Believe in science & ethics

last SG · 2007-08-17T14:02:49+00:00

The scope of science is very wide.It includes social sciences such as sociology,psychology and politics.

AndrewPKYap SG

You have no idea how many times, and how many people had said that to him, but he is just too dense to get it and sooner or later, you too will have to conclude that he is just dense. It is no flaming, it is just stating facts.

AndrewPKYap SG

That was my first post, page 5 at 19 September 2007 · 09:41 AM and still he doesn't get it!

If that is not stupidity, I don't know what is.

http://sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=274077&page=4

soul_rage SG

Thanks for showing proof of your unethical behavior

Why don't you remember further what you said
If Science can prove he is stupid, nothing wrong with calling him stupid

Ethics? You don't have.

If you still cannot fathom your obnoxious and rude behavior, continue to persist your ways. I suppose you don't believe either in karma.

soul_rage SG

read the posting above. This guy still thinks he is right.

And he is doing what the govt likes to do, displaying selective information. Now he develops selective memory loss and forgets the obnoxious behavior he displayed.

AndrewPKYap SG

Don't change the subject. The subject is whether or not you are too stupid to understand what I first said since page 5 and so many people have confirmed it since then and yet at page 18, after 13 x 25 posts = 325 posts

you said:

and you need to be reminded:

That is not stupidity then what is?

You want me to pull out all the other stupid things you said in this thread? Rolling Eyes

soul_rage SG

It's fine, go on and continue repeating and insist you are right.

While you pull out the stupid things I said, do go ahead and find those rude statements that you made as well, which you have conveniently forgotten.

You just continue to re-emphasize the fact that you are rude and obnoxious, refusing to admit your mistakes.

You are not fit to talk about Science, because you insult Science with your behavior.

AndrewPKYap SG

If you are stupid and it has been proven, then it is not an insult, and my behavior is not obnoxious. I am just stating facts.

If you cannot take the truth, then please run home to mummy for comfort.

Daddy!! SG

monkey yap only knows how to "hoo hoo hoo"!

Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

another equally stupid bird from the same flock if not the clone Rolling Eyes Laughing

Daddy!! SG

still eating banana andrew? still stuck with your computer, monkey?

still talking nonsense, boogie wonderland pink butted monkey?

Laughing

Daddy!! SG

when a total stranger comes to monkey andrew and give it a big slap on its face, it would say "WTF is he doing? There is no scientific proof that he should do this!"

Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

In summary, what is the attitude that one must take towards Science and the Scientific Method?

In the Scientific Method, proof and evidence rules supreme and if there are no proof and evidence, at the most the Scientists will say "I don't know" and will never jump to delusional conclusions like some people here.

Daddy!! SG

a special monkey told me that one should use science to inform on the decision to build a casino in the community's neighbourhood. Guess which monkey said this?

AndrewPKYap SG

wah... so delusional... until they believe with all their hearts what they imagined... (otherwise, I guessed they would have provided the evidence, but a delusion in their head is impossible to produce evidence for).

I think a suggestion that they visit IMH is not too rude and insulting, but might even save their live... people that hold conversations with monkeys, are good candidates for IHM.... Laughing

Daddy!! SG

a monkey finally admits it is a monkey. Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

Laughing Delusional IMH

Ibram Gaunt SG

Peace, peace, peace...please....

This thread would have been a very good intellectual exercise if not for all the name-callings and flaming. Flame would only result in counter-flame, and at the end of the day is unconstructive.

I may disagree with the stance of the counter-rationalist, but I nevertheless feel he/she has the right to his/her opinion in an open debate.
I may attack the belief, but I will not attack the believer.

Let's look at it this way.....
There are many schools of thought in the world and certainly none of them can claim absolute perfection and 100% certainty. No science, religion, social science, art, spiritual movement, etc can claim perfection.

I have friends who are theists (from dif religions), deists, atheists and agnostics. We may debate passionately, but at the end of the day we should not let our ideologies get in the way of friendship.

I am a strong supporter of rationality and science, but I have no personal hatred against people of faith or even superstition (unless you are a fundamentalist who believes in perpetrating violence against those who don't follow your ideology).

If I criticise your beliefs, I do so only because I am exercising my intellectual rights to do so and wish to share with you that in this world there is an alternative to supernaturalism.

Of course I'm not so naive as to believe I can convince the other party...because I know that people cherish nothing more deeply than their personal beliefs (especially if they were brought up in an environment that encourage such beliefs).

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, just to clarify one point:

I see religion as distinct from supernaturalism

A person can be a theist [believer in god(s)] and a believer in supernaturalism, but alternatively.....

A person may believe in god(s) but yet not believe in supernatural happenings that violate natural laws. An example is deism (which accepts god(s) but rejects supernatural events including even scriptural accounts): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

And....
Normally, an atheist does not believe in god(s) and also not in supernaturalism, but alternatively...

An atheist who rejects the idea of god(s) can nevertheless believe in some aspects of the supernatural (eg. psychic events, ghosts, spirit possession, etc)....

Finally here is an interesting (and I believe true) thought:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (by Stephen F Roberts)

Which basically means that everyone is an atheist....
i.e. One may be a believer in the monotheistic God, but by rejecting the other gods in other religions (such as Zeus, Ra, Thor, Odin, etc, etc), you too are an atheist in the eyes of the other party!

Ibram Gaunt SG

Just to add on to the my previous post...

Although I may accept counter-arguments against rationality in an open debate among adults, there are 2 areas that I strongly feel that beliefs in supernaturalism/theism should not interfere in:

(1) Governance.
Only a secular government can practise true democracy. A theocracy will always be biased towards a particular (non-rational) belief system only.

(2) Education of youths.
Kids should be given a sound grounding in the sciences and other rational forms of scholastic pursuits. Exposure to supernaturalism at a young age will only mislead their inexperienced minds.
Proponents of the supernatural should ethically only push their beliefs to adults (who are free to make up their own minds) and not try to foist them onto kids.
(See my prev post about the Council of Europe's wise decision to bar creationism in classroom.)

In fact, I would say that a secular system for governance and education is essential for the stability and progress of a modern democracy!

soul_rage SG

Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
Just to add on to the my previous post...

Although I may accept counter-arguments against rationality in an open debate among adults, there are 2 areas that I strongly feel that beliefs in supernaturalism/theism should not interfere in:

(1) Governance.
Only a secular government can practise true democracy. A theocracy will always be biased towards a particular (non-rational) belief system only.

(2) Education of youths.
Kids should be given a sound grounding in the sciences and other rational forms of scholastic pursuits. Exposure to supernaturalism at a young age will only mislead their inexperienced minds.
Proponents of the supernatural should ethically only push their beliefs to adults (who are free to make up their own minds) and not try to foist them onto kids.
(See my prev post about the Council of Europe's wise decision to bar creationism in classroom.)

[b]In fact, I would say that a secular system for governance and education is essential for the stability and progress of a modern democracy!

[/b]

I reserve namecalling only for superstitious (zealots) believers of Science. I think these people bring shame to Science.

Coming back to your points, they are valid, and as I said, I respect your points. Similarly, I do not attack you the person.

I also say again that I am a Science person as well, just that once I studied astronomy, I see the limitations of Science which is only able to explain a negligible part of the universe.

I wish to bring up the points below:
1) Supernatural does not just relate to ghosts, afterlife, and all things that you think belong to 7th Month. I think most of you think that way.
Supernatural is also a classification for explanations which invoke explanative contructs that in principle are beyond human conception, understanding or verification
So perhaps in a loose way, you can say dark matter and dark energy (which are proven to exist by Science) are supernatural in a way, because its beyond our understanding what their composition and characteristics are.

2) Education of youths
I agree only to a certain degree what you mentioned.
Science may give a sound grounding to youths, but it is also Science that will limit their scope, their ability to go beyond that, which can be seen, hear or touched. The current achievements of Science are mostly materialistic and physical.
Yet, since there is no better way to start than by Science, and since I cannot see any other alternative (as you mentioned, exposure to supernaturalism may mislead them), then I will have to agree with you.

By the way, we were taught in secondary school that Newton's Laws of Gravity is totally correct. It was the truth and nothing but the truth. We were told to accept what was taught to us from Primary to JC.

It was only in University, that we are allowed to fully question.

soul_rage SG

some more ideas about Supernatural which does not just talk about things that go bum in the night

Supernatural is a "another part of a larger nature"

This is a view largely held by monists and process theorists. According to this view, the "supernatural" is just a term for parts of nature that modern science and philosophy do not yet properly understand, similar to how sound and lightning used to be mysterious forces to science. Materialist monists believe that the "supernatural" are just things in the physical universe not yet understood by modern science while idealist monists reject the concept of "supernatural" on the grounds that they believe "nature" is the non-material. Neutral monists maintain that "nature" and "supernature" are artificial categories as they believe that the material and non-material are both either equally real and simultaneously existent, or illusions that stem from the human mind's interpretation of reality.

« Previous Page Next Page »