Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

Harm or wellbeing metrics.

---

Whose well-being? Mine? Yours? The Aryan race's?

---

Harm and wellbeing to individuals. As opposed to moral religious codes that discriminate by race, RELIGION, or preference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

The "Christian" world appeased Hitler. Unfortunately, most of the world didn't seriously resist him until he attacked (or in our case the Japanese) their countries. Although we did lend some financial support before we entered the war. The point is, Christianity had very little to do with defeating or resisting Nazi Germany. Germany was a predominantly Christian country, with a large Catholic population. Christians served in the German military, and in the Nazi party. Outside of some local clergy and individuals, there was little to no organized resistance from Christian organizations. Gott Mit Uns was emblazoned on the German uniform belt buckles.

Today, the U. S. Christian community is blindly following another impulsive narcissist sociopath, in some ways analogous to how Christians in Germany followed their sociopath. Who would have thought the U. S. Christians would align themselves with a want to be strong man president, in appeasing and acquiescing to a murderous Russian dictator?

---

The point is that you are an ignorant moron to say Hitler's opposition to Christianity was "sketchy and a stretch."

---

What percentage of Christians did he round up, load on trains to death and work camps, solely because they were Christians? Why did the Vatican appease and cooperate with Hitler? Why did the Vatican align itself with fascist Yugoslavia? You can't ignore that he sought strategic alliances with the Church and vice versa.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

Just like Jacob, or Muhammad.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

Harm or wellbeing metrics.

---

Whose well-being? Mine? Yours? The Aryan race's?

---

Harm and wellbeing to individuals. As opposed to moral religious codes that discriminate by race, RELIGION, or preference.

---

All individuals?

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.

It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Especially without evidence. I could understand certain people using it at the time for guidance but we have advanced so far since then. Many of the ideas are outdated also

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

You still haven't explained how you can use science to determine the proper use of science. How do you prove scientifically that the best interest and well-being of others should govern my actions?

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

The "Christian" world appeased Hitler. Unfortunately, most of the world didn't seriously resist him until he attacked (or in our case the Japanese) their countries. Although we did lend some financial support before we entered the war. The point is, Christianity had very little to do with defeating or resisting Nazi Germany. Germany was a predominantly Christian country, with a large Catholic population. Christians served in the German military, and in the Nazi party. Outside of some local clergy and individuals, there was little to no organized resistance from Christian organizations. Gott Mit Uns was emblazoned on the German uniform belt buckles.

Today, the U. S. Christian community is blindly following another impulsive narcissist sociopath, in some ways analogous to how Christians in Germany followed their sociopath. Who would have thought the U. S. Christians would align themselves with a want to be strong man president, in appeasing and acquiescing to a murderous Russian dictator?

---

The point is that you are an ignorant moron to say Hitler's opposition to Christianity was "sketchy and a stretch."

---

What percentage of Christians did he round up, load on trains to death and work camps, solely because they were Christians? Why did the Vatican appease and cooperate with Hitler? Why did the Vatican align itself with fascist Yugoslavia? You can't ignore that he sought strategic alliances with the Church and vice versa.

---

Stop showing your ignorance of history. It is embarrassing.

---

Try as you may, you cannot whitewash the Catholic Church's activities in WWII. The Church's robes are stained in blood from its cooperation in Yugoslavia with the Ustashe.

UBBY said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Especially without evidence. I could understand certain people using it at the time for guidance but we have advanced so far since then. Many of the ideas are outdated also

---

Why should we adopt an arbitrary pronouncement from someone not claiming divine revelation?

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

The "Christian" world appeased Hitler. Unfortunately, most of the world didn't seriously resist him until he attacked (or in our case the Japanese) their countries. Although we did lend some financial support before we entered the war. The point is, Christianity had very little to do with defeating or resisting Nazi Germany. Germany was a predominantly Christian country, with a large Catholic population. Christians served in the German military, and in the Nazi party. Outside of some local clergy and individuals, there was little to no organized resistance from Christian organizations. Gott Mit Uns was emblazoned on the German uniform belt buckles.

Today, the U. S. Christian community is blindly following another impulsive narcissist sociopath, in some ways analogous to how Christians in Germany followed their sociopath. Who would have thought the U. S. Christians would align themselves with a want to be strong man president, in appeasing and acquiescing to a murderous Russian dictator?

---

The point is that you are an ignorant moron to say Hitler's opposition to Christianity was "sketchy and a stretch."

