Nicolas D.J Mouart
Darwin did not reject the Bible entirely.
"Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality"
His scientific work has been used in the past by Eugenists to support biased ideas. His theory, because that's all it is in science, has many flaws (irreducible complexity). Sadly, science is used as a pseudo-religion, especially online, maybe to due to the lack of spirituality or group/community zeitgeist/sense.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
This post is just showing your ignorance of science and scientific concepts, like you not knowing the difference between a scientific theory, which is the highest position an idea can hold in science (example: the Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravity, both being proven facts like Evolution), and the common non-scientific definition of theory which is more synonymous with "hypothesis." Educate yourself.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
Irreducible complexity is not a flaw of evolution. It is only viewed as a flaw if one doesn't understand what evolution posits about how animals evolved. The complex mechanisms of animals and the animals themselves evolved over millions of years, more than enough time for their complex parts to have evolved through natural selection.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
You point out that eugenicists used the theory of evolution to support their eugenics is true but irrelevant to the truthfulness of evolution. It's just as dumb of an argument as saying that people who used biological warfare against people used the Germ theory to support their actions. Therefore, the Germ Theory is bad and/or not true.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
Science is nothing like religion. Science is a method that uses evidence and peer-review processes to verify the validity of its claims. Religion is the opposite. It has dictates by a god that are to be accepted implicitly and not questioned, even if they make no sense logically or scientifically.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
You called me a fascist in the same comment where you show a screenshot of my profile where is very clearly shows that one of my dislikes is fascism. Maybe you didn't see it.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
You made a public post about science and are complaining that someone is arguing with you about science. Don't make public posts if you don't want people to respond to the posts.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
You have a block function. Use it if you want, but complaining that people are responding to your public posts is silly.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
Fine, don't block me for some strange reason even though you don't want me responding to you ever because my account is anonymous. But if I see future posts from you about things that interest me, such as atheism or science, then I'm likely to respond to them. If you don't want me responding to them, then just block me.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
And what exactly are these questions that science and logic can't answer, and what makes any religion more qualified to answer them than science and religion?
chirp
@Radical_EgoCom @silentexception
this is an interesting perspective to me, because i’ve always learned (at religious school) that religion is meant to be a morality guide to answer harder, emotional questions that logic/science can’t answer.. this is not to refute your claim i just wanted to share a different point of view
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
I'm not talking to you. I intentionally left your @ out of my response because this conversation, despite taking place under a post you made, isn't about you. It's between me and chirp. I'll continue to leave your @ out of my future responses to chirp.
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
Block or mute me, then. I'm going to continue taking to chirp if they want to keep talking. To reiterate, YOU CAN BLOCK OR MUTE ME!
☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
You haven't presented a single question that neither science can't answer nor one that religion is more qualified to answer. "Is abortion murder?" is a question that science had already answer and for which it is completely qualified to answer due to having the empirical data to back up it's answer, the answer being that it is murder only if it is past a certain gestation period. Religion has no qualification to answer such a question. 1/2
chirp
@Radical_EgoCom this is why religion would “fill in the gaps,” so to speak, to help people find answers to hard questions like this. especially since religions usually (to my knowledge) have rules on morality. some people thought it was completely normal and right to sacrifice children because they did not have science that could prove otherwise—although that’s an extreme case. i hope this made sense, it’s not necessarily something i believe but religion has always been interesting to me
chirp
@Radical_EgoCom -which is morality. but morality is somewhat subjective. this is where we get debate such as “is abortion murder?” science can give information for this question, but we interpret the findings to get different answers. an atheist might say it is not murder if the fetus is terminated before ~30 weeks, when it starts to develop consciousness; a christian may say it is murder if the fetus is terminated after 4 weeks, when it develops a heartbeat. +
chirp
@Radical_EgoCom emotions do not always obey logic is what i mean to say by that. for example, it is logical for me to be upset if someone takes my hat, but it is not logical for me to respond by screaming and hitting them, as my emotional mind might *see* as a logical response. we are taught by adults/peers how to more effectively and respectfully communicate than screaming for what we want. this is just a baseline example of course, but it shows the difference of “good” and “bad” behavior, +
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.