong, then you breed them a certain way.

On the other hand, mankind is allowed to have the weak breed to make the gene pool weaker.

Should this policy be changed? Should we breed human beings like we do animals for a better result? Darwin seems to think that helping the genetically inferior is "noble". I'm fascinated by this reasoning that seems to be more derived from the Bible than from science.

Actually the Bible states that the meek shall inherit the earth.

You have to understand the thought of the time. Yes, Chuck was talking eugenics and was just as racist as those of his time (Africans being inferior). Genetically his point is sound, but that is not all there is to humankind. Civilization requires compassion.

On the other hand, we have the medical expertise to keep humans alive waaay passed their born on date and a planet rapidly filling up with people. The cost of this medical care is not getting any cheaper.

An analogy would be what you have already posted. The study of atomic physics gave us both the good and the bad.

and man has beaten evolution and is no longer under its influence

 

[G.T.]

No dummy, science is my religion. We don't have a shepherd, just posers. We DO have shepherds of the week!

So let me ask you about this quote from Darwin

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

One the one hand, Darwin seems to believe in eugenics. If you want a certain kind of live stock that is healthy and strong, then you breed them a certain way.

On the other hand, mankind is allowed to have the weak breed to make the gene pool weaker.

Should this policy be changed? Should we breed human beings like we do animals for a better result? Darwin seems to think that helping the genetically inferior is "noble". I'm fascinated by this reasoning that seems to be more derived from the Bible than from science.

"should we" is subjective

"better result" is subjective.

malformed question.

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

 

[featherlite]

Well let's hear it. Are we all just looking for a "good" shepherd?

Out of context comparison. If the analogy had been conceived in the American West it would be "a good farmer" or "good rancher". Idea, of course, is simply that humans are social creatures and look to good leaders to help them make decisions.

The message of Jesus is both of forgiveness and acceptance. That if we give our hearts to God, we'll be protected as a shepherd protects their flock from predators. In this case, the predator is Satan.

No, they had other forms of live stock. A sheep was specifically chosen because if their leader jumps over a cliff, the rest follow.

Well not exactly, its the swine with unclean spirits who run off a cliff into the sea. Its more of a "finding the lost sheep". Then there are the ravenous wolves, out with the dogs, and slithering conniving snakes. I think you are a sheepist!! lol

We are suppose to reign over/care for animals. Nowadays people get so upset if someone dares to say that... we should be ONE with everything. gag
Just about every other person on social media identifies as the wolf. ohhh they are soooo cool.

 

[featherlite]

Well let's hear it. Are we all just looking for a "good" shepherd?

Out of context comparison. If the analogy had been conceived in the American West it would be "a good farmer" or "good rancher". Idea, of course, is simply that humans are social creatures and look to good leaders to help them make decisions.

The message of Jesus is both of forgiveness and acceptance. That if we give our hearts to God, we'll be protected as a shepherd protects their flock from predators. In this case, the predator is Satan.

No, they had other forms of live stock. A sheep was specifically chosen because if their leader jumps over a cliff, the rest follow.

You are free to believe as you wish.

It's not a belief, it is the truth.

The Hebrew people had a wide range of livestock. Goats, cattle, etc. But they chose only sheep to describe humanity. Here we have defenseless lemmings that follow authority unquestioned.

These are the facts.

true, and sheep are the cutest.
goats are cute too but tend to demolish everything...they arent very bright.

 

[Mac1958]

Commitment to any ideology tends to inspire simplistic, tunnel-visioned, sheep-like behavior, whether the ideology is religious or political.

Is it that, or is it that people are just simplistic, like sheep?

Well, I think we're capable of independent thought, but we can allow ourselves to become intellectually lazy if we're not careful.
.

 

[Votto]

So let me ask you about this quote from Darwin

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

One the one hand, Darwin seems to believe in eugenics. If you want a certain kind of live stock that is healthy and strong, then you breed them a certain way.

On the other hand, mankind is allowed to have the weak breed to make the gene pool weaker.

Should this policy be changed? Should we breed human beings like we do animals for a better result? Darwin seems to think that helping the genetically inferior is "noble". I'm fascinated by this reasoning that seems to be more derived from the Bible than from science.

"should we" is subjective

"better result" is subjective.

malformed question.

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

 

[MarkDuffy]

"should we" is subjective

"better result" is subjective.

malformed question.

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

 

[G.T.]

"should we" is subjective

"better result" is subjective.

malformed question.

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

wrong, in my opinion.

whats confusing

 

[Votto]

Well then answer the question with the properly formed question.

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

 

[G.T.]

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

What the founding fathers said isnt very logical - since theres no God proven and all..... they made a guess and spoke it as an ultimate truth.

Anyhoo, what seperates us from animals is our capability to reason.

Ironically.