---

What percentage of Christians did he round up, load on trains to death and work camps, solely because they were Christians? Why did the Vatican appease and cooperate with Hitler? Why did the Vatican align itself with fascist Yugoslavia? You can't ignore that he sought strategic alliances with the Church and vice versa.

---

Stop showing your ignorance of history. It is embarrassing.

---

Try as you may, you cannot whitewash the Catholic Church's activities in WWII. The Church's robes are stained in blood from its cooperation in Yugoslavia with the Ustashe.

---

Ridiculous

Your hatred toward religion in general and Catholics in particular is poisoning your objectivity.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

Total BS. The Nazis killed a lot of ministers and priests, by the way, or is that an inconvenience for your bigotry?

---

Who are you to say Hitler was wrong? He was just culturally defining morality like anyone else might in a meaningless, random universe.

---

The "Christian" world appeased Hitler. Unfortunately, most of the world didn't seriously resist him until he attacked (or in our case the Japanese) their countries. Although we did lend some financial support before we entered the war. The point is, Christianity had very little to do with defeating or resisting Nazi Germany. Germany was a predominantly Christian country, with a large Catholic population. Christians served in the German military, and in the Nazi party. Outside of some local clergy and individuals, there was little to no organized resistance from Christian organizations. Gott Mit Uns was emblazoned on the German uniform belt buckles.

Today, the U. S. Christian community is blindly following another impulsive narcissist sociopath, in some ways analogous to how Christians in Germany followed their sociopath. Who would have thought the U. S. Christians would align themselves with a want to be strong man president, in appeasing and acquiescing to a murderous Russian dictator?

---

The point is that you are an ignorant moron to say Hitler's opposition to Christianity was "sketchy and a stretch."

---

What percentage of Christians did he round up, load on trains to death and work camps, solely because they were Christians? Why did the Vatican appease and cooperate with Hitler? Why did the Vatican align itself with fascist Yugoslavia? You can't ignore that he sought strategic alliances with the Church and vice versa.

---

Stop showing your ignorance of history. It is embarrassing.

---

Try as you may, you cannot whitewash the Catholic Church's activities in WWII. The Church's robes are stained in blood from its cooperation in Yugoslavia with the Ustashe.

---

If I was trying to "whitewash" the Catholic Church, you might have an argument. As it is, I am not, but you are foolishly claiming that Hitler's opposition to Christianity was sketchy. That is a claim based on gross ignorance of the history of the time and it is embarrassing to see you make it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.

It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.

---

Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong. This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Again, science cannot be used as a tool to determine what whether something is good or bad. Rather, once one has determined what good or bad is, science is a tool that can be used to partially understand the degree to which something meets that predetermined standard. Science, however, has nothing to say about whether the best interest of others is good or bad or whether something being "humane" or not is morally good or bad.

Science can tell us, for example, that a high number of sexual partners before marriage is associated with lower marital satisfaction, but it cannot tell us that sex has anything to do with morality. Science can tell us that putting a loaded gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger will nearly always result in death, (speaking of Hitler) but not whether that is a morally right or wrong action. And, speaking more of Hitler, science can tells you that a chamber full of Zyklon B will kill anyone in it, but not whether putting them in that chamber and filling it up with said gas is good or evil.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.

It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.

---

Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong.

---

Proof?

TexasScientist said:

---

This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.

---

And the scientistic alternative yields many more. When you accuse the Catholic Church of enabling Hitler, ironically, you're condemning the Church for failing to rescue society from the consequences of your own philosophy.

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

Sam Lowry said:

---

UBBY said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Especially without evidence. I could understand certain people using it at the time for guidance but we have advanced so far since then. Many of the ideas are outdated also

---

Why should we adopt an arbitrary pronouncement from someone not claiming divine revelation?

---

What is divine about the revelation that God gives in the Bible? I would hope no one would accept divine revelation from someone claiming to be all knowing.

TS: "But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong"

You are quite wrong. Philosophy rather than Science is a better tool for evaluating whether an action or device is right or wrong, good or ill.

And from my experience, all valid religion has a healthy base in philosophical debate, while Science is notorious for sometimes ignoring anything but the immediate ambition and plan of the users.

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Again, science cannot be used as a tool to determine what whether something is good or bad. Rather, once one has determined what good or bad is, science is a tool that can be used to partially understand the degree to which something meets that predetermined standard. Science, however, has nothing to say about whether the best interest of others is good or bad or whether something being "humane" or not is morally good or bad.

