questionposter
-
Posts
1591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by questionposter
-
-
True, prions are not considered actually living things and whether viruses are living things or not is really a polemic matter, but some pathogens like fungi are living things and we do try to wipe them out...
Well, some labs try to preserve them, and even pathogens like Polio, although mainly in case someone else tries to use it as bio-warfare.
About mosquitos not making the human race extinct... They are not making it extinct but they are reducing the overall fitness of humanity... They kill some humans and who knows if any of the humans they kill have the potential of making a major breakthrough in the benefit of humanity...You could argue that for anyone who has ever died.
Now we must consider that these species are not on the same level as humans,Define what you mean by "level". And so what if they aren't?
they do not exhibit anything but instinct, they are purely mechanical, maybe electromechanical, but not sentient...I don't think we really have the capability to confirm that, unless you were a mosquito and remembered all of it. Science can't really say what consciousness is, and "instincts" merely effect consciousness, so if instincts and chemicals like aggression and fear are there, what are they effecting if not some type of perception? I think it is more logical to look at it in terms of will-power rather than the existence of consciousness itself, but I suppose we don't know exactly what will-power is either.
We can consider them to be robots of nature... Would you ponder whether it is ethical to destroy a robot? A mere machine?Most biologists don't actually make those types of assumptions, they merely experiment on things for the sake of science, not because of ethical issues. And for the robot, it would depend. I wouldn't really care about a hand-held calculator, but I couldn't really tell if something like a complex AI was actually conscious in any way, I would be careful about it.
And I'm not refering to artificial intelligence, if we created artificial intelligence we should give this artificial sentience the same value we give other humans, as long as they exhibit a capacity for independent complex thoughts, emotions, sorrow, grief, happiness, pleasure, love, etc.I still don't know and science doesn't know enough about what consciousness and what perception actually is, so it would depend. Not only that, but emotions are just chemicals, so why do you think they matter? Wouldn't the fact that something is a living thing matter more than if it happened to be adapted to release chemicals in response to something or not?
There is not an objective value on this but a subjective value, namely, the value to exhibit emotions, something that we know (thanks to ethology) many vertebrates exhibit but not simpler lifeforms (the octopi exhibits intelligence which makes them an unusual invertebrate but they do not exhibit emotions, so their intelligence might juyst be higher computational power).So what if they aren't on the same "level" as humans? To the universe humans still don't matter any more than any "lower level" thing.
0 -
Is there a specific place on there you want me to look? Even in the event that there are people who say that, those people are likely religious extremists and I would say they do not represent the over 3/4 of the population of Earth that is religious.
0 -
Questionposter, i know you think you are being intelligent by saying there is a .0000000000000000000000000001 chance that dragons exist but that is stupid to say that.
It's not about being intelligent, there literally is a very small chance if their existence in your basement.
Dragons do not exist, many reasons why not, not the least of which is that they do not fit in with life on earth. there are no vertebrates with six limbs on planet earth. No creature that large could possibly fly, they spew fire out of their mouths, they are a myth or misinterpretation of other animals but no dragons exist.Well not on Earth, but recently the pope said that not even he cannot place limits on the creativity of god, and considering all mutations on this planet were completely random, all we can really say for certain is we have not observed one on Earth.
If is a huge word questionposter, i will not assume god exists so you can postulate impossible things as real.But this whole "should" thing is just your point of view, it's just a point of view, and that's why it isn't scientific law and why others have other views.
It's an animal, human rules do not apply.Humans are a member of the animal kingdom. They have cell membranes, vertebra, 4 limbs, etc.
Actually a great many creationists are saying just that...Perhaps they are saying it should be taught in schools, but I haven't heard anyone saying it should be taught as a science.
Why not?Why have it the first place?
