Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That is a sad, poorly considered, boorish remark. You have taken the (demonstrable) observation that there have been some scientists who have behaved unethically and extended it, implicitly, to apply to all scientists. That is illogical, seemingly agenda driven, and comes across as snide. Since you feel ethics is important, do you think that is an ethical way to behave?
Apart from being irrelevant, this is just statistically incorrect. While atheists among scientists is higher than the general population it's still skewed toward those who practice religion.
Do you genuinely believe that atheists are less ethical because they don't believe in a god?
Perhaps disparaging a group out of ignorance isn't the best move.
Most scientists are not atheists, nor would that matter on the question of ethics.
Ethnicity also has nothing to do with anything.
In 1796 Edward Jenner an Anglican, had developed the smallpox vaccine from cowpox.
It's currently a laboratory exercise -- to see if trisomy 21 cells can function normally and not overproduce the products of the genes on chromosome 21. I suspect if it became a treatment it would be applied after diagnosis as infants to reduce, but not eliminate, the impact of that overactivity on further development.
Contrary to your curiously skewed views on the origin and character of atheists' ethics, varied as they, are many atheists hold to high standards. This is arguably even more the case with scientists, whose practice of critical thinking and above average education will tend to guide them towards high ethical standards. I would like to say more, but I am constrained by forum guidelines. I suggest your flawed view is based on a faulty premise.
The famous Milligram experiments suggest otherwise, though that was a select application of resistance to corrupt human authority.
Even the ridiculous disparagement of scientific ethics in post #2 had nothing to do with corrupt orders and authoritarian orders. That isn't how science is organized in the first place.
I don't know why you think we would respond to such an inflammatory claim.
I don't really care as it has nothing to do with this...Simon Sinek cites this experiment in Leaders Eat Last under the Chapter “Abstraction Kills”, and while he has a degree in anthropology and is qualified to discuss this one,
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I do not see why you think the Milligram experiment contradicts my observations. Point me to the data that demonsrate there was more resistance from theists than atheists.The famous Milligram experiments suggest otherwise, though that was a select application of resistance to corrupt human authority.
Belief in God or other religion was frequently cited by study participants as the reason why they would not submit to corrupt human authority and go all the way into the final level of the experiment which was the equivalent of killing someone.
Ordinary life has numerous checks and balances against human (sin nature) corruption: laws, complex political systems, economic systems, and scientific ethics. Strip that away, and eradicate religious belief along with it, and we’re nothing but murderers.
Simon Sinek cites this experiment in Leaders Eat Last under the Chapter “Abstraction Kills”, and while he has a degree in anthropology and is qualified to discuss this one,
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia
In context, however, a negative emotional reaction based on morals is far from warranted here. Would you leave a child to suffer from Down’s Syndrome if the additional chromosome could be removed, letting them have a normal life? I don’t think I would think twice about it. Curing a disease is not an immoral action.
At some point, if the research continues, clinical trials will be required. All clinical trials involve risk. How soon in the process the trials are initiated is an ethical question. What level of risk is considered acceptable is an ethical question. I'm sure there are more.
The claim "many ethical questions, of course" asserted that we should all know that this is something specially ethically controversial in many areas.
