Is the Religion of Science Fundamentally Evil?

[passer...@gmail.com]

If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.

Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden, it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.

Why is that?

I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like a religion, was conquered by those that did. A selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off our faces.

Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads as we rush to the edge of the cliff.

----

Appendix:

Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier, and better fed with larger brains and taller, before farming, with the possible exception of the last few decades and that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a tossup.

From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones before and after...

"The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact, they lived quite well. An analysis of the human skeletons found at the site, most of which were buried under the floors of the mud-brick houses in which the villagers lived, showed that the average lifespan approached 60, "not much different," says Moore, "from that of 19th century rural populations in Europe."...But the village's good fortune didn't last. First, the gazelles began to dwindle. "We see an extraordinary change that took place within the span of a human lifetime,"...
http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html

[Chris Thompson]

On 6/3/2014 11:01 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.
>

Can you provide a link to such a statement please?

> Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden, it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.
>

Who's hairless?

> Why is that?

Since you haven't written anything that's real, there's no point is
addressing this.

>
> I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like a religion, was conquered by those that did. A selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off our faces.

Which country worships science like a religion? Certainly not the US,
where a fair minority of people distrust science.

>
> Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads as we rush to the edge of the cliff.

You're in the lead.

Like any tool, science can be put to good uses and bad uses. You might
say the same about hammers, chainsaws, and snowplows. Are you really
incapable of seeing that, or do you just see what your preconceived
notions allow you to see?

>
> ----
>
> Appendix:
>
> Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier, and better fed with larger brains and taller, before farming, with the possible exception of the last few decades and that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a tossup.
>
> From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones before and after...
>
> "The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact, they lived quite well. An analysis of the human skeletons found at the site, most of which were buried under the floors of the mud-brick houses in which the villagers lived, showed that the average lifespan approached 60, "not much different," says Moore, "from that of 19th century rural populations in Europe."...But the village's good fortune didn't last. First, the gazelles began to dwindle. "We see an extraordinary change that took place within the span of a human lifetime,"...
> http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html

While hunter-gatherers were not in as bad straits as they are often
portrayed, I dispute your assertion that they were healthier and lived
longer. And why is height important?

Chris

[passer...@gmail.com]

For the 50th time today, I don't do segmented posts.

[erik simpson]

Just a suggestion: how about people NOT doing his posts?

[jillery]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:31:20 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>For the 50th time today, I don't do segmented posts.

I'm almost certain that nobody really cares if you don't.

[deadrat]

On 6/3/14 10:01 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden,
> such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.

No, when you say stupid things on a forum, then people on that forum
will likely ridicule you.

"Science" is an abstraction. To say that it does anything is to speak
metaphorically. Science doesn't do good or bad things; people do,
sometimes using the knowledge they've gained.

> Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden,
> it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.

> Why is that?

It's like that because you insist on reifying an abstraction, and it
leads you into confusion.

> I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like a religion, was conquered by those that did.
> A selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond
> imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off our faces.

You propose? But you're an ignoramus. Why should anyone take seriously
the rantings of someone who can't distinguish the metaphorical and the
literal?

> Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads as we rush to the edge of the cliff.

Go ahead. Jump.

Please.

<snip/>

[deadrat]

Answer; don't answer. As always, it's up to you Brave Sir Robin.

Do you imagine anyone much cares?

[Robert Carnegie]

Nope. This is what happens: He posts creationist nonsense.
We rebut his nonsense. He replies that he doesn't acknowledge
"segmented posts". We have huge difficulty finding out
what "segmented posts" are supposed to be, because whenever
we ask, he replies, "You made a segmented post and so I'm
not going to answer you."

The point is that he is allowed to address an audience here,
and then flaws in his argument are pointed out - politely and
efficiently, I hope. But the provision of correction is
a necessary part of the process - if not for Passter Gmail's
benefit, then for anyone else reading along.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 04:01:43 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is
> a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science
> does Evil things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for
> That Which Can Not Be Questioned.

No. "Science" doesn't do things. People do things. Science is
a process of acquiring knowledge, and the body of knowledge
already acquired.

> Why is that?
>
> I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship
> science like a religion, was conquered by those that did.
> A selection process, survival of the "fittest".

The bible proposes that God chooses who wins any battle or war.
Therefore your proposal implies that it is God's will that
science prospers. So what does that make you, objecting to it?

> Appendix:
>
> Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier, and better
> fed with larger brains and taller, before farming, with the
> possible exception of the last few decades and that's a tossup.
> After WWIII it won't be a tossup.
>
> From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones before and after...
>
> "The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact, they
> lived quite well. An analysis of the human skeletons found at
> the site, most of which were buried under the floors of the
> mud-brick houses in which the villagers lived, showed that
> the average lifespan approached 60, "not much different,"
> says Moore, "from that of 19th century rural populations
> in Europe."...But the village's good fortune didn't last.
> First, the gazelles began to dwindle. "We see an extraordinary
> change that took place within the span of a human lifetime,"...
>
> http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html

I've heard arguments like this a few times. I'm not sure what
to make of it - but if they had houses then they weren't
dependent on following herds of food animals. They were
settled. And presuambly the nice graves are for rich people,
not the poor, who probably were left out for scavenging animals.

[rossum]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Is the Religion of Science Fundamentally Evil?
No. Science is not a religion.

rossum

[jillery]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 00:20:51 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 04:39:07 UTC+1, erik simpson wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:31:20 PM UTC-7, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > For the 50th time today, I don't do segmented posts.
>>
>> Just a suggestion: how about people NOT doing his posts?
>
>Nope. This is what happens: He posts creationist nonsense.
>We rebut his nonsense. He replies that he doesn't acknowledge
>"segmented posts". We have huge difficulty finding out
>what "segmented posts" are supposed to be, because whenever
>we ask, he replies, "You made a segmented post and so I'm
>not going to answer you."

Passerby does do as you say, so you may have missed where he explained
"segmented" as a case where one's comments are inserted between his
comments, ex. my comment right here.

He claims it destroys the continuity of his prose, as if such
destruction makes a functional difference to it, but his habit of
switching between top- and bottom- posting is at least as effective on
that point.

Also, he deletes without attribution one's comments, often in the
middle of sentences. Add these and other things to GG's manglings,
and his threads are virtually certain to lose continuity quite
quickly.

I don't know his motives, but his methods are effective in presenting
the persona of a troll, and ignoring trolls is one of many
counter-methods.

[Mike Dworetsky]

"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time
raising money."

--Leon M. Lederman (Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1988)

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/3/14 8:01 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good
> thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil
> things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which
> Can Not Be Questioned.