And i say why if god can do anything did he have to kill all the animals on the earth? why not just make the wicked vanish? But it goes far beyond that, the bible only mentions land animals, it says nothing about fish and invertebrates all of which would have been killed by said flood. in fact the bible, by saying the animals had to be saved, shows that that concept of god was limited in power.Aside from there being different views on why god does what it does, technically all these things are what living things bring upon themselves, and since it seems in many religions that the main deity does not want to control free-will, these things could happen because free-will prevails.
please, now you say you have talked to more religious people than i have as evidence I am wrong, seriously?I don't see how some survey can be more evidence than the religious people themselves, since religious people are the ones that follow religions. Or are you going to call random religious people you've never met liars? Just go talk to religious people yourself, there's many many many many different views, and many many many many different shapes between anti-religious and orthodox.
And again, Martin Luther King Jr., Newton, Lincoln, Churchill, Truman, Obama, Caesar Chavez, the list goes on. They are all mono-theists who many people consider to be good, but they all obviously don't believe in a hateful Christian god.
You keep saying that Christianity hates science and that i am saying that theists are bad people, i doubt you can make good on either of those claims.Christian church did in fact at one point proclaim science as the language of the devil, but because your seeming prejudices about religious people are more often wrong, that view has changed and many religious people do not actually believe it.
You need to come down off that arrogant high horse and realize that just because someone don't agree with you doesn't mean that they haven't looked into religion.Obviously you looked into the religion as you have read the bible and I think quoted some things from it, but it seems you lack effort to understand the different views and how religious people actually view god.
you also need to stop putting words in my mouth. reread the list i posted, realize that I do not condemn people who believe in god, only those that would force those beliefs on others.Put to their point of reference, just as you think it is the "right" thing to do to not kill people, they think it is the "right" thing to do to force their religion upon others. I have had actual people advocate religion to me. And do you know what they said? They didn't said "Join us or you will go to hell", the most recent one was an African American couple in Wisconsin who said "hello sir, I'm with the Christian church and I just wanted to invite you to an Easter dinner we are having...".
You can believe in anything you want as long as you don't use those beliefs to infringe on my rights as a human being.Well that's still a personal belief.
Sadly most religions require that you infringe on the rights of those who do not agree. this is true to the point that different groups, within for instance Christianity, have gone as far as killing members of other groups of Christians. other religions do the same, where does it end?Why not make a religion where your not allowed to kill people under any circumstance?
0 -
Religious right? I don't even know what that means any more.
Just the thought of the use/misuse of this term makes me cringe as if someone scrapped their fingernails on a chalk board.
Can you please define this term for me in your intended context?
PS: I voted for Obama and about 90% sure I will again.
If you are religious you are either a member of a religious order or you choose to share a large amount of the same beliefs as a certain doctrine or are simply devout to certain moral principals.
I absolutely do advocate violence strongly, but only as a last resort.I should rephrase to say you don't advocate a society that revolves around violence or that you don't think we actually should go on witch-hunts.
Science is a beautiful language of God.Lies and closed mindedness are languages of the the devil.
An interesting interpretation, but even good people have to lie sometimes in order to protect something. Would you say it's the devil talking if I lied to a hitman who wanted to kill the Dahli-Llama for political reasons and told him the wrong location? Or even if I just lied to protect any innocent person, not necessarily a peaceful person like him?
No, but the furniture should be tagged as "unclean" and put into storage for 7 days, after which time the tag can be removed, the furniture cleaned with detergent and used again as normal.Seriously, what the....??
I can't remember his name, but there was a person who did a documentary about trying to go a year with living every part of his life under the bible and orthodox Christianity, and that was a weird rule he had to follow.
I don't know how credible this is, but there's these rules too
http://biblebabble.c...aw.com/laws.htm
Though I don't think Jesus actually said all gay people should die.
0 -
I personally do not see any logic in the idea of god or gods but lots of things that are true seem illogical to me. The idea that you can assume that god is real as an axiom and then use that to prove god is broken to me. I can proclaim the idea of dragons being real as an axiom but dragons will still not be real. I take all mod notes seriously, you should as well if you want to continue on this forum...
I thought you merely didn't see evidence in the existence of god...
It is still a logical conclusion that if god can do anything then he can make things happen which we do not have the knowledge to reproduce. Also, there is still a .000000000000000000000000000000001 chance those dragons are actually there, but there is a greater chance of them being there without placing specific restrictions on their existence.
