Believe in science & ethics
-
So the moral of the story is, there is no problem if you do not know and do not understand.
You can ask and you can clarify. You can try to understand.
When you do not know and do not understand, don't try to pretend to be smart or else you will only expose your stupidity, your delusions and your lack of self control for all to see. -
This IS the moral of Andrew's insane antics
Fancy a stupid monkey trying to summarize his stupidity and delusional actions.
"Yes Andrew, you did imply Ethics is delusional.
Mathematics have proven that your statement "If there is no proof or evidence, its delusional" applies to Ethics
Since you can't prove ethics, ethics is a delusion to you.
Want more?
1) Philosophies are subjective. There is no one single philosophy that is correct or wrong
2) Ethics is a philosophy. Therefore Ethics is subjective.
3) Science, with its requirement for proof or evidence, is objective
4) Andrew's statement, "If there is no proof or evidence, its delusional", means in Mathematics that ANYTHING that has no proof or evidence is delusional.
5) Since Ethics is subjective, it cannot be proven by any scientific method, therefore based on point (4), ethics is delusional.
No wonder you cannot understand something called Respect of Fellow Humans (which is an ethic), since Ethics to you is delusional. With your rude and obnoxious behavior, no matter how good you are with your head at certain fields, you will never be able to succeed in whatever you do, coz you do not respect others.
Feel free to argue some more. You CANNOT win Mathematics. And to date, aside from ranting about how good Science is, you haven't shown yourself to know any field of Science at all.
Go ahead to
or 
, that's all you can contribute to this thread. Stupidity at its absolute, arguing against Mathematics. Its like saying 1+1 is not 2 but its 3."
The more he talks the more stupidity is revealed Go back to Politics. You belong more there than here. Monkey shows no sign of knowledge of Science whatsoever -
sore loser.
keeps saying that what I said "implies this and that according to his delusional mind and keeps repeating his own delusional points over and over again with no reference to what I said rebutting the points he raised.
hmmm maybe the concepts I used are too difficult for him to understand. -
I saw a seow monkey fell off his tree this morning and it was still laughing! ha ha!
-
Originally posted by Daddy!!:I saw a seow monkey fell off his tree this morning and it was still laughing! ha ha!
-
I have already given him the banana
don't make too much fun with monkeys that don't understand anything
Anyway, my 1st posting in this page is enough to make him embarrassed. Caused him to edit his postings 3 times after my post to try to save face
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:I have already given him the banana
don't make too much fun with monkeys that don't understand anything
Anyway, my 1st posting in this page is enough to make him embarrassed -
If you agree that we should belive in science,then there should not be a debate between us.Originally posted by Daddy!!:Did i say we should not believe in Science? Dont put words in people's mouth.
All i said is our science is very limited and there is lots more to learn and explore. What we dont know, we should not discard as superstition.
Ships, airplanes physically disappeared mysteriously in the bermuda triangle. So should we discard them as superstition because our scientists are unable to explain it? Or should we explore and keep trying to understand these weird phenomena ?
Are you one of those who think our science is highly developed already so that it can explain most things and therefore those things which it cannot explain are bullsh.it superstition?
U said science is very limited.Well,this is a subective opinion.yes there is a lot more to learn & explore.Many scientists are doing it. -
OK I am bored. I shall continue to pwn you and expose your stupidity for the fun of it
What a complete idiot you are. You think that Ethics and Philosophy arises out of nowhere? You think Ethics and Philosophy does not have any basis? You think that Ethics and Philosophy, just because they can be subjective, has no reasoning behind it?Originally posted by soul_rage:This IS the moral of Andrew's insane antics Fancy a stupid monkey trying to summarize his stupidity and delusional actions.
"Yes Andrew, you did imply Ethics is delusional.
Mathematics have proven that your statement "If there is no proof or evidence, its delusional" applies to Ethics
Since you can't prove ethics, ethics is a delusion to you.
Want more?
1) Philosophies are subjective. There is no one single philosophy that is correct or wrong
2) Ethics is a philosophy. Therefore Ethics is subjective.
3) Science, with its requirement for proof or evidence, is objective
4) Andrew's statement, "If there is no proof or evidence, its delusional", means in Mathematics that ANYTHING that has no proof or evidence is delusional.
5) Since Ethics is subjective, it cannot be proven by any scientific method, therefore based on point (4), ethics is delusional.
No wonder you cannot understand something called Respect of Fellow Humans (which is an ethic), since Ethics to you is delusional. With your rude and obnoxious behavior, no matter how good you are with your head at certain fields, you will never be able to succeed in whatever you do, coz you do not respect others.
Feel free to argue some more. You CANNOT win Mathematics. And to date, aside from ranting about how good Science is, you haven't shown yourself to know any field of Science at all.
