[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 23 KB, 300x366, 701plato.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3122110 No.3122110 [Reply] [Original]

A man from Ancient Greece arrives at your door step.

He is confused, worried, but surprisingly speaks and understands English. He wants to know how much this world has changed and what we have learned.

You tried telling him that it's all magic, but he's too smart for that.

What are the first couple of things you try to explain to him?

>> No.3122135

hot water showers

>> No.3122142

morning dew.

>> No.3122145

humans are becoming more stupid

you can't prove me wrong

>> No.3122149

life's gotten more eccentric. nothing more

>> No.3122150

>>3122142
I read this as Mountain Dew and was going to say "OH, that's a really good idea." chemical stimulants have come a long way.

>> No.3122163
File: 68 KB, 485x532, alg_jersey-shore_nicole-snooki.large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3122163

>>3122110
Jersey Shore

>> No.3122167

Democritus was right about the nature of matter. Everything is composed of atoms of which there are many kinds.

Eratosthenes was right. The earth is a sphere. The planets you know are also spheres that move with the Earth around the sun. The Sun is a giant fire powered by the fusion of atoms. The more complex atoms are made by fusing simpler ones in the heart of a fire like our sun. The stars are all fires, like the sun is.

We know so much about atoms and the combinations they can take that we create medicines the "atomic structure" of which we know and understand. This is relevant because different combinations have different effects on humans. Case in point, we know not only WHY hemlock kills but exactly HOW it does so.

Waves of energy with varying properties along a relatively simple spectrum allow us to see. The waves originate with the fire of the sun, travel to earth, and reflect off of things into our eyes. The height/frequency of the waves determine what color we see. There are parts of this spectrum we cannot see, but still use with our machines.

>> No.3122174

nothing has change. amenities aside

>> No.3122176

I'd have ravenous buttsecks with him

>> No.3122178

If I went to the future, I'd want to know about what kind of delicious food they came up with. This guy's never seen potatoes or tomatoes.

>> No.3122182

Tell him he will end up killing himself after seeing how shitty our culture and society is.

>> No.3122183

>>3122182 Tell him he will end up killing himself after seeing how shitty our culture and society is.

wtf? show him american idol.

>> No.3122216

"How did you master time travel? Don't tell me it's magic I'm too smart for that."

>> No.3122222
File: 996 KB, 295x223, 1303359044908.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3122222

>>3122110
he speaks english

>mfw I speak ancient greek

>> No.3122246

Unfortunately, my new friend, it is the Alexanders and not the Diogenes of the world who have set the stage.

The same argument about the natural and the divine goes on from your time. Well, no, obviously not with the same gods, but aside from a few titles, it's pretty much word for word.


And I don't get people who think society is getting stupider. I can believe that a philosopher from ancient greece would have a keener and fairer mind than the average man from today; but not that the average man from ancient greece would be smarter, or stronger, or even more moral, than the man from today. We're just better than we used to be. And getting better.

And Jersey Shore disturbing him? Have you people ever read plays or poetry from ancient greece? It's all drama all the time. He'd be confused by the context, perhaps, and he'd recognise that the people who being shown on it are considered eccentrics to be ridiculed by larger society, but he'd know exactly the kind of thing he was seeing.

>> No.3122262

>People actually think ancient Greeks were smarter than modern humans.
FFS, where do you get these crazy ideas?

>> No.3122351

>>3122167
This is excellent.

(Don't forget to explain machines)

>> No.3122358

>>3122262
Browsing 4chan for 5 minutes.

>> No.3122369

I'd start with atoms, and move on from there to electricity, maybe try computers for a bit, too.

>> No.3122384

>>3122369
>burned for being a witch

>> No.3122396

First I'd tell him about video games, then I'd tell him about God of War, and how it captured the souls of his comrades, then I'd force him to watch me kill his friends over and over again.

>> No.3122412

Actually, sometimes, especially when I am driving on long trips, I think about what it would be like if Ben Franklin suddenly showed up from the past-- there's a real quote somewhere where he wished he could be chemically preserved so he could see what the future was like--

So in this thought experiment he's always with me in a car-- so I would explain to him cars and how America has been completely built around the use of cars--

and then after that I don't know... probably semi-conductors or something...

>> No.3122413

>>3122262
Well... considering most of the theorems that form the foundation of modern mathematics were discovered by them at a time when an abacus was cutting edge tech, I'm willing to say they were smarter than we were.

Or maybe I'm just crazy and the average 4channer regularly invents entirely origional philosophical, artistic, and scientific paradigms on a daily basis.

>> No.3122418

I take him down Stratford and we watch a shit load of Shakespeare

Then I take him to see Fast and the Furious 5

>> No.3122429

I'd teach that fucker special relativity.

>> No.3122434

>>3122412

don't forget to mention how fabulous William and Kate's wedding was!

>> No.3122445

Tell him about modern shit like indoor plumbing and electricity, then I'll explain why everything he believed in is wrong and the "new" theories on human origins, our place in the universe, and even simply phycology. Then I'll sit back and watch as future shock gets to him and he goes completely mad.

>> No.3122449

>>3122412
You can explain to Ben about our numerous undeclared wars, the nature of modern communications technology and the implications in re: 4th amendment, you can explain the the world has "shrunk" thanks to communications and transport, you can explain about modern mass media and how it's impacted the American culture and public discourse... for the worse.

I really do think my first priority, if I had a time machine, would be to bring the founders to modern America and SHOW them just how badly we've fucked up.

>> No.3122451

fundamental particles of matter.

basic atomic principles of chemistry and the structure of the periodic table.

laws of thermodynamics and principles of chemistry and mechanics which led to the invention of engines.

heavier than air flight has been achieved.

and maybe wave nature of matter?

>> No.3122480
File: 40 KB, 600x453, 1227.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3122480

Picture related.

>> No.3122489

>>3122449
>bring the founders to modern America and SHOW them just how badly we've fucked up.

Women can vote.

Slaves are free. And they can vote.

Foreign entanglements everywhere.

Catholic president.

Black president.

Yep, they'd hate us.

>> No.3122518

>>3122110
I'd show him the internet. His eyes would melt from the amazingness of it.

>> No.3122766

>>3122489
to be honest, I'm guessing they would have mixed feelings, assuming they can cope/understand modern society.

>> No.3122925

its all magic
he understands english he could read about all he wants

>> No.3122940

>>3122110
I'd teach him calculus

>> No.3122970

I'd rickroll him.

>> No.3122993

>>3122110

Long in our distant past but far into your distant future, where Greece and all of its trials and tribulations lay forgotten except as quiet sets of columns, we harnessed the Aeolipile as a way to provide mechanical motion, burning a great many materials to do so. First we started with wood, then a black substance you know as coal, finally creating an engine which burns on a distillation of napthaline which we found provided a great power that could be easily created.

Around the same time, we learned how to harness lightning and convert it into mechanical work, also using it to heat specific kinds of heat-resistant metals to provide light coming from within a glass bulb.

>> No.3123245

G.W.A.R

>> No.3123263

>>3122110
>You tried telling him that it's all magic, but he's too smart for that.
I wouldn't do that.