Science doesn't kill people; people kill people.

What science has done, indisputably, is make life better. Ask anybody
in the US or Europe if they would trade their living conditions for
those of someone of comparable social class in Europe in 1500.

If you *truly* did not think science was a good thing, you would not be
using its fruits, and your statement above would be readable by a couple
dozen of your fellow hunter-gatherers at most.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Kalkidas]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.

How can an abstraction do anything, good or evil?

>Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden, it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.
>
>Why is that?
>
>I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like a religion, was conquered by those that did. A selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off our faces.

How can an abstraction be "worshipped"?

>Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads as we rush to the edge of the cliff.
>
>----
>
>Appendix:
>
>Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier, and better fed with larger brains and taller, before farming, with the possible exception of the last few decades and that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a tossup.

Without farming, the human population will be limited to a very small
number. Farming was introduced because human life is popular, and many
living entities want to take birth as human beings.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <WtSdne3ei4rdDxPO...@earthlink.com>,

Chris Thompson <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like a
> > religion, was conquered by those that did. A selection process, survival of
> > the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as science makes
> > weapons beyond imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off
> > our faces.
>
> Which country worships science like a religion? Certainly not the US,
> where a fair minority of people distrust science.

And that's why we are being conquered by China, not militarily, but
economically. Wait until we have to pay them for the LFTRs.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 4 de junio de 2014 04:01:43 UTC+1,
passer...@gmail.com escribi�:

> If I say on a forum that science does Good things,
> (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if
> I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden, such
> words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be
> Questioned.

Ok, the creator of all evil and good cannot be blamed.

> Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these
> Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a
> sudden, it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch
> Can Not Be Questioned.

I agree with you passerby. Anything right or wrong is the result
of our deeds. Why blaming god for our failures and successes?
But god is blameless so far we are able to ignore those shameless
holy books as apocryphal. But if we were tempted to say that the
holy books contain the words of god... then... we are accusing the
gods for all atrocities we had committed.
Then, this changes totally the equation. It is the thinking of
humans, and that includes the religions, all well as science, the
reason for our iniquities.

> Why is that?
I bet you are going to tell us. I love that, you do not mince words.

> I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship
> science like a religion, was conquered by those that did. A
> selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's
> worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond
> imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off
> our faces.
>
> Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads
> as we rush to the edge of the cliff.

Like Japanese throwing themselves over cliffs as alternative to
surrender.

Ok. There are a few problems with your argument.
First, humans have a tendency to overbreed. If your tribe had
a great success finding food, or cultivating food, or hunting,
you bred more children than other tribes that were not so lucky.
Then, your space is limited, and your tribe had bred many
children. So, as your children want to beget more children,
they would be going in search of new places with food. This
happened that the place was inhabited by other tribe. This
would result in a war. If they succeed, they would conquer
the land of other people, kill most of the males, and take
their wives to breed more children. Perhaps they had invented
some way of making more productive the available land,
perhaps not. Anyway, they needed land, and they took it
from other people by killing them, and enslaving their
children. This thing must be rather old that still exist.

Who is to blame for we are so prolific? Your blameless
god creator is, for he made us thus. He (your blameless god)
do not instilled in our brains an algorithm of "do-not-breed-
so-many-children-dumbass".
But all the experts about what was the will of god, favored
to breed as many children as possible, prohibiting also the
trick not breeding children implicit in sodomy.
So far, all I know about religions favor to breed a lot of
children, at least for the privileged classes that could marry.
For those too poor or the slaves and servants were not
allowed to breed.
Eri

> ----

> Appendix:
>
> Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier,
and better fed with larger brains and taller, before farming,
with the possible exception of the last few decades and
that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a tossup.

Who is to blame for this deficiency of not having enough
food for people? The blameless one. He put in the brains
of people an urgency to breed that do not took into account
that resources were limited.

> From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones
> before and after...

> "The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact,
> they lived quite well.

Ok, they were living quite well but had to work very hard
to hunt dangerous animals. Their live was rather short, for
animals do not love to be hunted, and often counterattack.
Primitive men showed in their bones the scars and accidents
caused by their hunting. Moreover, they were living on the
verge of extinction, probably. And their rate of growth was
rather small.
Assuming as a biblical truth that humans were 10,000 some
70,000 years ago, and that in times of Roman Empire existed
already in the planet some 230 million people, that means
the human population of the planet multiplied by 23,000
For 230 millions divided by 10,000 equals 23,000.
What rate of growth is this in 68,000 years. I am going to
tell you:
Rate of growth is 10^(log 23.000/68.000)=1.0001477
Translating this... the rate of growth 147.7/1,000,000
And it is quite comparable to the last 214 years that
the population passed from being 1 billion in 1,800
to 7 billion nowadays.
Then, average growth was 10^(log7/214)=1.0091
that is 0.9%
That is this excellent people of hunter gatherers previous
to the age of farming, was living so well, that they
had almost zero growth. Including the part of farming
population of the previous 8,000 years to the Roman
Empire they were growing 6.77 times slower than now.
But I had read someone speculating that 10,000 years
ago, the population of the planet was some 8 millions.
Assuming this is believable, 8 millions divided by 10,000
equals 800

10^(log 800/60,000)=1.000111
That is 111 parts per million people a year. That is a little
lower than now.

> An analysis of the human skeletons found
> at the site, most of which were buried under the floors of the mud-
> brick houses in which the villagers lived, showed that the average
> lifespan approached 60, "not much different," says Moore,

> "from that of 19th century rural populations in Europe." But

> the village's good fortune didn't last. First, the gazelles began to
> dwindle. "We see an extraordinary change that took place within
> the span of a human lifetime,"

If they were hunting, I doubt a lot they had houses of mud bricks.
Mud bricks is associated more with sedentary farmers. Hunters had
to be constantly in the move and had not time to make bricks of mud
or houses.
19th century Europe, and Britain were breeding rather fast. Then,
they had to live mostly in squalor, considering that aristocrats were
consuming quite a bit of resources to feed armies and bureaucracies.
Eri


> http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 6/3/2014 11:01 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

This disproves your point. They either killed off the "gazelles," etc.
or the gazelles otherwise died off. Presumably this population could
then only survive with settled agriculture. (It's interesting that you
equate the "invention" of agriculture to science.)

Mitchell Coffey

[jillery]

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 12:42:51 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

Now that would be really disappointing.

[Josko Daimonie]

I'm just going to top-post and not touch the body so I don't make a
"segmented post", whatever it is.

Good job at not addressing any points made. Are you always like this?