Go ahead to or , that's all you can contribute to this thread. Stupidity at its absolute, arguing against Mathematics. Its like saying 1+1 is not 2 but its 3."
The more he talks the more stupidity is revealed Go back to Politics. You belong more there than here. Monkey shows no sign of knowledge of Science whatsoever
What a grossly stupid person.
The reasoning and the logic behind Ethics and Philosophy is the evidence that people provide for their ethical and the philosophical stance. If they cannot provide any evidence, reason, logic and basis for their ethical and the philosophical stance, they are truly, like you delusional.
It is my ethical stance to call a spade, a spade. You cannot say that I am not an ethical person because I have provided ample evidence time and again why you are grossly stupid and delusional. -
So proud of your own stupidity some more just because I pitied you and was tired of pwning you.Originally posted by soul_rage:Anyway, my 1st posting in this page is enough to make him embarrassed. Caused him to edit his postings 3 times after my post to try to save face -
scientists do not exclude things they dont know as superstitions, they KIV the phenomena and try to explore possibilities by using currently available technology. Only monkey excludes things he does not know as superstitions. ha ha!Originally posted by PRP:If you agree that we should belive in science,then there should not be a debate between us.
U said science is very limited.Well,this is a subective opinion.yes there is a lot more to learn & explore.Many scientists are doing it. -
Oh my goodness...I went overseas and left this discussion thread for more than a week and it is still raging...
It seems to be more "popular" than even some of the other politics thread.
Science (as I have mentioned before) is one of the best tools available to mankind in studying natural phenomenon. But to try and apply it to other less "naturalistic" areas like politics, ethics, religion, social values, etc would most likely bring about less than satisfying results.
The great philosopher Bertrand Russell said it best:
"Ethics contains no statements, whether true or false, but consists of desires of a certain general kind, namely such as are concerned with the desires of mankind in general - and of gods, angels, and devils, if they exist. Science can discuss the causes of desires, and the means for realizing them, but it cannot contain any genuinely ethical sentences, because it is concerned with what is true or false (i.e. naturalistic explanantions) "
"I conclude that, while it is true that science cannot decide questions of values, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."
Full text at: http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html
Note the last part where he says:
"what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know." -
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
Bertrand Russell said "what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."
Oh my goodness...I went overseas and left this discussion thread for more than a week and it is still raging...
It seems to be more "popular" than even some of the other politics thread.
Science (as I have mentioned before) is one of the best tools available to mankind in studying natural phenomenon. But to try and apply it to other less "naturalistic" areas like politics, ethics, religion, social values, etc would most likely bring about less than satisfying results.
The great philosopher Bertrand Russell said it best:
"Ethics contains no statements, whether true or false, but consists of desires of a certain general kind, namely such as are concerned with the desires of mankind in general - and of gods, angels, and devils, if they exist. Science can discuss the causes of desires, and the means for realizing them, but it cannot contain any genuinely ethical sentences, because it is concerned with what is true or false (i.e. naturalistic explanantions) "
"I conclude that, while it is true that science cannot decide questions of [b]values, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."
Full text at: http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html
Note the last part where he says:
"what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."
[/b]
Soul_rage and myself say "science can discover what mankind does not know."
a monkey says "whatever science cannot prove, it is superstition. "
You wrote "But to try and apply it to other less "naturalistic"; areas like politics, ethics, religion, social values, etc would most likely bring about less than satisfying results."
I agree with what you wrote.
A monkey will disagree with you. Only a monkey insists to use science to inform on a decision whether to build a casino in his neighborhood or not.
this monkey lives in boogie wonderland and laughs like seow all the time. -
I was wondering which monkey said these exact words: "whatever science cannot prove, it is superstition. " in quotation marks some more!Originally posted by Daddy!!:a monkey says "whatever science cannot prove, it is superstition. "
Turned out you are the only one that said those exact words. Don't be so hard on yourself, You are only stupid and delusional, but you are still a member of the human species, a stupid and delusional member, but unfortunately you are still a member. -
Originally posted by Ibram Gaunt:
Many people refuse to accept that they cannot know and they go on a delusional, imaginary trip insisting that they do.
Note the last part where he says:
[b]"what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."[/b] -
Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. -W.Clement StoneOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I was wondering which monkey said these exact words: "whatever science cannot prove, it is superstition. " in quotation marks some more! -
monkey Andrew said "If there is no proof or evidence, its delusional" "
monkey Andrew also said "They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions."
Ibram Gaunt said: "Science (as I have mentioned before) is one of the best tools available to mankind in studying natural phenomenon. But to try and apply it to other less "naturalistic"; areas like politics, ethics, religion, social values, etc would most likely bring about less than satisfying results. "
(human) said : "Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. -W.Clement Stone"
I said "scientists do not exclude things they dont know as superstitions, they KIV the phenomena and try to explore possibilities by using currently available technology. Only monkey excludes things he does not know as superstitions. ha ha!"
