You have just failed to move me, yuki or onin. Tell me what I'm missing here?

 

-----signature-----

A mirror maybe?


You are the very sort of person you claim to dislike.

How is religion not like astrology? How is it not stone age thinking? What am I getting wrong here?


I have to go teach now, but I'll be back in a bit...

 

-----signature-----

I feel bad for your students. You are probably one of those professors who only gives good grades to people who agree with him.


Your whole point is nonsensical. When it comes to moral judgements we all function under what you call "stone age thinking." There is no way to do otherwise.

Enk you have failed to even start having a conversation about religion and what it is as it relates to your own personal morality. This is why you can't begin to understand how you could approach a question of validity with regards to either religion or your own personal morality.


You have come to the conclusion that only one answer can be right with regards to how you arrived at your personal morality so therefor you have convinced yourself it is true without bothering to check if it is true or not. Just that you wish it to be true. This has lead to a sense of superiority which is unfounded because it is built off of a faulty assumption. The fact you don't realize it is a faulty assumption only increases your zeal.


It is literally the same problem with religious fundamentalist who fail to recognize their own assumptions and when confronted with them only become more hostile and close minded.

 

-----signature-----

No, we don't have to resort to stone-age thinking to resolve moral issues and in fact as a society the battle is always between those who still use stone-age thinking and those who use science. Fortunately, most of the time the clarity that science brings to the issue wins out. This is what drives stone-age thinkers crazy and makes me chuckle.


Now the question comes down to what are you going to use to decide your morals? The best ideas of the greatest minds of our time or some ancient belief system that is an epic fail?


I'm going with the smart guys and not just because I can understand them.

 

-----signature-----

You can't use science to resolve moral questions. We've been over this before and in that thread you spent 50 posts ignoring the issue too. Science doesn't help you unless you've already decided what is moral and what isn't and just want to know what you can do to create that effect.


It's funny because you think you are so smart and enlightened and open minded but in fact you're basically a religious neanderthal yourself and just don't realize it.

No matter what you are seeking to learn you can use science to do so. You fail to grasp this last time, maybe it will sink in this time. If you are seeking to learn morality about an issue you can definately get a better answer using science than any other. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

-----signature-----

/facepalm

You are so consistently guilty by your own standards it boggles the mind.

 

-----signature-----

You just keep ignoring the issue.


How can you use science to determine whether human life has inherent value?


You can't. You have to just assume it. It is an inherently unverifiable assumption you simply have to accept (or not) without recourse to the scientific method.