[John Bode]

First of all, *love* the thread title; I haven't seen such a spectacular example
of question begging in a *long* time.

Since you have this bizarre objection to inline responses, I've left your original post intact, although I only intend to respond to the first statement.

Science (or more precisely, scientific investigation), on its own, is neither
Good nor Evil; it's all about how we *use* the knowledge gained from scientific
investigation.

Some aspects of scientific investigation may strike some people as immoral
or unethical; a lot of animal research seems unecessarily cruel to
non-scientists (and some of it may well be, depending on the investigator),
but there are questions that can't legitimately be answered otherwise.

Yes, research into atomic and nuclear physics gave us Fat Man, Little Boy, and
Tsar Bomba. It also gave us nuclear medicineand electrical power generation.
Chemical research gave us artificial fertilizers to increase crop productivity,
as well as nerve and mustard gases.

But science, on its own, is neither good nor evil. Neither is it a "religion".
Science is about explaining the universe in terms of itself; there are no
dieties, no saints, no rituals, no holy books. There's no infallibility;
almost all scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to correction.

There's what we know as of today; there are things we can explain based on
what we know as of today; and there are things we *can't* explain based on
what we know as of today. The one thing we *do* know is that our knowledge
is incomplete.

[Dexter]

<passer...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> Chris Thompson wrote:
>> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good
>> > thing),
>> > people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all
>> > of a
>> > sudden, such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.
>> >
>>
>> Can you provide a link to such a statement please?
>>
>> > Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but
>> > the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden, it's the fault of
>> > hairless
>> > apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.
>> >
>>
>> Who's hairless?
>>

-------------------| mercy snip |-------------------------

>
> For the 50th time today, I don't do segmented posts.
>

____________________________________________

Oh, bullshit. Of course you do. Even if only to deny that you do so.

You respond because to refrain is to allow the refutations of your obvious
inanities to stand unopposed and your ego simply won't allow that.

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Talking Snake slithers under the segmented post rock for safety.

[passer...@gmail.com]

To those on this forum, who say science is incapable of ever doing Evil, it is far more of a religion than Christianity. Many, if not most Christians admit Christianity is capable of sometimes doing evil.

Mindless zombie cult devotion.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Physics is drenched in money. It builds horrific weapons.

[passer...@gmail.com]

"Nazi Dogma doesn't kill people, people kill people."
"Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people."
"Al-Qaeda doesn't kill people, people kill people."
"Governments don't kill people, people kill people."
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Only hairless apes can ever do good or evil?

I was talking about the human race, not your rich well off buddies. Lifespan was 60 before farming and health was better than humans since, with the possible exception of the last few decades. Science butchers us in WWWIII and it won't be close.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <hhnuo9h022c9rvi6k...@4ax.com>,

But likely, China is going whole hog and America nada.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Here's what you are confused about. Civilization started not from farming, but from harvesting massive gazelle migrations. The "Kites" they used, (enclosures with funnel shaped entrances), are still out there in the desert. That city had thousands of people for thousands of years before and after the invention of farming, and it was one of the first places that did.

When they were in effect "farming" that gazelle, settled hunter gatherers so to speak, they lived to be 60 and were very healthy. But like everywhere when farming showed up, their health went to he11.

Yes, farming is a kind of science, and it's part of the all pervasive propaganda of That Which Can Not Be Questioned, with people thinking it improved our lives.

[passer...@gmail.com]

"Nazi Dogma, on its own, is neither Good nor Evil; it's all about how we *use* the knowledge gained from Nazi Dogma."

(Granted, that might sound pretty good to some forum atheists, not you of course.)

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 21:01:43 UTC-6, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.
>
>
>
> Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden, it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.
>
>
>
> Why is that?
>
>
>
> I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like a religion, was conquered by those that did. A selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off our faces.

LOL that's hilarious. True, except for maybe the genetic monsters, but hilarious. Nice concept.

>
>
>
> Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads as we rush to the edge of the cliff.
>
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
> Appendix:
>
>
>
> Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier, and better fed with larger brains and taller, before farming, with the possible exception of the last few decades and that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a tossup.
>
>
>
> From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones before and after...
>
>
>
> "The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact, they lived quite well. An analysis of the human skeletons found at the site, most of which were buried under the floors of the mud-brick houses in which the villagers lived, showed that the average lifespan approached 60, "not much different," says Moore, "from that of 19th century rural populations in Europe."...But the village's good fortune didn't last. First, the gazelles began to dwindle. "We see an extraordinary change that took place within the span of a human lifetime,"...
>
> http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html

I don't know where you're going with this, but maybe i'll read this thread, if I get to it...

[Steady Eddie]

On Tuesday, 3 June 2014 21:01:43 UTC-6, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.
>
>
>
> Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but the H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden, it's the fault of hairless apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.
>
>
>
> Why is that?
>
>
>
> I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like a religion, was conquered by those that did. A selection process, survival of the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as science makes weapons beyond imagination, and genetic monsters that will eat the skin off our faces.
>
>
>

> Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads as we rush to the edge of the cliff.
>
>
>
> ----
>
>
>
> Appendix:
>
>
>
> Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier, and better fed with larger brains and taller, before farming, with the possible exception of the last few decades and that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a tossup.
>
>
>
> From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones before and after...
>
>
>
> "The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact, they lived quite well. An analysis of the human skeletons found at the site, most of which were buried under the floors of the mud-brick houses in which the villagers lived, showed that the average lifespan approached 60, "not much different," says Moore, "from that of 19th century rural populations in Europe."...But the village's good fortune didn't last. First, the gazelles began to dwindle. "We see an extraordinary change that took place within the span of a human lifetime,"...
>
> http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html

I nominate this for Topic Of The Month

[jillery]

There's no such thing as Topic of the Month in T.O.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/4/14 5:36 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:02:17 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>
>> What science has done, indisputably, is make life better. Ask anybody
>> in the US or Europe if they would trade their living conditions for
>> those of someone of comparable social class in Europe in 1500.
>>
>> If you *truly* did not think science was a good thing, you would not be
>> using its fruits, and your statement above would be readable by a couple
>> dozen of your fellow hunter-gatherers at most.
>>
>>

> [snip senseless drivel]

> I was talking about the human race, not your rich well off buddies.

So was I. Most people would rather be middle class in modern USA than
in the top 0.1% in any society before 1800, once they understand what
living conditions really were back then.

> Lifespan was 60 before farming and health was better than humans
> since, with the possible exception of the last few decades. Science
> butchers us in WWWIII and it won't be close.

And you could head out into the Montana wilderness and join their
lifestyle, if you chose to, but you too prefer middle-class modern USA.

