Science vs Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2014, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2014 01:19 AM by Mozart Link.)
Science vs Morality
According to science, morals are false and irrational. For example, the religious moral that homosexuality is a sin is something many atheists know is false according to science. However, these same atheists are unaware that their own personal morals such as helping others, not harming or criticizing others, and not seeking self-glory and attention are also false according to science. They are no different than morals from religion (the only difference being that religious morals are from primitive superstitious belief and that their own personal morals are from their own personal views of life). But they are both similar in that they are from personal views in life and not from scientific facts.

If we were to look at everything from a scientific perspective and not from a moral point of view, then everything would all just be a natural scientific process that we won't frown upon (because this is the perspective that atheists already have towards things like homosexuality as they are already aware that homosexuality is something scientifically natural).

According to science, the concept of something "bad" is when a pain signal or a signal that triggers a loss of pleasure reaches the brain (even emotions such as anger and sadness are recognized by the brain as something "bad"). Therefore, if someone were to have the attitude of harming others and decides to do it and takes pleasure in doing so, only the harm that these people are experiencing is something bad for them. But as for this person's attitude and actions, they are not bad. Only the pain and unpleasant emotions themselves that these people are experiencing are bad for them. Actions are nothing more than a series of atomic activity (and this even goes for an attitude which is nothing more than a series of neuron activity and such in the brain). Therefore, attitude and actions by themselves are not bad as they are not pain or unpleasant emotional experiences. Even if you were to interpret these things as bad, the scientific fact is that they are not. All it is is just a matter of one person experiencing personal pleasure (in this case, from harming others) while other people experience misery and nothing more.

Having feelings of anger and such towards someone who chooses and has the attitude of harming others and such may be an evolutionary response in getting problems solved (in this case, the problem being harm being done to others). And that by having feelings of anger and such towards this person, that would be a way of trying to change this person so that they stop causing this problem. But the scientific fact of the matter is that you do not have to be a part of evolution in this sense and what others think of you. You are free to think, feel, and do whatever you want according to science.

Therefore, based on my reasoning here, does this give anyone the right to do anything they want in life? If not, you would have to scientifically explain why. Otherwise, any moral explanation you come up with against my argument would be false and irrational according to science.

Finally, it's also a scientific fact that people who have all the pleasure in the world with a sense of superiority are better people than those who are depressed and humble. If you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person according to science because who you are is your brain and all of its processes and also the fact that greater is "better" when it comes to science. If, for example, you have a computer that has greater RAM and such than others' computers, then your computer would be better than their computers. Therefore, if you have a mind that has greater activity and capabilities, that makes you a better person. But as for someone who has greater intelligence than someone who has greater pleasure, the scientific fact is that pleasure is the greatest thing above any function in the brain because our personal experience of this emotion obviously says so (it is a natural conclusion that we make because without pleasure, then you would obviously be completely dead inside and no one would ever want that). You would obviously sacrifice your intelligence and all other areas of your brain if it meant not losing all of your pleasure. And for you to state otherwise would obviously mean you have no comprehension whatsoever of what it would feel like to lose all of your pleasure.

Therefore, since pleasure is the greatest function of the brain, if you have less pleasure, that makes you less of a person regardless of how much activity or capabilities you have in other parts of your brain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
Unsubstantiated assertion is not science.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-07-2014, 05:32 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:20 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Unsubstantiated assertion is not science.
It may be a scientific fact that some things asserted without evidence are false, but not everything. My argument could very well be true according to science. Something being asserted without evidence should neither be believed nor disbelieved. Therefore, since it's something neither proven true or false by science, you would have the right to decide to either live by my argument or live by your personal morals. If science did somehow prove my argument false, then this would be the only thing to not give you the right to live by my argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:32 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 05:20 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Unsubstantiated assertion is not science.
It may be a scientific fact that some things asserted without evidence are false, but not everything. My argument could very well be true according to science. Something being asserted without evidence should neither be believed nor disbelieved. Therefore, since it's something neither proven true or false by science, you would have the right to decide to either live by my argument or live by your personal morals. If science did somehow prove my argument false, then this would be the only thing to not give you the right to live by my argument.

Science doesn't work like that. All that matters is what you can empirically prove. None of what you have claimed is science.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-07-2014, 05:49 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 05:32 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  It may be a scientific fact that some things asserted without evidence are false, but not everything. My argument could very well be true according to science. Something being asserted without evidence should neither be believed nor disbelieved. Therefore, since it's something neither proven true or false by science, you would have the right to decide to either live by my argument or live by your personal morals. If science did somehow prove my argument false, then this would be the only thing to not give you the right to live by my argument.