You do not understand what I am saying, if you want to believe that killing flies is wrong, by all means don't kill flies, if you think your beliefs should dictate whether or not i should kill flies then you are broken.But if god exists and wants you to do things, why is it broken to do what he says? Because that is the way an orthodox looks at it.
my assertion is that as long as your beliefs do not harm others then you have a right to believe them.Just out of curiosity, what if an animal believes it needs to kill a human in order to survive?
If you think creationism should be taught as science then you have a problem, if you insist on it then you are broken.No one is saying religion should be taught as a science.
None the less, religion is ok as long as you don't harm others with it. it can be as illogical or logical as possible but most religions do indeed infringe on the rights of others. As i pointed out you or me do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others because we believe something.You said that those rights should exist, but can you provide logical evidence for "why"?
You have not shown religion to be logical in anywayI already said:
axiom: god can do anything
conclusion,
god can do anything --> therefore god can fit every species on a boat
so far and you have yet to show any evidence of your assertions other than your assertions.My evidence is religious people themselves. If you talked to many religious people as I have, you would see that they in fact have their own views of god, and there is also plenty of evidence to support that Newton believed god was logical, and I even posted a link, and it's even taught in schools that the Middle-Easter religious cultures did not hate science as Christianity in the same time period did and therefore many religious scholars in the Middle-East advanced science and mathematics which I also posted a link too. Do you really think Martin Luther King, or Winston Churchill, or Truman, Newton, etc. were that bad of people? They believed in mono-theism, but as I have already stated, there are more views about god than just some ancient scripture.
You have claimed many things about the bible and religion in general that you cannot back up with anything but assertions, evidence is required to show the idea of god as real. But you do not have the right to dictate what others can or cannot do because of what you believe...First off, go ask a history major about how religious cultures have advanced science, because that's how I know. Secondly, go ask a psych major how people's environments shape them, that's how I know. Third, look at what many religions have in common and you will see how they are inspired from real human experience. Forth, go ask a psych major again how people can relate ideas to important events in their life, as well as wanting to think their loved-ones are still alive in some way, I didn't need to ask a psych major about that, but I had discussed it with one.
The issue between atheists and religious people seems to be communication. Atheists seem to in general think that many religious people blindly follow illogical conclusions, while many religious people think that many atheists do not have as high of a regard for morals and that atheists hate religious people. Even when people did blindly follow it, we did not have the scientific understanding of the universe we have now, and most could not read, I can't say I blame them for beveling in an explanation for everything.
0 -
Inow,
Though the discriptions of evidence by Mooey and others are plain and clear, and I understand and agree with them...there remains the fact, that billions of humans believe in God. Not just have "the concept of God", but equate directly that which is obviously "other than" man, to something real and awesome and powerful and intelligent.
I would at this point say that the argument that random quarks cannot accidently "know" anything is patently false. Because here I sit typing and you reading. Proof, absolutely evident, that there is intelligence in the world. And thus it is evident that the entire universe is not devoid of consciousness.
This being the case, it is no lie, for someone to claim empirical evidence of a creator, because we were created, or created ourselves, and there is no way we could have come from any place else, but reality.
And since I personally do not know how to metabolize, or bloom, or shine, or orbit, or release photons, I would say the evidence is clear, that the universe, as a whole, knows how to do these things, on its own, without any requirement for a good logical argument, or a preplanned excecution of a well written formula.
The evidence, of this "other" intelligence, that trumps human intelligence, 1000 fold, a billion fold, a zillion fold, is clear.
Scientists are being a bit illogical, to claim that people who believe in God are doing so, without any evidence.
Ascribing particular impossible characteristics to said intelligence, or claiming special ownership of the same...well that's another story, and perhaps a bit broken. As Moontanman listed.
Regards, TAR2
Most scientists don't say people believing in god is illogical. Science is meant to be inherently separate from religion and not interact with religion at all. I also do not see the evidence for a universal consciousness, but it is true that the universe contains beings of consciousness.
