You idolize science which is typical for a liberal and a socialist .
Split from ISIS thread
You idolize science which is typical for a liberal and a socialist .
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
So what does idolising a fairy tale make you especially when that fairy tale espouses a philosophy exhibiting megalomania?
The scientist in me really wants to know.
On a positive note the fixed and dogmatic views which are almost always at the extreme end of any discussion you hold on almost everything are very ISIS like so I guess you are on topic.
I honestly hadn't looked at "isms" in that way, it is a very good point.
Last edited:
Science is for a big part the biased opinions from biased human beings,and the opinions of today scientists will be debunked by the scientists of the 22th century .
No one is giving any importance to the opinions of the scientists of the Middle Ages, what remains of the discoveries of the 19th century scientists, of the opinions of the scientists who organized mankind in superior and infertior races, of the opinions of the charlatans who predicted a new ice age, of the opinions of those who said that in 2000 the oil reserves would be exhausted ?
(Only ) liberals and socialists continue to idolize scientists,because for them man has no spiritual significance, they are, as most scientists, materialists,for whom man is only a number .
No one is giving any importance to the opinions of the scientists of the Middle Ages, what remains of the discoveries of the 19th century scientists, of the opinions of the scientists who organized mankind in superior and infertior races, of the opinions of the charlatans who predicted a new ice age, of the opinions of those who said that in 2000 the oil reserves would be exhausted ?
(Only ) liberals and socialists continue to idolize scientists,because for them man has no spiritual significance, they are, as most scientists, materialists,for whom man is only a number .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
No, scientific work doesn't work like what you have described. To mention a few very old Greek dudes, you will probably recognize their names. Socrates, he asked a lot of questions and that is pretty much the foundation for scientific work. We still ask the major questions like Why? How? And what the heck is that? Plato was quite significant for the social science, he had interesting thoughts about politics and social structures. However, the big dude was Aristotle; and his approach was to study the world around him through observation and documentation (Eureka, a scientific method emerged) Have you been to a math class? Maybe you took Geometry? Have you heard about the guy Pythagoras? Have you heard about Algebra? To jump forward a bit, You mentioned nothing exist of what scientist discovered during the 19th century.....What? Wait a second here. Does the name Charles Darwin ring a bell. What he did is amazing. He published his theory of evolution and the natural selection in 1859. The significance of his work vibrates through the scientific fields of biology, paleontology and medicine. A very good example of how scientists work is to bring up another dude, Issac Newton.....and later Albert Einstein. What Albert did was to develop, not diminish what Newton did. Sometimes events occur by pure luck, and that is what Wilhelm Roentgen discovered, it's used still. Another major advancement within the field of medicine is what Alexander Fleming discovered. He, Howard Florey, and Ernst Chain got the Nobel Prize for it later.
Engineering; Everything you use in your daily life is engineered, the computer, the cell phone, cars, air planes. What all scientist do is to take the contemporary knowledge and begin to develop it without diminish the scientist before them. You are reading a lot of books about the Second World War? But do you know how a historian really work? He or she is focusing a lot on primary sources. These sources can be archives, diaries, all depending on what Socratelian question he or she is asking and then they do what Aristotle did, observing and draws conclusions, just like what the majority of scientists do.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
You couldn't be more wrong, the scientists of the 22nd century will build on the work of the scientists of the previous centuries for example John Philoponus a Byzantine who pioneered work on physics specifically in the area of gravity and inertia Newton didn't disprove his work he expanded on it and Einstein took it further and modern physicists will drive it further again.
Think of it like the automobile the very first ones were rudimentary and barely recognisable by today's standards but every vehicle since that first one has been a stepping stone to where we are now.
Last edited:
Dr Mengele also was a scientist .
And, I would not praise Darwin, as his influence on society was very negative : euthanasia, eugenics, communism, nazism ,they were all heavy influenced by the claim of Darwin that only the fittests deserve to survive,and that unworthy live should be finished very quickly .
Darwin was not better than Stalin, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, ,, : they executed what he proclaimed .Which was that there were superior people and in ferior people and that the inferior people had no right to live .