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/4/14 5:36 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> Science butchers us in WWWIII and it won't be close.

I forgot to mention that some of the bloodiest wars in history, in terms
of percentage of world population killed, were done with swords and
arrows. And religion to keep them going.

[Josko Daimonie]

I'm gonna do a segmented post, because you insist on not reading those
as a why of hiding from counter arguments.

passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 11:02:17 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/3/14 8:01 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good
>>
>>> thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil
>>
>>> things, all of a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which
>>
>>> Can Not Be Questioned.
>>
>>
>>
>> Science doesn't kill people; people kill people.
>>
>>
>>
>> What science has done, indisputably, is make life better. Ask anybody
>>
>> in the US or Europe if they would trade their living conditions for
>>
>> those of someone of comparable social class in Europe in 1500.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you *truly* did not think science was a good thing, you would not be
>>
>> using its fruits, and your statement above would be readable by a couple
>>
>> dozen of your fellow hunter-gatherers at most.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>>
>> "Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
>>
>> found it." - Vaclav Havel
>
> "Nazi Dogma doesn't kill people, people kill people."

This is true. It's the people subscribing to the dogma.

> "Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people."

Again, true. It's the people following the religion.

> "Al-Qaeda doesn't kill people, people kill people."

Indeed, the people that subscribe to Al Qaeda kill people.

> "Governments don't kill people, people kill people."

Indeed.

> "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

They are a tool. A club doesn't kill people either.

> Only hairless apes can ever do good or evil?
>
> I was talking about the human race, not your rich well off buddies. Lifespan was 60 before farming and health was better than humans since, with the possible exception of the last few decades. Science butchers us in WWWIII and it won't be close.
>

The lifespan of sixty was true in medieval times as well. The idea that
people died young there is because the average lifespan was low, due to
childhood diseases killing of everyone, mostly due to hygiene habits.
They didn't exist.

[Josko Daimonie]

You seem to think this is a counter argument. It's mostly a bad slippery
slope. While I do not approve of nazi dogma, it is pretty much true.

Knowledge, ideas and tools aren't evil on their own. It is how we use them.

[chris thompson]

Of course they are. A Chinese company just bought out Smithfield.

Chris

[rossum]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>To those on this forum, who say science is incapable of ever doing Evil, it is far more of a religion than Christianity. Many, if not most Christians admit Christianity is capable of sometimes doing evil.

Neither science nor Christianity can do evil. Some scientists can do
evil. Some Christians can do evil. Sometimes they are the same
people.

>Mindless zombie cult devotion.
What do you have against Smartphones?

(http://cleversurvivalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Zombie-Apocalypse_1.jpg)

rossum

[passer...@gmail.com]

False, you just made that up because it sounded good to you.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Oh, you figure those scientists don't know what the word "lifespan" means and use some goofy definition no one else does.

Forum atheists.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Excellent, we can totally ignore each other. You are of no importance to me so if I forget, feel free to remind me.

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 6:18:03 AM UTC-4, Dai monie wrote:

[passer...@gmail.com]

So, Nazi Dogma, or advocating raping and murdering children, etc. etc. isn't evil either, only hairless apes that actually act on it?

[jillery]

Hey passerby, you forgot to ignore Dai Moine. You're off to a poor
start.


On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:44:40 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

[Tim Norfolk]

The world-wide web, version 3, is going to kill us? Skynet?

[Tim Norfolk]

You mean like the Amakelites?

[John Bode]

Seriously? That's your response? NAZI FREAKING DOGMA? Like science and
NAZI FREAKING DOGMA are in any way similar (given that one is a process of
investigation and the other is, you know, DOGMA)?

You know, I suspected you weren't interested in having a good-faith
discussion (your objection to reading "segmented posts" is a Big Red Flag,
given that the utual practice discussion fora like this is to respond to
various points in line), but I figured what the hell, I'd meet you halfway
and see for myself.

I wasn't wrong. You're just an asshole.

Have fun.

[deadrat]

You are suffering from a bad case of literal-mindedness. One symptom is
your inability to distinguish metaphorical use of language from other
uses. Please get this checked out by competent medical personnel lest
it be a sign of a larger cognitive deficit.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 June 2014 13:47:39 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:54:37 AM UTC-4, rossum wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> > > To those on this forum, who say science is incapable of ever
> > > doing Evil, it is far more of a religion than Christianity.
> > > Many, if not most Christians admit Christianity is capable
> > > of sometimes doing evil.
> >
> > Neither science nor Christianity can do evil. Some scientists can
> > do evil. Some Christians can do evil. Sometimes they are the same
> > people.
>

> So, Nazi Dogma, or advocating raping and murdering children, etc. etc.
> isn't evil either, only hairless apes that actually act on it?

Thinking about this - I'd actually agree. If those things
were only fictional, then they wouldn't be harmful, and
might be useful as warnings of what real evil is possible.
Although, of course, the words "dogma" and "advocating"
imply an endeavour to make people really think that way.

As for science - since you mention the Nazis, they did
dreadful things in the name of science; there are some
things that it isn't good to know about the living human
body, quite apart from the terrible ways of finding out.

As it happens, Nazis also often weren't very good at science
because some possible answers to their questions contradicted
their ideology. But that isn't the only thing wrong with
things that they did.

Nowadays, scientific research, at least on the public payroll,
is liable to be strictly governed by an ethics committee -
because scientists can do wrong. Also, some bad scientists
cheat, but that's a different problem - but still ethics.

[Glenn]

"deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message news:_-adnZWFN4QoXw3O...@giganews.com...

That doesn't make sense.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

Since science isn't a religion, but is instead a proven
method of analyzing the universe, the question posed in the
Subject: line is meaningless.

<snip extensive self-analysis, also irrelevant to the
meaningless question>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/5/14 5:38 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 2:15:05 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 6/4/14 5:36 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Science butchers us in WWWIII and it won't be close.
>>
>> I forgot to mention that some of the bloodiest wars in history, in terms
>> of percentage of world population killed, were done with swords and
>> arrows. And religion to keep them going.
>>

> False, you just made that up because it sounded good to you.

No, that's what you do. My source is Pinker's _The Better Angels of Our
Nature_. Unfortunately, I do not own a copy, so I cannot cite
particulars. WWII was up there, but it did not top the list.

[passer...@gmail.com]

All those surrounding the Hebrews, in that area, for thousands of years, sacrificed their children to Moloch. We have the bodies. Cannibalism before farming, got the bodies for that too, and child sacrifice after (in that area, humans in general otherwise). Most of the Old Testament, starting with Abraham, is the Hebrew struggle against it, and repeatedly falling into it themselves, and being punished for it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No moron, belief systems can be evil, not just hairless apes, and when it's demonstrated you are too mindlessly brainwashed to worship That Which Can Do No Evil to see it.