Science can tell us, for example, that a high number of sexual partners before marriage is associated with lower marital satisfaction, but it cannot tell us that sex has anything to do with morality. Science can tell us that putting a loaded gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger will nearly always result in death, (speaking of Hitler) but not whether that is a morally right or wrong action. And, speaking more of Hitler, science can tells you that a chamber full of Zyklon B will kill anyone in it, but not whether putting them in that chamber and filling it up with said gas is good or evil.

---

How else can one determine objectively what is good and bad? You have to have a basis for evaluation. I would think that we can agree the concepts of good and bad, or good and evil should be evaluated in terms of what is harmful or in the interest and wellbeing of all sentient beings. I would much rather have moral determinations made from this standard, than from say the profit Muhammad's claims of revelation, or some imam's pronouncement of morals, wouldn't you?

I'm not sure anyone using science has ever determined the number of sexual partners has any bearing upon marital satisfaction. Morality is a determination or differentiation of intentions and actions that are right or wrong. Science can most certainly be used as a tool to make that differentiation. Science tells us, as you say, dropping Zyklon B into a chamber will kill the occupants. That same science tells us that is harmful to their wellbeing. From that assessment, one can determine the moral implications of that action. Religion may tell you that is moral if it is a chamber full of Jews or apostates. Objective morality based upon science, will tell you that is immoral because it causes harm to their wellbeing.

curtpenn said:

---

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

---

Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" a chosen master race" The person most famous for that sort of phrase was opposed to Christianity in preference of secular humanism, you know.

---

I just repeated Sam's reference, which just as appropriately applies to Jacob. Although, Adolph's opposition to
Christianity is sketchy and a stretch. Christianity was not opposed to Adolph.

---

The scientism of Hitler and the religion of Christianity were as opposed as could be. Fascism and communism are what results from a misplaced faith in science as the arbiter of good and evil.

---

Hardly, fascism and communism have nothing to do with science as the arbiter of good and evil. The Catholic Church was essentially ambivalent, and in some cases supported Nazi Germany. The church certainly aided in hiding and moving war criminals after the war. How did the Church resist fascism in Germany or Italy. What war criminal of the Third Reich did the Catholic Church excommunicate? It is my understanding none. Yet the church will excommunicate a little girl, and a doctor for performing an abortion after she was raped, and it won't excommunicate the rapist.

---

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, 'National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.' Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."

Richard Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia
"Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing.' The reason for the crisis was science."

Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich at War
Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition." Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs,' 'abortions in black cassocks.'"

Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity."

Hitler's Table Talk
Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

---

And... Science is a tool that can be used or misused by anyone.

---

Exactly. And how do you know when it's being used and when it's being misused?

---

The same way you determine when religion is being misused - when it is used to harm the the well being of others.

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Again, science cannot be used as a tool to determine what whether something is good or bad. Rather, once one has determined what good or bad is, science is a tool that can be used to partially understand the degree to which something meets that predetermined standard. Science, however, has nothing to say about whether the best interest of others is good or bad or whether something being "humane" or not is morally good or bad.

Science can tell us, for example, that a high number of sexual partners before marriage is associated with lower marital satisfaction, but it cannot tell us that sex has anything to do with morality. Science can tell us that putting a loaded gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger will nearly always result in death, (speaking of Hitler) but not whether that is a morally right or wrong action. And, speaking more of Hitler, science can tells you that a chamber full of Zyklon B will kill anyone in it, but not whether putting them in that chamber and filling it up with said gas is good or evil.

---

How else can one determine objectively what is good and bad? 1 You have to have a basis for evaluation. I would think that we can agree the concepts of good and bad, or good and evil should be evaluated in terms of what is harmful or in the interest and wellbeing of all sentient beings. I would much rather have moral determinations made from this standard, than from say the profit Muhammad's claims of revelation, or some imam's pronouncement of morals, wouldn't you?

I'm not sure anyone using science has ever determined the number of sexual partners has any bearing upon marital satisfaction. 2 Morality is a determination or differentiation of intentions and actions that are right or wrong. Science can most certainly be used as a tool to make that differentiation. Science tells us, as you say, dropping Zyklon B into a chamber will kill the occupants. That same science tells us that is harmful to their wellbeing. From that assessment, one can determine the moral implications of that action. Religion may tell you that is moral if it is a chamber full of Jews or apostates. Objective morality based upon science, will tell you that is immoral because it causes harm to their wellbeing. 3

---

1. You can't determine objectively what is good and bad. You must begin with assumptions about what is good and bad. You might think we can agree on how morality should be evaluated, and maybe we can, but "science" does not tell us how we should think about morality.