And, I would not praise Darwin, as his influence on society was very negative : euthanasia, eugenics, communism, nazism ,they were all heavy influenced by the claim of Darwin that only the fittests deserve to survive,and that unworthy live should be finished very quickly .
Darwin was not better than Stalin, Hitler, Planned Parenthood, ,, : they executed what he proclaimed .Which was that there were superior people and in ferior people and that the inferior people had no right to live .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Wrong again, Charles Darwin was a Naturalist, today we would call him an evolutionary biologist. The theory of the Origin of Species and the Natural Selection has nothing to do with different political ideologies. Charles Darwin had a thing for beetles, pigeons, and finches. When he arrived to the Galapagos islands he noticed the finches on each island had different beaks and it all depended on the finches food source. The finches had developed different beaks through time depending on what worked in that environment. The knowledge about extinctions existed in the mid 19th century, but not really how they worked. They can occur slowly or extremely fast, a slightly change of the climate can cause and is causing some species to go extinct. Charles Darwin compared samples of the extinct giant sloth with the existent sloth, he draw a conclusion from that. His theory had nothing to do with how humans behave to each other. Provide with reliable empirical facts supporting what you are saying. Not your opinion, just empirical facts
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I have a growing concern about the Belgian education system.
''The core idea of Darwinism is selection, not evolution . Evolution ...describes the results of selection . ''
Source : G.Stein :Biological science and the roots of Nazism . P 53 . Ref 10 .
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Now you know one of the reasons Brits want out of the EU.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
It's getting better. Evolution occur through natural selection. However there is a problem when Nazis are applying this theory to justify their own screwed up political theories.
There is another problem just right here and now. You provided with nothing that can support your case. You can't blame Darwin for how the Nazis viewed his theory, if you do that, you have either never read The Origin of Species and the Natural Selection or you don't understand it. Charles Darwin hesitated to publish his book, not because of how screwed up politicians would view it, he was concerned about how another absurd perception of life and the existence of different species would react to it. I'm talking about the most absurd thing the humanity have invented, religions.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
It is interesting to think how much further ahead humanity could have been had it not been for religion, we still struggle to match the Greek and Roman civilisations in engineering and the following 1000 years of Western religious dogma stiffled scientific progress, to think that as short a time ago as the 18th century religion still weilded enough power to almost stop the publication of the greatest breakthrough in understanding humanity.
I also find it amusing that it was Islam that saved much of the works of the ancient philosophers and scientists and led the world in scientific development while the west desperately clung to 5th century fairy tales and now Islam seems determined to find it's way back to the 7th century.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I admire the Romans problem solving skills when they created the aqueducts and sewage systems in their cities. They also invented heated floors, and I am still in awe in how they were able to build things that still stands. All the knowledge of it vanished when Europe descended down into the dark ages while the progress continued in the Islamic world. Baghdad was the cultural and the scientific capital of the world. A lot of stars have Arabic names. I don't know if Algebra was invented/discovered by Muslims, but they developed it. The Islamic world also invented soap, and that was a pretty good invention. Everything ended when the Mongols invaded Baghdad and they never recovered from it.
Science is the greatest story of all time and the journey continues still. How we are increasing our understanding of the world we live in and finding answers to very fundamental questions and I want answers as well. Why are we here? Where do we come from? Are we alone? Charles Darwin didn't dare to touch our branch of the tree of all living things on this planet, because of what a few goat herders wrote for about two thousand years ago.
I really like your quotation of Voltaire, I interpret it as he was talking about politics and religion. Religion is the mother load of absurdities. You probably guess by now I am an atheist and yes. I am an atheist.
I watched something amazing a few years ago. Dr Bob Ballard (the man who found Titanic) dived down to the sea floor and found hydro-thermal wents and it was teaming with life not based on photosynthesis. Now we can look at Jupiter's moons in a new light. I really follow the hunt for exo-planets and they have found thousands. They were supposed to launch the James Webb telescope last year. This telescope will be looking for atmospheres on planets within the habitable zone of their stars. If the telescope detect CO2 and O in the atmospheres. The planets have maybe an ongoing photosynthesis and that means, we aren't alone
I am, however, struggling to comprehend the theory of multiverse
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
My understanding of algebra is that it was an ancient Persian style of calculation (which seems right as algebra makes as much sense to me as ancient Persian) most of the ancient world used geometry instead.