Wallow in your lemming mindless sheep religious faith, you seem so happy there.

[Chris Thompson]

You do realize that "advocating raping and murdering children" is an
action taken by a person, right?

No, I guess you probably don't. After all, you wouldn't want to get up
to bat and ruin your perfect no-hitter.

Chris

[passer...@gmail.com]

Deliberate lie, I never said any such thing, moron.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Dawn of agriculture took toll on health

When populations around the globe started turning to agriculture around 10,000 years ago, regardless of their locations and type of crops, a similar trend occurred: the height and health of the people declined. The pattern holds up across standardized studies of whole skeletons in populations, say researchers in the first comprehensive, global review of the literature regarding stature and health during the agriculture transition....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110615094514.htm

This has been scientific fact for a century, but of course, 99% of halfwit forum atheist True Believes in That Which Can Do No Evil are stinking ignorant of it because of their mindless sheep brainwashing, and comical ignorance.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No, it could be written on paper exactly, precisely like Nazi Dogma, or science and do the advocating there, or be a person like they can be a person. Just different kinds of identical belief systems.

The only difference is you worship one of them.

[Chris Thompson]

On 6/4/2014 8:28 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:34:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>> rossum wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Is the Religion of Science Fundamentally Evil?
>>
>>> No. Science is not a religion.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> rossum
>>
>>
>>
>> "Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time
>>
>> raising money."
>>
>>
>>
>> --Leon M. Lederman (Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1988)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>>
>>
>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>
> Physics is drenched in money. It builds horrific weapons.
>

Funny you don't mention chemistry instead. I would bet that chemistry
has killed more people than physics.

Chris

[passer...@gmail.com]

What is more evil, a document explaining Nazi Dogma, Christianity, Libertarianism, child rape, or how to make horrific Bioweapons in your kitchen/science?

Same amount of the magical hairless ape involvement in all of them.

And they are all at least capable of evil.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Chemistry is just sloppy physics. Top chemists do physics, it's all Quantum Theory.

But yeah, physics is just warming up, Chemistry had a head start.

I'm afraid the real threat for the future is biology.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Leo Szilard invented and patented the atom bomb in 1931. He spent the next 10 years making sure the US built it before Hitler. He single handedly accomplished it. We would have had no clue such a thing was possible but for him.

But he didn't believe in actually using it, and was almost locked up for the entire war for advocating it to the other scientists. Like Einstein, he of course, wasn't permitted to work on it or be anywhere around any of those that did.

After it was used, he said physics was evil, and in penance, took up biology to try to save lives.

Leo Szilard always saw the future better than anyone else, but he was wrong about that. Biology is just as bad as physics, it's all of science.

[Mitchell Coffey]

Check this out, then apologize:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

Mitchell Coffey

[jillery]

DuPont might disagree with you 8-)

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 19:52:59 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>What is more evil, a document explaining Nazi Dogma, Christianity, Libertarianism, child rape, or how to make horrific Bioweapons in your kitchen/science?
>
>Same amount of the magical hairless ape involvement in all of them.
>
>And they are all at least capable of evil.

If I feed either document into a shredder, they can't do any more harm
than add to a landfill.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Hundreds of millions of years and no warm-blooded animal ever evolved in the oceans. The heat drain was too great an evolutionary hurdle to jump. Couldn't get that solved with a random cosmic ray in the time allotted.

But on land, with the thermal insulation of air, high powered warm blooded animals dinosaur or mammal, almost instantly showed up, and rose to the top of the food chain.

And they re-entered the oceans, and are now, in dolphins and whales are at the top of the food chain there. Once helped over that too high of a natural evolutionary barrier, they took over.

We are helping horrific evolutionary monsters over similar hurdles that have held them back, but once over, they will eat the skin off our faces, and replicate. Some greedy businessman? Some evil government's weapons program? Who knows, but it's inevitable.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Nope, nothing there, what impressed you so? Something about "anthropogenic disasters"?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ok, that's one vote that Nazi Dogma and advocating child rape isn't evil.

[erik simpson]

Well, I guess that's it then. We're all going to die.

[passer...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 6, 2014 12:17:43 AM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> Well, I guess that's it then. We're all going to die.

In this timeline, it's a certainty, in the Many Worlds of the Kingdom of the Father death is impossible. The end is the beginning.

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:12:58 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

Is there a reason why you play the fool? Or does it come naturally to
you?

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:08:27 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Hundreds of millions of years and no warm-blooded animal ever evolved in the oceans. The heat drain was too great an evolutionary hurdle to jump. Couldn't get that solved with a random cosmic ray in the time allotted.

Wrong again. Swordfish, tuna, and some sharks are reasonably
considered warm-blooded. I won't even mention all the dolphins and
whales that evolve in the ocean.

>But on land, with the thermal insulation of air, high powered warm blooded animals dinosaur or mammal, almost instantly showed up, and rose to the top of the food chain.
>
>And they re-entered the oceans, and are now, in dolphins and whales are at the top of the food chain there. Once helped over that too high of a natural evolutionary barrier, they took over.
>
>We are helping horrific evolutionary monsters over similar hurdles that have held them back, but once over, they will eat the skin off our faces, and replicate. Some greedy businessman? Some evil government's weapons program? Who knows, but it's inevitable.

So you think involuntary face-peels will be profitable. Don't quit
your day job.

[jillery]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 21:17:43 -0700 (PDT), erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, I guess that's it then. We're all going to die.

None of us are getting out of here alive 8-)

[deadrat]

On 6/5/14 10:30 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Leo Szilard invented and patented the atom bomb in 1931.

The first atomic bomb was a plutonium bomb detonated in 1945 at the
Trinity site in New Mexico.

Plutonium was first produced in December 1940 and identified in February
of the following year by Seaborg, McMillan, Kennedy, and Wahl.

A nuclear bomb relies on the nucleus of the bomb material absorbing a
neutron, splitting into two lighter elements, and emitting two free
neutrons. The splitting is called nuclear fission and was discovered
in December 1938 by Hahn and Strassman, using Uranium. Meitner and
Frisch provided the explanation for the results a month later.

Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932.

So it would have been a pretty good trick for Szilard to have invented
the atomic bomb one year before the trigger particle was discovered,
eight years before the discovery of the mechanism for the huge energy
release, and nine years before the first bomb exploded.

Szilard realized that a fission process could be self-sustaining, and in
1933 he and Fermi patented the idea of a nuclear reactor. (They called
it a neutronic reactor.) This was highly theoretical at the time
because fission had yet to be discovered.

