Can scientists govern Society?

[Ssel]

Really? So NONE of the American presidents or any kings or queens in history had ANY good motivations at all?

The current proclamation is that "the Christians" were running it all. That isn't exactly MY stance, but that has been the argument. Then, "get rid of those Christians so science can take over." - Emmm.. not likely.

 

America had a great many things to get done that were far more down to Earth, thus exactly what motives anyone had was comparitively irrelevant, "needs must". But realize that the constitution was put together by Christians, not Jews, not Muslims, not Buddhists, not minority interests, not female interests.

 

The Freemasons were holding America in line until around 1970. Every president until then was a Freemason. What was their agenda? Good or bad? Right or wrong?

 

They had the ability to do it, and they did. They didn't use science nor would any other group. The scientist must get into manipulating people, into secrets, into deception. A nation has never been raised nor managed without such for a reason. But when science gets into deception, is it still science?

[Guest Lev Bronstein]

Looking back at the replies to my early morning post, I see the same evasive circular arguments from the usual self absorbed morons.

 

What KILLS me about this crowd is that, after telling us there is no God, (and ignoring the MASSIVE record of atrocities commited by atheists) they turn around and start passing judgment on everyone else.

 

Show the world that you have anything to offer!

 

Of course, you can't because all you have to offer is your own brand of bigotry and hate, and your nauseous pretensions to superiority!

[Amethyst]

The Freemasons were holding America in line until around 1970. Every president until then was a Freemason. What was their agenda? Good or bad? Right or wrong?

 

So what? Are you a conspiracy theorist? How do you know their agenda is good or bad if is is secret and nobody else knows it anyway? It's kind of like claiming to know what god wants. At least with the masons, somebody knows what's going on.

 

And since the current president probably isn't one (I'd be surprised if he was), it's a moot point anyway.

 

They had the ability to do it, and they did. They didn't use science nor would any other group. The scientist must get into manipulating people, into secrets, into deception. A nation has never been raised nor managed without such for a reason. But when science gets into deception, is it still science?

 

So in a science fiction story, the mad scientist who creates a virus to kill everyone on earth isn't still a scientist? Or the one who creates the ultimate bomb isn't still a scientist?

 

Science is a tool just like any other. You can use it for good, or you can use it for bad purposes.

 

Does the fact that a gun can be used to save lives or take them make it less of a gun? Does the face that a knife can be used to cut meat or stab someone make it less of a knife? By your logic, it does. Yet a knife or a gun does not magically turn into another object based on how it is used. Neither does science.

[spamandham]

And since the current president probably isn't one (I'd be surprised if he was), it's a moot point anyway.

 

Unless of course Freemasonry and the Skull and Bones are somehow interrelated...

[Amethyst]

Unless of course Freemasonry and the Skull and Bones are somehow interrelated...

 

Who knows? But it's not something I lose sleep over wondering.

 

[Ssel]

I said absolutely NOTHING about Christians owning America or America being exclusively for Christians. I happen to agree with those people that your quoting. Nor did I imply any conspiracy concerns, but rather the fact that one group secretly manipulated so as to construct the nation. The point was that when science gets into secrecy then is it still science?

 

If you will stop hysterically exaggerating every word I say with your presumptuous extremist judgments, maybe we can actually have a conversation someday.

[Amethyst]

Are you talking to me? I'm not being an extremist at all. You are the one making illogical statements about one group having agendas, that sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Where is the evidence for this?

 

You said:

America had a great many things to get done that were far more down to Earth, thus exactly what motives anyone had was comparitively irrelevant, "needs must". But realize that the constitution was put together by Christians, not Jews, not Muslims, not Buddhists, not minority interests, not female interests.

 

The Freemasons were holding America in line until around 1970. Every president until then was a Freemason. What was their agenda? Good or bad? Right or wrong?

 

They had the ability to do it, and they did. They didn't use science nor would any other group. The scientist must get into manipulating people, into secrets, into deception. A nation has never been raised nor managed without such for a reason. But when science gets into deception, is it still science?

 

Claiming that someone has an agenda is usually the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist.

 

And you didn't even respond to my other statement at all. Why are you ignoring it? Does the fact that a knife can be used to cut meat, or to stab someone not make it a knife if the usage is changed? Science is also a tool. It makes no difference.