In this rough order: Brief history of the world. Philosophy of science. Heliocentricism. New religions of the world. Newtonian physics. Basic atomic theory. and modern chemistry. Throw in the internal combustion engine. Very basic EM. Enough to throw out all that Aristotelian shit, and enough to explain electricity and transistors and a very basic computer chip. Hopefully he's smart enough to extrapolate from a very simple computer chip which I could explain how to build to the wonders he sees around him in terms of electronics.

The Enlightenment and the changed moral values since his time. Throw out evolution and how atheism is a respectable position now, oh and all of his gods are seen as pathetically false superstitious myths of ignorant farmers.

Finish up with some basic modern politics, morality, and contemporary history.

I think that's about it for starters.

>> No.3123281

>>3123263

>atheism
>respectable position

Pick one.

>oh and all of his gods are seen as pathetically false superstitious myths of ignorant farmers

No, that's not how it works. Only applies when discussing the Christian god.

>> No.3123283

If he speaks and understand English I guess he can read it too.

I'd show him how to use Wikipedia so he can catch up on the last few thousand years.

>> No.3123294

>>3123283
Indeed. Good point. I'd end with the internet, a basic explanation of the internet, google, and wikipedia, and tell him to go nuts.

>> No.3123313
File: 20 KB, 469x304, NotSureIfSerious2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123313

>>3123281
Wait. Ripping on atheism, but then ripping on Christianity? What?

>> No.3123315

>>3123294

Because honestly if this guys smart enough that the magic answer won't work then we're going to be sitting there going though over 2000 years of politics and technology until we get down to the most basic level.

>> No.3123320

>>3123315
Don't need that much. Just give him a brief (lol) recap of what a modern kid learns in school.

>> No.3123323

>>3123313

(disclaimer: I'm an agnostic): No, what I meant was that atheism is 90% about hating/disproving the Christian god. Doesn't apply to other gods/religions

>> No.3123330

>>3123313
Obviously he worships Zeus and his comrades.

>> No.3123332

>>3123323
Dude.. bro.. no. We have a lot of hate for the Jewish god and especially the Muslim god too. I'm not personally affected by other stupid religious enough to be bothered to learn about them and hate them at the moment, but I suspect I'd share similar feelings towards Hindus as well. Hmmm, what other religions are there? Buddhists - mostly harmless. AFAIK same for Shinto and Zen and various dialects thereof. Atheists are against all dangerous and harmful delusions and illusions.

>> No.3123338

>>3123332

Go on any atheist website and all you here is "LOL Christians suck!"

>> No.3123345

>>3123320
but modern kids are brought up learning about the world through context. They learn about our society fowardly first and then later they start a deeper introspective learning. They know that the radio makes noise and the TV shows pictures and thats good enough for him.

This guys already in that deep learning so if you say the radio transmits and receives waves you're going to have to explain RF to him and circuits and electricity and then magnets and radiation ect

>> No.3123352

>>3123332
>dangerous and harmful
See, that's why we hate you, just because believing Jesus loves you is retarded doesn't mean it's at all dangerous or harmful, and if it gives you peace of mind then it's no one's right to say it's bad for you any more than it is to tell you smoking weed is bad.

>> No.3123355

>>3123345
What? Not really. Most people don't even have the faintest clue how radios actually work. My mother for example fails to understand how radio waves, visible light, and microwaves, are all part of the same EM spectrum. I occasionally catch her confusing EM and sound waves. It's quite distressing.

And yet she's able to lead a mostly normal productive life.

>> No.3123356

>>3123323
So wrong. The Christian God gets a lot of exposure because it's the dominant religion where the majority of Atheists live, but I see Christianity as one of the more acceptable ones. For the most part you can have a civil discussion with a Christian without him trying to chop your head off.

>> No.3123357

>>3123332

Buddhism doesn't even have a belief in a god. It just says that the existence of gods is unknowable by man.

>> No.3123367

>>3123355
Thats because you're mother is retarded and if you told her it was magic in the right context (what your pretty much doing) she'd believe you.

Since just passing it off as magic doesn't work on this guy I'm assuming he's the type of guy that keeps asking why and how.

>> No.3123369

>>3123352
Except they start and fund wars over that shit, try to ban my contraceptives, try to ban stem cell research - one of the most promising advances of medical science this century. Their philosophy is largely responsible for Ayn Rand laissez faire bullshit, and for the idea that global warming is false because god gave the world to us so we don't have to take care of it. Some of them are trying to destroy science and rationalism and our secular country (US) because of their mistaken beliefs.

While you might not be a part of it, you give them power by supporting their silly beliefs and not calling shenanigans on them immediately and strongly.

>> No.3123373

>>3123356

True. A Christian will discuss religion with you any day while a Muslim just says "Believe what I believe or I kill you."

>> No.3123374

>>3123338

>implying Christianity isnt the biggest religion.

>> No.3123380

>>3123369
Man, the atheist groupthink in this post is painful. I've been in disputes with you on other things like abortion before but you're obviously too hopelessly militant in your atheism to listen to reason so I don't think I'm going to bother now. Seriously, blaming Christianity for objectivism? I don't know how you can take yourself seriously saying that.

>> No.3123386

>>3123380

Just ignore Scientist. He's a faggot who thinks that anyone who opposes bestiality and child rape is a luddite Christian moralfag.

>> No.3123388

>>3123380
You misunderstand. It's the culture that promotes lack of questioning for authority. It's not anything written in the bible, but it's what Christianity has become in the US in modern times. Christianity is more than just the bible. Deal with it.

>> No.3123389

>>3123373
>implying generalizations
I've met a few muslims and more than a few Christians in my life, and while the muslims are generally willing to have a civil philosophical discussion about their faith the Christians generally just end up saying that I don't understand and they'll pray for me.

>> No.3123396

>>3123386
>implying I tolerate or support child rape in any way
You must enjoy telling bald faced lies, eh?

>> No.3123397

>>3123373

I suppose you've never actually met a muslim?

There are many muslims at my university. They're content to just muslim their shit up. They don't expect me to share their beliefs. Every single christian I meet, however.

"Oh look, this guy's white. He MUST believe in an imaginary man in the sky like I do."

Yeah, no.

>> No.3123402

>>3123369
catholicfag here. I always had the impression that God has given the Man the world to manage it, and work for it. As for Rand... well I'm no historian, but didn't her hatred for any authority stem from climate she was born into, in Russia?

As for contraceptives and stem cells, well, those are coming from premise that life is sacred and the unwillingness to accept cold moral calculations (i.e. would you kill one innocent now to save ten men in the future?)

>> No.3123407

>>3123388
Um...isn't the entire premise of objectivism that you can't trust others to take care of you and you need to worry about yourself? Like, that authority, and more than authority, any sort of collectivism at all is highly suspect and only deserving of respect if it benefits you? Like, the EXACT OPPOSITE of never questioning authority?

>> No.3123411

>>3123402
It's their belief in souls, which is bullshit, which is holding back that advance. There is no secular reason to think that 100 cells of anything has moral rights, be it a human embryo or 100 cells of bacteria. It's just because of this harmful superstitious bullshit.

