I dunno. I don't think he's trolling. I think he's just honestly totally unaware of how much of a religious thinker he actually is.


You see it a lot in academia.


P.S. Again I am not religious but belief in a God or Gods is no more inherently ridiculous than belief in the inherent value of human life. They both are both faith-based judgements that basically boil down to "I feel this way therefore I will assume it is true."

Your approach is missing, yuki, but we'll move on. You decided that all human life has inherent value based on an intuition and it could be very wrong. Your starting point should be does all human life have inherent value and test the application of no value and value to different situations to reach a better answer. In fact, I believe you have already done that, because I'm sure that you don't value all human life the same. If you believe abortion, death sentences, self-defence, and warfare are legitimate then you clearly do not grant inherent value in all cases.

 

-----signature-----

The scientific method relies on how the scientist feels now?

Fascinating... What do you teach Enk? Or better yet, who do you teach?

 

-----signature-----

holy crap you fail at logic hard.

WTF?

I am constantly amazed at how bad you are at being a know it all atheist.

 

-----signature-----

Scientists were "philosophers" up until the word scientist was coined in the 1800s.

 

-----signature-----

But the only thing I can base my judgment of whether one answer is "better" or not is my own intuition or "stone age thinking" or whatever you choose to call it this post.

You can't escape from having to make unverifiable value judgments which no scientific experiment can validate or invalidate.