> He spent the next 10 years making sure the US built it before Hitler.

It wasn't until 1939, Szilard wrote a letter advocating research in to
an atomic bomb. He got Einstein to sign it, and it was sent to
Roosevelt, who authorized the work.

> He single handedly accomplished it.

Szilard didn't "single handedly" arrange for the Einstein letter. He
enlisted the help of fellow Hungarian refugees Teller and Wigner. He
certainly didn't "single handedly" build the weapons that were the
result of the Manhattan project.

> We would have had no clue such a thing was possible but for him.

Hardly. Your first person plural pronoun is ambiguous, but many people
realized the potential for nuclear warfare, including those in the US
and Germany.

> But he didn't believe in actually using it, and was almost locked up for the entire war for advocating it to the other scientists.

Szilard wasn't "almost locked up for the entire war." He and Fermi
built the first self-sustaining nuclear pile at the University of
Chicago in 1942. He worked on the Manhattan Project throughout the war.
He was against using the atomic bomb without first demonstrating its
power to Japan and circulated a petition among workers on the Manhattan
Project to that effect . Many signers lost their jobs, and Groves, the
general in charge, tried to find evidence that Szilard had violated the
Espionage Act. But that wasn't until 1945. The attempt failed.

> Like Einstein, he of course, wasn't permitted to work on it or be anywhere around any of those that did.

Nonsense. See above.

> After it was used, he said physics was evil, and in penance, took up biology to try to save lives.

Please provide provenance for Szilard saying that physics was evil.

After the war, Szilard was suspect because of his views on the use of
nuclear weapons and he couldn't have worked in any governmental nuclear
projects. That probably explains his switch to molecular biology as
much as "penance."

> Leo Szilard always saw the future better than anyone else,

He certainly saw it better than you see the past.

<snip/>

What an egregious ignoramus you are.

[deadrat]

I think you tally that as one more vote that you're an ignoramus. "Nazi
Dogma" isn't on the ballot.

[Glenn]

"deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message news:nradncunp6jPyAzO...@giganews.com...

> On 6/5/14 10:30 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Leo Szilard invented and patented the atom bomb in 1931.
>

snip

>
> What an egregious ignoramus you are.
>

"In a very real sense, Szil�rd was the father of the atomic bomb academically. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_weapons

[deadrat]

And these two statements are in conflict how?

[passer...@gmail.com]

The moron doesn't know Leo Szilard invented and patented the atom bomb in 1931. Bone ignorant of how it was built, a laughingstock to any scientifically literate person.

[passer...@gmail.com]

The definitive story is "The Making of the Atom Bomb" by Richard Rhodes I think it is.

[eridanus]

El viernes, 6 de junio de 2014 03:06:08 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com escribi�:
> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 12:29:24 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> > On Thursday, June 5, 2014 8:47:39 AM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:54:37 AM UTC-4, rossum wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > To those on this forum, who say science is incapable of ever
> > > > > doing Evil, it is far more of a religion than Christianity. Many,
> > > > > if not most Christians admit Christianity is capable of
> > > > > sometimes doing evil.
> > > > Neither science nor Christianity can do evil. Some scientists
> > > > can do evil. Some Christians can do evil. Sometimes they
> > > > are the same people. Mindless zombie cult devotion.
> > > > What do you have against Smartphones?
> > > > (http://cleversurvivalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Zombie-Apocalypse_1.jpg)
> > > > rossum
> > > So, Nazi Dogma, or advocating raping and murdering children,
> > > etc. etc. isn't evil either, only hairless apes that actually act on it?

> > You mean like the Amakelites?
> All those surrounding the Hebrews, in that area, for thousands of years,
> sacrificed their children to Moloch. We have the bodies. Cannibalism
> before farming, got the bodies for that too, and child sacrifice after
> (in that area, humans in general otherwise). Most of the Old Testament,
> starting with Abraham, is the Hebrew struggle against it, and
> repeatedly falling into it themselves, and being punished for it.

Or it was simple a psychological act of warfare, making their enemies
look eviler than they really were. By the times the Hebrews were
complaining about the cannibalism of their neighbors "that were
already marked to be exterminated" and cannibalism were not existent,
except for some rare and very conservative individuals.

Even Abrahan was not immune to believe in the sacrifice of their
first born child as a tribute to a god. You know that.
There is a story about god telling Abrahan to sacrifice his first son
in a mountain, like in the ancient old stories in the lands around.
According to this myth, Abrahan was not surprised at all of this
petition from god, and went to the mountain to sacrifice his first son.
But the story was written many centuries later, when the sacrifices
of children were already a very faint memory of ancient folklore.
Thus, when put in written form, the story was changed, and an angel
stopped Abrahan from killing his son. The most probably is the
original story were different: Abrahan killed his first son to prove
his total obedience to his god, for in those remote times gods demanded
such a prove of obedience to its leaders. The old story was then "true
or false", and nobody knew if there was really a sacrifice of a children
or not. But this apocryphal story gave the leaders a power over his
own people, and showed them the importance of extreme obedience
to god's commands. Then, as all commands of god came to people
though the mouth of the leader, that was meant to be obeyed blindly,
under a death penalty. Common folks has to be as obedient to god
commands as his own leader was by killing his first son. Then,
disobedience of the leader, representing the commands of god,
was punished with death.

Eri

[Walter Bushell]

