Irish Times Waffle Alert

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Ah yes and when the next boom comes around I guess hundreds of Irish men will stop killing themselves. The very fact people link material wealth and status as a means to happiness and acceptance should raise some eyebrows.



Everything? How can you say then when it cant? There is no proof that science is everything yet you believe it is.... hmmm sounds like blind faith to me. :eek:

Suicide here could be linked to the lack of sunshine. Apparently there's a massive bright sparkly thing behind those clouds. Yeah right.

Do you believe in the internet and electricity? It's interesting that you need to be religious in order to be asked this question. Just poke around in your toaster or wall socket. Do some investigating.

You've obviously put a lot of faith in your pc/ laptop/ smartphone and internet.

Or maybe, just maybe, none of it is real. Maybe you're not real, maybe you are me. What if (insert other waffley garbage here)?

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Suicide here could be linked to the lack of sunshine. Apparently there's a massive bright sparkly thing behind those clouds. Yeah right.

Do you believe in the internet and electricity? It's interesting that you need to be religious in order to be asked this question. Just poke around in your toaster or wall socket. Do some investigating.

You've obviously put a lot of faith in your pc/ laptop/ smartphone and internet.

Or maybe, just maybe, none of it is real. Maybe you're not real, maybe you are me. What if (insert other waffley garbage here)?

I think therefore I am.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

I think therefore I am.

The banana fits in my hand, therefore god. /bangs head on wall

equivariant

Morgase wrote: »

It's been a few years since I was in school, but I don't think there's teaching of science and maths at the expense of philosophy. I'll tell you what I'd love to see - a decent philosophy class (what I mean is teaching students how to think) instead of religion! Let's give people the thinking tools that they need in order to grapple with the complex ethical questions, because they do need to be answered.

+100 to this. I have a feeling that much of the whole "science raises difficult ethical questions that scientists can't answer" muck would dissolve if we stopped trying to teach children about ethics and morality using iron age superstitions.

The thing is that science generally (as a beneficial side effect) solves many more ethical problems than it creates. However, enfeebling one's mind with superstition and religion often has the nasty side effect of obscuring this fact.

speaking

equivariant wrote: »

+100 to this. I have a feeling that much of the whole "science raises difficult ethical questions that scientists can't answer" muck would dissolve if we stopped trying to teach children about ethics and morality using iron age superstitions..

Are you saying that if we stopped teaching religion people would understand the value of science and that science itself would help up become more ethical in the future?

What about Plato Socrates are you seriously suggesting that because they are from the Iron age we should ignore what they have to say about ethics etc?

And although an atheist I still think the teachings of Jesus on treating your fellow person they way you want to be treated makes sense.

As an atheist I am perfectly happy to pick and choose in an a la carte way from history things that make sense to me and help me be a more moral person.

I am not just going to dismiss ancient teachings because they are old, where they are stupid and old i will dismiss them, but not just because they are old.

The thing is that science generally (as a beneficial side effect) solves many more ethical problems than it creates.

[/QUOTE]

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

Morgase

I suspect that by iron age superstitions equivariant was referring to Christianity (and maybe other old religions) specifically. Not philosophers.

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

Let's take an example (fictional but entirely plausible, it could happen in my work):

A patient with an eye disorder agrees for their genome to be sequenced in order to identify which genetic mutation underlies their eye condition (and thus, understand risks to children etc).

In the process of screening their whole genome, you discover a genetic mutation in an unrelated gene which will lead them to a painful and early death. There is currently no treatment available.

Should the patient be told? Do we have a moral obligation to tell them? Does what we consider to be the correct action to take (i.e. the ethical action) change upon a scientific discovery of a cheap and easy cure for the disorder?

I suspect you're asking a question far more vague than this though. Can "science" inform us of the human condition? Can it teach us how to be a nice person?

mikhail

speaking wrote: »

And you have met a lot of widely read, widely travelled, musically accomplished, polyglots.

Yes, dozens of any one, and a handful who were all of that.

Well good for you.

Thank you. It feels good to feel superior to you.

seamus

speaking wrote: »

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?

Science: No.

Many ethics and morals are based on old superstitions and beliefs without foundation.

Science doesn't "solve" these ethical issues, but rather it simply shows that the premise on which they are based is incorrect and therefore the ethical problem goes away.

ShooterSF

speaking wrote: »

Are you saying that if we stopped teaching religion people would understand the value of science and that science itself would help up become more ethical in the future?

...

I am not just going to dismiss ancient teachings because they are old, where they are stupid and old i will dismiss them, but not just because they are old.

