Scientists are obliged to stay out of what are philosophical positions, and they mostly do — Gregory A

Scientists are obliged to do no such thing! They often choose to, when they think that the philosophical points made are erroneous and of little value or meaning to the hypothesis/theory/experimental results under discussion at the time. But they will speak to philosophical claims if and when they feel it is prudent to do so.

That's my hat! — EugeneW

To quote Rod Stewart
"You wear it well, a little old-fashioned but that's all right!" :smile:

No! I truly don't! I dont give a fuck how old I get and are absolutely not interested in prolonging my life scientifically. — EugeneW

What's your personal opinion got to do with science's projected ability to extend human lifespan?

The most dangerous species is still the scientist. — EugeneW

Then stop doing science and go help build a tabernacle for your god(s) or you run the risk of being assigned the label hypocrite!!

What's your personal opinion got to do with science's projected ability to extend human lifespan? — universeness

You said that I know why people wanna prolong their life artificially. I dont, so I asked why. Are you afraid there is nothing after this life? Is your certainty the reason?

the other is destroying religion — Gregory A

You give Richard a great compliment here, you should send him a copy of your compliment, it will help brace him in this, in my opinion, honorable goal but I think 'destroy' is unlikely, 'vastly reduce its influence in politics, education, commerce and society,' would be more accurate and a more realistic and achievable goal.

Science has done no good. — EugeneW

What?? Should we have just stayed in or caves then and not made the use of fire that we did and not have employed science to attach a big bit of sharpened flint/stone to the end of a strong long pole and used it to more easily kill animals for food or spear the local tribal invaders?

The OP is garbage. That is the truth. I explained why.

Bye

You said that I know why people wanna prolong their life artificially. — EugeneW

Then copy the quote you are referring to, I don't recall typing that or the context you present.

I dont, so I asked why — EugeneW

Why someone might choose to extend their life was not part of my presentation. I presented future human life extension as 'within the capability of science,' based on the fact that science is the main reason why general human lifespan has been extended. More humans get to 100+ now than at any previous time in the history of our species. That tendency to human lifetime extension is not going to stop unless we go extinct.

Are you afraid there is nothing after this life? — EugeneW

What?? have you read my previous comments on this issue at all?

"I refer you to previous on record comments I have made, on this issue."

Is your certainty the reason? — EugeneW

My certainty about what? that there are no god(s)?
Science attempts to extend and maintain human life and lifespan regardless of the god posit.

What?? — universeness

And that, Stephen my man, is what theists can say as well. I just saw a plane crashed. 135 people killed. In hospitals thousands of people die unnecessary each year. Thousands of maimed bodies by a lefthanded medicine that should be righthanded, Bridges collapse, cars crash, spacecrafts explode, buildings crumble down, animals tortured in the name of, atomic bombs exploded, cancer, zyclon B, technological warfare, Tjernobyl, disappearance of indigenous cultures, depression, global warming, species extinct, natural order fucked up,... should I continue?

The OP is garbage. That is the truth. I explained why.

Bye — I like sushi

:lol: :rofl:
I tried to warn you that the exchanges on this tread would test your exasperation tolerance level but you suggested I should effectively 'mind my own business.'

should effectively 'mind my own business.' — universeness

He/she's right uni! You should effectively mind your own business! :lol:

What?? have you read my previous comments on this issue at all? — universeness

I know I know... Just returning the fear-inspired image of gods you paint. Why should one believe outa fear?

Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. — universeness

Aint that theist?

should I continue? — EugeneW

:rofl: and you lay this confidently at the door of science?
You don't accuse the human's abuse of science/technology. You give them no responsibility for firing the gun, you blame the technologies of science for providing the gun and the bullets.
So, you do think we should have stayed in the caves then, as you blame the inventors of the spear and the spear+ for our 10000 years of tears. yes? and your solution to this human record of technological abuse is to immerse your primal fear of potential human behavior in the protection of god fables?
I thought you were made of stronger stuff than that EugeneW!
F*** primal fears, I will boldly go where no one has gone before, if I ever get the chance. I will be shit scared probably but i will do it anyway! slava ukraini!!!

Aint that theist? — EugeneW

No its pantheist and perhaps if he were still alive, he would have probably updated it to panpsychist.

Then copy the quote you are referring to, I don't recall typing that or the context you present. — universeness

I mean, you said I asked a question I have an answer to.