In article <7c0d4468-3166-49d5...@googlegroups.com>,
passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:57:18 PM UTC-4, Mitchell Coffey wrote:
> > On 6/3/2014 11:01 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good thing),
> > > people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil things, all of
> > > a sudden, such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Why this strange doublethink? Science does all these Good things, but the
> > > H-Bombs and pollution etc. all of a sudden, it's the fault of hairless
> > > apes, not That Whch Can Not Be Questioned.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I propose that it's because any country that didn't worship science like
> > > a religion, was conquered by those that did. A selection process,
> > > survival of the "fittest". And now, it's worldwide brainwashing, as
> > > science makes weapons beyond imagination, and genetic monsters that will
> > > eat the skin off our faces.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Like monkeys, jibbering and waving our hands over our heads as we rush to
> > > the edge of the cliff.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > ----
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Appendix:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Gotta add this. Humans lived longer, were healthier, and better fed with
> > > larger brains and taller, before farming, with the possible exception of
> > > the last few decades and that's a tossup. After WWIII it won't be a
> > > tossup.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > From where Farming was invented, thousands of bones before and after...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > "The people there were not living hand to mouth." In fact, they lived
> > > quite well. An analysis of the human skeletons found at the site, most
> > > of which were buried under the floors of the mud-brick houses in which
> > > the villagers lived, showed that the average lifespan approached 60,
> > > "not much different," says Moore, "from that of 19th century rural
> > > populations in Europe."...But the village's good fortune didn't last.
> > > First, the gazelles began to dwindle. "We see an extraordinary change
> > > that took place within the span of a human lifetime,"...
> >
> > > http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/94_10/agriculture.html
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > This disproves your point. They either killed off the "gazelles," etc.
> >
> > or the gazelles otherwise died off. Presumably this population could
> >
> > then only survive with settled agriculture. (It's interesting that you
> >
> > equate the "invention" of agriculture to science.)
> >
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Coffey
>
> Here's what you are confused about. Civilization started not from farming,
> but from harvesting massive gazelle migrations. The "Kites" they used,
> (enclosures with funnel shaped entrances), are still out there in the desert.
> That city had thousands of people for thousands of years before and after the
> invention of farming, and it was one of the first places that did.
>
> When they were in effect "farming" that gazelle, settled hunter gatherers so
> to speak, they lived to be 60 and were very healthy. But like everywhere when
> farming showed up, their health went to he11.
>
> Yes, farming is a kind of science, and it's part of the all pervasive
> propaganda of That Which Can Not Be Questioned, with people thinking it
> improved our lives.

Ah yes, the switch from a high meat and hence high fat diet to a high
carbohydrate diet and its effects. Try to apply that to the current
recommendations of the United States Department of Agriculture and the
American Heart Association et al. and it's impact on American (an any
other place their recommended diet can affect) on population health.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Virtually all those surrounding Israel, sacrificed their children to Moloch. It goes back 10,000 years. We have the bodies. Greeks, Phoenicians, and others did it too.

[eridanus]

El viernes, 6 de junio de 2014 03:08:26 UTC+1, passer...@gmail.com escribi�:
> No moron, belief systems can be evil, not just hairless apes, and when
> it's demonstrated you are too mindlessly brainwashed to worship That
> Which Can Do No Evil to see it.
> Wallow in your lemming mindless sheep religious faith, you seem so
> happy there.

what happens of those orders to kill sodomites? or people that worked
on the Sabbath? Were those good orders? What about the orders of
killing witches, that were simply swindlers of gullible people? They
were doing not any harm, except to swindle gullible people. Were
witches killed because they were an undesired competence to the priests
the were already doing this task of swindling and fleecing gullible
people?
Were the orders to exterminate the habitants of the lands around
the sheepherders Jews living he the mountains and those living the
in low lands, good orders? They were explicitly come from god owns
words, through the mouths of the Jewish political leaders.
Eri

[passer...@gmail.com]

Leo Szilard wrote that famous letter from Einstein to Roosevelt. He couldn't drive so he got Teller, "father of the H-bomb" to drive him to see Einstein. He remarks what a powerfully muscled athlete Einstein was.

Einstein agreed to sign Szilard's letter, but there was no way to get Roosevelt to read it. Physicists don't make weapons, chemists and stuff do. But Einstein's personal friend was the queen of Belgium, and she knew someone that could get fact time with Roosevelt. To placate him, Roosevelt, who didn't believe it, agreed to spend 4 thousand dollars to get him out of the room. Things snowballed from there, all as Leo Szilard planned and made happen.

[rossum]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:47:39 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>So, Nazi Dogma, or advocating raping and murdering children, etc. etc. isn't evil either, only hairless apes that actually act on it?

1. Look up Godwin's Law. You lose.

2. You lose again:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a
man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last
rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple
the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the
world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years,
with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the
fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the
Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated,
but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if
there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly
it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a
duty to my own people."

-- Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

rossum

[Steven L.]

On 6/4/2014 12:51 AM, deadrat wrote:

> On 6/3/14 10:01 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> If I say on a forum that science does Good things, (or is a Good
>> thing), people will agree with me. But if I say science does Evil
>> things, all of a sudden,
>> such words can't be used for That Which Can Not Be Questioned.
>

> No, when you say stupid things on a forum, then people on that forum
> will likely ridicule you.
>
> "Science" is an abstraction. To say that it does anything is to speak
> metaphorically. Science doesn't do good or bad things; people do,
> sometimes using the knowledge they've gained.

Even pure research is often undertaken for less than pure reasons.

Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. Defense Department poured huge amounts
of money into research in nuclear physics. Some of the projects were
highly theoretical; others were oriented toward understanding the
physics of nuclear and thermonuclear explosions.

If the Pentagon hadn't funded those projects, that knowledge would never
have been acquired for engineers to use.

Do you believe the Pentagon was a purely disinterested patron? Or were
they funding those highly theoretical projects because they hoped for
practical spinoffs?



--
Steven L.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Not working on the Sabbath is an excellent law. All part of the unparalleled support for the poor and persecuted in the Torah. Everyone got a day off. They were escaped slaves.

Was the world 3200 years ago a cold cruel place? Absolutely. It was kill or be killed. Did they kill or banish people and not give them prison terms? Yes, there were no prisons.

But the Torah has rules about helping the poor far superior to any other government in the history of the planet. How one feels about the Bible depends on how one feels about helping the poor.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Guess what moron, Jesus was Jewish. Everyone else in the Bible was too. At least all the good guys.

[passer...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 6, 2014 6:42:05 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:

And "Sodomite" is a poor term, the Bible certainly never uses it. Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexual sex, it was destroyed because they didn't help the poor.

"Not this is the sin of your sister Sodom...she did not help the poor and needy."
Almighty God, as quoted by Ezekiel

There's only one Law about homosexual male sex, but there are dozens of Laws about helping the poor.

[Steven L.]

On 6/4/2014 8:27 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:25:30 AM UTC-4, rossum wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Is the Religion of Science Fundamentally Evil?
>>
>> No. Science is not a religion.
>>
>>
>>
>> rossum

>
> To those on this forum, who say science is incapable of ever doing Evil, it is far more of a religion than Christianity. Many, if not most Christians admit Christianity is capable of sometimes doing evil.

I think that what's disturbing you--and many others--is that a number of
scientific discoveries have permanently changed our understanding of
Man, society, and the universe.

Whether you regard these new revelations as evil depends on what your
moral code was before, and even what your station in life was before.

Heliocentrism, the discovery of Earth's true location in the Universe,
the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics,
modern neurochemistry, birth control pills and in-vitro fertilization,
DNA sequencing, all have major implications for philosophy and sociology
and political science. Any thoughtful person realizes that.