I too find it impossible to buy into the god dellusion and have always been astounded that people lived in multistory apartments and surgeons carried out successful brain surgery in the first century AD and mud huts leeches by the 6th century thanks to religion.
I too find it impossible to buy into the god dellusion and have always been astounded that people lived in multistory apartments and surgeons carried out successful brain surgery in the first century AD and mud huts leeches by the 6th century thanks to religion.
There is a clear link between liberalism/socialism and nazism .
There is a clear link between liberalism/socialism and Darwinism
There is a clear link between Darwinism and Eugenics.
There is a clear link between Eugenics and nazism .
There is a clear link between Darwinism and nazism .
Darwinism was a necessary,but not sufficient step for nazism to happen .
Kershaw : Hitler's 2 main aims rested on '' a ''world-view ''that saw racial struggle and the survival of the fittest as the key determinants in human history .''
The difference with Darwin is only semantical .
For Hitler and for Darwin, man was not an end ,but only a mean .
Quotations from well-known Darwinists
Teddy Roosevelt :society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind .
Hitler would agree .
Helen Keller :a human life is sacred only when it may be of some use to itself and the world .
Hitler would agree .
H.G. Wells :I am told that the interbreeding of healthy white men and healthy black women result in disease.
Hitler would agree .
G.B. Shaw : a part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber .
Hitler would agree .
I still do not understand why Shaw was not made a honorary SS Obergruppenführer .
Churchill advocated compulsory sterilization of the inferior and compulsory labour camps for '' mental defectives ''.
Hitler would agree .
Why did Winston not become a honorary SS Obergruppenführer ?
Francis Crick ( Nobel Prize Winner ):Hitler gave eugenics a bad name and it is time something was done to make it respectable again .
By a more PC Hitler ?
Graham Bell : deaf people must be forbidden to intermarry .
Alexis Carrell:''deviant '' humans should be suppressed so that the ''hereditary biological aristocracy '' could increase .
I hear Adolf applauding .
And the same Carrel wrote : those who have seriously betrayed public confidence must be killed by gaz .
And Darwin himself : In the future civilised races of men will exterminate the savage races .
This means that for Charles, the Übermensch only had the right to populate the earth .
And I hear Adolf say : that's true . And I will do it .Because only the Übermensch has the right to populate the earth .
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I can play this game too.
Pierre-Jules-César Janssen discovered sun was a big ball of burning gas.
Most people killed by Hitler were killed during the day.
Hitler gassed his victims.
Therefore Pierre-Jules-César Janssen was pro-Nazi and by default a liberal.
Anyone else want to play connect the random dots in history?
Pierre-Jules-César Janssen discovered sun was a big ball of burning gas.
Most people killed by Hitler were killed during the day.
Hitler gassed his victims.
Therefore Pierre-Jules-César Janssen was pro-Nazi and by default a liberal.
Anyone else want to play connect the random dots in history?
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I view this as amusing and annoying at the same time. First of all, there is a huge difference between Darwinism and the theory of evolution with natural selection. The latter has been proven correct a lot of times. Darwinism was a term created by Herbert Spencer and he also used the term "survival of the fittest" When you are quoting someone, use it correctly or don't do it at all. Darwin said
"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 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, even at the urging of 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 an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear 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 that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected."
You also begin to read about what liberalism is, because you don't know the difference between socialism, liberalism, conservatism, and nazism.
Shall we ask Red to move this thread to the General Discussion part of the forum
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
That was funny.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I do think the parts back to the last discussion on ISIS should be split off to a thread of their own so this one can get back on track.
The truth is that the nazis embraced Darwinism (and especially its racist and antisemitic side )and used it as a foundational principle of their worldview .The influence of the chief German Darwinist (Ernst Häckel ) on nazism ,was essential .
This is confirmed in other words by establishment historians as Richard Evans; Ian Kershaw and Eberhard Jackel .