>> No.3123415

>>3123407
I apologize. When I said Any Rand laissez faire bullshit, I meant more of a manifest destiny laissez faire bullshit. I just associate Ayn Rand with laissez faire. My mistake.

>> No.3123419

>>3123402

Her hatred from authority came from shlicking over rapists and murderers.

>> No.3123421

>>3123402

Ayn Rand was an atheist and she had also been raised in Russia where everyone belonged to the Orthodox Church (quite different from western denominations of Christianity). How much that affected her development/mindset is hard to say.

>> No.3123440

>>3123415
Well, in that case, I don't see it as much of an issue, because the only people who believe in blind obedience to the status quo are hopelessly retarded anyway, the libertarians sit there and smirk at you and act like they're smarter and more enlightened than you while their ideal world would involve packs of roving niggеrs raping and looting everything in their way while the rest of us are forced into debt slavery forever.

>> No.3123446

>>3123411
sigh, well, maybe if you were able to replicate a self aware, conscious entity from lab equipment, you would have something to back that claim up, and even then it would not have made it alright.

Not to mention there are other ways of obtaining stem cells. You just want to do it the way many people consider evil because it's more convenient, faster and cheaper.

>> No.3123461
File: 35 KB, 452x239, abortedfetus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123461

>>3123411

>he thinks you're a butthurt Christfag if you don't approve of this

>> No.3123466

>>3123446
>sigh, well, maybe if you were able to replicate a self aware, conscious entity from lab equipment, you would have something to back that claim up, and even then it would not have made it alright.
I wouldn't want to do that. It would be dare I say evil to make a human being who would be considered a "freak". You have some serious science understanding problems if you doubt its possibility, though. I half expect and would be willing to bet 10 dollars it'll happen the technology will be here this century.

>Not to mention there are other ways of obtaining stem cells. You just want to do it the way many people consider evil because it's more convenient, faster and cheaper.
Yes. I want to do it the cheaper, faster, more convenient way. Just like I want to use the day after pill because it's cheaper, better, more convenient, etc. etc., despite how some people consider it abortion and evil due to it occasionally preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. So yes, I mad.

This isn't even starting on our science education which is perhaps the US's only economic advantage, and they're shitting all over it.

>> No.3123469

>>3123446
>more convenient, faster and cheaper.
Well duh. It's the only economically viable way to do it. That's the world we live in.

>> No.3123471

>>3123461
There you go again, conflating very early term abortion with later term abortion. You must feel so proud of yourself being intellectually dishonest.

>> No.3123484
File: 46 KB, 400x291, Aborted-baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123484

>>3123471

Are there some medical justifications for abortion? Perhaps. However, grinding up full or near-fully developed babies to benefit the abortion racketeers is not.

>> No.3123488

>>3123484
You must really enjoy derailing conversions with shock images. You must be the same troll who did the initial atheism vs religion derailment earlier-thread.

>> No.3123493

>>3123466
See, you seriously blame Christianity for the shitty science education in the US. That's just plain inaccurate. There are, like, 3 states where teaching any alternatives to evolution are ever permissible, and they have a whole lot of much worse issues than that. It's not Christianity holding science education back at all. Sure, it fosters ignorance among idiots with no intellectual curiosity, but if someone is too hopeless to even question the existence of god they probably aren't going to contribute much anyway, I know most of us here were raised Christian and, not being completely retarded, turned away from it as soon as we seriously started to think about it.

>> No.3123498

I'd make shit up for a laugh. Probably tell him that we've proven the string theory and multiverse exsists.

>> No.3123504
File: 17 KB, 330x212, aborted Baby.bmp2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123504

>>3123493

I'd blame it more on the socialist revolution of the 1960s. As a result, there is no science except that which benefits corporations or various political agendas.

>> No.3123505

>>3123484
The body gets fucked up like that as part of the removal process.
They rarely remove the fetus in one piece, they usually take it out in chunks.

>> No.3123507

>>3123466
in that case, why don't you kill off all the old people after they stop working? They just eat out your welfare and/or savings that could have been used in a more economically sound manner.

also, if you want to whore yourself out, why not just have a surgery? if you eventually decide to have a kid, you can always make one in the lab.

Oh well. It's your choice how to approach the world. Just don't be a dick, hm?

>> No.3123509

>>3123493
>There are, like, 3 states where teaching any alternatives to evolution are ever permissible, and they have a whole lot of much worse issues than that.

The only reason they aren't teaching creationism / ID is because federal courts ruled that they can't. Just offhand, I think it's nearly half the states in the last 5 years which have passed "academic freedom" laws as an attempt to endorse and promote teaching of creationism without the same federal lawsuit problems.

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Go watch that. It's a very serious Roman Catholic saying the same things I'm saying about how these Christians are trying to destroy science itself, and that they have the potential to do so. Who is he? Just a leading biologist in his field and the lead expert witness in several federal court cases against creationism.

Of course, he disagrees with several of my other positions, but I have even the intelligent Christians on my side that these anti-evolution asshats are a serious concern for our science education and future economic competitiveness.

>> No.3123510

Agnosticfag here (well, I just don't give a fuck either way)

I dislike the idea of Abortion because I think it's just a slippery slope towards State approved eugenics (such as the killing of infants or children if they have a emotional or mental disorders). I'm not for illegalization of it, just personally don't like the idea of it.

But really, WHY is this a problem. It's not exactly fucking hard to prevent getting pregnant. Even the morning after pill can prevent reproduction fromrape.

>> No.3123516

>>3123510
>I dislike the idea of Abortion because I think it's just a slippery slope towards State approved eugenics (such as the killing of infants or children if they have a emotional or mental disorders). I'm not for illegalization of it, just personally don't like the idea of it.

It's only a slippery slope if you think that 100 cells have moral rights. They do not. They have no brain and thus no awareness / consciousness. An older fetus does. A baby does. Moral rights come from awareness.

>> No.3123519

>>3123510
>But really, WHY is this a problem. It's not exactly fucking hard to prevent getting pregnant. Even the morning after pill can prevent reproduction fromrape.

Because lots of Christians think that the day after pill and the daily pill are forms of abortion and that they're equally evil, and if they had their way they'd be banned too.

Hell, if the Catholic church had it's way, we wouldn't even have condoms.

>> No.3123524

>>3123507
>in that case, why don't you kill off all the old people after they stop working? They just eat out your welfare and/or savings that could have been used in a more economically sound manner.

>also, if you want to whore yourself out, why not just have a surgery? if you eventually decide to have a kid, you can always make one in the lab.

>Oh well. It's your choice how to approach the world. Just don't be a dick, hm?

I have no clue how you think that follows from my position. My position is that you need to be aware to have moral rights, to have a mind, and a brain is required to have a mind. No brain -> no mind -> no moral rights.

>> No.3123527

>>3123510
Everyone goes on about how preventing pregnancy is easy untill they actually fuck up.

>> No.3123528

>>3123509
Option 1: Attack them at every opportunity, making them feel like they're being persecuted and have to stand up for their religion and cementing them further in their beliefs and making them militant like you.
Option 2: Make it clear that they can't force their religious agenda through the government because it blatantly violates the constitution and let them live in ignorance with peace of mind, allowing their religion to gradually fade into insignificance due to rational secularism.

