Pics For Sharing & Debating

[RedskinRat]

[RedskinRat]

[RedskinRat]

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Nope. Science, however, has most certainly been used to justify racism.

May we have an example, please? From my research everyone seems to agree that Dr. Mengele was unscientific and had no regard for his victims. Also not sure what you're suggesting with the Tuskeegee deal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

May we have an example, please? From my research everyone seems to agree that Dr. Mengele was unscientific and had no regard for his victims. Also not sure what you're suggesting with the Tuskeegee deal.

Religion has racism as a cornerstone. Want a slave? We're cool with that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Wow ... sometimes it's just to easy. You'll note I did not say valid scientific processes have been used to justify racism. Rather, perversions of the scientific process have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses. Just b/c some misrepresent their methods as "scientific", it does not invalidate the scientific method.

Similarly, a perversion of the Christ's message that allows the killing of heretics to enhance temporal authority of the Pope and French barons and a misrepresentation of postulate that "only through perfect service is perfect freedom achieved" promotes slavery does not invalidate the underlying search for truth for which "organized religion" was created.

So much of the critique of religious thought and/or theology in this thread demonstrates a stunningly superficial knowledge of the same and/or consistently falls into the logical fallacy of imputing imperfections of parts onto the whole.

Have you even read Aquinas?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

May we have an example, please? From my research everyone seems to agree that Dr. Mengele was unscientific and had no regard for his victims. Also not sure what you're suggesting with the Tuskeegee deal.

Religion has racism as a cornerstone. Want a slave? We're cool with that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow ... sometimes it's just to easy. You'll note I did not say valid scientific processes have been used to justify racism.

You said science. Nice backpedal.

Which of the commandments says it's wrong to own a slave? Or say it's wrong to molest children? There are plenty that self protect the all-powerful deity.....

Only one this worse than an attorney, and that's a godfearing attorney.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[NC_Skins]

Facebook God is amazing.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You said science. Nice backpedal.

Which of the commandments says it's wrong to own a slave? Or say it's wrong to molest children? There are plenty that self protect the all-powerful deity.....

Only one this worse than an attorney, and that's a godfearing attorney.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

It wasn't a backpedal. It was a specific word choice intended to provoke the "science doesn't validate that only a perversion/misrepresentation of science does" in order to demonstrate the logically fallacy being argued. Guess I didn't think you would be the one to take the bait ... sometimes I give you too much credit.

As to slavery and molestation, how about we start with Christ's two great commandments: Love God above all else, Love thy neighbor as yourself - Upon these two great commandments hang all the prophets and the law." If you interpret "Love they neighbor as yourself" to mean "enslave your neighbor and molest his children", I guess you got me on that.

Oh please, answer as I expect ...

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Facebook God is amazing.

He certainly knows how to make the deeply devout show their love and compassion.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

It wasn't a backpedal. It was a specific word choice intended ........

<SNIP>

as only can know your intent we can leave aside intent.

You stated science, not the misuse or misinterpretation of science.

Who are you to rank the commandments? In order, the first four are all about how insecure god is and then ten mentions your neighbours slave, which more recently was sanitized to mean 'servant'.

Xtians are such egomaniacs.....



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<SNIP>

as only can know your intent we can leave aside intent.

You stated science, not the misuse or misinterpretation of science.

We do not leave aside my intent. The statement stands as set out. "Many have used science to justify racism, slavery and other evils". The statement neither defines nor passes judgment on the validity or invalidity of the science used. It simply contains the same logical fallacy that claiming "many have used Christianity to justify racism, slavery and other evils" does.

You, of course, don't see the equivalency because your knowledge of theology and Christianity appears to fit in a teaspoon and your ability to perform any critical thinking about the possible existence of things beyond the perception of our five senses is simply non-existent.

Okay ... so maybe that last paragraph scored a few points on the arrogance scale.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<SNIP>

as only can know your intent we can leave aside intent.

You stated science, not the misuse or misinterpretation of science.

Who are you to rank the commandments? In order, the first four are all about how insecure god is and then ten mentions your neighbours slave, which more recently was sanitized to mean 'servant'.

Xtians are such egomaniacs.....



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

For some reason (not the missing you) the bolded sentence made me laugh. Let's just leave intent out of all discussions going forward. Intent serves no purpose. Intent is in the eye of the intender so no one else can ever be expected (because we can obviously set aside context, and grammatical structure, and word usage) to understand intent.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

For some reason (not the missing you) the bolded sentence made me laugh. Let's just leave intent out of all discussions going forward. Intent serves no purpose. Intent is in the eye of the intender so no one else can ever be expected (because we can obviously set aside context, and grammatical structure, and word usage) to understand intent.

The god botherer didn't make his intent clear, he changed the thrust of his argument by stating the following:

"Science, however, has most certainly been used to justify racism. "

Then changing it to:

"perversions of the scientific process have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses".

Mmmm, intent! Smells like 'BACKPEDAL'!

In my defence (because I'm Anglo-American) I was typing on my cell phone when I left off the 'You' whilst working on a complicated system install at work. I'm far more relaxed now.

CRedskinsRule, you seem to be an expert in reading 'intent' in a communication. What am I intending to call you, right now? Should be easy, right?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

The god botherer didn't make his intent clear, he changed the thrust of his argument by stating the following:

"Science, however, has most certainly been used to justify racism. "

Then changing it to:

"perversions of the scientific process have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses".

Mmmm, intent! Smells like 'BACKPEDAL'!

In my defence (because I'm Anglo-American) I was typing on my cell phone when I left off the 'You' whilst working on a complicated system install at work. I'm far more relaxed now.

CRedskinsRule, you seem to be an expert in reading 'intent' in a communication. What am I intending to call you, right now? Should be easy, right?

LOL I am pretty sure you intended to call me a "saint", with all the connotations that you might personally ascribe to them.

JR's first sentence and second sentence don't have any form of backpedal in them. The first takes the general noun of "SCIENCE" (for my purposes said in a cute and cuddly penguin voice) and the second shows the form of "SCIENCE" which has definitely been used by humans with bad INTENT to do bad things.

Substituting RELIGION (in cute and cuddly pope voice LOL[ LOL is included for showing intent of making a joke]) and "perversion of religious precepts" in the above two sentences gives you:

RELIGION(Science), however, has most certainly been used to justify racism.

perversions of the religious precepts(perversions of the scientific process) have been used to justify racism and a host of other abuses

Pretty clear that JR was, as he later said, trying to provoke a realization of a logical fallacy.