[crazy-tiger]

I said absolutely NOTHING about Christians owning America or America being exclusively for Christians. I happen to agree with those people that your quoting. Nor did I imply any conspiracy concerns, but rather the fact that one group secretly manipulated so as to construct the nation. The point was that when science gets into secrecy then is it still science?

 

If you will stop hysterically exaggerating every word I say with your presumptuous extremist judgments, maybe we can actually have a conversation someday.

A conversation would require both sides listen... to what is actually said, rather than what is thought to be said.

 

 

By the way... did you ever find that evidence of me redefining "scientist"?

 

And you didn't even respond to my other statement at all. Why are you ignoring it? Does the fact that a knife can be used to cut meat, or to stab someone not make it a knife if the usage is changed? Science is also a tool. It makes no difference.

He seems to have a very rigid idea of what science is, and certainly seems to insist that it's only when that very rigid idea is being stuck to that science is being done...

 

Maybe if he realised that science is very fluid in it's definition, he might get some idea of where he's gone wrong... but since he doesn't have the ability to accept the possibility of being in error, I won't hold my breath.

[Ouroboros]

Here is a link about the founding fathers http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Thanks Serenity. I saved that link.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

And like Reagan and all of the others, they had to stop their prior carreer in order to focus on politics.

You're kidding, right? You don't seriously think Reagan gave up acting, and Iraq shows us that George W is still a very active oilman.

[Poonis]

...

If you are one of those many who think that as soon as you can get all of those foolish and hateful Christians out of the way, then science and reasoning will simply step up to plate and make the world a better place, then you have some SERIOUS reconsidering to do. Science CAN NOT govern society, even if they wanted to. And real scientists don't. If you want the proof of exactly WHY they can't then start a thread on "Can scientists govern Society" and I will quickly show you exactly why they CAN'T and what MUST happen instead. You won't like where your nay-saying must lead.

...

 

No person is truly able to govern govern anyone else. Let there be no bifurcation fallacy here; if I say christians cannot govern, I do not mean to say scientists can. If I say christians can govern, I do not mean to say scientists cannot. I am saying that no one knows best how to govern anyone except for themselves. The necessity of government is as archaic as the ideology of religion itself; the dissolution of both could not possibly make live on planet earth any worse than it already is with these two disgusting entities: government and religion.

[Amethyst]

Hmmm...interesting argument, Poonis. At least, it's original. But unfortunately, we need laws and consequences of some sort to maintain at least a semblance of order, and someone to administer those laws. Shall we then let all the murderers and rapists out of jail to commit more crimes? Certainly, a very small percentage of them might reconsider their actions and go find someplace to live and not bother anyone else, but the vast majority will not.

[Poonis]

Hmmm...interesting argument, Poonis. At least, it's original. But unfortunately, we need laws and consequences of some sort to maintain at least a semblance of order, and someone to administer those laws. Shall we then let all the murderers and rapists out of jail to commit more crimes? Certainly, a very small percentage of them might reconsider their actions and go find someplace to live and not bother anyone else, but the vast majority will not.

 

It is quite possible to get into a long and drawn out discussion about what to do with the undesirables, but I have neither the time nor energy for such. Government and religion has always been the manifestation of the ideas of mankind. Everything we establish on earth always begins with thoughts and ideas. This is where I base my opinion from: there was not first government and religion, and then mankind came into being; mankind existed first, and religion and government followed. I do think that we deserve both religion and government, simply because we do not wish to think otherwise. Until we come up with a better solution, we are stuck with what we have. I will not argue inside the construct of a government or a religion in how to make it better, because both are inherently false; oft considered necessary evils. When dealing with government and religion, we have not advanced any further intellectually than when the first governments and religions came about. We choose to accept (often by apathy) that government and religion are the only way. For those who are so wrapped up in religion and government, it is not possible to start thinking of a better way; something that is not a necessary evil.

 

In ExC, we have a common bond in that we (those of us who have left christianity) already reject that specific religion. The further one relinquishes control of christianity, the more they begin to let go of the whole of religion itself.

 

The question is, are you less able to think for and control yourself having left your religion, or more? As for me, I have already left the beast of religion behind and have no need for it.

 

I give no exception for government.

[Amethyst]

The question is, are you less able to think for and control yourself having left your religion, or more?

 

More, of course. I am highly skeptical of both the government and religion, yet I realize that govt. is necessary to put up with, at least in this age. It probably always will be.