>> No.3123529

>>3123516
Yea, but the lines can get blurred bro

Tomorrow it's 200 cells that soon will make up an embryo don't have moral rights
The next it's 1000 cells that soon will make up an embryo don't have moral rights
ect
ect
Until
it's a child that soon will make up an adult don't have moral rights.

>> No.3123530

>>3123519
>its
Damnit. Fixed.

>> No.3123536

>>3123507

>in that case, why don't you kill off all the old people after they stop working? They just eat out your welfare and/or savings that could have been used in a more economically sound manner

This is why we've got to work on anti-aging treatments ASAP. We cannot sustain such a large population of unproductive people.

>> No.3123537

>>3123516
shhhh with your making groundless moral claims and stating them as though they're fact

>> No.3123540

>>3123529
First, it's "etc", from the latin "et cetera", meaning "and the rest".

Second, we already have the same problem at end of life, and there's no particular worries of slippery slopes there. Unless of course you think it's morally required to keep a blatantly braindead patient alive on life support.

>> No.3123541

>>3123537
They're not factual, but I will assert them strongly. Sorry for any confusion.

>> No.3123542

>>3123528

>Make it clear that they can't force their religious agenda through the government because it blatantly violates the constitution and let them live in ignorance with peace of mind, allowing their religion to gradually fade into insignificance due to rational secularism.

This is what atheists actually believe.

>> No.3123546

>>3123524
Yes, I do indeed believe 100 cells have moral rights. I do believe the life starts with conception. Because without outside interference, they will grow into a self aware being even if they are not one straight away. Deal with it.

>> No.3123549

>>3123542
>This is what atheists actually believe.
Nope. That's what the agnostics think. We atheists aren't that stupid. We know that it'll take a lot more to kill religion.

At the moment, I'm unsure of the proper policy position to kill religion. At the moment, I favor the position of Dan Dennett. Do more research. In the meantime, there is one think we can do. Educate kids. Try to get a comparative modern religions class required for all children in the country. No preaching of values. Just teaching of facts, like "Christians think this, and value that, and the Muslims value this, and believe this happened, etc.". I agree with Dan Dennett that the toxic religions survive off indoctrination and forced ignorance of their children. Better education, especially exposing them to other religions, would go a long way to kill dogmatism.

See:

Dan Dennett: A secular, scientific rebuttal to Rick Warren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE

>> No.3123552

I'd have him sit down so I can tell him that the OP is a faggot.

>> No.3123553

>>3123546
>Because without outside interference, they will grow into a self aware being even if they are not one straight away

Except that they need outside interferance from the mother to survive. Food and etc.

>> No.3123554

>>3123546

>Because without outside interference, they will grow into a self aware being even if they are not one straight away.

What if the mother stops eating?

>> No.3123557

>>3123540
now you're being ridiculous. how can you compare an entity that will with nigh certainty develop into sentient being with a sentient being that is nigh certainly already dead?

Even if we leave aside some experiments that show that some of these so-called 'vegetables' are not quite as brain dead as they seem

>> No.3123561
File: 44 KB, 600x426, 1303140698051.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123561

Once a fetus starts reacting to pain, it's alive and has rights. Test like that. Make it the cutoff.

>> No.3123562

>>3123536

Not my problem. I'm an heroing at 65.

>> No.3123565
File: 19 KB, 320x292, 1296194221638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123565

>>3123510
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

>> No.3123568

>>3123546
And I think that you hold that position only because of false religious bullshit childhood indoctrination.

Again, I ask, would you ever take a blatantly braindead person off life support? But that's a human life? Oh, no potential for human life. What about a non-fertilized egg. In the proper situation, that has the same potential to grow into a human being as a fertilized egg. Your arbitrary line at fertilization is arbitrary.

Also, you know that identical twins result from the splitting of the egg /after/ fertilization right? One fertilized egg can become one or two different people, depending.

Don't forget chimeras. Sometimes, two very young fetuses combine to form a single human being. This is called a chimera.

Both events can happen up until ~2 or 3 weeks, /after/ the fetus would be harvested for stem cells. That's right, after the time we would get stem cells, after that, the human fetuses might split into two human beings, or two fetuses might combine into a single human being. How's your morality deal with that?

>> No.3123569

>>3123546
>I do indeed believe 100 cells have moral rights

good luck dying because you didn't want to remove your own tumor because of your insane moral choices

>> No.3123570

>ABORTION IS EVIL
>eat chicken sandwich
>swat a fly

>> No.3123576

>>3123557
>how can you compare an entity that will with nigh certainty develop into sentient being with a sentient being that is nigh certainly already dead?
Because you have a completely arbitrary line drawn at conception. It has nothing to do with life or potential. An egg has great potential to grow into a human in the proper situation. Rocks in a sufficiently advanced laboratory have the same potential to grow into a human being.

See my other post here for more thought experiments:
>>3123568

>> No.3123577

electromagnetism, Nikola Tesla, the international bankers (money as debt) and big brother.

>> No.3123579
File: 4 KB, 251x137, 1303140694928.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123579

History of the World by Mel Brooks

>> No.3123583

>>3123568

If a braindead person is on life support, then yeah. But what about a guy like Ariel Sharon. They say he has no cognitive ability left, but he still breathes without any artificial help.

What do you do in that situation?

>> No.3123586

>>3123549
Notice how I never said religion would fade away completely, I said it will fade into insignificance. Which it will. Because the idea that religion is inherently bad and needs to be killed is obnoxiously self-righteous.

>> No.3123587

I would kill him. I've always wondered what killing someone would be like, and since this guy is from the past, nobody will know.

>> No.3123591

>>3123583
If they assure me that his mind is gone, the whole of the brain that leads to a brain is gone, then it's just flesh. It's like a torso without a head. I would want very clear reassurances from medical doctors though.

>> No.3123593

>>3123546

Although there are different opinions among Islamic scholars about when life begins and when abortion is permissible, most agree that the termination of a pregnancy after 120 days – the point at which, in Islam, a fetus is thought to become a living soul – is not permissible.[5] Some Islamic thinkers contend that in cases prior to four months of gestation, abortion should be permissible only in instances in which the mother's life is in danger or in cases of rape.

>> No.3123595

>>3123586
>obnoxiously self-righteous.

Only because you have this weird belief that religions ought to be afforded respect. We wouldn't show this respect to rapers, thieves, child rapists, nazis, and so on. Why show this respect to people who are barely more moral than that? I'm not saying all religious people, but I am saying anyone who is standing in the way of stem cell research because of a bogus myth about a dude who rose from the dead. I mean, seriously guys. Rose from the dead?

>> No.3123597

>>3123591

Sharon's sons claim that he isn't braindead and that he watches TV if they put it on for him, but some of his doctors think that he only moves his eyes because of automatic reflexes.

>> No.3123598

>>3123583

I would drag him on trial, in a vegetative state if need be, and condemn him to death for crimes against humanity.

