Responding in kind my friend. The GP cited atrocities therefore I had to follow suit.

Also, Godwin's law does not preclude refering to Nazi's in history. Rather it means that equating an opponent or their position with Nazi's. I did neither. :)

I suggest you re-read your Torah, Bible, Koran and you Tipitaka.

The actual morality espoused is far from scary in fact I bet it is what you personally wish for yourself.

Now, like people can abuse science, people can make claims in the name of a religion that goes directly against the principles of that religion and because they are either a person of note or because the general social environment is unstable a portion of the population who are intellectually lazy will follow. This does NOT mean the religion actually supports this view.

umm, look up the definition of philosophy.

what do you think the Ph in PhD stands for...

Doctorate in Philosophy.....

The philosophy of science is that the universe is understandable and testable. That my friend is a philosophy.

Yes, Nazi's misused science, just like Branch Davidians misused religion, just like jihadists misused religion, just like Westboro baptist misuses religion....

Thank you for proving my point :)

Science is a religion because the fundamental philosophy is un-testable and only followed through faith. If you question this assessment than I suggest you research the philosophy of science. Science like most religion acknowledges this gap.

FYI the Nazi's euthanasia was based directly on Darwin's work.

  The communist manifesto was based directly on economics and psychology.

I would point out that social science, like what China uses, is a recognized branch of science...

Finally, you are confusing volume with quantity. The extreme people tend to be orders of magnitude louder than the typical person regardless of the arena. Just ask a partisan about trickle-down economics. The actual portion of actively religious who espouse the extreme philosophy you are talking about is actually far lower in the US than the rest of the world even though we are one of the most religious countries in the world.

I do agree, a post-industrial society is not likely to stone people. However we have far more effective ways of killing people now. Back several thousand years ago, stoning was actually the most humane way to execute someone commonly available. Hit in the head with a single 15 pound stone and you are out, feeling no pain. With a sword, which were rare, you could take hours to die. Beheading was very difficult because the metal sucked, hanging even today can end up slowly strangling you to death.

BTW, I personally work in pharma developing drugs. I have done HIV research and am working on a Masters in Statistics. I AM a scientist by profession. From everything I have seen, Christianity and science are in perfect agreement. The few slight areas of disagreement are either due to an incomplete understanding of the research or historical drift in the text/translations.

I challenge you to find a case where Christianity and science a materially different...

Tell me, what would morality look like to a hunter-gatherer?

Likely very little in property rights and even less in sanctity of life. After all, you own nothing and your lives are very short.

How about pure agrarian societies? How about early industrial age?

If you read the bible beginning to end you see that the morality of god DOES change in style but not kind. It is man that is limited in our ability to respect others. As human society advanced so do gods requirements of us. If you compare the actions of the Israelites to the surrounding people you find that they are actually the most civil group around.

You could assume that it was man that changed god as he matured but if that were the case why would they have had such a hard time keeping up with the new requirements and why would they make themselves look so bad in the bible? Human society changes human nature doesn't.

Women's lib only became possible when Women could control their own reproduction and when physical strength was not an absolute requirement to make a living.

And yes, I do fairly well. My wife, the Aeronautical engineer very much likes me even after a decade together.

You also need to remember that this is god dealing with man through time.

Look at the bible as a whole. Mankind starts in a very mean state. He was violent, agressive and not very social. In this situation, if God is to respect free will, he is limited in what he can command his people to do. As man develops God moves from Kill everyone to guard the land to Turn the other cheek to charity is all important.

The 'evil' we see in the bible is more due to the limits of human society that the goals of god.

What is interesting is that the Irealites were actually kinder and gentler that any of the surrounding peoples.

As opposed to the 'religion' of science:

Nazis leap to mind. They used 'science' to justify their policies

Soviet Socialism was 'science' based

China and it's forced abortion policies are also science based.

Science is hardly a pristine philosophy.

The truth is, humans are malliable creatures that fear change and differences in general. They will latch on to ANYTHING that gives them an excuse to act as their Id directs them.

Just because violence is done in the name of religion does not mean that the religion encourages, advises or even accepts it. You are looking at the most extreme people in the most extreme situations.

I could see the same people burying a woman up to her neck and stoning her to death because her genotyping says she and her chosen partner would create bad offspring...

I ecourage you to review Genesis 22:7,8.

Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

God WILL provide, not God HAS provided. Abraham knew God was not evil and therefore God would not allow Isacc to be killed. Maybe he would resurect him. Maybe the knife wouldn't hurt Isacc. He had no idea how god would resolve the issue, but he knew he would be returning with Isacc.

Now lets translate this to the Aliens. They down from the sky in a spaceship, performed all sorts of wonders and miracles, and predicted the future with uncanny accuracy, and even helped me and my wife conceive when we thought it was impossible.

Then the aliens then tell you that they need your son, whom they helped to create, to continue to be able to communicate with you and the earth in general. From you experience with these beings you know they are moral beings. You know that even if your son isn't with you he will be well cared for.

What do you do now?

Now your second assessment... I think you are tripping over a few language and cultural issues. From the prior section we know that Soddom and Gramorrah were currently at war with their neighbors. Next, strangers (not aliens as for as you can tell) randomly show up. The people of Soddom decide they might be spies and since then as now rape is about the most humiliating things one human can do to another, it is beleived that homosexual rape was used extensivly during interrogations.

Next you are forgetting the two most dramatic cultural changes in human society since the transition fromhunter-gatherer to agriculture. Specifically slavery and Womens liberation. Up until about 100 years ago women were assumed to be the property of their husband or the male head of the family. With only a few exceptions women have been property.

