User talk:Mperkel

Science based morality
The concept you discuss seems pretty dubious to me. It isn't really "science based morality" if it is based on a premise that has nothing to do with science. Can you point to any ethicist or philosophers who think the same thing? --Marlow (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

And how does existence vs. extinction have nothing to do with science?
 * Existence vs. extinction is not the premise on which your system of morals appears to be based. Instead it seems to be based on the premise that extinction is "bad."  Science by definition cannot provide value judgements like "good" or "bad."  In any event if this concept isn't something that is at least moderately known outside of your own head, I don't see a reason to cover it here. --Marlow (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually they can because evolution is a property of the universe and if we go extinct then we lose our membership in reality. We become an evolutionary failure. If there is no such thing as right and wrong then there's no difference than believing in God or not believing in God. Why even be rational if there is no good and bad?
 * How is "lose our membership in reality" a scientifically verifiable "bad" thing? Again, I'd ask you to show me some noted philosophers or scientists who talk about "science based morality." --Marlow (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious on it's face? Why is life better than death? Why is truth better than lies? Science based morality is the "holy grail" of Atheist philosophy. it how we show the theists that you don't need God to know what right and wrong is. To say there is no right and wrong makes Christians laugh at us.
 * "Obvious on it's (sic) face" is not a scientific statement. Science does not provide an answer to why you think life is better than death or truth is better than lies.  It is a merely a system by which which organizes the results of testable predictions and explanations.  Sorry but since you keep reverting I'll have to block you from editing the article for a little bit.  --Marlow (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So if there is no such thing as right and wrong then why are you deleting my posts? What makes you right and me wrong in the context that there is no such thing?
 * I never said there's not such thing as right and wrong. I just said that your idea of a "science based morality" isn't actually scientific.   --Marlow (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded on my talk page, but let's keep the conversation in one place. I can see when you respond.  I've pasted your comment and my response bellow. --Marlow (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Restore my content. Your position is reality hostile. Without science based objective morality there is no such thing are objective morality. You might as well talk the whole page down because without science there is no answer to the question. And without science based objective morality the religious people win. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Mperkel / talk / contribs
 * I'm sorry but science does not offer moral objectivity. What kind of experiment would you propose to prove objectively that murder is "wrong"? Science is a tool for discerning what is not with what ought to be. You seem to be struggling with the distinction between relative morality and absolute morality; morality can exist without being objective or absolute. In fact belief in absolute morality is very rare among atheists in my experience.  You might want to read our page on morality in general.  I can also recommend some interesting books if your curious about looking deeper into the topic. --Marlow (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)