>> No.3123602

>>3123568
You're just being fucking retarded now. NOT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU IS CHRISTIAN. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT. YOUR OPINIONS ARE BASED ON ARBITRARY MORAL STANDARDS YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. NO, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE SOULS. EMBRYOS DO NOT HAVE SOULS. THEY ARE STILL HUMAN. GIVEN APPROPRIATE PASSIVE CARE, THEY WILL DEVELOP INTO HUMANS. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT. I know you don't agree with it. Fine, whatever, that's your right. I've seen that you have all the semantic bullshit worked out perfectly so it makes sense to you, and following that semantic bullshit that states that only beings that are self-aware and human count as humans, this all makes sense. But fuck Christian bullshit morals and fuck retarded dualism, it's not very difficult to believe that a human is still a fucking human regardless of how many cells it has.

>> No.3123603

Would show him a word processor and ask him to write everything he knows about his time, dates times locations, every detail about his town or city and the period he is from. in exchange he can have my phone and a google link

>> No.3123610

They say what's left of Sharon's brain is about the size of a grapefruit, the cerebral cortex is completely gone, and all that remains is the part that controls basic functions like breathing.

>> No.3123611

>>3123602
I don't even understand your position. Your position is "If it can grow into a human, like a sperm or an unfertilized egg or a rock or stardust, then it has no rights, but /if/ it's a fertilized human egg, then it has rights". It's completely arbitrary.

And fuck you for standing in the way of one of the most promising medical advances in the last century.

>> No.3123618

>>3123568

Bullshit morality? How is your morality any better?
Your accepted time is also arbitrary, since the child can get strangled by umbilical.

All of them are sentient beings you would have quenched before they were even born.

>>3123569

yeah because tumour will surely grow to be my brother and best friend instead of killing me.

>> No.3123619

>>3123610
Well he's obviously not conscious, though if his family want him alive I say let them pay to keep him alive. It's essentially just like having a pet, they keep him alive because they like the idea of him still being there.
If nobody wanted him and nobody was willing to pay for his exsistance, then he should be put down. Either way he is about as aware of his surroundings as a fetus.

>> No.3123621

>>3123595
Wow. You seriously just said that opposing embryonic stem cell research is a step above rape, murder and slavery. Your post is a godawful appeal to emotion. "Omg, they are nazis, they are evil!!1!" It just pains me that you actually, honestly believe that you are the unbiased, rational one here when your arguments are that awful. I think the opposition to embryonic stem cell research is retarded too, I'm not just "brainwashed by Christian morals," but saying that holding a moral stance that leads you to oppose research that is somewhat cheaper and easier than other forms of research that have some chance of someday in the future possibly saving the lives of some people is comparable to rape and murder is insulting to everyone who's ever been the victim of an actual crime.

>> No.3123622

>>3123618
>Your accepted time is also arbitrary, since the child can get strangled by umbilical.
You misunderstand my position. It has absolutely nothing to do with viability. It has everything to do with whether it has a brain and consequently a mind.

>> No.3123624

>>3123602

Scientist is an example of what happens when you watch Youtube videos of Richard Dawkins while high.

His posts like >>3123595 are great for their comedic value, though.

>> No.3123628

>>3123621
>Wow. You seriously just said that opposing embryonic stem cell research is a step above rape, murder and slavery.
Yes. It is. Imagine standing in the way of the polio vaccine because you're a Christian Scientist. You would be responsible for the future deaths of millions of people. Standing in the way of stem cell research might be even worse than that.

>> No.3123629

>>3123611

No.

Fuck you, doctor Mengele.

>> No.3123631

>>3123618
>How is your morality any better?

Probably because he created his own morality based on his actual surroundings rather than what a book written by men from a different time period tell him to think.

>> No.3123632

>>3123611

Leave medical science, go towards physical science

>> No.3123635

>>3123619

Caring for the guy costs the Israeli government around $400,000 a week.

The thing is that there's no real way to know if he has any cognitive ability left.

>> No.3123636

>>3123624
It makes me sad that you think a medical breakthrough bigger than all vaccines combined is not comparable to murder, rape, and nazis. The nazis only killed a few million. Vaccines have saved more than that, and embryonic stem cell research has the potential to save even more lives.

>> No.3123637

>>3123611
-A sperm cannot grow into a human. An egg cannot grow into a human. Stardust cannot grow into a human. A fertilized egg can grow into a human. This is not a difficult concept. Don't fucking insult me by claiming it has to be religiously motivated just because you're too emotionally attached to your own beliefs to even consider a different position for a few minutes.

-I am in no way opposed to embryonic stem cell research. But to claim it was one of the most promising medical advances is purely speculative and likely false. Like many of the other claims you're throwing out as if they were facts.

>> No.3123643

>>3123637
You apparently missed a memo. You are stardust. Literally. Stardust grew into you.

>> No.3123646
File: 22 KB, 400x299, Aborted_Baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123646

>>3123636

Oh, I don't oppose stem cells. I do however oppose grinding embryos up for them to appease the abortion racket.

>> No.3123649

>>3123635
Well if it's costing from the government he should be put down either way. I know If I were in his position i'd rather die than be a vegetable.

>> No.3123651

>>3123646
There is no grinding when the fetuses they use for embryonic stem cell research are no more than a couple hundred cells. It doesn't look human. I wonder if it's even visible without a microscope.

>> No.3123656

>>3123646
>grinding embryos up

Your propaganda is showing. Do you even know how they extract the cells?

>> No.3123658

>>3123636

He is the type of person that is willing to separate religion from science just for the lulz and because
Dawkins told him to do so in his dreams.

>> No.3123659

>>3123631

I beg to differ. Man always creates his morality for himself. The book can just provide some guidance. Without it, you run the risk of your morality devolving into a law of the jungle.

Of course you can be a perfectly good fellow without it. I just think the book helps.

>> No.3123664

>>3123637
>But to claim it was one of the most promising medical advances is purely speculative and likely false. Like many of the other claims you're throwing out as if they were facts.

I've been careful to use words like "maybe", "likely", and "promising". Ignoring that, even if the significant possibility exists, which it does, we should be pursuing it. That does nothing to lessen my point. It's like saying the AIDS vaccine might not be made, and so it's ok to block research for the AIDS vaccine. It's asinine.

>> No.3123666

>>3123649

His sons don't want to do it because of some Jewish religious thing where they don't believe in artificially ending life.

That aside, he's not really being kept alive artificially except for being fed and whatnot. He still breathes on his own.

>> No.3123669

If something living hasn't moved or responded in a month I think it's safe to say that it can be destroyed without suffering.

>> No.3123676
File: 57 KB, 469x378, head-jar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123676

>> No.3123681

When did this turn into a fucking troll thread?
I swear, as soon as one of those shock images were posted, everyone got all white-knighted and trolled.

>> No.3123682

>>3123646

in your opinion at what stage of development of an embryo does abortion differ from giving(or losing) blood ? also population 9 billion by 2040.

>> No.3123683

i teach him about mountain dew and how to operate a 2 liter bottle

>> No.3123684

>>3123595

>because of a bogus myth about a dude who rose from the dead. I mean, seriously guys. Rose from the dead?

This is what atheists actually believe.

