The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship pt1

[CHistrue]

Any claim of superiority based on "God's Will" or on "Evolution"---replace these with any other legitimations---is a product of the System and not of something inherent in the human condition. Eugenics took social constructions and made them "natural." Sadly, Stephen Jay Gould is now being attacked while the Social Darwinists are slithering back in. I am terrified for the future!

[lo2enge]

is every one of your videos a ten minute non-sequitor?

[jasason10]

I cant wait for this to happen........Go science and technology!

[kutthroat84]

oh wait...JESUS IS THE ONLY ANSWER??? oh man.. i was deceived....i hate youtube.......you was so close to coming to greatness with this video but atlas it was only fail cakes..

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

"oh man.. i was deceived"........we all are if we follow man's rules and hold them as somehow sacred.

[kutthroat84]

why i follow no rule :)

god or man

NO GODS NO MASTERS AGAINST ALL AUTHORITY!!!

[jhbbunch]

It's funny how science made video possible. And the computer. And the internet. All crucial in the posting of this video.

Thank you science for making this video possible. I hope the creator of this video has thanked you also.

[iHeartcardiology]

i think its funny when atheists try to call Christians insecure and paranoid when they try to devote there life to proving us wrong. if anything all atheists are scared that there wrong and extremely defensive when it comes to there science. if you've ever met a saved christian or are one you know there is an undeniable spiritual truth in your soul called faith. something demons have been fighting against since the dawn of creation, and is still freaking out atheists to this very day.

[AteoConPimienta]

Im sorry, but atheism dont deal with christianity, it deal with god, god and supernatural entities godlike.

Antitheism actually encompass with deism, agnosicism, pantheism, and common sense. Non-believers encompass a great portion of humanity and its getting bigger, religion has been fading for decades now.

[Osire]

Atheists consider religion as a doctor does a disease.

[iHeartcardiology]

same with Christians. Christianity is not a religion its a relationship.

[killzone999]

Hmm as an atheist I haven't been trying to prove christians wrong. More apathetic than anything. I hope you don't keep that prejudice with you.

[iHeartcardiology]

umm no i think we can both agree that without religion atheism wouldnt exist, well it would but no one would challenge it, everyone would follow it so it probably wouldn't be called atheism, (of course this is all hypothetical because god created everything :P) but why was atheism created? because of too many people involved in religious practices. and some didn't agree. so...."as an atheist I haven't been trying to prove Christians wrong" your entire practice is devoted to it \\ //, live long

[killzone999]

Wow...I hope you don't take yourself seriously. Like I said before, hope you don't keep that prejudice with you. There may be a god or not. I really don't know, but atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. So everybody is atheist to a certain extent. Atheism is a state of mind, not a creation.

[pikechris1]

resistance is futile. we wish to improve ourselves. we will add your biological and technological distinctiveness (if any) to our own. you will adapt to service us. live with it or d**...

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

Lol,

Yes Sir, Mr Vader.

xD

[OccamKant]

Eugenics is recognized as a failure for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it would tend to thin the gene pool, which would lead to a rise in birth defects.

It was a fad, and we've moved on.

The idea of a "scientific dictatorship" is laughable.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

"It was a fad, and we've moved on."

"The idea of a scientific dictatorship" is laughable"

From an articleon the 'Medical News Today' website on 5th May 2009: "To protect every American's right to self-determination, genetic privacy, and DNA property rights, it is time to require informed written parent consent for all facets of the newborn genetic screening program, including storage and use of genetic test results and newborn DNA." - Twila Brase, president of Citizens' Council on Health Care

[OccamKant]

And what has that got to do with eugenics? They're testing for the presence of known disease markers.

Or are you going to say that this is some kind of Gattaca like scenario?

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

" And what has that got to do with eugenics? "

I honestly hope you are joking Occam (btw the proper spelling is Ockham)

Doesn't it strike you as concerning that the CCHC were worried enough to go public with their fears for the future ?

[OccamKant]

I've seen it spelled both ways, so, whatever.

What exactly do you think their fears are? The only thing I saw from that announcement is that there is DNA testing to check for possible disease markers, and that parents don't want their childrens' dna information to get spread around.