If you think I worship gods, absolutely no. But they add an unexplainable element to a world where science claims that everything is answerable. Well, it cant explain where the universe came from, but it says we just wanna procreate genes or memes. Life becomes meaningless then.

No its pantheist — universeness

Pantheist is theist also.

He/she's right uni! You should effectively mind your own business! — EugeneW

:rofl:
What's that quote from 'A Christmas Carol?, from Marley's ghost to Scrooge?'
Something like 'The human race IS your business,' something like that anyway!

Pantheist is theist also — EugeneW

It you keep stretching the elastic of your rebuttals EugeneW, they will snap!

and you lay this confidently at the door of science? — universeness

And again... you lay the Christian monstrosities at the door of Christians? Then I have more right to do so. Oppenheimer was involved in the making of the A-bomb. And what to think of Teller, proudly presenting his thermonuclear toy? Oppenheimer thought he had become dead, but after the fact. What about them scientists torturing animals to know how the brain works and even get paid or prizes? And what's so important about finding a small fucking particle at CERN. I can tell them right now without having done one experiment.

It you keep stretching the elastic of your rebuttals EugeneW, they will snap! — universeness

Einstein said: "der Herr Gott würfelt nicht"... How clear can it be?

I’m happy to discuss with Eugene. You appear to be here to poke fun and present yourself in a poor light for some reason.

Congrats!

I mean, you said I asked a question I have an answer to — EugeneW

No, I said that, I think, one of the techniques you employ on a discussion website like this, is to ask 'but why why why? style questions when you know find well, what the response is going to be. It's an old ploy also used by politicians who don't want to answer a question directly. They will dance around with repetition and clarification and will constantly ask their opponent to give more detail on their point etc. All attempts to frustrate and exasperate their opponent so they are compelled to stop their dialogue and make an excuse to discontinue the exchange. This allows the other person to claim victory due to possession of the 'battleground.' You have declared this as your own opinion when you typed that people often make excuses to me that they have to 'go walk the dog' or 'go get something to eat.' etc and you suggest that such excuses are evidence of you being victorious over them. I think this is mischievous on your part.

If you think I worship gods, absolutely no. — EugeneW

I previously asked you about your relationship with YOUR god(s) as did @I like sushi. At last, you have now offered a little more insight. So, you don't worship god(s). It sounds to me then that YOUR god(s) are AT BEST, 'background decoration,' in your life and not as significant as your more emotive postings would suggest. As I said, you are a mischievous provocateur, in my opinion, and an unconvincing theist. You just get a buzz out of 'annoying' atheists. But most atheists are well-practiced at dealing with such. Individuals like Matt Dillahunty would quickly chew you up, in my opinion.

But they add an unexplainable element to a world where science claims that everything is answerable. Well, it cant explain where the universe came from, but it says we just wanna procreate genes or memes. Life becomes meaningless then. — EugeneW

This is just a repeat again so:
"I refer you to previous on record comments I have made, on this issue."

And again... you lay the Christian monstrosities at the door of Christians? — EugeneW

The so-called christian leadership at the time, absolutely yes, they are guilty as are all those 'christians' that took part in a particular atrocity. I don't scapegoat a god fable or nonparticipating Christians.
I judge each atrocity based on those responsible for it alone. I don't think it's valid to project individual atrocities onto the general labels the perpetrator's claim as theirs and as supporting their heinous acts

Then I have more right to do, because Oppenheimer was involved in the making of the A-bomb. And what to think of Teller, proudly presenting his thermonuclear toy? Oppenheimer thought he had become dead — EugeneW

Would you prefer it if the Nazis had produced the Abomb first?
Sometimes you have to get filthy yourself to defeat dirty evil!

No, I said that, I think, one of the techniques you employ on a discussion website like this, is to ask 'but why why why? — universeness

That's the scientist speaking in me! If I knew I wouldn't ask. You presuming me to use that tactic is just a tactic. It's he "fallacy of the vacuous premise to obfuscate and sew confusion to evade the question". A red herring, in ordinary colloquium.

Would you prefer it if the Nazis had produced the Abomb first? — universeness

Without science no A-bomb.

I’m happy to discuss with Eugene. You appear to be here to poke fun and present yourself in a poor light for some reason.

Congrats! — I like sushi

I will file your opinion under the philosophy of Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry.
"Opinions are like assholes, everybody got one!'

Without science no A-bomb — EugeneW

Back to the cave for you then, to cower in the corner at all the scary noises outside.
I won't be joining you.