Eugenics is the science of improving the human race by controlled breeding. It was used quite often here in the US before the 1940's. There were laws that prevented "epileptic, imbecilie or feeble minded" people from marrying, and even laws that required sterilization of disabled people. Then the Nazis used it as an rationale to exterminate genetically inferior humans to improve the gene pool and get closer to a "master race." (Or specifically humans that they considered inferior.) The US quietly dropped all their eugenics program at that point.
No god of any kind has ever revealed itself to me, nor is there any evidence I can observe that would show one having ever existed. I would therefore suspect your question would have to be based on pure blind faith alone, which I would have to answer, not at this time. I'm wide open to any evidence of a god existing and would welcome it so that I would be shown to be wrong, but so far that hasn't happened. I'm a little confused by your question. Of course, kids should learn the process of science, it's methodology and results before tackling the theories. They just shouldn't be indoctrinated into a religion before learning that so they can question, criticize and perhaps even test the very same religious beliefs their parents wish to inculcate them.
I would argue that if religions propagated ignorance, which they do, we would see much less of it if religions didn't exist. We could then work towards finding solutions to the ignorance left over that still causes war and strife and lessen that, too. To say that something would still exist if one of its causes was eliminated does not in any way justify it's existence and influence on people, quite the contrary.
Are you saying that religions do not offer answers to unknown questions such as our origins, our morals, ethics and understanding of how the world around us works? Has science not shown many of those faith based answers to be either wanting or wrong altogether?
And, you're free to believe that. Please make sure you can actually argue the point and not just assert it.
Many religious people that I know, especially those who didn't go to college, even the one's who are liberal, say they accept science, they still don't think that all the evidence is in regarding Evolution and that God created Man, "we didn't come from a monkey". It doesn't matter that Evolution isn't about "coming from a monkey". They get their info regarding Evolution from their church and they just think all the evidence isn't in and there's still two sides of that discussion. It sounds reasonable to them because they really aren't looking for real information about Evolution.
Regardless of her ability to be President she isn't I find the inability to accept the fact she lost telling Regarding Science and her being on its side I have no opinion as I have no opinion about Trump and Science Regarding Science I have a certainty it win out over any, putting in mildly, attacks railed against it, whether intended, or driven by ideology Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You, and a few others, claim that if religion were removed from society, we'd all be better off. Are North Koreans better off? And by religion, I think the consensus is around Christianity, because no other religion is being mentioned. Of course, there are other mitigating factors here, and I'm not saying that if North Korea had a mandated state religion of say Christianity or Islam, that they'd be ''better off.'' But, it should point to the fact that banning religion isn't the answer to how we fix the problems of modern day societies, as if religion is the cause of all of them, in the first place. A bit off topic, but how does living under a secular government, in a country where most of its population is Christian (many non-practicing, just claim the label), affect atheists? How would your neighbor's choice to believe in a god, for example, affect your life?
Religions have nothing to do with North Koreans being better off or not. That's a failed strawman and completely ignores how Communism and Dictators work.
What does "learning" mean, when we are discussing the Bible. What is it that Francis Collins takes from the Bible after his in depth reading? There are those that consider it the literal word of God. There is no amount of studying that is going to make it coherent. There are those that consider it to be full of metaphors for life. This is the Bible as a meaningful work of fiction (the only reasonable way to look at it). There are those that say God flipped the switch for the Universe and the rest took place by following natural laws. This God is largely unnecessary. There are those that go with the flipping the switch view except that they just can't accept that they weren't "created by God in his likeness". Deep down, the only people you can consider "enlightened" are those who diminish the role of God to the point of not being necessary. Most people that considered themselves strongly religious ultimately mean more than the view of God as the flipper of switches. You just have to talk to them a while before that comes out. It generally doesn't take all that long before a reasonable person doesn't sound so reasonable in this particular area. Many people say they accept science and some even mention Evolution as well but then go on to say they believe that life has evolved and changed but the God created us and that we didn't come from "monkeys". You know, the evidence is divided. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The only reason that I can see this affecting my life, personally, is it could be construed that if a person doesn't believe in evolution, then they don't apply logic, when necessary (in other matters) And such a person could be reckless, gullible, etc and that type of person votes in US elections. This is why we hear that Trump supporters are by and large, dumb religious types, holding onto their guns and Bibles. That somehow, they lack the reasoning skills to make sensible decisions elsewhere in life, since they can't even accept evolution. That might be out there, but...
So does the Lion King; it offers similar answers to questions about ecology, life and death and the value of relationships. And as long as you use it for a morality lesson (or a lesson on the Circle of Life) it's great. But if you use it to claim that science is wrong, and that lions really talk - that would be silly, and would be a misuse of it. In other words, there's really no conflict between the Lion King and science. They don't even speak to the same issues. So you think that Mendelian inheritance is an ignorant theory? Pascal's Law is ignorant? Boyle's Law? Newton's Laws of Motion? Volta's work on electric potential? All those are examples of propagation of ignorance? Or how about Ampere, or Faraday? Priestly? Riemann? Maxwell? Pasteur? Lister? Kelvin? Marconi? Are they more people who propagated ignorance? Or, equally valid - Kids should learn the fundamentals of religion, it's methodology and history before tackling the more complex parts of religion. They just shouldn't be indoctrinated into science before learning enough that they can question, criticize and perhaps even test the very same scientific beliefs their parents wish to inculcate into them.
Exactly, religion has nothing to do with many of the problems of the world. There are many factors. So why would the world be better off without religion? i don't mind if you think it'd be better off. And I think religion has been the cause of many wars and strife throughout history, even today. But, I'm merely pointing out that religious freedom shouldn't be taken away from people. Where would we be, if we start policing people's ideals and philosophies?
Reading it. Researching how the text got there. Understanding the translations (and mistranslations.) Reading collateral material written around that time. Understanding the early Church, and what the Church needed the Bible to say. Understanding the religions that came before Christianity that Christianity was trying to co-opt. Of course. And there are far more positions than that.
Of course. No one is questions how deep an antiquities scholar can go regarding the Bible. This is religion however. I question how one can go that deep and still be religious.
Was going to make a single point here but when I noticed the single point grew to far to many offshoots I gave up Sorry Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