And he or she may not like some of those implications. Prior to those
discoveries, society was far from perfect, but it still worked
adequately enough to keep from collapsing into anarchy.



--
Steven L.

[Chris Thompson]

On 6/5/2014 10:22 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 10:12:48 PM UTC-4, Chris Thompson wrote:

>> On 6/5/2014 8:47 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:54:37 AM UTC-4, rossum wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 17:27:12 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>> To those on this forum, who say science is incapable of ever doing Evil, it is far more of a religion than Christianity. Many, if not most Christians admit Christianity is capable of sometimes doing evil.
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>> Neither science nor Christianity can do evil. Some scientists can do
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> evil. Some Christians can do evil. Sometimes they are the same
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> people.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Mindless zombie cult devotion.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> What do you have against Smartphones?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> (http://cleversurvivalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Zombie-Apocalypse_1.jpg)
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> rossum
>>
>>>
>>

>>> So, Nazi Dogma, or advocating raping and murdering children, etc. etc. isn't evil either, only hairless apes that actually act on it?
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

>> You do realize that "advocating raping and murdering children" is an
>>
>> action taken by a person, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, I guess you probably don't. After all, you wouldn't want to get up
>>
>> to bat and ruin your perfect no-hitter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
> No, it could be written on paper exactly, precisely like Nazi Dogma, or science and do the advocating there, or be a person like they can be a person. Just different kinds of identical belief systems.
>
> The only difference is you worship one of them.
>

Ah, writing something down on paper is not an action.

<facepalm>

Chris

[Chris Thompson]

On 6/6/2014 12:00 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 22:27:01 -0400, Chris Thompson
> <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/4/2014 8:28 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:34:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>>> rossum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 20:01:43 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Is the Religion of Science Fundamentally Evil?
>>>>
>>>>> No. Science is not a religion.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> rossum
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>> "Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time
>>>>
>>>> raising money."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Leon M. Lederman (Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1988)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Mike Dworetsky
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>>>
>>> Physics is drenched in money. It builds horrific weapons.
>>>
>>
>> Funny you don't mention chemistry instead. I would bet that chemistry
>> has killed more people than physics.
>
>
> DuPont might disagree with you 8-)
>

I am sure GE would, too. "We bring good things to life!" Were they
talking about napalm or depleted uranium, I wonder.

Chris

[passer...@gmail.com]

Personally, I don't like the idea of the human race being slaughtered wholesale, that's the part that bothers me. There's the Big Brother thing and so on, but mass slaughter has to be at the top of the list of the evils science inflicts on us.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Writing something down, a magical hairless ape saying or doing it, whatever, it's all the same regardless whether it's Christianity, science, Nazi Dogma, Libertarianism, child rape dogma, etc.

The only difference is worshippers of That Which Can Do No Evil are the only ones so totally brainwashed that they don't admit it's capable of evil.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 10:06:08 PM UTC-4, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 5, 2014 12:29:24 PM UTC-4, Tim Norfolk wrote:

<snip>

> > You mean like the Amakelites?
>
>
>
> All those surrounding the Hebrews, in that area, for thousands of years, sacrificed their children to Moloch. We have the bodies. Cannibalism before farming, got the bodies for that too, and child sacrifice after (in that area, humans in general otherwise). Most of the Old Testament, starting with Abraham, is the Hebrew struggle against it, and repeatedly falling into it themselves, and being punished for it.

You mean like Abraham being ordered to do so?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Abraham is the first example, because he's the first to enter Canaan where they practiced child sacrifice.

The Golden Calf of Moses is Moloch. It was a metal cow they heated up from inside, and it had it's hands out red hot like a frying pan, and they put the child on the frying pan, and beat drums to muffle the screams. The child would flip around and fall inside the fire inside the statue. It explains why Moses went homicidal and killed a big chunk of the Hebrews when he found out.

A lot of it after the Torah is about their stuggle against Moloch. Solomon built two Temples, one to God on Mt. Zion and one to Moloch on the nearby Mt. of Olives. It's in the Bible. Fathers sacrificing their sons on the Mt. of Olives, sound familiar?

After Solomon, off and on, they would sacrifice the children in the Temple itself, it's why Israel was destroyed, the Bible says.

There's plenty more, but that's enough.

[passer...@gmail.com]

And of course, the Talmud has a LOT to say about Moloch, some of it pretty shocking if not taken in context with the understanding of the devil's advocate technical debates it contains.

But the Torah condemns it in no uncertain terms. Moloch Worship is the only Law in the Torah where those that don't intercede and stop it are themselves punished severely.

Leviticus 20:2-5:


Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whoever he be of the children of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

Leviticus seeths with blind rage.

[deadrat]

Aren't you bothered by run-on sentences?

> There's the Big Brother thing and so on, but mass slaughter has to be at the top of the list of the evils science inflicts on us.

Then there's the tragedy of literal-mindedness.

[deadrat]

So Szilard, who had a patent on the A-bomb, didn't get it built "single
handedly"? He and the Queen of Belgium did it with Einstein?

What an astounding ignoramus you are.

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's only the glassy-eyed, zombie, mindless sheep worshippers of That Which Can Do No Evil that have a problem admitting their belief system is capable of evil.

No one else is so totally brainwashed by their cult.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yes, patented in 1931 and he waived the patent for the Manhattan Project. And part of his plan, to get the US to build it before the Nazis, was to write a letter, and get Einstein to sign it as if he had written it, since he was sorta famous, and the letter to Roosevelt. The way he got the letter to Roosevelt, is a personal friend of Einstein's, the Queen of Belgium was able to get someone in there to see Roosevelt with the letter.

Not only are you totally, comically ignorant of the science you worship, you are also bone ignorant of history.

[Ymir]

In article <bcf1fa61-bc38-4723...@googlegroups.com>,
passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> Nope, nothing there, what impressed you so? Something about "anthropogenic
> disasters"?

The page he cited doesn't list the relevant data. Mark's original claim
concerned death toll *per capita*, whereas the page which Mitchell cites
gives only absolute death tolls.

After a brief search I was unable to find a comparison of different wars
through history in terms of per capita death toll, but a comparison of
the following two pages is at least suggestive.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties>

This page gives per capita estimates of the death toll for WWI by
country. With the exception of Serbia and the Ottoman Empire, most
countries scored in the low to mid single digits.

Compare that to

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War#Casualties_and_disease>

Which discusses the Thirty Years' War, a religiously motivated conflict
which proved far more deadly than either of the World Wars fought in the
Twentieth Century despite advances in weaponry since the 17th Century.
It gives estimates of 25-40%, and I've seen figures as high as 70% for
some northern states involved in that war.

Andr