>> No.3123689

>>3123636
Look, dude, it's obvious from your posts that you're not an idiot, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy and you're well informed on your arguments. But your beliefs are hopelessly closed-minded. You're coming off to pretty much everyone right now as a self-righteous, rabid atheist. You seriously need to just stop assuming you're completely and empirically right on moral and speculative issues for a minute and think about what others are saying. Just seriously consider it. And don't sit there thinking about how stupid it is. Assume, for a little while, that it's true, and then try to understand why it is true, and if you manage to do this with a truly open mind you'll hopefully understand it better. And if you just end up affirming your own beliefs, well, maybe at least you'll understand where everybody else is coming from and you can stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a brainwashed Christian or a child-raping Nazi mass-murderer. You've obviously taken the views of others into consideration, but it seems like the only views you support are those of other militant atheists, which might help you argue and understand your side of the argument better but doesn't actually help you fully understand the issue. Don't do this for the sake of me or for the sake of the people you're arguing with, do it for yourself. If your own opinions are worth more to you than at the very least making an effort to consider what others have to say to find what is really true, well, you're nothing but another worthless hack who doesn't deserve to call himself a scientist.

>> No.3123691

>>3123684
Yep. Someone rising from the dead is preposterous.

>> No.3123692
File: 20 KB, 519x363, abortion-decapitated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123692

>> No.3123694

>>3123684
>This is what atheists actually believe.

Because this is what Christians actually teach.

>> No.3123696

>>3123691

Unless you're God.

>> No.3123701

>>3123689
>implying I have to take the opinions of murderers seriously to be open minded

Look. I'm not sure what you want from me. I understand their position. Their position stems from some demonstrably false beliefs. I believe that if it wasn't for their childhood indoctrination they would agree with me. They already have enough inconsistencies with their beliefs about life w.r.t. organ transplants, condom use, daily pill use (which sometimes kills fertilized eggs), in vitrio fertilization (which almost always kills fertilized eggs), and so on. It's cognitive dissonance.

Thus, if it wasn't for their demonstrably false factual beliefs, I believe they would agree with me. I can't get much more open minded than that.

And I will not be less righteous when we're dealing with potentially saving millions of people's lives when what's standing in our way is goddamned superstitions.

>> No.3123702
File: 12 KB, 156x179, abortedbabyhead.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123702

>you realize that Scientist thinks anyone who opposes this is a retrograde moralfag

>> No.3123706

>Pro lifers: Wouldn't be okay if they were the fetus' being aborted because they're desperate for life.

>Pro choicers: Wouldn't mind if they were the fetus' being aborted because they wouldn't know

That's basically where both arguments really come from. Everything relates back to the ego.

>> No.3123708

>>3123689
To continue, I don't think religious people are evil. I think they're simple wrong and hold demonstrably wrong factual beliefs, and had childhood indoctrination, which reinforce their questionable moral beliefs. I believe that without those things, their moral beliefs would be the same as mine.

My position is that of Steven Weinberg:
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

>> No.3123709

>>3123696
Or David Blaine

>> No.3123711

>>3123706
I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice. I have a very middle ground. Nowhere have I endorsed late term abortion. I would never do that (except in cases where the mother's life is in actual danger, and the fetus is not viable).

>> No.3123717

>>3123711
But are you or are you not okay with the idea of you yourself being aborted?

>> No.3123720

>>3123717
Before I had a mind, it was not me. I would be ok with things without minds being killed.

>> No.3123725

>>3123720
>>3123717
To continue, how is that functionally different than asking "Would you be ok if your parents never had sex?". There is no difference besides the artificial one due to certain theistic beliefs (conception). It would have been morally acceptable as well if my parents did not have sex.

>> No.3123727

>>3123720
So that's basically a yes as long as you're not self aware. That's all i'm saying, people base their arguments off what they'd want done to themself rather than religions telling them what to think.
People aren't as stupid as you think, they just want different things.

>> No.3123728

>>3123701
>I can't get much more open minded than that.
Well, fine, then. Be a child. Insult people who disagree with you, reject their beliefs outright because Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet told you to, and then insist that you're right and everyone else is a big meanie who's wrong and their beliefs are just stupid delusions that don't make any sense. I really hope you're capable of growing out of this level of immaturity, but at this point I have doubts. I understand if you've already invested enough into this thread to keep arguing, but please, please, for your own sake, forget about the entire context of this, just read my post like it's from one of your teachers or Richard Dawkins and not from someone who's arguing with you, and please, later, after this thread dies, just consider doing what I said. For your own sake. You're the only one making you immature and you don't have to do that.

The one thing that pisses me off about you, though, is that you throw out ad hominems and baseless insults left and right while claiming your opinions as empirical facts and utterly refusing to consider the other side, and you call yourself a scientist. You're an embarrassment to your tripcode and to science itself.

>> No.3123732

>>3123728
>Insult people who disagree with you
Where in that post to which you are replying did I insult anyone who disagreed with me?

>reject their beliefs outright because Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennet told you to
I reject their demonstrably wrong factual beliefs because they're demonstrably wrong, aka because of the evidence.

I am open minded insofaras the evidence lets me. I am not open minded about believing things contrary to evidence. Deal with it.

>> No.3123736

>>3123708
And for the god-knows-how-many time, I'm no more religious than you are and my moral beliefs are different from yours- your own argument right there is factually falsifiable.

>> No.3123739

>>3123732
I'm done trying to reason with you, but can you please clear one thing up for me: what, specifically, are these demonstrably falsifiable beliefs that you are attacking? Do you honestly believe that the belief in god or a soul is demonstrably falsifiable?

>> No.3123741

>>3123736
>implying anecdotal evidence can disprove a statement about a trend

>implying that that is even contradictory anecdotal evidence
Let me expand on this greentext. Really, are you that stupid? (This is me ad hominem-ing.) The argument is that religion makes good people do evil, and nowhere near as many evil people do comparable good. How the hell is your observation that you're also good and also not religious contradict this assertion, even anecdotally?

>> No.3123744

>>3123739
I believe the story of the three wise men and the story of the birth of Jesus is demonstrably false. I believe that all of the creation myth ala Genesis and Noah's ark is demonstrably false. I believe that the efficacy of prayer is demonstrably false. I believe in general the existence of miracles is demonstrably false - or at least the militant agnostic position - I don't know, and you don't know either.

>> No.3123745

>>3122489

> Doesn't know anything about the founders.

>> No.3123749

>>3123741
No- I am, as you perceive it, both nonreligious and evil. I am morally opposed to abortion. I believe that federal funding should not be used for embryonic stem cell research, simply because it is questionable enough that the controversy is somewhat valid and, in a democracy, that means the null stance is the best option. I'm not directly opposed to the research nor to abortion, but that's due to my political philosophy rather than my moral philosophy.

Also, I LOVE how you attack others for "childhood indoctrination" and at the same time you seem to be seriously considering the laughably pathetic concepts of "good" and "evil".

>> No.3123751

>>3122489
Some would, a little, yes. If you present them the current scientific evidence that women and blacks are not inferior, most of them would drop their objections there.

