Posted: Nov 16, 2010 7:41 am
by Rubicon
darwin2 wrote:I stated "But if one is wise one should care about one’s death because the scientific reality is that one is going to die and it is a scientific reality that consciousness may survive the death of the physical body" and you replied "No, it is a blind assertion, not scientific reality." Jeepers creepers, great balls of fire, Holy Mackerel! I didn't realize it was not a scientific reality that we die. Too bad you didn't read one of my previous responses to a poster who made the same assertion as you just made. It would have saved you a lot of embarrassment!

You are deliberately paraphrasing my comments incorrectly here. Please don't do this again. I clearly said:
First you say that it is merely a possibility that consciousness persists after death.

I was very clearly referring to the unproven assertion that consciousness persists after death, not to your asinine strawman that "it is not a scientific reality that we die". Where the hell did you get that idea?

Then you state science doesn't deal with ethics, it deals with reality. I have a strong feeling that scientists would disagree with you on this.

Are you using some kind of bullshit generator? Please provide evidence that ethics is un unmistakeable part of scientific inquiry. If you can't, I'll consider this another one of your vapid assertions.

However if you are correct and a scientist stole another scientist's work or secretly screwed his best friend's wife or extorted the funds from some science club, science would not give a damn about these actions because science doesn't deal with ethics.

My god, you really are getting desperate here. What the hell has this got to do with the scientific method? Please learn the difference between science and individual scientists.

I know our planet is in deep trouble but if you are correct it is a lot worse than I thought.

You're definitely spot on with this one. Judging from your posts, a basic understanding of what science is and what it does is apparently sorely lacking. Deeply troubling indeed.

Now please be so kind as to answer the following question, which multiple posters have asked you and which you have sofar failed to answer:

What arguments, other than emotional attachment to the idea, do you have that your claim about the possibility that consciousness may persist after death is less absurd than the possibility of invisible blue baboons on Saturn, or purple fig leaves the size of Wales? What, other than your personal opinion on what does or what doesn't constitute an absurd claim, do you have to offer?

EDIT: typo.