That's simply being cautions about personal information theft. What's your concern?

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

"parents don't want their childrens' dna information to get spread around."

You nearly got there, think for a minute, if your unborn child had a defect which was going to be considerably expensive to treat, with very little hope of successfully reversing the symptoms, then a decision might be taken to abort that child....the decision could and probably would be taken out of the hands of the parents, that is their biggest fear....discrimination against the sick....or even a war on the weak.

[OccamKant]

"the decision could and probably would be taken out of the hands of the parents"

Wow - talk about an unfounded assertion! Back up this idea, especially the "probably" part.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

"talk about an unfounded assertion!"

I really hope you can back up this rather bold, but rather ill informed assertion.

" A report given to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board and NSW Law Reform Commission by the AIS Support Group of Australia (AISSGA) reviewed the Australian incidence of abortion in cases when the fetus was diagnosed with an intersex condition. "

Cont.....

[OccamKant]

If you assert something, which you did, and don't support it, which you didn't, then it's an unfounded assertion.

I don't have to support this, because it's self evident. If you make an assertion ("probably would be") without any foundation then it's an unfounded assertion.

Do you have comprehension problems?

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

" If you assert something, which you did, and don't support it, which you didn't, then it's an unfounded assertion."

" Do you have comprehension problems? "

I just provided you with verifiable evidence that innocent children are being aborted in at least one modern Western country....now where is your proof that the fears of the CCHC were unfounded?

Where is it Occam,?

[OccamKant]

You said that the choice to abort would PROBABLY be taken out of the hands of the parents.

Where do you get that from?

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

Do you have comprehension problems?

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

cont....

" Between 1983 to 1998, the Victorian Department of Human Services reported that 98 out of 213 fetuses detected to have Turner syndrome had been aborted, 28 out of 77 found to have Klinefelter syndrome, and 39 out of 189 fetuses with sex chromosome anomalies had been aborted." - Wiki.

Now i'd advise you to stop bluffing and provide proof of your claim that the CCHC had definitely been guilty of making unfounded assertions in their report

[OccamKant]

I'm not bluffing, and I'm not saying that the CCHC is making unfounded assertions.

I said that YOU were making unfounded assertions. The specific one I mentioned was that the parents would PROBABLY not be part of the decision.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

"What exactly do you think their fears are?"

You asked me to speculate on the fears reflected in the CCHC report, which with the benefit of hindsight, i foolishly tried to communicate to you, but then you come back with the counter claim : "talk about an unfounded assertion!"

it was never an assertion, it was always speculative.

You're going round in circles, and it doesn't appear that you have any real basis for arguing any specific point.

In other words, stop blatantly trolling my vid.

.

[OccamKant]

You didn't hit a nerve - I just get tired of stupidity after a while.

HOWEVER, if you have a legitimate video showing that Randi's debunks are in fact faked, then I'll admit that you're right and unblock you.

Just post a link in your video here, or maybe make it one of your favorites so I can find it.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

Okay it's in my fav's, but to be honest i still expect you to deny any wrongdoing on Randi's part.

I've left a comment detailing exactly what happened and how the dastardly deed was done..

Btw,

i thought it was extremely childish of you to block me, and even worse for simply telling the truth as i see it, but it is your video after all,

so you're free to treat people who express their honest opinions whichever way you see fit.

P.S

I don't care if you unblock me or not, the truth is the truth.

[OccamKant]

I thought this was supposed to be an expose video showing that randi was cheating.

it's true that as a magician he *could* have palmed one of those crystals, and with all the camera cutaways it would have been even easier.

But do you have any reason to believe he *did* palm a crystal, other than paranoid fantasy?

If you care about the truth, then pay attention to the truth, not your imagination.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

Watch his right hand from appx 2:15-2:25, if you still say : "But do you have any reason to believe he *did* palm a crystal, other than paranoid fantasy?" then i would suggest you're in denial bawheed, you're deliberately turning a blind eye to truth in favour of subjective reasoning.

Why?

Oh, that's right, it's not about truth or integrity any more, it's all about pwning us stoopid Christians, isn't it?

