Educated conservatives don't believe in science

[cybrsage]

I sure as hell hope that you want us to form our laws based on empathy and the golden rule rather than the bible, because otherwise i shall smite you with my mightiest fart and your death shall be to the glory of the king of kings.

Basically, i can kill you in his name and i'm doing the right thing.

Your ignorance is so powerful it could be used as perpetually renewing energy source for the entirety of the human race.

 

[cybrsage]

The choice to if someone should be killed or not here is not science. The science is the one that tells them how much they will cost, or what is and why they are deformed, along with in the future how to fix that. Even if you had some science that said if someone was going to kill a bunch of people for no good reason that wouldn't mean that science says that they should be killed at birth.

To continue on what I just posted, I think peoples understanding is part of the problem. The science will say one thing, then someone will twist what it says to fit what they want to believe. Or jump to a conclusion that has nothing to do with what the science says.

Now it's interesting and good to think about what could be or what some of this might mean. Plus you can come to good conclusions, it just depends on the information available.

Also just because you think something doesn't mean it's right, especially if you never learned about something in depth. Much of the lack of understanding or not believing in evolution, relativity, and science in general is just lack of basic understanding. Along with their preconceived notions of what they think people are saying, or how things should work, where they could be totally wrong.

Exactly. Science is neutral wrt ethics. How we act once we learn something is based on our ethics and morality.

 

[cybrsage]

I'd like to know what kind of psycopathic individual needs the fear of punishment by a higher power to convince him that killing other people is wrong.

Are you against all forms of war and against defending yourself and your family with lethal force?

 

[dank69]

Are you against all forms of war and against defending yourself and your family with lethal force?

I think war should be a last resort and in most cases there is no justification for starting a war. Defending/countering acts of war is fine.

I think there is nothing morally wrong with defending myself and my family with lethal force, if necessary. I believe it is highly likely I will never have to do so, though.

What is your point? Oh nevermind. You are taking my statement that 'killing people is wrong' as 'killing is wrong people in every situation' which is not my position at all. Maybe I should have said murder so you didn't get confused.

 

[Jhhnn]

But wrt ethics, you are saying that if someone's ethics are based on their religion they are wrong, but if those same ethics are not based on religion they are fine? Just trying to understand.

It's not that simple, nor did thraashman represent it to be. When a person bases their behavior on the threat of eternal damnation, they're acting on the basis of fear, not ethics. They haven't made an ethical evaluation at all, but rather a purely selfish one.

I'll grant that the results can be similar, but claiming that the underlying ethics are similar is less than honest.

Sometimes decisions based on religion run completely counter to truly ethical considerations. History is full of such examples, like the Crusades, the wars of the Reformation, Al Qaeda's terrorist methods & Joseph Kony's LRA, just for starters. There's nothing ethical about murdering in the name of God, at all.

 

[cybrsage]

I think war should be a last resort and in most cases there is no justification for starting a war. Defending/countering acts of war is fine.

I think there is nothing morally wrong with defending myself and my family with lethal force, if necessary. I believe it is highly likely I will never have to do so, though.

What is your point? Oh nevermind. You are taking my statement that 'killing people is wrong' as 'killing is wrong people in every situation' which is not my position at all. Maybe I should have said murder so you didn't get confused.

Ah, ok. Yeah, murder is different. I though you were zeroing in the mistranslation in many Bibles of the Ten Commandments.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

 

[dank69]

It's not that simple, nor did thraashman represent it to be. When a person bases their behavior on the threat of eternal damnation, they're acting on the basis of fear, not ethics. They haven't made an ethical evaluation at all, but rather a purely selfish one.

I'll grant that the results can be similar, but claiming that the underlying ethics are similar is less than honest.

Sometimes decisions based on religion run completely counter to truly ethical considerations. History is full of such examples, like the Crusades, the wars of the Reformation, Al Qaeda's terrorist methods & Joseph Kony's LRA, just for starters. There's nothing ethical about murdering in the name of God, at all.

There is nothing ethical about most religion, period.

