Are people that stubborn? (Religious and atheists alike)

Author: IlDiavolo
Bible
Atheism
UFO
religions

Posts

Total: 50
#31
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
What do you mean by Us?
What do you mean by evolved?
Has humanity 'itself changed, or has it's material possessions around it changed?

Is technology and morality a path 'towards something?
If I do not know how to start a fire manually with a couple sticks, 'am I more advanced?
What I am suggesting here is that advancement might not be a consistent line, but niches.

Is there a 'limit to what one can know?
Yes technology allows more storage in computers and such,
But a human is 'still limited in how much they can absorb/understand.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Give an 'advanced nations a few wars,
And their morality can shift,
Many war crimes, by Axis 'and Allies in the Great Wars, I assume.

Do you argue for objective morality?

I bring up this sudden shift,
As I am not sure the connection between vastness of technological information,
Is connected with morality.
Knowledgeable people as those at Nuremberg, were capable of much morality, I assume you would not call advanced.
Yet what is advanced?
Would a so called 'evil morality, not be advanced, if it contained much logic, reasoning, writing?
More advanced than a good morality that just says this is good because I said so?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There were people in medieval times who did not war,
And there are people in advanced times who war,
Even if percentage speaking one is larger than the other,
Is this because of the 'people's understanding/desire?

Cars, planes, trains, and bombs,
Have consolidated power spheres,
Have made Great Powers wary of fighting 'Each 'Other,
If greater protection could be devised, that mutual destruction were not a worry,
This would be a new technology, More Advanced?
And yet,
War possible again?
How war and peace mean 'advanced?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I 'do get your common sense point though.

To make metal knife,
One usually needs fire first,
One sees a 'progression in technology often, this necessary to that.

I 'do get your common sense point though.

We view peace, no suffering as good, seems more desirable than war, suffering, (To us),
Assumption is that closer we are to what (We) desire want, more 'advanced we are towards it.
#32
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
I would suggest that in terms of species development, Darwinian theory explains the explainable.


How life came about is another question.

Maybe it was deposited by advanced extra-terrestrials or maybe it was the result of a spontaneous electro-chemical reaction here on Earth.

Though if we plump for your UFO option, it still begs the same primary questions...When and where and how did the first life occur.

Because I would further suggest that even advanced extra-terrestrials must have developed from a primary life source.


As for science and scientists, they do exactly as the words define.

So with regard to the extra-terrestrial deposition of life theory, what do scientists actually have to work on, to be able to test the theory?


Species evolution theory and UFO deposition theory are two completely different ball games, in terms of what they set out to achieve.

The former attempts to explain B to Z, whereas the latter attempts to explain A.
Topic's author
#33
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Lemming
You posed a lot of questions, but I think what you're trying to say is that technology doesn't necessarily get alone with morality. Well, maybe not directly but indirectly.

What I see is that while human beings come up with something revolutionary and advanced, there are intellectuals and thinkers in general that pose several questions about the consequences of such technology for human beings. So, by doing so, the society gets more conscious about it and start to take measures. Remember the first industrial Revolution, there was a great concern on workers and children that were ensalaved in factories, not to mention the relevance women got in society since then. Today there is also concern on the AI and transhumanism, just to mention an example. 
Topic's author
#34
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Though if we plump for your UFO option, it still begs the same primary questions...When and where and how did the first life occur.
We shouldn't think about it since we don't know yet how life began in the earth. But at least you see how ludicrous is to think that life came out of nothing. It's really laughable to see scientists struggling to give a logical explanation about it. 
Topic's author
#35
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
So, do you think there is no dogmatism in science? Think it twice.

#36
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,346
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
True, I stated many question,
More rhetorical, than an asking for each one,
Also just my own thoughts, questions arising to myself.
. . .

I don't agree that technological objects and information necessarily means the people 'using it, are advanced.

I vaguely recall. . Ah! Jurassic Park, that was it.

“You know what's wrong with scientific power?... It's a form of inherited wealth... Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power. There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years. Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual Guru. Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort. You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you. And once you have attained it, it is your power. It can't be given away: it resides in you. It is literally the result of your discipline. Now, what is interesting about this process is that, by the time someone has acquired the ability to his with his bare hands, he has also matured to the point where he won't use it unwisely. So that kind of power has a built-in control. The discipline of the getting the power changes you so that you won't abuse it. But scientific power is like inherited wealth: attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step... There is no discipline... no mastery: old scientists are ignored. There is no humility before nature... A karate master does not kill people with his bare hands. He does not lose his temper and kill his wife. The person who kills is the person who has no discipline, no restraint, and who has purchased his power in the form of a Saturday night special. And that is the kind of power that science fosters, and permits.”
― Malcolm, Jurassic Park

Take Donald Trump as an example, even with a world of experts, libraries of human knowledge gathered over millennia. . .
. . .

Certainly society 'can take measures against technological failure,
But these learning experiences can be painful and slow, 'if learned at all.
Thomas Midgley Jr.
Would be an example of vast unknowing damage,
Though we later changed course. . .

In the 'now however, I 'assume, but do not know, that there are many harmful actions humans take,
From selfish desire of short term gain, even if it harms humanity as a whole.
Hm, but am I getting off topic?
. . .

'Have we evolved in terms of morality and consciousness?
Why 'must aliens be morally superior?
And why must this mean no war?