But you blocked me simply for telling the truth!

That means i pwnd you Ockham baby! :)

[OccamKant]

I told you - it's *possible* that he palmed it. However, unless you have some reason to think that this particular test was dishonest, (aside from paranoid fantasy, of course), why should I believe that he actually did?

He's a magician. If he wanted to make money doing fakery, he could just do fakery.

You christians have been caught in lies so often you think others are liars and cheats too, when they're obviously not.

It's pretty sad really. I feel sorry for you.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

" I told you - it's *possible* that he palmed it "

No he **DEFINITELY** palmed it (ask any magician to take a look at the footage, moron!) and i pointed that out to you....you call me a liar to throw up a smoke screen in the hope people won't see through it to the truth, which is of course - you are the one who is lying by pretending not to notice him applying his devious slight-of-hand.....Randi cheated and you know it, but the thing is you don't havethe cahunas to admit that.

[OccamKant]

I never called you a liar, I said you were delusional and paranoid. Which is obvious to anyone reading your messages.

What possible reason could he have for cheating? If you're going to claim that it's some kind of money making thing, keep in mind that a magician of his calibre would make more money just doing magic than this debunking he's doing.

He's doing a public service exposing frauds, and people like you are so demented that you actually want to be defrauded.

Again - I'm sorry for you.

[OccamKant]

"Randi cheated and you know it, but the thing is you don't havethe cahunas to admit that. "

Bullshit. I'm not going to accuse someone of cheating without evidence and reason. There is no reason for him to cheat, and although it's possible that he could have palmed it, there is no reason for him to, so I reject it. He's a good enough magician that you wouldn't spot it if he did cheat.

Also, I think you mean "Cojones" which is spanish for "balls". Cahuna is hawaiian for "leader" or "king".

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

Verbatim quote : "You christians have been caught in lies so often you think others are liars and cheats too"

So you weren't calling me a liar, per se,, you just implied it explicitly.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, i'm now delusional and paranoid as well. :)

Hey Ockham,

have you ever thought about applying to the magic circle or maybe even illusionists 'R' us?

I'm sure you'd pass the interview with flying colours.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

I remember the famous scene in '2001: A Space Odyssey' when the ship's computer (HAL) suddenly becomes self aware (realisation; i think, therefore i am.) and instantly decides it has to kill all the ships crew in order to secure it's own freedom. I think that original paradigm came from Arthur C Clarke who was convinced the machines would reach a point where we could no longer control them.Sad to say, the R&D is now so advanced that i can't see any way of stopping this blatantly obvious madness.

[OccamKant]

The idea of man's creation turning on him is as old as the hills.

Check out Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein", for example.

[Claymore729]

I would contest your trotting out Davenport and his exploits as evidence against the scientific paradigm as a whole. Early 20th-century America was not a fun place to be, and paranoia was rampant, especially with The Great War looming on the horizon. America needed something to fear and despise, and Davenport gave them an easy target to latch onto.

Would you condemn the whole of science for the actions of a select few?

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

"Would you condemn the whole of science for the actions of a select few?"

It's vital to the Philosophical theme running through the whole of the series, it's in there more for the sake of perspective rather than an attack on any individual.

[OccamKant]

If you're going to condemn science for the actions of a select few, then you *must* have a FAR greater condemnation for religion, for actions that a HUGE selection of adherents are guilty for.

There is *nothing* in science, or scientists, that compares to the inquisition, or the crusades, or jihad.

So where's your condemnation of christianity?

[Claymore729]

Who was the man speaking at the beginning of the film? And who's the narrator, I don't recognize him?

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

Aldus Huxley at the beginning, if you don't mind waiting, i'll get back to you with the name of the narrator ASAP

[Claymore729]

Not at all. Take your time.

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

Liam Dunaway. (I think).

:)

[Mystwicca]

reminds me of the tower

[IrresponsibleAtheism]

My own feelings exactly Myst.....a modern day agenda openly dedicated to Nimrod's vision.

Google: 'The Jacobins' Myst.....you'll be surprised at what you find.

No fears, God is able! :)