 

[cybrsage]

There's nothing ethical about murdering in the name of God, at all.

This is where it starts to get tricky. If someone's god says to do something, as in a direct command written in their holy book, then not doing that command is unethical for a follower of that god...at least when speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and I assume the god of the Mohammed as well). When talking polytheism, things change as they claim some of their gods are evil...so that is a different ball of wax.

By definition, any command issed by God is good. Following such a command is a good act. Of course, a killing would not then be classified as murder, so I am not sure if I am going outside of what you are saying...

Murder is always wrong, and using God as an excuse to murder is committing two sins. However, killing in the name of God is not always wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

There is nothing ethical about most religion, period.

Untrue. Ethics is a system of morality and moraility is the rules of correct conduct. Religion is a set of rules about correct conduct. Therefor religion is ethical by the very meaning of the words.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is where it starts to get tricky. If someone's god says to do something, as in a direct command written in their holy book, then not doing that command is unethical for a follower of that god...at least when speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (and I assume the god of the Mohammed as well). When talking polytheism, things change as they claim some of their gods are evil...so that is a different ball of wax.

By definition, any command issed by God is good. Following such a command is a good act. Of course, a killing would not then be classified as murder, so I am not sure if I am going outside of what you are saying...

Murder is always wrong, and using God as an excuse to murder is committing two sins. However, killing in the name of God is not always wrong.

God issues no commands, even when some people claim that he/she has done so. If God did so, we'd all hear him/her, but we don't, obviously. The notion that God commands people to kill others is pure hearsay. "Moses said"... "Jesus said"... "Mohammed said"...

When some guy down the street claims God spoke to him personally, we figure he's a looneytune. When some guy from the ancient past did so, we figure it must be true, because we've sanctified his pronouncements with religion.

 

[dank69]

Untrue. Ethics is a system of morality and moraility is the rules of correct conduct. Religion is a set of rules about correct conduct. Therefor religion is ethical by the very meaning of the words.

There is nothing ethical about acting good because you fear punishment if you do not.

 

[dank69]

... However, killing in the name of God is not always wrong.

Yes, it is always wrong. Always.

 

[cybrsage]

God issues no commands, even when some people claim that he/she has done so. If God did so, we'd all hear him/her, but we don't, obviously. The notion that God commands people to kill others is pure hearsay. "Moses said"... "Jesus said"... "Mohammed said"...

When some guy down the street claims God spoke to him personally, we figure he's a looneytune. When some guy from the ancient past did so, we figure it must be true, because we've sanctified his pronouncements with religion.

It gets a bit tough at this point. God did issue commands in the past and they were written down in the Bible. As for the present, if someone feels God is leading them to do something and that something violates a command already written down, they are wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

Yes, it is always wrong. Always.

Nope, you are completely wrong in this.

 

[cybrsage]

There is nothing ethical about acting good because you fear punishment if you do not.

Sure there is. Again, ethics is a system of morality and moraility is the rules of correct conduct. Religion is a set of rules about correct conduct. Religion is a system of morality and therefor ethical by the very meaning of the words.

You do not have to like it, but unless you have your own personal meaning of words which are different from the meaning in English, you have to accept it as true. Do I need to bust out the dictionary for you?

 

[Jhhnn]

It gets a bit tough at this point. God did issue commands in the past and they were written down in the Bible. As for the present, if someone feels God is leading them to do something and that something violates a command already written down, they are wrong.

Referencing the "sanctity" of the Bible as God's word is a circular argument. Abraham said God spoke to him, and it was written down. How do we know it to be true? Because it's written down in the Bible, silly.

That's how religion becomes a tool of oppression & control. Cherry picking the Bible can be used to support genocide, and even the most ardent believers reject passages they disagree with.

You're welcome to your Faith, your religion, but don't try to say that it makes sense. People believe what they're taught & what they want to believe in an entirely irrational way. Attempts to make it seem rational merely belittle it. Other aspects of human nature are like that, too, such as love.

 

[RedString]

"Don't trust" and "don't believe in" mean two entirely different things. Your title is misleading, at best.

This.