In ancient Israel, daughters have no choice on who they marry or even relate to. The daughter is property.

So now the story, now translated to the modern day reads:

Similarly, if {a potential spy} was about to {undergo 'enhanced interrogation'} at my doorstep by an angry mob, I might be willing to try to fight the mob off and risk my life, {I might even try to pay them to go away by giving them my most valuable and treasured property.} Heck, I might even be able to understand it if to fend the mob off I had to offer *myself* up for a good raping.

On the far side of the 20th century, we have to be very carefull that we don't let the morality that modern technology allows to interfere with the morality that has served mankind for over 3000 years.

Because methane is a pretty reactive molecule. So it reacts spontaneously. In the atmosphere Methane has a half life of about 8 years.

We don't worry much about methane for the same reason we don't worry about H2O. Water vapor causes roughly 60% of all greenhouse effects yet since a water molecule on is in the atmosphere for about 9 days there is not much to worry about.

Co2 has a half life of centuries. So while boiling water on the stove stays in the atmosphere for a few days and cow farts stay in the air for a decade, CO2 stays up there for centuries.

For a long time the only planets we found were 'hot Jupiters'. Jupiter sized planets very close to their star (inside Mercury's orbit).

Why weren't these planets stripped of their atmosphere?

I need to know in case a henchman falls into the tank...

Jason and I worked at Shionogi together for 3 years. I was laid off at the same time.

Shionogi did a piss-poor job of that round of lay-offs. I completely understand his attitude.

Apparently the only reason he was caught is because he used a debit card at the Mcdonalds where he logged in...

Smart guy that did a couple of very stupid things...

btw, in many early towns in the US for the first 100-200 years or so the entire town was pure socialism.

Pure socialism, like Pure capitalism can not survive in large or fast societies. This typically means agrarian societies of no more than about 1000 individuals.

Actually, no.

If you want to see real socialism you really can't find it in the US. You never could. The closest we ever got was a presidential candidate that in the 20's that advocated a 100% tax on anyone making over 100K. We also had some communists elected in the 30's to state government.

Now since the 80's we have had a dramatic push to pure capitalism in the form of 'trickle down economics.'. The current debt crisis is a direct result of the tax policies of the early 80's.

Now, the proper level of government influence is:

#1 protect individuals rights from abuse by others
#2 support individuals to the point where they cna thrive if they work at it (this is a very low threshold of about 60K in income a year)
#3 get out of the way of anyone making more than that (so long as they respect #1)
#4 manage public resources for the public interest
#5 Cover the activities necessary for a growing society but which can not create a profit and are too large for non-profits. (The best example is funding basic research but utilities, FEMA and other emergency services also fall under here. Remember, companies very rarely have future horizons greater than about 7 years. This is due to CEO life span. If an investment takes more than that to turn a profit then no company will invest. There are project that are longer than 7 years but these projects have very low risk {since they aren't basic research} and so the new CEOs tend to buy-in and maintain the projects)

Now we may be tripping over deffinitions.

Pure socialism means there are no personal assets and all assets are assigned by the society.

Pure capitalism means there are no public assets. All assets are owned and managed by the individual.

Pure socialism leads to stagnation once a generation has passed since the next generation didn't agree to the system. Pure capitalism leads to anarchy when everyone realises that they can own anything by taking it. There is zero security and zero ability to cooperate (which involves pooling assets which is no longer pure capitalism). This leads to a 'strong man' essentially taking control of everyone around him and making them into serfs.

Now personally I am a 'Social Capitalist'

This means that the free market and capitalism are the best methods of producing an excellent standard of living for everyone better than 99% of the time. However capitalism MUST serve societal aims. If a company or individual is doing an activity that contradicts the greater good than the society they live in has the right to stop them.

It is in society's best interest to NOT have people starving in the street. To NOT have random epidemics sweep through the population. To NOT have poisoned water and air. Etc.

Since capitalism (with charities) has proven time after time that it is incapable of feeding everyone than society as a whole acting through government has to ensure basic food for everyone to avoid food riots and extreme graft which would hurt capitalism as well as society.

Since capitalism (and charities) have proven time and again that it is incapable of providing health insurance for everyone (in the 60's virtually all senior citizens were denied coverage by the private market which promted medicare) society through government created medicare which prevented a huge drain on financial and time resources as families no longer had to pay for senior care of out pocket and it enabled private industry to actually cover some seniors at a profit.

Since capitalism (and charities) have proven time and again that it is incapable of preserving natural resources for the long term (do I really need to provide a list here?) society acting through government created the EPA and other agencies to ensure that private individuals do not destroy public property without consequences.

I could go on but I hope you get the point.

We don't have socialism. We NEVER had socialism.

If you actually compare the policies of Obama against the policies defined as socialist etc from the last 150 years you will find that he actual falls out as a moderate to borderline extreme CONSERVATIVE.

The issue is that today we are more conservative than we have ever been in the last 600 years on this continent.

Take a look at how socialism was defined when communism was actually around... it is extremly different than how socialism is defined by the right as of this moment.

I said limited socialism.

Pure socialism lasts for about a generation. The next generation will generally not follow in the same footsteps and productivity dropps dramatically

Pure capitalism last for about 5 years. It then degrads into anarchy and is reborn as feudalism.

But Limited capitalism with some socialist aspects is the ONLY form of government that has actually lasted any length of time.

Please find me an example of pure capitalism that lasted more than a few years.