Science vs Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2014, 06:34 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 06:18 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 06:11 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  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.
Like I said, there could be scientific evidence that will disprove my argument. But just because there could be such scientific evidence (which we don't even know yet) does not mean you shouldn't take my argument seriously. Therefore, just based on your own interpretation of my argument despite lack of outside evidence to support it, don't you find it believable for what it is now? If not, again, you would have to come up with a scientific argument of your own against it or present some other scientific argument against it in order to make it less believable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 06:41 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 06:34 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 06:18 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  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.
Like I said, there could be scientific evidence that will disprove my argument. But just because there could be such scientific evidence (which we don't even know yet) does not mean you shouldn't take my argument seriously. Therefore, just based on your own interpretation of my argument despite lack of outside evidence to support it, don't you find it believable for what it is now? If not, again, you would have to come up with a scientific argument of your own against it or present some other scientific argument against it in order to make it less believable.


Which makes it not science you thick twit.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-07-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
Dumb poster doesn't bother to google premise.

Move on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 07:20 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 05:14 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  According to science, morals are false and irrational.

No they aren't. According to the science of Anthropology they are PERFECTLY in line with science. You just don't know what that means.

Watch and learn, Grasshopper.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 06:41 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 06:34 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  Like I said, there could be scientific evidence that will disprove my argument. But just because there could be such scientific evidence (which we don't even know yet) does not mean you shouldn't take my argument seriously. Therefore, just based on your own interpretation of my argument despite lack of outside evidence to support it, don't you find it believable for what it is now? If not, again, you would have to come up with a scientific argument of your own against it or present some other scientific argument against it in order to make it less believable.


Which makes it not science you thick twit.
You said that science is about what has empirical evidence. Atheism, for example, might have proven that there is no God 90% while there is some 10% evidence for a God. So that would have empirical evidence supporting atheism because there is more evidence supporting it than not.

Now what I just said may not be scientific evidence in the sense that it is not experiments or statistics supporting it. But it is scientific evidence in the sense that I have used scientific fact to support my argument in making it believable for what it is. And since there is no scientific evidence or arguments against it, my argument stands as being empirically supported in the sense that it currently has more evidence supporting it and no evidence against it. If atheism were 100% proven by science, that makes it no different than my argument because since there is no evidence against my argument, my argument stands as being 100% proven by science as well. The only difference would be that there would be more amount of evidence creating the "100% proven to 0% counterevidence" ratio in atheism whereas my argument only has 1 form of evidence creating this ratio. But the fact is that the ratio in both situations is the same.

(01-07-2014 07:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 05:14 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  According to science, morals are false and irrational.

No they aren't. According to the science of Anthropology they are PERFECTLY in line with science. You just don't know what that means.

Watch and learn, Grasshopper.



They may benefit survival, but based on my argument, they are false and irrational when it comes to saying a certain person's attitude or actions are wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 07:25 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 07:22 PM)Mozart Link Wrote:  Now what I just said may not be scientific evidence in the sense that it is not experiments or statistics supporting it. But it is scientific evidence in the sense that I have used scientific fact to support my argument in making it believable for what it is.

That's not how science works. Google *the scientific METHOD*.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 07:31 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
Would you like to define right and wrong for us? Because you don't seem to be using it in the conventional sense. Morality, or moral behavior, is very clearly beneficial to organisms. I would recommend you go and study animal behavior to see it exhibited outside of humans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 07:43 PM
RE: Science vs Morality
Hey mozart, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

I think what you are dancing around is "subjective" vs" objective" arguments. Morality is subjective, but that doesn't make it irrational.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
02-07-2014, 12:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2014 12:40 AM by Mozart Link.)
RE: Science vs Morality
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
02-07-2014, 02:29 AM
RE: Science vs Morality
(01-07-2014 07:43 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Hey mozart, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

I think what you are dancing around is "subjective" vs" objective" arguments. Morality is subjective, but that doesn't make it irrational.
Depends on your definition of morality and your definition of rationality.

If a person believes in subjective morality and makes a normative claim e.g. people shouldn't do X then this claim is irrational because the person does not know what other people's subjective morality is so how can they make a global claim to knowledge of what people should or shouldn't do?

It would be like saying "I know that taste is a matter of personal opinion but people should like broccoli!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: