For the Sake of Science

Thought of the day

10 Responses

1. 

   NewEnglandBob, on December 20, 2010 at 10:42 pm said:

   Religion didn’t hijack morality, it replaced it with immoral stances.
2. 

   nate, on December 21, 2010 at 12:29 am said:

   According to you. Are you an objective source or what is moral and what is not?
3. 

   NewEnglandBob, on December 21, 2010 at 6:07 am said:

   Even a four year old can figure out that many religious stances are immoral, at least before they get religious brainwashing
4. 

   nate, on December 21, 2010 at 7:07 am said:

   Is that right? Figure that out using what criteria?
5. 

   NewEnglandBob, on December 21, 2010 at 7:51 am said:

   Common sense, instead of woo, superstitions, daddy complex, fear and promises of an afterlife based on nothing.
6. 

   nate, on December 21, 2010 at 8:17 am said:

   I see, your typical, meaningless arguments based on nothing.

   Belief based on… nothing. Lack of belief based on… nothing. You say one is better and we differ on that point.

   No one is right on points of morality if you are right.
7. 

   nate, on December 21, 2010 at 8:19 am said:

   Not that Arther C Clark has any more authority to comment on morality than the pope or you or I.
8. 

   NewEnglandBob, on December 21, 2010 at 8:48 am said:

   Your post is not coherent.
9. 

   NewEnglandBob, on December 21, 2010 at 8:49 am said:

   You are wrong as usual. Not a surprise.
10. 

    nate, on December 21, 2010 at 9:15 am said:

    And what am I wrong about? Who exactly is more qualified than any other person to define what is moral and what is not?

    If the answer is no one, and morality is a human invention, than everyone is just as qualified to say this is moral and that is not.

    I don’t think your saying that a science fiction writer is qualified to give everyone else advice on morality, at least not more so than any other person.