The thing is, schools that teach certain religions as true do not offer the option that parts of the religion may be wrong (the nasty/stupid parts). You and I can pick and choose because we work from a foundation that is the golden rule, so can agree on some issues like loving one another and disagree with the idea that a rapist should pay money to his victims father and then must marry their victim. Where as people who genuinely believe in their religion can not pick and choose (well not without doing some amazing mental gymnastics first).

These people are also quick to point to their deity as justification for their views on certain ethical issues such as abortion. This makes ethics discussions more difficult as they don't have to ethically argue their point, they can simply shoulder that responsibility on their higher power who knows better. Actually religion is much more of a problem when it comes to refining our ethics which by the way, unlike what these types would like you believe, have actually greatly improved in comparison to our history.

Dades

speaking wrote: »

As an atheist I am perfectly happy to pick and choose in an a la carte way from history things that make sense to me and help me be a more moral person.

The interesting thing is you're not using things that have been (allegedly) said by other people throughout history to mould your morality, you're just picking up on things that have been said that happen match your own inherent morality. You should give yourself more credit.

On the flip-side I'm reminded of the quote "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do".

seamus wrote: »

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?
...

Not forgetting the greatest revelation science has made for humanity - it's perfectly okay to eat pigs.

seamus

Dades wrote: »

Not forgetting the greatest revelation science has made for humanity - it's perfectly okay to eat pigs.

Well that just illustrates that science can be applied for good or evil. While science might have proven that eating pigs is not bad for you, it doesn't say whether it's right to eat pigs.

Poor little piggies

Dades

You are, of course, correct. Science does indeed stay quiet on the subject of whether it's morally okay to eat pigs. It's not it's job, after all.

I usually revert to my butcher for spiritual guidance in such matters of the flesh.

Penn

seamus wrote: »

Well that just illustrates that science can be applied for good or evil. While science might have proven that eating pigs is not bad for you, it doesn't say whether it's right to eat pigs.

Poor little piggies

If ever there was any sort of proof of a God, it's pigs. Sausages, rashers, ham, bacon, pork chops, gammon steak... Truly the work of a Creator.

doctoremma

seamus wrote: »

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?

Science: No.

Many ethics and morals are based on old superstitions and beliefs without foundation.

Science doesn't "solve" these ethical issues, but rather it simply shows that the premise on which they are based is incorrect and therefore the ethical problem goes away.

Until you are confronted at the entrance to a temple by a gentle Granddad type who asks in a rather blunt fashion, "Are you bleeding at the moment?"...

speaking

Morgase wrote: »

I suspect that by iron age superstitions equivariant was referring to Christianity (and maybe other old religions) specifically. Not philosophers.

So why not just say that. By using iron age he is, to me anyway, suggesting that wisdom which is old is less than or not as good as modern wisdom (i suppose in this conversation science) Im not so sure we as people are much smarter than cave men myself.

speaking

seamus wrote: »

Ethical question: Should a menstruating woman be considered "unclean" and kept out of the way until her menstruation stops?

Science: No.

Many ethics and morals are based on old superstitions and beliefs without foundation.

Science doesn't "solve" these ethical issues, but rather it simply shows that the premise on which they are based is incorrect and therefore the ethical problem goes away.

I really don't think such a question is an ethical one. Its more of a human rights issue.

I am more talking about ethical questions in the line of that posed by doctoremma

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

I'm not so sure we as people are much smarter than cave men myself.

Oh good, when did the caveman journey to the moon? Or elucidate the structure of DNA? Or heal themselves of bacterial infection?

doctoremma

speaking wrote: »

I really don't think such a question is an ethical one. Its more of a human rights issue.

I am more talking about ethical questions in the line of that posed by doctoremma

What would be your position on that dilemma, given the circumstances where there was a. no cure or b. a very cheap and easy cure?

speaking

Dades wrote: »

you're just picking up on things that have been said that happen match your own inherent morality. You should give yourself more credit.

As an atheist I am surprised you think people have inherent morality?

You think morality is something that is part of us. That we are inherently good?

Penn

speaking wrote: »

So why not just say that. By using iron age he is, to me anyway, suggesting that wisdom which is old is less than or not as good as modern wisdom (i suppose in this conversation science) Im not so sure we as people are much smarter than cave men myself.

Many of the basics of "old" wisdom would still be relevant today, or been adapted with the times. But to suggest we're not smarter than cave men is pretty ridiculous. In the period between cave men and now, people have been able to rely less on basic instinct and been able to judge situations rationally and logically. As time has moved forward, we as a species have been able to think more about what we're doing and rely on more than just basic instinct, because instinct is not always correct.

speaking

doctoremma wrote: »

Oh good, when did the caveman journey to the moon? Or elucidate the structure of DNA? Or heal themselves of bacterial infection?