Monkey Andrew as most monkeys do, will not be able to understand. -
This fact remains:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I was wondering which monkey said these exact words: "whatever science cannot prove, it is superstition. " in quotation marks some more!
Turned out you are the only one that said those exact words. Don't be so hard on yourself, You are only stupid and delusional, but you are still a member of the human species, a stupid and delusional member, but unfortunately you are still a member. -
monkey Andrew said "If there is no proof or evidence, its delusional" "
monkey Andrew also said "They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions."
Ibram Gaunt said: "Science (as I have mentioned before) is one of the best tools available to mankind in studying natural phenomenon. But to try and apply it to other less "naturalistic";; areas like politics, ethics, religion, social values, etc would most likely bring about less than satisfying results. "
(human) said : "Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance. -W.Clement Stone"
I said "scientists do not exclude things they dont know as superstitions, they KIV the phenomena and try to explore possibilities by using currently available technology. Only monkey excludes things he does not know as superstitions. ha ha!"
Monkey Andrew as most monkeys do, will not be able to understand. -
This was the first post I made in this thread and I have consistently maintained the same position:
I continue to stand by it.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap: 19 September 2007 · 09:41 AMOnly stupid people believe that science is 100% correct and only people that are more stupid believe that there is anything else more believable than scientific discoveries. -
you standby what you said "Only stupid people believe that science is 100% correct and only people that are more stupid believe that there is anything else more believable than scientific discoveries." To me, this makes sense.
hmm...you also stand by the following too? These stands don't make sense.
You said "If there is no proof or evidence, its delusional" "
You said "They must use science to inform on their ethical and moral decisions instead of using delusions and illusions to make those decisions." -
Dear monkeyOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:OK I am bored. I shall continue to pwn you and expose your stupidity for the fun of it
What a complete idiot you are. You think that Ethics and Philosophy arises out of nowhere? You think Ethics and Philosophy does not have any basis? You think that Ethics and Philosophy, just because they can be subjective, has no reasoning behind it?
What a grossly stupid person.
The reasoning and the logic behind Ethics and Philosophy is the evidence that people provide for their ethical and the philosophical stance. If they cannot provide any evidence, reason, logic and basis for their ethical and the philosophical stance, they are truly, like you delusional.
It is my ethical stance to call a spade, a spade. You cannot say that I am not an ethical person because I have provided ample evidence time and again why you are grossly stupid and delusional.
Its interesting how you can keep going when its already a given fact that you know not what you are talking about.
The above shows how you begin to twist your words to try to adapt the ridiculous stance you put up "Anything that has no proof or evidence, its delusional"
Now you bring in reasoning, logic, basis, etc. New inclusions to your statement above.
Why don't u just admit that your statement is now wrong,
"Anything that has no proof, evidence, reasoning, logic, basis, etc..."
From scientific proof and evidence, now changing your stance
You are worse than an idiot. Pretending to support Science, you have NOT shown ANY understanding to Science. As I said, put in a proper scientific argument, or you have no substance.
Use proper Scientific methodologies to explain about this delusional 'evidence' that philosophy requires, and maybe we may believe you.
Otherwise, you are nothing more than an empty vessel. -
Ibram have shown understanding in Physics and Philosophy
Daddy!! has shown understanding in Physics and many general areas of Science
Herzog has shown he understands Astronomy pretty well
LazerLordz has shown he knows a lot about the deeper concepts of Physics
I have shown knowledge of Logic Mathematics and Astronomy
Monkey Andrew,
besides calling others stupid and pretending to support Science by arguing with so many vague statements, you have shown a CLEAR lack of knowledge in Science.
Go ahead and show us what you know in a field of Science, or you are nothing but an empty vessel. -
"A monkey will disagree with you. Only a monkey insists to use science to inform on a decision whether to build a casino in his neighborhood or not."
This is a clear indication of how VAGUE the monkey is, and how stupid he is to insist on using Science on EVERYTHING.
Again, I think he does not understand implicit proving methodology in Mathematics and will start to question where he said that science is used to inform on building a casino.
The same as, when he refused to accept Logic Mathematics has proven his stupidity, and I said that to question Mathematics, is similar to questioning why is 1+1 = 2, why not 1+1 = 3?
He still can't understand -
Use science to inform on something is "to insist on using Science on EVERYTHING"? I have to conclude that you are a grossly stupid idiot because we have covered this and yet you repeat it without coming up, again, with anything to show why we cannot use science to inform on something.Originally posted by soul_rage:This is a clear indication of how VAGUE the monkey is, and how stupid he is to insist on using Science on EVERYTHING.