Science doesn't work like that. All that matters is what you can empirically prove. None of what you have claimed is science.
Actually, I have given scientific evidence (which would be my reasonings in my opening post explaining the scientific concept of "bad" and such). Actually, since this is a scientific fact, it would actually be proof. The only reason you should not believe what I'm saying is if you, yourself, have scientific evidence against my argument or a scientific argument of your own against mine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:14 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  According to science, morals are false and irrational. For example, the religious moral that homosexuality is a sin is something many atheists know is false according to science. However, these same atheists are unaware that their own personal morals such as helping others, not harming or criticizing others, and not seeking self-glory and attention are also false according to science. They are no different than morals from religion (the only difference being that religious morals are from primitive superstitious belief and that their own personal morals are from their own personal views of life). But they are both similar in that they are from personal views in life and not from scientific facts.

If we were to look at everything from a scientific perspective and not from a moral point of view, then everything would all just be a natural scientific process that we won't frown upon (because this is the perspective that atheists already have towards things like homosexuality as they are already aware that homosexuality is something scientifically natural).

According to science, the concept of something "bad" is when a pain signal or a signal that triggers a loss of pleasure reaches the brain (even emotions such as anger and sadness are recognized by the brain as something "bad"). Therefore, if someone were to have the attitude of harming others and decides to do it and takes pleasure in doing so, only the harm that these people are experiencing is something bad for them. But as for this person's attitude and actions, they are not bad. Only the pain and unpleasant emotions themselves that these people are experiencing are bad for them. Actions are nothing more than a series of atomic activity (and this even goes for an attitude which is nothing more than a series of neuron activity and such in the brain). Therefore, attitude and actions by themselves are not bad as they are not pain or unpleasant emotional experiences. Even if you were to interpret these things as bad, the scientific fact is that they are not. All it is is just a matter of one person experiencing personal pleasure (in this case, from harming others) while other people experience misery and nothing more.

Having feelings of anger and such towards someone who chooses and has the attitude of harming others and such may be an evolutionary response in getting problems solved (in this case, the problem being harm being done to others). And that by having feelings of anger and such towards this person, that would be a way of trying to change this person so that they stop causing this problem. But the scientific fact of the matter is that you do not have to be a part of evolution in this sense and what others think of you. You are free to think, feel, and do whatever you want according to science.

Therefore, based on my reasoning here, does this give anyone the right to do anything they want in life? If not, you would have to scientifically explain why. Otherwise, any moral explanation you come up with against my argument would be false and irrational according to science.

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

[Image: tumblr_n06gu4SXPB1tryn1ko1_500.gif]

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
01-07-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:49 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 05:35 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Science doesn't work like that. All that matters is what you can empirically prove. None of what you have claimed is science.
Actually, I have given scientific evidence (which would be my reasonings in my opening post explaining the scientific concept of "bad" and such). Actually, since this is a scientific fact, it would actually be proof. The only reason you should not believe what I'm saying is if you, yourself, have scientific evidence against my argument or a scientific argument of your own against mine.

I see you are too stupid to understand what those words mean. Carry on being stupid elsewhere.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
01-07-2014, 06:11 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 06:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 05:49 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  Actually, I have given scientific evidence (which would be my reasonings in my opening post explaining the scientific concept of "bad" and such). Actually, since this is a scientific fact, it would actually be proof. The only reason you should not believe what I'm saying is if you, yourself, have scientific evidence against my argument or a scientific argument of your own against mine.

I see you are too stupid to understand what those words mean. Carry on being stupid elsewhere.
I already know what you mean by having scientific evidence to back up my argument in that I have to have a link to an experiment or some statistics of some sort outside of my argument to back it up. So no, I am not stupid in this situation. But there is no such evidence and for me, I see no reason not to believe in my argument as there is also no scientific evidence against my argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 06:17 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:32 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 05:20 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Unsubstantiated assertion is not science.
It may be a scientific fact that some things asserted without evidence are false, but not everything. My argument could very well be true according to science. Something being asserted without evidence should neither be believed nor disbelieved. Therefore, since it's something neither proven true or false by science, you would have the right to decide to either live by my argument or live by your personal morals. If science did somehow prove my argument false, then this would be the only thing to not give you the right to live by my argument.

[Image: wikipedian_protester.png]

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
01-07-2014, 06:18 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 06:11 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 06:04 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I see you are too stupid to understand what those words mean. Carry on being stupid elsewhere.
I already know what you mean by having scientific evidence to back up my argument in that I have to have a link to an experiment or some statistics of some sort outside of my argument to back it up. So no, I am not stupid in this situation. But there is no such evidence and for me, I see no reason not to believe in my argument as there is also no scientific evidence against my argument.

Well clearly you are in fact stupid, because despite many attempts by people to explain to you why you are talking out of your ass, you still continue to do so and expect people to take you seriously. This is not how science works. Bold Assertion is not science.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: