< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Is Spreading Science Justified By Reason?

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 May 2013 17:19
 
Hippyhead - 23 May 2013 03:15 PM

Most of the slaughter of the 20th century was actually committed by explicitly atheist regimes, so we can’t say we’ll be safe once religion is gone.

oh, brother…

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
23 May 2013 17:39
 
nonverbal - 23 May 2013 10:55 AM

What would you propose to slow down runaway scientific accomplishment?

Conversations like this, to educate the public on the fact that the “more is better” relationship we’ve historically had with science has become an outdated paradigm.

You guys have probably heard of Ray Kurzweil, a futurist who predicts we are moving from the old era of incremental scientific progress, to a coming era of exponential change driven by artificial intelligence, a concept he calls the “singularity”. 

Whether we like Kurzweil’s theories or not, it seems pretty clear that the rate of scientific development is accelerating.  This acceleration raises the question of how fast is too fast.  Imho, if we’re unwilling to face this question, we aren’t actually embracing the future, but still living in the past.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
23 May 2013 18:07
 
Jefe - 23 May 2013 03:19 PM
Hippyhead - 23 May 2013 03:15 PM

Most of the slaughter of the 20th century was actually committed by explicitly atheist regimes, so we can’t say we’ll be safe once religion is gone.

oh, brother…

You mean you didn’t see that coming?

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
23 May 2013 18:07
 
Jefe - 23 May 2013 03:19 PM
Hippyhead - 23 May 2013 03:15 PM

Most of the slaughter of the 20th century was actually committed by explicitly atheist regimes, so we can’t say we’ll be safe once religion is gone.

oh, brother…


Yeah ... no one could’ve seen that coming, eh?

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
23 May 2013 18:08
 
GAD - 23 May 2013 04:07 PM

You mean you didn’t see that coming?


Jinx!

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 May 2013 19:06
 
SkepticX - 23 May 2013 04:08 PM
GAD - 23 May 2013 04:07 PM

You mean you didn’t see that coming?


Jinx!

Usually when the conversation starts with something like “if this place is really about reason….” the results are pretty predictable.

 
 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
23 May 2013 19:26
 

NAZI Germany was not an Atheist regime, and neither was Adolf Hitler.

And the Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot regimes are explained quite thoroughly by Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens and all decent Atheist writers of our times.

Atheism is secondary and coincidental to meglo-maniacal psychopaths.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
23 May 2013 22:45
 

A factual statement was made.  The statement meant what it said, and nothing more. 

The point was only that the evidence demonstrates we can’t look to the end of religion as a solution to the problem being addressed in this thread, an accelerating rate of change driven by science. 

So let’s stay on topic and keep moving, ok? 

Can the spreading of science be justified by reason?

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7135
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
24 May 2013 00:26
 
Hippyhead - 23 May 2013 08:45 PM

Can the spreading of science be justified by reason?

Yes.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
24 May 2013 00:34
 
Jefe - 23 May 2013 10:26 PM

Yes.

Ok.  I guess we’re done then.  Good job everybody!

 
 
robbrownsyd
 
Avatar
 
 
robbrownsyd
Total Posts:  6576
Joined  23-05-2008
 
 
 
24 May 2013 01:24
 

I’m all for getting rid of a lot of the nukes and repairing the damage we’ve done to the atmosphere. But it’s going to take science to do it. And we can do it. Just as we are fixing the ozone hole. But even if we fix the messes we’ve made we are by no means safe for the future. The idea that if we could stop doing science we’d be in less danger in future in ridiculous. We’re going to need all the scientific knowledge we can muster in order to survive. And we’ll probably need some of those nukes to blast away the next sizeable peice of space rock that comes hurtling our way as has happened repeatedly in earth’s history and will, without doubt, happen again.

I did not use the word ‘Luddite’, Hippyhead, you did, and it does seem to sun up your position.

 
cunjevoi
 
Avatar
 
 
cunjevoi
Total Posts:  720
Joined  31-08-2011
 
 
 
24 May 2013 03:19
 

Hippy, Hippy, Hippy… old mate. You had to go and blame 20th century violence on atheism. That’s a schoolboy error.

Consider the following points relating to this thread:

1. Knowledge is a good thing for people to have.
2. Education is a good thing to give our children, ourselves and each other.
3. An understanding of the nature of the universe is a good thing for humanity to strive for.
4. Technology can help people to live longer, happier and more productive lives.
5. Ignorance, superstition and dogma is all fucked-up shit.
6. Your worldview seems to be misinformed and the ideas you have presented are unsubstantiated.
7. I, nonetheless, appreciate your contribution.

Cheers mate.

 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  4912
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
24 May 2013 04:48
 
Hippyhead - 23 May 2013 10:34 PM
Jefe - 23 May 2013 10:26 PM

Yes.

Ok.  I guess we’re done then.  Good job everybody!

Ok, well… Welcome to the forum.

 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
24 May 2013 08:54
 

I’m all for getting rid of a lot of the nukes and repairing the damage we’ve done to the atmosphere. But it’s going to take science to do it. And we can do it.

It doesn’t take MORE science to get rid of nukes and repair the environment. 

It takes the will to do these things. 

It takes the maturity and seriousness to do it.

What I’ve shown in this thread is that we don’t currently have the will, maturity and seriousness to manage the powers we already have. 

Until we can demonstrate that we have the will, maturity and seriousness to clean up the messes we’ve already made, we have no business giving ourselves vast new powers to create messes.

What we’re seeing across our culture is that many of us have developed an almost religious type relationship with science.  We’ve killed off the old god, so Science has become a new kind of god. 

Science will lead us to the promised land, science must go on, as fast as possible, as big as possible, no matter what, despite significant piles of evidence that we can’t actually handle the power we already have, and now thanks to science live within a single day of total destruction. 

A chief obstacle to seeing this relationship is that many of us have very carefully and enthusiastically developed a self flattering personal identity of being vastly superior to religious type relationships.  And so we’ve lost objectivity, that which would seem fundamental to a Project Reason.

 
 
Hippyhead
 
Avatar
 
 
Hippyhead
Total Posts:  40
Joined  21-05-2013
 
 
 
24 May 2013 09:01
 
cunjevoi - 24 May 2013 01:19 AM

Hippy, Hippy, Hippy… old mate. You had to go and blame 20th century violence on atheism..

I did nothing of the kind.  I merely referenced very well known and widely agreed upon historical facts. 

Some explicitly atheist regimes existed.  That’s a fact, that no one disputes.

These regimes killed millions of innocents.  Another fact, that no one disputes.

From these well known facts, I’ve offered a theory that an end to religion will not solve the problems being addressed in this thread.  This is a future speculation theory, and so it is of course open to challenge.

What we’re seeing in the response is that members appear to be unable to meet the challenge of this thread, and so are perhaps hoping to change the topic to one where they’ve already memorized a list of arguments.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›