 

[MarkDuffy]

There's nothing to ask because it implies a right or wrong ~ and morals as far as any man can or has ever proven, are relative.

Shit, even if your ultimate source for morals was an omniscient god....theyre by definition relative to his changing moods or attitudes and if....said god....doesnt have the power to change his/her/its morals, then that god is not all powerful in the first place.

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

We could quibble about the God of the Founders, but they believed in a creator. They did not put into our founding documents that we could mate with whom we choose. Let's not read too much into them. They followed the Darwin racism that you complained about.

Now about Nazis. It's the very same with all who believe in eugenics. Who chooses and how do they know fitness? The Nazis called the Jews inferior but they were really scapegoats and blamed for all the German problems that were caused by Germans.

Stephen Hawkings would lose to eugenics bean counters.

What worries me is selection via bank accounts or size of armies.

Natural rights is unscientific to say the least

Why is it unscientific? You know of any scientist who does not believe in natural rights? What the hell are unnatural rights anyway?

 

[Votto]

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

What the founding fathers said isnt very logical - since theres no God proven and all..... they made a guess and spoke it as an ultimate truth.

Anyhoo, what seperates us from animals is our capability to reason.

Ironically.

Animals can't reason? Do tell.

I have a dog that has figured out how to open a door by turning a door nob.

Then again, he probably did not tell you he was reasoning to figure that out, so..........

 

[G.T.]

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

What the founding fathers said isnt very logical - since theres no God proven and all..... they made a guess and spoke it as an ultimate truth.

Anyhoo, what seperates us from animals is our capability to reason.

Ironically.

Animals can't reason? Do tell.

I have a dog that has figured out how to open a door by turning a door nob.

Then again, he probably did not tell you he was reasoning to figure that out, so..........

No I didnt say animals cant reason.

wtf, how would they survive????

Our abilities supercede theirs in the reasoning department by a factor of a kabillion ~ and thats what seperates us.

 

[Votto]

So forcing people not to breed because they are genetically inferior is not right or wrong. You have no opinion either way.

What about eliminating the weak from society, much like the Nazi regime did to empty hospitals of people who were an economic drag on society?

False. I do have an OPINION, but thats what it is.

Theres no correct answer, merely my opinion and the relative nature of our current moral foundations coupled with my own reasoning, which guides me, concludes that in my opinion the Nazi practices were atrocious.

So you would attach the Nazi Policy of eliminating the genetically inferior as opinion and not right or wrong?

What do you think? If you ask for an opinion, you really need to state yours first.

On a scientific level, eugenics is a proven scientific way to breed for a desired result. Arguably, it should also work for humans.

However, the rub here is, what separates man from the animal/plant kingdom if anything? Look how we treat animals. We use them as beasts of burden, lock them in zoos for our entertainment, keep them as pets, or kill and eat them, all in the name of our general welfare. What makes people different if anything?

The Founding Fathers said that we are made in the image of God and that is what separates us from the animal kingdom. As a result, we have natural rights that the animal kingdom simply does not have. These natural rights include such things as mating with whom we choose to and having a right to life even though we may be genetically inferior. Natural rights is unscientific to say the least, yet it is the god of many here It seems.

Do you agree with the concept of natural rights?

We could quibble about the God of the Founders, but they believed in a creator. They did not put into our founding documents that we could mate with whom we choose. Let's not read too much into them. They followed the Darwin racism that you complained about.

Now about Nazis. It's the very same with all who believe in eugenics. Who chooses and how do they know fitness? The Nazis called the Jews inferior but they were really scapegoats and blamed for all the German problems that were caused by Germans.

Stephen Hawkings would lose to eugenics bean counters.

What worries me is selection via bank accounts or size of armies.

Natural rights is unscientific to say the least

Why is it unscientific? You know of any scientist who does not believe in natural rights? What the hell are unnatural rights anyway?

Jefferson actually wanted to include freeing the slaves in the Declaration of independence, but thought better of it so that all the states would sign on to the Constitution. Jefferson failed to do that and also failed to free his slaves, even though he freed the slave he slept with from what I hear. He doesn't sound too racist if he was willing to breed with them, now does he?

The Germans simply fed off the rampant anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe for centuries. What fed this hate was the fact that Jews seem to be socioeconomically upwardly mobile. The Nazis just took their gold and sent them off to die.

What do both examples have in common? it is men seeking power over their fellow human beings and abusing them in the process. The love of money is truly the root of all evil, another Biblical truth. Slaves were nothing but an economic tool as was rounding up the Jews for gold. Interestingly, to abuse both Jew and slave they first had to dehumanize them in some way. The Jews were compared with vermin and the slave a glorified ape. Dehumanization is the first step towards genocide, much like the unborn infant being labeled a "fetus".

So trying to figure out what makes us human and why that is important seems to be a matter of life and death, don't you think?

So what does science have to say about making humans separate from the animal kingdom?