dimreepr

Indeed, like I said at the start of this; "it's a cultural difference not a philosophical one". All of recognised science's start with the premise/philosophy of trying to eliminate cultural/human bias, in order to reveal the truth despite the thinker. @Sohan Lalwani Just gainsaying, is not an argument however long it takes, so please provide a logical reason why I'm wrong.

Indeed, and our best defence is to not give a shit...

The tick remains the same, it's the clock that changed... 😉

Only 'nothing' can live forever, why would you need a god for that? Gaia is the origin god, so in this context, yes you are.

How do you know when someone/thing is suffering?

Point entirely missed, ask me how...

Does that make you a physicist?

This is exactly why we have a seperate judicial system; emotional thought is beset with inaccurate knowledge which does involve pulling the trigger...

No they don't: Is this the 5 minute argument?

I'm no expert, but this looks like an argument for the universe to have an eternal soul.

Different sciences will have different culture's not philosophies, but the point of this post: is that philosophy set the initial parameters of science, and much like all 'children' it grew up thinking it's smarter than it's parent; ethics is essentially a sibling of science and is trying to guide it's brethren.

What does that even mean? I'm talking about the philosophy of science, what are your collective talking about?

There's a reason why a paradox is impossible, you haven't 'really' thought it through properly... 😉

No wonder, only the children of philosophy and science are really on speaking terms, these days... 🤕

Indeed, but I think Neitzche and many other's would argue that science is the gatekeeper, that prevents the necessary leverage that religion offers, and science can't/won't...

Of course it is, you just don't understand why... 🙄 Indeed, coincidentally, it was one of your less verbose post's...

The odds of him understanding that is 100-1, the odds of him caring is lottery number's...

Indeed, that's why the farmer should deal the killing blow, farming it out to a butcher (pun intended) is an ethical mistake, that leads to veganism.

But it does though, especially in a scientific discussion; at best it's a temporary truth, that needs to be understood, before you move on to the next temporary truth and etc. until you get your PhD, only then can you decide what's correct, for a brief moment in time... Before the next smartarse tells you your wrong... 😝 And yes, that's an incorrect generalisation. 😉

Apologies, in this context...

Probanly not enough, since you've given me pause for thought...

Fair enough, but why is a priest pertinent to the argument/topic?

Yes, It's a direct reply to your question... The OP wanted to kick a dog to death, I'm suggesting that's a little 'over the top'...

If you kill without reason, you only damage yourself...

Socrates had an argument for that... 😉