As for the Catholic president thing, given how religion and its relationship to politics has changed in the last few hundred years, I doubt they'd have a problem with that either. It's not like the Vatican and Rome is a big player anymore, or if there's a danger that the president will actually be subservient to a foreign power.

They would be righteously pissed with our foreign policy though.

>> No.3123754

>>3123749
>I am morally opposed to abortion. I believe that federal funding should not be used for embryonic stem cell research, simply because it is questionable enough that the controversy is somewhat valid and, in a democracy, that means the null stance is the best option. I'm not directly opposed to the research nor to abortion, but that's due to my political philosophy rather than my moral philosophy.

Protip: the US is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Majority (mob) rule does not trump individual rights, like the right to life. Learn to political science.

>Also, I LOVE how you attack others for "childhood indoctrination" and at the same time you seem to be seriously considering the laughably pathetic concepts of "good" and "evil".
What?

>> No.3123757

>>3123744
Okay. We'd have no problem if that was all you were concerned with. Yeah, it's dumb and they're ignorant for believing it. Yeah, we should make some effort to educate them, at the very least to inform them of the facts undermining their position. This in no way implies that religion is some evil cancer that needs to be completely stamped out. And if people choose to reject facts for the peace of mind their religion gives them, that's their right and it's not our prerogative to force them to change their minds.

>> No.3123761

never change /sci/

>> No.3123765

>>3123757
>This in no way implies that religion is some evil cancer that needs to be completely stamped out.
Almost all of the motivation behind banning sex education, stem cell research, contraceptive use, is religiously based. If it wasn't for religion, those problems would not exist (or in the case of sex education at least drastically reduced).

If it wasn't for religious beliefs, we would have a drastically better science education. Unlike the current situation where half the population doesn't know that the Earth goes around the sun and takes a year to do so, we might actually have enough of a scientifically literate people that everyone knows the answer to the common strawman "if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

>> No.3123769

>>3123757
>And if people choose to reject facts for the peace of mind their religion gives them, that's their right and it's not our prerogative to force them to change their minds.

You seem to be confused. You are giving religion more deference than it deserves. If someone said that the Sun goes around the Earth, and they felt a little better for being in the center of the universe, there would be absolutely no hesitation to call him a retard. I don't want to force anyone to believe anything. I ask only that the same standard that is applied to homeopathy and voodoo doctors is applied to the other modern religions.

>> No.3123774

>>3123754
Oh fuck off. I'm about as socially liberal as they come without being a burned out hippie or an economasochistic libertarian. Don't lecture me on the difference between democracy and mob rule. But there's a MASSIVE difference between passing laws preventing people from doing something, and forcibly taking people's money and then spending it on things that they are morally opposed to. Negative rights always trump positive rights unless those positive rights are essential to protect negative rights. People's right to hold moral beliefs and to not support things like controversial research is a whole lot more important than others' right to have the government provide money to research cures for their ills.

And if you seriously believe in evil in the absence of divine laws dictating sin, then you're a philosophical infant and probably in high school.

>> No.3123775
File: 1.46 MB, 265x244, 1305227199069.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123775

>>3123765
>>3123769

>> No.3123779

>>3123765
I'm with you on the sex ed but that's an issue of puritanical American morals more than Christianity itself and even in the absence of church opposition it would still face issues.

>If it wasn't for religious beliefs, we would have a drastically better science education. Unlike the current situation where half the population doesn't know that the Earth goes around the sun and takes a year to do so, we might actually have enough of a scientifically literate people that everyone knows the answer to the common strawman "if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".
How does this at all follow? Why, exactly, would a classroom full of little atheists be any less stupid and unwilling to learn or to be interested in science than a classroom full of Christian kids? You don't even have an argument, you're just saying IF RELIGION WENT AWAY FOREVER EVERYONE WOULD BE SMART AND CARE ABOUT LEARNING AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT.

>> No.3123780

>>3123774
>But there's a MASSIVE difference between passing laws preventing people from doing something, and forcibly taking people's money and then spending it on things that they are morally opposed to.
Like reintegration of blacks and whites in school, am I right?

You are the idiot. It is morally required to force people to behave morally. If they think that it's morally required to withhold funding for police, well, we're going to tax them anyway. If they think it's morally required to withhold tax for modern medical research that can save lives, well, we're going to tax them anyway.

"Hey Johnny. We're not going to give you the polio vaccine because some people are a little offended by the idea of putting non-natural substances into their bodies. Sorry when you get horribly disfigured, paralyzed, and die a painful death."

>> No.3123783

>>3123779
>How does this at all follow? Why, exactly, would a classroom full of little atheists be any less stupid and unwilling to learn or to be interested in science than a classroom full of Christian kids? You don't even have an argument, you're just saying IF RELIGION WENT AWAY FOREVER EVERYONE WOULD BE SMART AND CARE ABOUT LEARNING AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT.

You doubt that there is a significant religious culture in the world that tells their children that evolution is wrong, and scientists are immoral, and the bible is the absolute standard of factual truth? Get a clue.

>> No.3123794

>>3123780
Remember way back, when I still had some hope for you not being completely ignorant, and I said you didn't seem like a total idiot? I was mistaken. You just said that the state has the right to dictate morality to people. Clearly, you are completely fucking retarded, the only reason you can even present a somewhat coherent argument is because it's been spoon fed to you by people who are actually capable of thinking for themselves.

>> No.3123796

>>3123794
>You just said that the state has the right to dictate morality to people.
Yes. That's what a state is. That's what the police are. That's how the social contract works. That's what a government is. Murder is wrong, and the government enforces that. What the hell are you saying?

>> No.3123797

>>3123744

Good for you. Everyone should believe in something, it gives one sense of ontologic security.

>>3123765

why do you insist that stupid people are stupid because of religion? Well of course you have a different moral view on certain processes, which gives you a different idea what research to pursue from the idea of religious scientists. You claim for instance stem cell research is so good that it justifies what others see as child killing. Fine. Did you consider that maybe it's not as great a panacea as you think? Not to mention there are other pathways in medical research, less morally questionable ones.

(also I think you would have made a great inquisitor if born into the correct epoch)

>> No.3123798

>>3123783
>significant
nope
And if you're going to blame the parents, at least say so, don't act like it's the education system. You're just painfully naive in blaming religiosity for ignorance and lack of intellectual curiosity just because it's obvious and often associated.

>> No.3123799 [DELETED] 

>>3123798
I don't blame religion per se, or at least I haven't in this thread, for the lack of curiosity and desire to learn. I have blamed religion for the lack of respect amongst some people in this world. A significant movement in this country (US) is out to destroy "materialistic" science, which they think leads to all the ills of this world.

And of course I was blaming parents. Luckily the courts are doing a decent job keeping their shit out of public schools. I fear for some private schools.

>> No.3123802

>>3123796
>social contract
ahaha oh wow
the state has no right to dictate anything to anyone, the people have the right to democratically dictate morality within the limits of the constitution, if a majority of voters were fine with funding embryonic stem cell research, then yeah itd be their right to collect the money to fund it, but they havent and you're too stupid to understand that its not just because theyre religious and what you think is right is insignificant compared to what society on the whole thinks is right

>> No.3123803

>>3123798
I don't blame religion per se, or at least I haven't in this thread, for the lack of curiosity and desire to learn. I have blamed religion for the lack of respect **to science** amongst some people in this world. A significant movement in this country (US) is out to destroy "materialistic" science, which they think leads to all the ills of this world.