I dont know just because we can go to the moon or find the structure of DNA, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. When the cave man looked up from his cave at the moon and admired it and the nature around him can i honestly say that I as a person are smarter than him? For me absolutely not. He was smart. In a different way than me perhaps, but non the less smart.


In a hundred thousand years when people look back on us. Will we be considered cave men? I hope not.

speaking

Penn wrote: »

Many of the basics of "old" wisdom would still be relevant today, or been adapted with the times. But to suggest we're not smarter than cave men is pretty ridiculous.

Then call me ridiculous. I m happy with this view. I understand how you might think I am being ridiculous, but my gut is telling me not to be to sure of my superiority when it comes to judging others.

speaking

doctoremma wrote: »

What would be your position on that dilemma, given the circumstances where there was a. no cure or b. a very cheap and easy cure?

TBH I am not sure I understand the exact nature of the ethica issue you are talking about can you explain it again?

Penn

speaking wrote: »

I dont know just because we can go to the moon or find the structure of DNA, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. When the cave man looked up from his cave at the moon and admired it and the nature around him can i honestly say that I as a person are smarter than him? For me absolutely not. He was smart. In a different way than me perhaps, but non the less smart.

Not really. Bringing the topic back towards religion slightly, think about the story of Genesis in the Bible. Back then, people believed God just created everything. Why? Because to them, that was a good explanation for everything they saw. They didn't seek answers, they made them up and passed them on. And people believed it because they didn't want to go against what others told them for fear they'd be punished.

Now, people look for answers. People don't just take something as fact. 2000 years ago a man might say he's the son of god, and people believe him. Now, a man might say he's the son of god, and people lock him up because he's crazy.

People are smarter now because we find ways of discovering the truth, rather than coming up with something and just believing it. 40 years ago, a man came up with the idea of the boson particle. People didn't just take it as truth, we tried to find out if it was true or not. And now we pretty much have.

We are definitely smarter than cave men. Sorry, but there's no doubt about it.

speaking wrote: »

Then call me ridiculous. I m happy with this view. I understand how you might think I am being ridiculous, but my gut is telling me not to be to sure of my superiority when it comes to judging others.

Even cave men?

Morgase

speaking wrote: »

As an atheist I am surprised you think people have inherent morality?

You think morality is something that is part of us. That we are inherently good?

I certainly believe people are inherently good, yes.

speaking

Penn wrote: »

They didn't seek answers, they made them up and passed them on.

They did seek answers but did not have science to help them answer them. There answers were as right to them as science is to me now. Were they wrong? Essentially, for me it does not matter. In the grand scheme of things we are probably all wrong in some way.

Now, people look for answers. People don't just take something as fact. 2000 years ago a man might say he's the son of god, and people believe him. Now, a man might say he's the son of god, and people lock him up because he's crazy.

I think you are comparing people 2000 years ago and saying because we know more stuff then them we are smarter or superior to them. We may know more stuff but are we as people smarter. I suppose it goes to what you consider smartness to be.

I'm not a scientist and as an atheist I just don't understand why fellow atheists are so sure science has all the answers for us. Personally I know science has answers but there really not the kind of questions I give a **** about anyway.

What I am trying to say I suppose is that i care about people more.

People are smarter now because we find ways of discovering the truth, rather than coming up with something and just believing it.

The truth? Thats a bold statement. Atruth maybe but the truth. that practically a divine claim.

We are definitely smarter than cave men. Sorry, but there's no doubt about it.

I know I am probably sounding stupid but I think there is a lot of doubt that we are are smarter than cave-men ( i am talking in a general way when it somes to smartness not in a one plus one scientific way)

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

*Looks around thread*



aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnddddd I'm out.

Yeah, I have to say, between this guy and kidchameleon the forum seem to be attracting a really sh1t standard of atheist recently.

MrP

MrPudding

speaking wrote: »

Then call me ridiculous.

You are ridiculous.

MrP

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

I dont know just because we can go to the moon or find the structure of DNA, what does that mean in the grand scheme of things. When the cave man looked up from his cave at the moon and admired it and the nature around him can i honestly say that I as a person are smarter than him? For me absolutely not. He was smart. In a different way than me perhaps, but non the less smart.


In a hundred thousand years when people look back on us. Will we be considered cave men? I hope not.

Being uneducated and somewhat slow, I'll have to ask for a definition of "caveman" and "smart" as I'm somewhat unfamiliar with these precise scientific terms.