0 -
Now that I think about it, it is probably possible to have a very large system act as one large organism, but it seems likely the surface area it would have to cover could only be something like a very small moon, as after a certain point reaction time delay will become too great for cohesive processes. There's also the issue of why we haven't discovered this virus and why we don't have an immune response to it or why we wouldn't have developed a resistance to it. There is also little evidence to support the notion that humans can consciously respond to magnetic fields waves.
0 -
Who said the main arguments against religion was that it is illogical, Mr. Spock? Humans do lots of things that are illogical and as long as that doesn't harm someone else there is no problem with it.
This seems completely contrary to your argumentation and the arguments of others as well. Could you have changed your mind? Or took the mod note very seriously?
Humans are murdered everyday, if you think it's logical to kill someone does that make it ok? No, the only way to approach this problem is to allow anyone to believe in what ever they want as long as it's impact on others is insignificant.How "ok" it is is relative. Personally, I don't find it ok, and many others do not as well, however this is not a universal view, as there are even cannibalistic tribes who are actually pretty decent people, but they just eat people if they think they're going to bring doom upon their village. Not only that, but significance also varies. While you may consider it ok to kill a fly, Buddhists don't.
The main argument against religion is that there is no evidence it is true, not that is it illogical...Are you sure? Because my arguments were not that there is much evidence for god, yet you opposed me repeatedly despite that most of my posts were actually that god can be logical and that many modern religious people are not completely by the book and that there are views that have changed over time as well as circumstances people had to follow or they would be killed, as well as that there are in fact some good things that can come from religion.
0 -
There does seem to be many unconfirmed benefits of natural and organic products, but those products have a harder time being produced on a larger scale to feed the amount of people there are, so instead plants are genetically modified to grow faster and in harsher environments and sprayed with chemicals to stop bugs from eating them before harvest, which isn't really bad for you at all, your stomach acid will destroy the genes either way or they will remain inside the indigestible cell walls if your that concerned, and the effects of pesticides I don't think have been confirmed to be carcinogenic, more research I suppose should be done on it.
0 -
It doesn't matter, those are my personal beliefs, they do not depend on how many others agree. I base it on respecting the rights of others, I do not believe that I or anyone else has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how I believe.
it doesn't really matter what I or you believe in, none of us has the right to infringe on the rights of others due to how we believe... As long as your belief doesn't infringe on my rights or my belief doesn't infringe on your rights then we can believe in what ever we want.... Logic doesn't have to be a part of it...
You say everyone has the right, yet it still get's broken anyway, regardless of whatever personal beliefs you have. Besides, I thought one of the main arguments against religion was that it is often illogical, but stating a belief is illogical without a direct contradiction seems illogical without a way to quantify logic and actually measure scales of logicality. So either there is a universal unit of logic which we haven't discovered, or how logical something is, is merely relative.
0 -
No, that's you taking what I said and twisting it to mean what you want it to mean. An answer given to a specific scenario does not generally apply to any scenario. Context matters. You made some specific claims — without any support — and I rebutted them. Those claims aren't true. That does not mean that a different claim is untrue. And here you've backtracked from targeting a specific atom to hitting a person. That's a huge change in scale.
Ok, if I ask a question and you say it's false, I assumed it was false and then built off of what couldn't be true and could only be true based off of it being false.
You keep changing the conditions of the question. You said the emitted wave was a gamma. How can you know this if the wavelength is unknown? If it's truly unknown, then you can't claim to tell me what the energy is. But if the energy is, e.g. 1 MeV, then I know the wavelength is about 1.24 pm and know this to some degree of precision.It's only known from one frame of reference, and that frame of reference didn't actually measure the photon, there was just a neutron that decayed or something. If it was actually known, wouldn't it collapse to a finite point and not be delocalized at all?
This might make sense if you aren't aware that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Except that of course you're aware of this. So why does it suddenly go out the window in the context of this discussion?I could have swore you knew how it worked. Entanglement. It happens instantaneously, but light doesn't travel between any two distances for it to happen. Why? Because it's a correlation of probability (which wavelength effects), and not a causation, which I thought you said yourself in another topic. The same goes for light, it also has probability, and a radio wave is more likely to be measured over a larger distance than a gamma ray. So, if there was no limit to the size of the probability of a photon being measured, it would extend infinitely and all photons would be measured instantaneously, but since that doesn't work that way it means there has to be finite parameters governmening how the probability of a photon spreads out, and one of these things I thought was wavelength, but since the wavelength before measurement is undetermined and wavelength should be relative anyway, there must be some other thing that governs the parameters while a photon is unmeasured otherwise we would measure the photon instantaneously.
0 -
Logically, if a society wants money to be put into taking care of each other, it has to come from somewhere in the form of either money or the energy to accomplish the tasks themselves. If a majority of people are willing to pay for it, it should be fine. We are already sacrificing certain freedoms by being in a government, but the sacrifice in turn gives us security. The only problem is when officials abuse the deciding how the sacrifice should be made.
0 -
I think there are degrees to this idea of "broken"
If you are religious and believe the bible or any other holy book or teachings is the inerrant word of a god even though it is demonstrably wrong about many things then you have a problem.
If you think your religion deserves some sort of respect that no other religion deserves then you have a problem.
If you feel like this respect should be the enforced then you have a problem.
If you feel like it's your right to proselytize your religion but no one else does then you have a problem.
If you feel like anyone who violates any behaviors you think your religion demands should be punished in some way you have a problem.
If you think your religion deserves to be taught to everyone's children in public schools you have a problem.
If you think your religion should be the law of the land then you have a problem.
If you think your religion is true and it gives you special privileges then you have a problem.
In other words if you think your religion should be used to suppress the rights and privileges of others and give the members of your religion special rights and privileges then you are broken...
But that view obviously isn't universal, that is your personal scale of should happen. Theoretically, logic should be logic no matter what, so why do people find the same thing more or less logical?
0 -
Do cows 'deserve' to die because we need to eat them? Should we remain perplexed because we can't come up with an objective answer to our need for sustenance? Like the camel who dies of dehydration because it can't decide on the utility between two identical watering holes? Philosophers have been searching for millennia for this 'objective standard of human value' and all have failed, finding themselves muddled up in mysticism. If you continue searching, good luck (and that's sincere, not rhetorical).
All rigourous ethics is logical in its argument. But does it try to be objective in its initial conditions? No. Parfit's object-given reasons (On What Matters), tries to come close, but fails to be honest due to making an arbitrary division and chimerical antagonism between object-given and subject-given. In the words of Hume, our passions are just a part of our mental state that comes about when we find ourselves taking something that matters to us. Form follows function, especially in ethics, or should do, it's what it's there for and why we argue about it after all.
Edit: can't spell.
The way I see it, the emotions are merely conscious interpretations of chemicals, or not even interpretations, just something you try to make sense of. You wouldn't feel anger or love without the chemical for it, and you wouldn't feel pain without nerve cells.
And with cows deserving to die, that's exactly my point. There is no particular view that is wrong, but neither is there an actual logical correlation to those views and reality which is why no view is wrong or right. There is no right or wrong with "wanting", but there is a logical fallacy with building off of it to use logic and say "a chemical is released, therefore a species deserves to be wiped out".
If you really want to live in a world where the fate of entire species is merely decided by "I don't like them, so they should die", you can do that if you want, but if the human race truly wants to live in a world with every species being able to live and most of life thriving, even if the view is not correct or incorrect, then the extra energy needs to be put into shaping the global environment that way, and I don't think the mosquitoes or the alligators or the malaria or the dolphins or the birds or the fish are going to do it, so that only leaves us to do it if we actually want to follow through with it.
0 -
The question isn't if you can find logic, the question is how hard you need to work to make the logic work for your chosen answer.
At some point, if it requires extra particular interpretation and extra particular interpretations again and again, logic might dictate it may be the less logical answer.
Don't you agree? Otherwise, why not just admitting it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with faith...
~mooey
I don't know if I agree, there isn't really a way to quantify logic, so how can you actually conclude that something is "more" logical without a biased opinion?
0 -
I have emphasized several times in this thread that a quantum particle is not a classical particle. It is evident that the quantum mechanics of particles was developed about 1930 because the classical mechanics of particles could not explain all the properties and the behaviour of particles as the electrons.