Murder is always wrong
...
killing in the name of God is not always wrong.

... What?

 

[cybrsage]

Referencing the "sanctity" of the Bible as God's word is a circular argument. Abraham said God spoke to him, and it was written down. How do we know it to be true? Because it's written down in the Bible, silly.

That is why faith is required. That is understood. If really is not possible to prove the unprovable.

That's how religion becomes a tool of oppression & control. Cherry picking the Bible can be used to support genocide, and even the most ardent believers reject passages they disagree with.

Your first sentence is not quite right. It should read "Perverting a religion is how it becomes a tool of oppression & control.", your second sentence supports the change to the first.

You're welcome to your Faith, your religion, but don't try to say that it makes sense. People believe what they're taught & what they want to believe in an entirely irrational way. Attempts to make it seem rational merely belittle it. Other aspects of human nature are like that, too, such as love.

Just like in science, religion starts with a basic assumption. In science, for example, we assume the current rules by which the universe operates are the same as they have been since the formed a little bit after the big bang. In religion, we assume God is real and his holy book is correct.

If having a basic assumption is irrational and belittles religion, then it does the same to science. I am going to assume you have no problem with basic assumptions in science, so why do you have a problem with basic assumptions in religion?

 

[cybrsage]

This.

... What?

Murder is a subset of the set of killing. To say it another way, all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. To show an easy to understand example, brother is a subset of the set of men. All brothers are men, but not all men are brothers.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Murder is a subset of the set of killing. To say it another way, all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. To show an easy to understand example, brother is a subset of the set of men. All brothers are men, but not all men are brothers.

And in your brain killing in the name of God is not murder.

I honestly don't think anyone needs any other reason to put you on ignore.

 

[dank69]

Sure there is. Again, ethics is a system of morality and moraility is the rules of correct conduct. Religion is a set of rules about correct conduct. Religion is a system of morality and therefor ethical by the very meaning of the words.

You do not have to like it, but unless you have your own personal meaning of words which are different from the meaning in English, you have to accept it as true. Do I need to bust out the dictionary for you?

Let me rephrase then. It may conform to your pathetic standard of ethics, but it does not meet my, far superior, standard of ethics. When you are finished wallowing in mediocrity with the rest of the pathetic, selfish and ignorant swine, feel free to elevate yourself to a higher level with the rest of us that don't need a baby blanket to help us sleep at night.

 

[cybrsage]

And in your brain killing in the name of God is not murder.

In the brain of any rational human as well.

I honestly don't think...

This is your problem.

 

[cybrsage]

Let me rephrase then. It may conform to your pathetic standard of ethics, but it does not meet my, far superior, standard of ethics. When you are finished wallowing in mediocrity with the rest of the pathetic, selfish and ignorant swine, feel free to elevate yourself to a higher level with the rest of us that don't need a baby blanket to help us sleep at night.

OK, then I will resort to using the dictionary to explain to you that your "superior" is actually "I lie a lot"

eth·ics

   /ˈɛθɪks/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[eth-iks] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
plural noun 1. ( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics?s=t

mor·al

   /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[mawr-uhl, mor-] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral?s=t

re·li·gion

   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t

I am beginning to think you love being wrong. That would explain why you work so hard at it.

 

[dank69]

OK, then I will resort to using the dictionary to explain to you that your "superior" is actually "I lie a lot"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion?s=t

I am beginning to think you love being wrong. That would explain why you work so hard at it.

Not of that refutes the claim that your standard of ethics is inferior to mine.

 

[cybrsage]

Not of that refutes the claim that your standard of ethics is inferior to mine.

You said this:

"It may conform to your pathetic standard of ethics"

I posted the definitions because it conforms to EVERYONE'S standard of ethics. There is no pathetic or superior standard for what the meaning of ethics is. The meaning of the word is simply the meaning of the word, regardless of how angry and outraged that makes you.

Growl, spit all over your monitor, throw your cup onto the floor in hate, etc., it does not change the meaning of the words one little bit.

You are wrong, simple as that. Easily proven, as I just did.