Don't dictate beliefs

[-Skeptic-]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
If humankind had not survived without modern science's conveniences, you wouldn't be here tooting science's horn.

But it, did and it continues to do so & so I will.

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
But survive they did, and that makes you a second rate mouthpiece for your favorite author of tall tales.

We're all alive thanks to science. Its because you're brainwwashed, you are unable to accept this fact, much like the fact of evolution.

Perhaps science frightens you.

[insidesecrets]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
But it, did and it continues to do so & so I will.
<quoted text>
We're all alive thanks to science. Its because you're brainwwashed, you are unable to accept this fact, much like the fact of evolution.
Perhaps science frightens you.

What concerns me is science's lack of ethics, its amorality.

Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of ideals. That's clear enough. In practical terms, this means science cannot kill animals in experiments or destroy ecosytems for the common good, i.e. to protect and preserve the commonly assumed "higher" order of human life.

Man has killed for the sake of his ideals at least as much as he has killed for greed, or lust or the pursuit of power. How can scientists who engage in the same unethical practices while accusing Christians of being immoral, expect thinking people to take them seriously? In particular, when science has the power to destroy an entire planet.

[polymath257]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
What concerns me is science's lack of ethics, its amorality.
Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of ideals. That's clear enough. In practical terms, this means science cannot kill animals in experiments or destroy ecosytems for the common good, i.e. to protect and preserve the commonly assumed "higher" order of human life.

Is it immoral to kill bacteria to cure a disease? Is it immoral to drain a swamp to prevent malaria? Both of those are natural conclusions from your position, but I think most people would strongly disagree.

[Givemeliberty]

It was your assertion remember? Do you wish to take it back? You know how you say we are made of god-stuff? And yes several have laughed their @ss off at your stupidity.

It's almost sad you are so ignorant but can't see just how stupid you make yourself look.

We don't need to hear how you killed the hamster, probably sent the poor rodent up your Christhole.

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
The hamster is dead but the wheel is still spinning. Although exceedingly repetitious, you haven't gotten much mileage out of that one have you?(laugh)

[Givemeliberty]

It's science working hard to save and conserve the planet and all life you babbling idiot.

Hey next time you are sick don't take that antibiotic ok? After all modern science made that and it may poison your god-stuff.

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
What concerns me is science's lack of ethics, its amorality.
Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of ideals. That's clear enough. In practical terms, this means science cannot kill animals in experiments or destroy ecosytems for the common good, i.e. to protect and preserve the commonly assumed "higher" order of human life.
Man has killed for the sake of his ideals at least as much as he has killed for greed, or lust or the pursuit of power. How can scientists who engage in the same unethical practices while accusing Christians of being immoral, expect thinking people to take them seriously? In particular, when science has the power to destroy an entire planet.

[insidesecrets]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it immoral to kill bacteria to cure a disease? Is it immoral to drain a swamp to prevent malaria? Both of those are natural conclusions from your position, but I think most people would strongly disagree.

If science did not feel a need to destroy nature in order to understand it, then it would not feel compelled to kill anything hoping to discover reasons for human diseases. Common sense dictates that if you want to know what human health is all about, you begin by studying humans who are healthy. Better to endeavor to understand the dynamics of being, the mind-body relationship then to destroy life.

Draining swamps, cutting down entire forests, degrading the landscape with strip mining, polluting the atmosphere, waterways and soil with toxic chemicals, and pushing species out of their natural habitats among other destruction, would not be necessary if human over population and gluttony weren't completely ignored.

Modern humankind unchecked is like a plague of locusts devouring everything in its path. Aside from reducing our numbers, we need to recover, and reclaim much more of the American wilderness. About 50% would be a fair and reasonable compromise. We have yielded too much too easily. It is time to start shoving cement, iron and machinery in the opposite direction before the entire nation, before the whole planet, becomes one steaming, stinking overcrowded high-tech ghetto.