So let me get this straight: You think a wave is a classical particle?
'jaungra' already explained what is a particle, gave a precise definition of particle, gave dozens of references supporting his points, gave the physical properties that characterize a particle, gave a table of particles with their properties, and also explained to you that a particle is not a "little sphere". 'jaungra' does not need to do all that again.I have given the particle physics definition of particle (both link and snapshot from textbook) and, of course, nowhere the definition alludes to classical particles.No one is saying quantum particles are classical particles.
I could not agree more with the first comment about that videoJust because your incapable of comprehending it doesn't mean it's wrong.
This is all wrong. Duality has nothing to see with a quantum harmonic oscillator. A quantum harmonic oscillator is a kind of quantum system.Yes it is a system, one that deals with much of the same mathematics that waves use.
The same link that you give explains how to study the quantum oscillator starting from the "Hamiltonian of the particle", "where m is the particle's mass", and the the "first term in the Hamiltonian represents the kinetic energy of the particle", and solving H|Psi> = E|Psi> for the particle (I already wrote this equation before in this thread).What's your point?
Again, no mystery here. The quantum mechanics of particles continue working as well as it always did. Misunderstandings about quantum mechanics in the pop-culture (read again the comment in the youtube video) do not change the facts about quantum mechanics or about particle physics.Your the only one that has even used the word "mystery" on this entire topic. I don't think there's anything strange about a quantum particle being acting like a wave, you do.
0 -
I'll concede that ethical statements should have some logical premise. Unfortunately, "should" does not necessarily carry over into "does".
It's not that they "should", it's that otherwise they don't have any real meaning otherwise, they have no real ground or actual basis to be acted upon.
0 -
What does logic have to do with emotions? Emotions aren't logical. Logic can be used to override emotions (such as calming yourself down in a dangerous situation so you can make rational decisions), and emotions can certainly override logic. What makes you think they are connected in any way?
Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's objective. If you make an ethical statement, it should have logic to back it up otherwise it is meaningless. Without logic, ethics is just a random spout of words that were the result of interpretations of the feelings perceived by the release of chemicals and nothing more.
0 -
I'm saying that at some point all systems require faith and you might as well say that if faith can be used to validate any system then it can be used to validate unicorns. I have previously stated that religion is not based on no evidence, it is just not based on the system of science.
The only things that really require faith are axioms, but axioms can still have logic built off of them and can still be used to make contradictory conclusions. Faith also does not substitute a logical sequence of steps.
0 -
Oh for heavens sake. The idea of being conscious is not the same as explaining how consciousness arises in the first place, which was determined by prior causes. You forget or deliberately omit that we live in a cause and effect universe (unless we're talking about the physics of nothing, which we're not). You are being fallacious.
You are talking about ethics.
You gave a definition of ethics that deals with human value.
You stated that ethics comes from emotions.
You refuse to change your definition.
You refuse to change your assumption.
Now because you cannot objectify either you are declaring propositions based on emotion towards human value null because they are not objective.
Your assumptions cannot possibly give you the answer you're looking for. Look at your argument before you look for something you won't find due to the conditions you are imposing.
I don't think I refused to do any of those things because those were never an issue in the first place. I never said anyone's view was wrong did I? No, I merely pointed out what they translate to or what effects a particular system like that would have. Besides, it is possible to be ethical without considering emotions and furthermore they are just chemicals, that's why it isn't wise to just take your emotions as laws of the universe. Because from an objective point of view neither mosquitoes nor humans would matter more, logically whatever one deserved the other would deserve. That's it.
In fact, why should the entire fate of a species be decided on emotion? Can you logically draw a correlation between emotion and ethical action? Logically, why does something have to be done just because of your emotions?
0 -
There's WHAT on laser cooling? I'm not going to chase down every red herring you throw at me. If you can't point to the relevant part, don't bother. You don't physically target individual atoms. Being able to cool or image an atom does not mean you hit it with each photon you sent at it.
