I agree, that’s why I think of science and technology like money. It is a means to an ends and nothing more.
So why are you asking them to develop an ethical system, you idiot?
Any concept of “merely a means to s&m end” that includes science would also include religion.
I think the last two words of this question answer the question itself.
A means to s&m end? Whole different thread.
Hell, you could be in a different business by next week, at whatever board you feel like trolling next. May I recommend, Astronaut?
Atheists, please check my work: atheism’s coherent philosophy is that gods don’t exist.
Huh. I thought pchaos had been banned. His trollery was pretty obvious early on.
BTW, I can often actually understand kanicbird, but I can’t understand this guy.
If this a recommendation, remind me not to include you as a reference when I reapply for a moderator’s job on the SDMB.
Autocorrect strikes again!
kanicbird sometimes makes sense if he’s not talking about anything that he can tie to his spiritual weirdness. Otherwise I am sure he’s schizophrenic or has some other disease that causes hallucinations. pchaos is just stupid and plays stupid-er when he’s not getting his way.
What is the Pit moderators’ standard on trolling? What would one have to do for the Pit moderators to even consider trolling? Just asking in a harmless manner…
I was thinking of it more of “the last straw of evidence needed” sense - not that his actions here are particularly trollful - just that they show that even here, he can’t help himself.
I reject by religion and philosophy. I have no use for either. Why is it you think we should be trying to come up with a “coherent philosophy?” My days are plenty full enough without another meaningless task.
Naw, see, we tried about 15 pages of that already. Pchaos insists atheists, as a group who clearly are required to agree on everything together, have to have something more. Have to. He insists. He even offered to start a church for us, over our objections that, hey, we’ve got nothing to worship, so we don’t need a church. Since his words mean what he means them to say and nothing other, we’ve gathered that when he says “coherent philosophy,” he means “incoherent nonsense.”
Because theists like Christians and Muslims agree on everything. They never fight each other or murder each other over piddling differences in dogma.
Oh, dude. You mean the coherent philosophy where Jesus charged them to tell no one of the gospel (Mark 8) and where he said he came to bring not peace but a sword (Matt 10)? You mean that philosophy?
And my favorite, the bit that says “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels” (1 Cor 11) ?
I’m not an atheist, and I consider myself Christian, and I try to by-and-large live by the NT myself, but I don’t think any kind of rational, reasonable human being could possibly cite the NT as a coherent philosophy.
Oh wait.
ETA: To answer your question, I read Jean-Paul Sartre (whom I assume was an atheist) in college, and I thought his philosophy was quite coherent and logical. I also disagreed strenuously with it and thought it was crap, but hey, that’s not the question that was asked.
I see. Until now, I would have guessed that atheism is one of the easier to grasp -isms.