Once you have agreed about what is good and bad, you can use science as one tool to help you make a judgment about whether something fits or doesn't fit.

2. The reason you're not sure anyone using science has examined the relationship between the number of sexual partners and marital satisfaction is that you are ignorant of the scientific research in that area.

3. There is nothing in science that provides a moral judgment against dropping Zyklon B gas into a chamber filled with anyone. That's not what science is, that's not what science does.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.

It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.

---

Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong.

---

Proof?

TexasScientist said:

---

This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.

---

And the scientistic alternative yields many more. When you accuse the Catholic Church of enabling Hitler, ironically, you're condemning the Church for failing to rescue society from the consequences of your own philosophy.

---

Prove what? Prove it is the only tool? We have no other objective means for evaluating reality. How about you give me another objective means to evaluate what is the interest of wellbeing?

I am condemning the Church for failing to live up to the standards of my philosophy. I don't expect the Church to rescue society. I expect society to rescue humanity from Nazi fascism, which it ultimately did. Hopefully, rescue from religion is on the horizon.

TS: "I expect society to rescue humanity from Nazi fascism, which it ultimately did. Hopefully, rescue from religion is on the horizon."

Godwin says you just lost the argument.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

---

Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.

---

We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.

It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.

---

Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong.

---

Proof?

TexasScientist said:

---

This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.

---

And the scientistic alternative yields many more. When you accuse the Catholic Church of enabling Hitler, ironically, you're condemning the Church for failing to rescue society from the consequences of your own philosophy.

---

Prove what? Prove it is the only tool? We have no other objective means for evaluating reality. How about you give me another objective means to evaluate what is the interest of wellbeing?

---

Prove that the best interest and well-being of others should be our basis in determining right and wrong. Where is the scientific literature on that? The peer-reviewed research? What experiments have been done, and how were they documented?

TexasScientist said:

---

I am condemning the Church for failing to live up to the standards of my philosophy. I don't expect the Church to rescue society. I expect society to rescue humanity from Nazi fascism, which it ultimately did. Hopefully, rescue from religion is on the horizon.

---

Hitler had the same hope.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

---

Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.

---

But here's the rub - sometimes science disproves...... science.

You had claimed before that eating red meat was bad for you, and that science showed it. Perhaps the science of the time did show it. But a new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that many of those studies had flaws, and concluded that there is no evidence for that conclusion. This is just one example of many where science does a u-turn.

So, what you believe to be "reality" determined by science, may not even be reality at all. Which raises the question of what do we really know, and how do we know that we know it?

Which is why I find your statement, "You and I place our faith in those(scientific) conclusions everyday" to be so apropos and ironic. There is more truth in these words than perhaps you realized or intended.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

---

Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.

---

We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.

---

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipedia

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.

It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.

---

Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong.

---

Proof?

TexasScientist said:

---

This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.

---

And the scientistic alternative yields many more. When you accuse the Catholic Church of enabling Hitler, ironically, you're condemning the Church for failing to rescue society from the consequences of your own philosophy.

---

Prove what? Prove it is the only tool? We have no other objective means for evaluating reality. How about you give me another objective means to evaluate what is the interest of wellbeing?

---

Prove that the best interest and well-being of others should be our basis in determining right and wrong. Where is the scientific literature on that? The peer-reviewed research? What experiments have been done, and how were they documented?

TexasScientist said:

---

I am condemning the Church for failing to live up to the standards of my philosophy. I don't expect the Church to rescue society. I expect society to rescue humanity from Nazi fascism, which it ultimately did. Hopefully, rescue from religion is on the horizon.

---

Hitler had the same hope.

---

Actually, it may be possible through genetics and evolutionary, neuroscience, psychology and biology. Some speculate that as hominids evolved and grew in number, the need to cooperate in increasingly larger groups for survival was required between individuals and collectively, and this need may be an intrinsic genetic expression. There certainly is no scientific evidence that says it should not be the basis.

Hard to say for sure about Hitler's hopes on religion, but he certainly didn't have the same hope regarding rescue from fascism. Maybe he got it half right.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

---

Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.

---

We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.

---

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipedia

---

The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

---

Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.

