Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Brian · Jul 5, 2008, 06:16 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Jinei

Are you saying those things are not in the Bible?

What things?

ThoughtCriminal · Jul 5, 2008, 06:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

It is based from scientific theory.

Uh, no, it's based on pure racism, which science does not support.

TC

Brian · Jul 5, 2008, 06:19 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal

Pushing buttons is childish and is not how you win a debate, or even hold your own.

TC

..

.. I am sorry I won't do it again

Brian · Jul 5, 2008, 06:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal

Uh, no, it's based on pure racism, which science does not support.

TC

Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.

ShadowFox · Jul 5, 2008, 06:22 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

True and I was afraid I was going to trap myself like this. Good point. I got off tangent with the whole natural selection thing, I know it is immoral and wrong but there is not many good social implications for evolution that I have seen and eugenics is a popular one. It is not that I am saying it is false it is just that we need more then evolution.. evolution is not enough for human beings like us and if you keep bashing the Bible, your truth will be limited.

I'm not bashing the bible, i just don't hold something with no evidence supporting it as true. It had some good themes to it, and says some good stuff, but i just find it a fictional book, something one can entertain themselves with, to make themselves feel comforted.

Brian · Jul 5, 2008, 06:24 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Halofan48

I'm not bashing the bible, i just don't hold something with no evidence supporting it as true. It had some good themes to it, and says some good stuff, but i just find it a fictional book, something one can entertain themselves with, to make themselves feel comforted.

That is a better view from what I have seen.. it is bigger then that to me but I understand your hesitancy.

ThoughtCriminal · Jul 5, 2008, 06:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

My point was that turn the other cheek would be a good verse to use in that situation.

I need verses on the other hand part.. I think there is a misunderstanding.

There's no misunderstanding. The Bible gives you verses if you want to be a good person and verses if you want to be evil. It has no moral backbone whatsoever.

TC

Jinei · Jul 5, 2008, 06:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

What things?

Quote:

Quote by: Jack

Reading the O.T., seeing the stories about the same god as the one in the N.T., I cannot think of a family except one which is horrifically disfunctional. Child sacrifice, killing entire cities to teach a lesson, stoning disobedient children to death, that's not a family I would want to be a part of. Thank goodness it's fiction.

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

You see what you want to see and that is it.

Quote:

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal

The Bible, on the other hand, endorses murdering gays, disobedient children, and others. And it supports such wonderful things as slavery, misogyny and genocide.

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

I think there is a misunderstanding.

In bold.

ThoughtCriminal · Jul 5, 2008, 06:31 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

True and I was afraid I was going to trap myself like this. Good point. I got off tangent with the whole natural selection thing, I know it is immoral and wrong but there is not many good social implications for evolution that I have seen and eugenics is a popular one. It is not that I am saying it is false it is just that we need more then evolution.. evolution is not enough for human beings like us and if you keep bashing the Bible, your truth will be limited.

Evolution is simply true. Denying it for poorly-conceived political reasons is a great way to undercut your credibility.

People here have explained repeatedly that evolution is not a direct model for morality, yet you keep pretending otherwise. This is a straw man attack, which is a type of logical fallacy.

Evolution is not enough for morality, but then again, nobody said it was. Morality comes from secular humanism, which begins with rejecting religion.

TC

ThoughtCriminal · Jul 5, 2008, 06:35 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.

Thank you for sharing your unsupported opinion. It has, of course, been summarily rejected. In the future, please remember to preface your unsupported opinion with a disclaimer.

TC

**Jack** · Jul 5, 2008, 06:39 pm

Quote:

Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.

If I were to kill a man with a hammer, would hammers then be considered murderous weapons? Just because eugenics tried to use the concept of evolution to reach its goal, that does not say anything about evolution. These weren't scientists attempting to explore evolutionary theory. They were mad men who would avail themselves of anything that furthered their goal.

Brian · Jul 6, 2008, 01:28 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal

Thank you for sharing your unsupported opinion. It has, of course, been summarily rejected. In the future, please remember to preface your unsupported opinion with a disclaimer.

TC

Sorry about the disclaimer I should have added it.. that was my fault for not supporting my statements and I was in a rush so I took whatever I could find to make you stop bickering. It just happened to be the wrong one, I thought it was a popular held belief held at the time.. I took the beginning of a Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921. Care to explain why they would write that if it if it didn't carry any intellectual weight at all.. now this is before the Nazi's so you have to think about that too.

Source(s) - Image:Eugenics congress logo.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harry H. Laughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ThoughtCriminal · Jul 6, 2008, 01:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Brian

Sorry about the disclaimer I should have added it.. that was my fault for not supporting my statements and I was in a rush so I took whatever I could find to make you stop bickering. It just happened to be the wrong one, I thought it was a popular held belief held at the time.. I took the beginning of a Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921. Care to explain why they would write that if it if it didn't carry any intellectual weight at all.. now this is before the Nazi's so you have to think about that too.

Source(s) - Image:Eugenics congress logo.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harry H. Laughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eugenics was a deeply flawed social movement that attempted to use science to give itself intellectual weight. But as the article that you quoted points out, science did not support them. They used bad statistics and made other errors that rendered their conclusions invalid on any scientific basis.

Next time, read what your own sources say before pretending they support you.

TC

**Jack** · Jul 6, 2008, 02:07 pm

Quote:

Eugenics was a deeply flawed social movement that attempted to use science to give itself intellectual weight. But as the article that you quoted points out, science did not support them. They used bad statistics and made other errors that rendered their conclusions invalid on any scientific basis.

Replace "Eugenics" with "Creationism/ID" and the story's the same.

Brian · Jul 6, 2008, 02:34 pm

Quote:

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal

Eugenics was a deeply flawed social movement that attempted to use science to give itself intellectual weight. But as the article that you quoted points out, science did not support them. They used bad statistics and made other errors that rendered their conclusions invalid on any scientific basis.

Next time, read what your own sources say before pretending they support you.

TC

We learn from our mistakes and that is all I can give you. The scientific advisory board for the Eugenics Record office had many prominent scientists of the time. It was hard to dispute their research. We learn from our mistakes.