'Many a human conqueror, had a technological edge over a people he conquered,
Had more written records, thoughts on morality.
Ah, but there I go with the questions again, not that I mean for them to be answered,
But I am doubtful of the superiority of aliens more space faring than ourselves, in regards to morality.

'Many a possibility of 'what aliens might be exists,
Many a possibility of their 'reasons.

Perhaps aliens 'did come to Earth, in the past,
But since were killed or ascended, perhaps some no interference law voted in,
Perhaps they all became absorbed by AI, and now follow some paper clip maximizing goal.

Though I assume myself aliens never visited Earth,
Speaking more 'fairly about it,
Eh, they 'could have.
. . .

Evolution 'could have some questions to it, I've not researched it in depth,
Species I 'assume are natural, seem to evolve degrees of intelligence well enough,
Elephants, chimps, dolphins,

Right set of circumstances existed, I assume,
That we rolled in the direction of our particular intelligence and consciousness, then kept on rolling.
Heh,
Though perhaps we might roll back some,
Like those cartoons of human evolution, showing some comedic form of humans devolving thanks to technology atrophying human intellect, genes, and will.

I suppose you might argue aliens introduced something 'more to humans somewhere along the line, or many species,
But the 'natural explanation, seems enough to me?
. . .

To my view
“History became legend, legend became myth, and passed out of all knowledge” - LOTR
That is explanation enough for stories that can be interpretated as aliens,
Doesn't even take that long sometimes.
. . .
Though of course, fantastic events 'could happen, and be recorded. . .
. . .

Stubbornness,
Well, I don't think I've heard evidence that convinces me of alien visitation,
So I do not believe.
Though, , ,
It's possible I believe in this or that (What I don't know but something)
Despite a lack of evidence.

Proclivities, and natural habit,
Nature and nurture.
#37
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Science is an ongoing challenge not a struggle.

If you drive a car or fly in planes, thank a scientist.

If you depend upon medication, thank a scientist.

If you have a continuously available food supply at your local store, thank a scientist.

If you have a continuous electricity supply, thank a scientist.

If you have a computer or smart phone, thank a scientist.


Most people take all this stuff for granted.

Whereas others have striven to develop it.


So will we ever crack the life puzzle.

Probably.

But maybe not.
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, do you think there is no dogmatism in science?
Scientists can hold dogmatic beliefs, and many do. The difference is that the moment one engages in dogmatism, they are by definition, no longer practicing science.

#39
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,594
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Science is the search for truth and knowledge. Originality and autonomy are its lifeblood. Science only becomes science by a bona fide treatment of data, facts, and intellectual property.
Topic's author
#40
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Scientists can hold dogmatic beliefs, and many do. The difference is that the moment one engages in dogmatism, they are by definition, no longer practicing science.
Yeah, it's like when a christian says that if a believer is a sinner then he's not a true christian.
Topic's author
#41
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I think you're confusing scientists with inventors/engineers. The inventor/engineer develops/creates technology, the scientist just researches. Sometimes the inventor uses the scientist's work for developing.

I think if these people that feel so empowered by the important stuff they do were more humble recognizing that they know little about the world (it pops into my mind what Socrates said), they would do better in their scientific field. This is the main reason I don't like scientists as well as religious people.
#42
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
I think that you're confusing science fiction with science fact.

Engineer is a general term for someone who engineers.

Inventor is a general term for someone who invents.

Scientist is a general term for someone who uses scientific method to solve problems and develop new ideas, so that inventors and engineers can invent and engineer.


I would suggest that the reason you don't like scientists, is for the age old reason why people resent others.

You work it out.
Topic's author
#43
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest that the reason you don't like scientists, is for the age old reason why people resent others.
I don't like them because most of them are dogmatic, like believers (christians and specially muslims) and politicians (communists and lefties in general). When a person's mind is clouded by his ideas and paradigms this person is a dogmatic. But afterall, I think this is because there is a specific profile  that a great deal of human beings share: narcisim. I guess this a "manufacturing defect".

Imagine if I have to discuss other more controversial subjects like psychicism, they would just get even more close-minded. Lol.
#44
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
Enough said.
#45
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
Scientists can hold dogmatic beliefs, and many do. The difference is that the moment one engages in dogmatism, they are by definition, no longer practicing science.
Yeah, it's like when a christian says that if a believer is a sinner then he's not a true christian.
You're focusing on the flaws within people, and then arguing that because you can find flawed people in any area of life, that these areas are the same. That's not how it works.

Dogmatism is definitionally contradictory to science, yet it is required by religion. They're not remotely the same.
#46
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
Nice.
Topic's author
#47
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
You're focusing on the flaws within people, and then arguing that because you can find flawed people in any area of life, that these areas are the same. That's not how it works.

Dogmatism is definitionally contradictory to science, yet it is required by religion. They're not remotely the same.
My point is that science, as well as religion and politics, is run by human beings. This only condition makes science a fallible activity because is run by fallible people.

Is that dificult to understand, bald man? Or do you really believe science never had a mistake?
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@IlDiavolo
Again, science is a method. It doesn't make mistakes because it doesn't think or make decisions, the people practicing it do.

If your point from the start was that both are run by people, you could have started off with that. Not much room to disagree there.
#49
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
science is a method. It doesn't make mistakes because it doesn't think or make decisions, the people practicing it do.
People practicing science do make lots of mistakes. In fact, we can safely say that science was the worst thing that happened to us. We were all better while we were at the level of animals.
#50
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,623
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Well, the existence was the worst thing that happened to us, but science is pretty bad too.