religion

[paulgiamatti]

I love it whenever someone uses the word "scientism", because I know I can immediately ignore everything they're about to say. These types of words were invented specifically for the pseudo-intellectuals who know absolutely nothing about what science is what science entails. It's nonsensical jargon.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Morality is impossible without science. Slavery used to be considered acceptable because we used to believe that certain people were inferior and not human - science has told us that this is wrong. Religion teaches that women are inferior and therefore men's property - science has told us that this is wrong. We know homosexuality isn't wrong because science has observed that homosexuality occurs in all mammalian species. Morality without science is meaningless.

You contradict yourself. Science observes that homosexual acts occur in nature, so it's ok according to your opinion. Yet you vilify religion for saying women are inferior, which is also present in the animal kingdom, domination of the female by the male.
That is a contradiction.

If you accept homosexuality as ok because animals do it, then you must also accept as ok other animalistic traits: cannibalism, incest, murder, rape, infanticide, etc.

Have fun with your subjective morality.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I love it whenever someone uses the word "scientism", because I know I can immediately ignore everything they're about to say. These types of words were invented specifically for the pseudo-intellectuals who know absolutely nothing about what science is what science entails. It's nonsensical jargon.

Actually it is a descriptive term for people like you. It isn't "made up", so much as it was necessary to define the position of those like yourself who exclude anything outside of physical science. It isn't even pejorative. It just is what it is. And it happens to describe your world view to a tee.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I love it whenever someone uses the word "scientism", because I know I can immediately ignore everything they're about to say. These types of words were invented specifically for the pseudo-intellectuals who know absolutely nothing about what science is what science entails. It's nonsensical jargon.

sci·en·tism
ˈsīənˌtizəm/
nounrare
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

[paulgiamatti]

Science isn't a concrete, definitive arbiter of morals - we still need to apply human reasoning and rationality to develop the full picture, but science has the responsibility of informing us on a fundamental level what is good and what is bad.

Science tells us women are no less human than men, not that they have the exact same physiological makeup as men. Science tells us perfectly well how incest, murder, rape, and infanticide are bad - they're detrimental to society. Incest produces genetic defects, murder and infanticide kill people, and rape is harmful to the victim in various physical and psychological ways.

Cannibalism on the other hand is more debatable. There are some diseases that can be contracted from cannibalism, but probably not more than any other type of meat that humans consume. I am against cannibalism, but I'm not sure if I could call this a moral statement. If it requires killing someone, then that's obviously immoral, but if it's simply a deceased person's flesh that someone is consuming, then I can't really say there's anything morally reprehensible about that.

[paulgiamatti]

No, "scientism" is a perfect example of shitty jargon invented by people who don't understand science.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, "scientism" is a perfect example of shitty jargon invented by people who don't understand science.

Ah. So you think it was invented by religious types to deflect interest in real science. Nope.

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if it's simply a deceased person's flesh that someone is consuming, then I can't really say there's anything morally reprehensible about that.

And this assumes of course that there's a whole thing of consent laid out beforehand, which I'm sure I don't need to point out.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science isn't a concrete, definitive arbiter of morals - we still need to apply human reasoning and rationality to develop the full picture, but science has the responsibility of informing us on a fundamental level what is good and what is bad.

Science tells us women are no less human than men, not that they have the exact same physiological makeup as men. Science tells us perfectly well how incest, murder, rape, and infanticide are bad - they're detrimental to society. Incest produces genetic defects, murder and infanticide kill people, and rape is harmful to the victim in various physical and psychological ways.

Cannibalism on the other hand is more debatable. There are some diseases that can be contracted from cannibalism, but probably not more than any other type of meat that humans consume. I am against cannibalism, but I'm not sure if I could call this a moral statement. If it requires killing someone, then that's obviously immoral, but if it's simply a deceased person's flesh that someone is consuming, then I can't really say there's anything morally reprehensible about that.

Hmmmmm........ If it was just an issue of science telling us what to believe though then it should be cut-and-dry.

It seems your answer is very shifty. And you don't really know what to believe in.

[RobotElvis]

I got the first post on 100 and 200! I win