And of course I was blaming parents. Luckily the courts are doing a decent job keeping their shit out of public schools. I fear for some private schools.

>> No.3123804

>>3123802
So, you are for mob rule then? No civil liberties. No constitutionally guaranteed rights? Just full mob rule?

>> No.3123811

>>3123799
I know as part of your militant atheism you need to have some form of unifying enemy you perceive as a real threat, but a solid majority of Americans is aware that the anti-science nutjobs are idiots, they aren't a serious threat to anyone or anything and it's kind of sad to see you give them that much more respect than they deserve. They're just as insignificant as, for example, New Agers who think science is bad because it's unnatural.

>> No.3123814

>>3123811
Ken Miller disagrees. I'll trust his word over yours.

>> No.3123827

>>3123804
Read my post. Actually read it. Because apparently you completely missed the point. The Constitution is the basis of every aspect of the government of the United States. The government has all the rights and all the limitations put forth by the Constitution. Obviously, it's not perfect (see: the DEA), but that's how it's intended. That framework allows for democratic rule. When people reach a democratic decision, such as the decision to fund embryonic stem cell research or abortion clinics, that decision is valid until the consensus changes. When people do not make such a decision, regardless of your feelings that it is morally imperitive, the decision is not valid. However, if people were to vote to restrict rights of others protected by the Constitution, this would not be valid, because the Constitution is there to prevent both mob rule and federal tyranny. Morality does not play into it at all, just the rights and privileges deemed important enough to go into the Constitution.

>> No.3123829

that we live amongst monkeys whom we call people.
That we should interbreed and we dont care about them being our ancestors.

>> No.3123830

>>3123814
Rejecting a rational conclusion because an authority figure you approve of is on your side? Well, fine, I won't force you to stop being ignorant.

>> No.3123837

>>3123827
>That framework allows for democratic rule. When people reach a democratic decision, such as the decision to fund embryonic stem cell research or abortion clinics, that decision is valid until the consensus changes.
No. It's not. Consensus is insufficient to separate blacks or whites. Consensus is insufficient to outlaw all abortions, ala Roe V Wade.

There is a right to life. There is also a separation of church and state. By a reasonable interpretation, it would be unlawful to pursue much less promising and/or much more costly medical breakthroughs than embryonic stem cell research.

To require funding just from the constitution is very flaky though, I admit. I was more pissed at your acquiescence in light of some bullshit opposition. Would you so readily drop your support for future vaccine development if Christian Scientists got more numerous? Goodness I hope not.

>> No.3123843

>>3123830
Rational conclusion? No. I was disputing your evidence. You are obviously not in the center of this debate.

Ken Miller is. Who is Ken Miller? He's a Roman Catholic. He has written a book where he argues that god answers prayers and performs miracles daily.

He's also a leading biologist, and a writer of high school textbooks. He's also the leader prosecution witness in the Dover case, that is for evolution teaching and against creationism teaching. He has stated that these people are a serious threat, and they do conceivably have the potential to destroy our role in the world as the center of science research and education.

So yes, I would rather trust an expert who is in possession of the facts rather than some jackass on the internet who is likely making arguments based on his probably rather liberal, local community.

Get a clue, before we, the US, do lose the role as the best science researcher in the world.

>> No.3123846

>>3122167
thank you for some actual sense :**

>> No.3123849

>>3123837
Your logic is abysmally flawed, though. The Constitution protects the right of all people to equal protection under the law. This clearly means that establishing shitty schools for black people is unconstitutional. It in no way means that scientific research must be allowed to ignore the moral concerns of the population. It should be, sure, but it's not in the Constitution at all. Anyway it's 6AM and I forgot what I was going to argue next. I'm going to bed. But please, please seriously reread that post I made earlier, please try to take it seriously and please try to have an open mind, you're taking your own opinions as fact which goes against the very spirit of science and if you'd rather live in ignorance blindly supporting your own beliefs and insulting those who disagree with you you're no better than the agenda-pushing Christians you hate.

>> No.3123851

>>3123843

I don't know him, but he sounds like a nice guy.

Which brings about the question, how can you take someone with "bullshit beliefs" seriously?

Maybe it's because religion is not quite as much an enemy to science as you make it look?

>> No.3123857

>>3123369

Scientist...

Shut the fuck up already. Everyone's begging for you to do so.

>> No.3123860

>>3123849
>It in no way means that scientific research must be allowed to ignore the moral concerns of the population
No no. That relies on the separation of church and state. There is absolutely zero secular reason to allow research into X if X is more costly than stem cell research and less likely to produce results. It would fail the lemon test.

>> No.3123869

>>3123851
>Which brings about the question, how can you take someone with "bullshit beliefs" seriously?

Very easily. If he says something, and he says that it's motivated by what I perceive as factually incorrect beliefs, then I can disregard it, like how I disregard his belief in modern day miracles. When he states that these people are a serious threat to our leading of science in the world, this assessment is not based on his religious beliefs, but is from his scientific side, and thus I accept it. Again, I don't think religious people are stupid or crazy. I just think that they're ignorant and/or wrong.

>> No.3123884

>>3123869

Trips are for fags though.

>> No.3123885

>>3123884
k

>> No.3123886

>>3123860

You fail the lemon test.

>> No.3123887

>>3123885

So stop using it. It's annoying attention-whoring.

>> No.3123892

>>3123887
No.

>> No.3123902
File: 92 KB, 479x720, 1305084121957.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123902

>Philosophy thread
>ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT ABORT

THIS IS WHY WE DONT HAVE FLYING CARS

>> No.3123911

>>3123902
We don't have flying cars because it's fucking stupid. It would take so much more fuel, and that alone kills it.

Also, there are problems with traffic lanes in the sky, so it's dead there.

Also, it would take so much more space due to air disturbances and safety. You couldn't pack them anywhere near as close.

Also, the daily fall of flying cars onto houses would again doom the idea.

Flying cars are just a stupid idea all around.

>> No.3123912

>>3123357
Yes that type of it, saying so. saying so. saying so.

>> No.3123915
File: 9 KB, 353x327, 54324353442.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123915

>>3123892

>mfw the use of trips was given in order to indentify all of the scum of the Earth so they can be more easily wiped out.

>> No.3123917
File: 25 KB, 488x559, psycho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3123917

I would tell him all about string theory.

>> No.3123919

I guess you'd have to start with electricity and plumbing. I figure these would seem the most magical. Internal combustion engines and manned flight would also be covered. Breaking things down for this person would help.

>> No.3123934

people think the Greek characters used to denote physical laws are complicated and hyper-epic

and we took Greek science and over the years European civilization has improved on it and added to it

and how the average person is less intelligent than your average ancient Greek

>> No.3123937

>>3123934

>the average person is less intelligent than your average ancient Greek

Outrageously false by absolutely any standard of measurement.