It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's not science per se, it's the interpretations of the observer what counts.
Science also has led to great persecution against others of humanity.
When we are talking about science, we must also include Scientific Ethics.
it is only right to point out the flaws of scientists, who do hold popular opinion in our society.
I think we could say the scientific establishment is flawed if scientists with no ethics are allowed to thrive.
Maybe that's the thing people are not able to see, they can't separate the scientists from science.
Astyanax
Science has not. It may have been misrepresented to justify various inequities and persecutions. Again, this is neither the fault nor the concern of science. You may as well say that a whip is to blame for the use to which it is put.
Astyanax
Quite so. But the flaws of scientists are not the flaws of science.
Astyanax
The scientific establishment is not science.
When they are designed by man, yes. Humanity is utterly unreliable. That's why we are looking for something beyond humanity. Science can only look at humanity and the universe, but cannot fix humanity. Even scientists are utterly unreliable when they themselves disagree about the nature of the universe.
Science is utterly unreliable, it can only tell you that 2 + 2 = 4, but it cannot tell you whether 2 or 4 is good or bad.
The law of nature is utterly unreliable because it has failed humanity. You have been told that you are the product of evolution, survival of the species is utterly dismal, it has put some people born into very awful places and some in very good places.
But science tells us that it is the way it should be, so no compassion and no mercy from nature. And evolution can only say that if a male and female breed, then another byproduct of evolution happens. It doesn't place any moral compunction on the utterly unreliable humanity to stop the survival of the species.
If science were reliable, then the laws should be set in stone as well, but they aren't either. So which system is the most unreliable? Science, that changes by every scientist, through the same observations but different interpretations, or religion that has sought to prove something beyond what is in flux, and through our observations arrive at different interpretations as well?
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
So in other words, guns kill people? That's your argument? And spoons make people fat. Aaaalllllrighty then....
We read these arguments every day from Christians and they are normally not accepted as valid points. It's just interesting to see it come from an atheist perspective. The arguments are generally correct, regardless of who uses them.
"Religion is misrepresented to justify genocide and persecution. This is not the fault of religion."
"Bad Christians are bad people. Their sins are not the sins of my faith but of the people themselves."
"The church is not my religion!"
it's what people have done with science that makes it difficult to trust people who are scientists
Can we kind of agree that the atomic bomb is probably not the best scientific achievement of mankind?
Since I did post that karma is defined for them as an action with a result, then wouldn't "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" be comparable?
We see magnets are attracted to the polar opposites, and their symbol of Yin-Yang contains the positive and negative in attraction. But car batteries would blow up if you attached positive to negative and vice versa. But this is karma, I would think, the action of hooking the jumper cables up wrong results in a very negative and opposite reaction, hence, you don't use knowledge in this action, you blow yourself up.
Astyanax
reply to post by Cuervo
What does that matter? It is not their church, but their faith that makes them do evil. Science does not make anyone do evil — if you know of any examples to the contrary, I should be pleased to hear them.
''You can't think about contemporary issues of medical ethics outside the shadow of the Holocaust,'' said Dr. Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Minnesota and the chief organizer of the conference. ''This is forcing people to confront the evil wrought by medicine.'' 'Children as a Commodity'
God did not endorse any immoral action and makes it quite clear that these people do indeed face judgement for their actions.
is that what you thought I just said?
And when I don't become accountable to you, by saying the weapon was neutral, so blame it on the person that used it, then I absolve myself of responsibility.
No, I said that is what scientists say when the atomic bomb blows people up. Science says that the atomic bomb is intrinsically neutral, so the atomic bomb kills people, it is not the bomb's fault, nor is it the fault of science.
The same mechanisms which have enhanced our morality have also enhanced our killing instincts. And some are genetically predisposed to respond to one more favorably than the other. It's a result of our inheritance.
What I said was..."Oh, you found a moral reason to drop the bomb that we invented, shame on you".
Tell me, why was the atomic built in the first place?
Ultimately, what was the bomb built for? For the ultimate purpose.
Was it to show Germany and Japan that we could build something spectacular...or was it because it was built for the ultimate purpose of killing people?
Astyanax
reply to post by WarminIndy
God did not endorse any immoral action and makes it quite clear that these people do indeed face judgement for their actions.
Could you please point to the passages in the Bible where Jacob is punished for cheating Laban, or Lot's daughters (who are portrayed in the Bible as the culprits) punished for having sex with their father? What was Abraham's punishment for pimping his wife? I seem to remember reading that he lived to a great age and was rewarded with numberless posterity.
edit on 12/11/13 by Astyanax because: of stars like grains of sand upon the seashore.
AfterInfinity
reply to post by WarminIndy
Ultimately, what was the bomb built for? For the ultimate purpose.
Was it to show Germany and Japan that we could build something spectacular...or was it because it was built for the ultimate purpose of killing people?
A strategic tool. Ever seen Ender's Game? Commanding officer asks why the kid kept kicking the guy while he's down. The kid says, "Knocking him down was when I won the first fight. But I knew it wouldn't be the last. Kicking him was when me winning the rest before they ever happened."
Hit 'em hard and give 'em a black eye to prove who is the bigger kid in the playground. Particularly if the other kid just gave you a black eye. Rules of the wild, man.edit on 12-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
If they made you believe some truth, then they suspended your disbelief and did their job.
Let's go through it again...who created the bomb and why? Was it simply "oh, here is a strategic tool". No, that is what it became, but the ultimate reason for building it was what?
My microwave was first designed to cook my food, but if I strategically use it to toss off the roof onto someone's head, then the purpose was misused. But the bomb was designed for carnage, is that not correct?
It was designed for carnage, it was never introduced or thought of as something that would benefit mankind, only the Nazis.
Well let me see, the punishment to Jacob was "you tricked, so don't complain when you get tricked" He was stuck with fighting wives and sons. They fought each other all the time...so nope, not a perfect world. I think you may think judgment only comes in hellfire and brimstone?