If I can aim so well that I can destroy cancer, I'm pretty sure I can hit a person, that's the point, I never specified how far away they were, I was thinking they were rather close.
Again, I am not going to waste time watching a video when I have no confidence it is relevant. What I said was that the uncertainty principle is not the concern with FOCUSING x-rays or gamma rays. You changed the subject, AGAIN. (and yet accuse me of only skimming your posts)How well a beam is focused effects it's accuracy, and you said aiming gamma-rays wasn't accurate.
Sigh. How many posts back did I say wavelength? Why are you still asking the question?Because you didn't answer my question. Wavelength means nothing before measurement, there is no possible way to tell what the wavelength is before you measure a photon.
You still have not explained why you think you would detect the photon instantaneously if you don't know where it is, or faster if it has a longer wavelength. You are proceeding as if it were true, and yet haven't established that it is. That's a problem.IF a photon had no parameters to the 3 dimensional space it occupied before measurement, we would just see random photons being measured everywhere. We'd see photon from billions of light years away and measure them right in-front of us while the photons from the objects in-front of us might be measured by somethign else millions of light years away.
0 -
We are humans, our interests are the wellfare of humanity so thus... Causing the extinction of a species detrimental to humans in a way that no negative ecological consequence exists? Lets go for it... Mosquitos do not only transmit disease, they cause itches that can become wounds and get infected, some humans are allergic to these... Why not do the same on cockroaches, flies, ticks, fleas, lice, some grasshoppers, etc. The problem is... Do we know enough about ecology to take these risks? We are constantly trying to get rid of many species without any consideration on the ethics of that... We call it "epidemiology"... Of course the specialty only concentrates on lex complex lifestyles... that is in pathogens like prions, viruses, bacterias and such, but that still is "getting rid of species"... Isn't it? And we wish the virus of AIDs could go extinct, and other venereals, so we can have more careless sex...
But the problem is, why do we objectively deserve to live over them, especially considering they aren't actually making the human race extinct? The human race is just another species in a perhaps infinite universe, the universe would keep going regardless of if we got wiped out. If we do wipe them out just because we don't like them, why is it not logical for something to wipe us out just because they don't like us?
Also viruses aren't actually living things, they are much smaller than bacteria and consist mainly of protein wrapped DNA.
0 -
If your interest is humanity your interest is the human gene pool so... some degree of eugenics is necessary, but not one biased towards racism or classism but more thoughtful of what genes are detrimental.
Objectively, Eugenics isn't ultimately necessarily because diversity can be good and regardless of whatever may be optimal, we can still decide to do something else because we don't want to be animals who's sole purpose is to blindly believe evolution is some mystical force we have to bow down to.
0 -
Brain power isn't completely inherited. I can't really find a good source, I see numbers as high as 80% inherited to less than 1%. Anyway, it shouldn't really matter, there are mentally retarded people who have had perfectly normal kids, and it's not like the entire population is becoming mentally retarded. There's even potentially treatments for it if research goes well.
Not only that but a less smart person can do anything anything a smarter person can do but they will have to expend more energy or conscious effort.
0
People who believe in god are broken
in Religion
Posted · Edited by questionposter
Let's see your craig's list account. If I don't see it, I can't buy it.
Now that I think about it, dragon-like creatures seem possible. On Earth there's been both large reptiles and organisms that have evolved from large reptiles to fly. There's unimaginable amounts of space and matter, and with all the possibilities really any type of life is possible.
Well so is the notion of god.
It's another point of view that differs from yours and goes against one of your most held beliefs.
That's not teaching it as science, that's teaching it because they feel their values are not being fairly viewed upon, but they don't objectively view their own values.
If god wants free-will, they god could logically want people to live out their life how they choose.
I think originally the psychopathic god was meant to scare people into being more kind to each other, but regardless time has went on and people still have different views about god.
It just seems like your purposely not trying to see what it is like to be a religious person. Many people find it fulfilling in some way.
Provide a logical correlation that proves that second clause, unless it is merely an opinion.
Because without religion, some people don't have a reason to.
I personally would like the first one, but I cannot speak for everyone. There are people who would like religion to be more incorporated into laws.