[insidesecrets]

Givemeliberty wrote:

It's science working hard to save and conserve the planet and all life you babbling idiot.
Hey next time you are sick don't take that antibiotic ok? After all modern science made that and it may poison your god-stuff.
<quoted text>

I don't take prescribed medication. What you THINK can literally make you sick and can also make you well. What you THINK can have a greater influence on the outcome of an illness then the medication you take.

It is environmental groups, people who care about the earth who are pressuring science to find non-destructive, less aggressive, more benign sustainable ways to meet the exorbitant demands overpopulation creates.

[Givemeliberty]

You have never once had a vaccination, antibiotic, or OTC medication? You just use the power of thinking away the flu?

You are a liar who swallows too much god-stuff.

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't take prescribed medication. What you THINK can literally make you sick and can also make you well. What you THINK can have a greater influence on the outcome of an illness then the medication you take.
It is environmental groups, people who care about the earth who are pressuring science to find non-destructive, less aggressive, more benign sustainable ways to meet the exorbitant demands overpopulation creates.

[-Skeptic-]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
What concerns me is science's lack of ethics, its amorality.
Thou shalt not kill even in the pursuit of ideals. That's clear enough. In practical terms, this means science cannot kill animals in experiments or destroy ecosytems for the common good, i.e. to protect and preserve the commonly assumed "higher" order of human life.
Man has killed for the sake of his ideals at least as much as he has killed for greed, or lust or the pursuit of power. How can scientists who engage in the same unethical practices while accusing Christians of being immoral, expect thinking people to take them seriously? In particular, when science has the power to destroy an entire planet.

Science is a process of discovery. Tell me how a process of seeking knowledge can be unethical? It is because we understand how the body works that we can save lives today.

You cannot fault the pursuit of knowledge when it betters humanity.

Your quarrel is whether or not athiests have morals and this has nothing to do with science.

[-Skeptic-]

The fact is science is proven, and god is disproven today.

It is you, a human being with limited knowledge of science who has difficult accepting what the facts say.

This is not a problem with the universe - its just you.

[-Skeptic-]

Scientific discoveries are like pencils - they can cause great good or great harm.

But science is not to blame for how we use those discoveries - ultimately its people human beings.

[-Skeptic-]

Also many people forget that most of science is unapplied.

That means we know some stuff, but it has no real world use as yet - so we just don't see it out there in our lives.

But this stuff is just as important because it sets the foundations for new things being discovered.

[BBSting]

Givemeliberty wrote:

You have never once had a vaccination, antibiotic, or OTC medication? You just use the power of thinking away the flu?
You are a liar who swallows too much god-stuff.
<quoted text>

You really want liberty, Gimme? Then don't allow science/medicine to trample on your right to self determination.

[BBSting]

-Skeptic- wrote:

Scientific discoveries are like pencils - they can cause great good or great harm.
But science is not to blame for how we use those discoveries - ultimately its people human beings.

Congrats! You're just the sort of mindless idiot science needs to stay in business.

[BBSting]

insidesecrets wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't take prescribed medication. What you THINK can literally make you sick and can also make you well. What you THINK can have a greater influence on the outcome of an illness then the medication you take.
It is environmental groups, people who care about the earth who are pressuring science to find non-destructive, less aggressive, more benign sustainable ways to meet the exorbitant demands overpopulation creates.

Pssst...these idiots haven't figured out that science kills more often than it cures.

[Aerobatty]

BBSting wrote:

<quoted text>Congrats! You're just the sort of mindless idiot science needs to stay in business.

You're just the kind of mindless idiot religion needs to stay in business.

[BBSting]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
You're just the kind of mindless idiot religion needs to stay in business.

I'm not religious. I'm anti-atheist.

[EmpAtheist]

BBSting wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not religious. I'm anti-atheist.

Dishonest bigot?

[Thinking]

Why?

BBSting wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not religious. I'm anti-atheist.

[BBSting]

EmpAtheist wrote:

<quoted text>
Dishonest bigot?

If I don't allow preachers or scientists to tell me how to live my life, why should I give that priviledge to an atheist?