---

But here's the rub - sometimes science disproves...... science.

You had claimed before that eating red meat was bad for you, and that science showed it. Perhaps the science of the time did show it. But a new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that many of those studies had flaws, and concluded that there is no evidence for that conclusion. This is just one example of many where science does a u-turn.

So, what you believe to be "reality" determined by science, may not even be reality at all. Which raises the question of what do we really know, and how do we know that we know it?

Which is why I find your statement, "You and I place our faith in those(scientific) conclusions everyday" to be so apropos and ironic. There is more truth in these words than perhaps you realized or intended.

---

Science didn't do a U turn. Dozens of renowned nutritional scientists and physicians have come out against this study that was sponsored and paid for by the fast food and meat industry. The research on the problems of excessive meat in dietary intake is voluminous and conclusive. Here is a recent article about the meat industry study.


Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn't Report Past Food Industry Ties - New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Critics of the meat study say that it has similarities to the industry-funded sugar study and uses the same standard to evaluate evidence. Dr. Frank Hu, the chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he was stunned when he realized that Dr. Johnston was both the leader of the meat study and the same researcher who led the industry-funded review that attacked guidelines advising people to eat less sugar. He said that in both cases Dr. Johnston undercut sugar and meat recommendations by using a tool called GRADE that was mainly designed to rate clinical drug trials, not dietary studies.

"You can't do a double-blinded placebo-controlled trial of red meat and other foods on heart attacks or cancer," Dr. Hu said. "For dietary and lifestyle factors, it's impossible to use the same standards for drug trials."

Drug trials are primarily designed to look at efficacy and safety, Dr. Hu said, while the main goal of diet studies is to identify risk factors that influence obesity and chronic diseases. That is why scientists use data from large observational studies and randomized trials to look at the health effects of different eating patterns and other behaviors that cannot be studied like pharmaceutical therapies.

Dr. Johnston said the real problem is that people don't want to accept findings that contradict long-held views. "People have very strong opinions," he said. "Scientists should have intellectual curiosity and be open to challenges to their data. Science is about debate, not about digging your heels in."
But Dr. Hu said Dr. Johnston's methods were not very objective or rigorous and the tool he employed in his meat and sugar studies could be misused to discredit all sorts of well-established public health warnings, like the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, air pollution and health problems, physical inactivity and chronic disease, and trans fats and heart disease.

"Some people may be wondering what his next target will be," Dr. Hu said. "But I'm concerned about the damage that has already been done to public health recommendations."

Your comments cause me to believe you do not understand science or the scientific method. Established science is based upon the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, that is testable and repeatable and from which reliable conclusions of facts and truths may be drawn. That is why it takes multiple studies to effectively draw accurate and reliable conclusions. The good thing about science is that it is always trying to prove something wrong. That is how you get to reliable data. Science asks questions to find answers about reality, as opposed to religion which presumes to know the answers before the questions are even asked.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.

---

Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.

---

We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.

---

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipedia

---

The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.

---

Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.

---

Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.

---

Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.

It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.

---

Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong.

---

Proof?

TexasScientist said:

---

This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.

---

And the scientistic alternative yields many more. When you accuse the Catholic Church of enabling Hitler, ironically, you're condemning the Church for failing to rescue society from the consequences of your own philosophy.

---

Prove what? Prove it is the only tool? We have no other objective means for evaluating reality. How about you give me another objective means to evaluate what is the interest of wellbeing?

---

Prove that the best interest and well-being of others should be our basis in determining right and wrong. Where is the scientific literature on that? The peer-reviewed research? What experiments have been done, and how were they documented?

TexasScientist said:

---

I am condemning the Church for failing to live up to the standards of my philosophy. I don't expect the Church to rescue society. I expect society to rescue humanity from Nazi fascism, which it ultimately did. Hopefully, rescue from religion is on the horizon.

---

Hitler had the same hope.

---

Actually, it may be possible through genetics and evolutionary, neuroscience, psychology and biology. Some speculate that as hominids evolved and grew in number, the need to cooperate in increasingly larger groups for survival was required between individuals and collectively, and this need may be an intrinsic genetic expression. There certainly is no scientific evidence that says it should not be the basis.

---

It may be possible? That's your evidence?

TexasScientist said:

---

Hard to say for sure about Hitler's hopes on religion, but he certainly didn't have the same hope regarding rescue from fascism. Maybe he got it half right.

---

I quoted him for you on the previous page.