Educated conservatives don't believe in science

[dank69]

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.

Taken from your own posted definition:

eth·ics

   /ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show 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.

Here, I bolded the parts for you that highlight the concepts you have trouble grasping. You see, ethics are nothing more than a type of system, and there are many different systems. Surely you realize that Christian ethics are different than Jewish ethics, and both are still different from Islamic ethics. Even within Christianity there are different opinions on what is ethical.

Now, I understand that you feel foolish now that I have had to explain this basic concept for you, but it's all part of the learning process and I hope you will embrace the knowledge I have graciously bestowed upon you. For now, you can move on to grappling with the reality that you have been following an inferior ethics system (poorly) your whole life.

 

[Jhhnn]

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



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.



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?

Assumptions of Faith are non-verifiable, unlike hypotheses of science.

Again with the circular reasoning wrt the Bible- "his holy book" is an attribution made by people, not by God. It's one thing to have Faith, entirely another to assert it as "The Truth", inflict it on others, simply because one believes that it is.

Of the myriad religions of the world, past, present & future, there is no "reason" to believe that any of them are "true" at all. Faith is a force outside of Reason entirely, and I say that as a man whose life was transformed by an act of faith 25 years ago. Just because I believe doesn't mean that I dismiss the idea that I could be entirely wrong. Even if that transformation were delusional on my part, it was still positive. Faith & Reason are entirely different realms. Only when Faith oversteps its bounds, attempts to usurp the proper role of Science & Reason is there any conflict at all. Ask Galileo.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I've know some hyper-doush-conservatives; but none of them think KillingInTheNamOfGod is OK.

 

[Stayfr0sty]

Conservatives are against science and education cause they want the public to remain stupid and ignorant so they can vote for them.
Just ask Rick Santorum.

 

[Ausm]

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.

But what about Holyrollers who are inherently unethical?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

But what about Holyrollers who are inherently unethical?

cannibalism is a set of rules for correct conduct, there for it is ethical.

Serial killers have rituals that define the conduct that is correct; to follow the teachings and behaviors of charlie Manson, must then, also be ethical.

 

[cybrsage]

Assumptions of Faith are non-verifiable, unlike hypotheses of science.

Had to stop you there. Science uses assumptions as well. A hypothesis is not an assumption.

Assumptions to formulate a theory
This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises—"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)—which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is...

...something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
​

 

[cybrsage]

Taken from your own posted definition:
Here, I bolded the parts for you that highlight the concepts you have trouble grasping.

Did you not highlight the phrase "Christian Ethics", at the end of the group you did highlight, on purpose, or because you knew that it meant you would be foolish in your post?

 

[cybrsage]

cannibalism is a set of rules for correct conduct, there for it is ethical.

By who? Be specific as to what group you are talking about.

 

[cybrsage]

But what about Holyrollers who are inherently unethical?

Your question is nonsensical.

 

[dank69]

Did you not highlight the phrase "Christian Ethics", at the end of the group you did highlight, on purpose, or because you knew that it meant you would be foolish in your post?

Are you ignoring the fact that not all people are obligated to follow christian ethics on purpose or because you know that it means you have to admit you are foolish?

 

[Paul98]

Just because someone is educated in one thing doesn't make them knowledgeable in all subjects. It also doesn't mean that they even understand what they have been educated in. Also being educated doesn't mean someone can think logically. Many people just go through memorizing and have no real understanding, or ability to think about things in a critical way.

 

[Stayfr0sty]

Many people just go through memorizing and have no real understanding, or ability to think about things in a critical way.

Wrong, not everyone is a C average college student that manages to get by, by "memorizing".

 

[monovillage]

Wrong, not everyone is a C average college student that manages to get by, by "memorizing".

It worked for our president.

 

[epidemis]

I can understand the sentiment, there exists a lot of bad science and subjective conclusions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Had to stop you there. Science uses assumptions as well. A hypothesis is not an assumption.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
[/INDENT]

Rhetorical dancing on the head of a pin.

In Science, assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions are ultimately discarded as part of scientific method, or at least such attempts are made as part of the continuous re-evaluation of Science. In religion, they become the Word of God, protected by the concept of Sanctity. Re-evaluation is referred to as heresy.

The concepts of sanctity & heresy are completely foreign to science.

For example, the causes of peptic ulcers were misidentified for decades until the discovery of H. Pylori as the culprit. The entire treatment regimen changed as a result, and an entire medical specialty was decimated. In the realm of Religion, new information changes belief not at all or only over generational time, and the discoverers have been persecuted mercilessly as heretics, their findings pushed aside by the mechanism of denial. In religion, only facts that bolster authority & belief are accepted, the rest rejected as a matter of policy.

 

[piasabird]

According to John, "Everything good comes from God!"

Science is just science. It can be used for both good and evil. Only an idiot makes a blanket statement that says that religious people dont trust science. This is a statement meant to incite Hatred.

 

[Stayfr0sty]

It worked for our president.

You mean ex president Bush....
Obama happens to be very smart.

 

[cybrsage]

Are you ignoring the fact that not all people are obligated to follow christian ethics on purpose or because you know that it means you have to admit you are foolish?

I never claimed all people are obligated to follow Christian ethics. I realize it is far easier to win an argument you invent, but please try to stop doing it as it only makes you look childish.

So back to what I said:

Did you not highlight the phrase "Christian Ethics", at the end of the group you did highlight, on purpose, or because you knew that it meant you would be foolish in your post?

 

[cybrsage]

Rhetorical dancing on the head of a pin.

Not at all, simply correcting your lack of understanding.

In Science, assumptions that lead to erroneous conclusions are ultimately discarded as part of scientific method, or at least such attempts are made as part of the continuous re-evaluation of Science. In religion, they become the Word of God, protected by the concept of Sanctity. Re-evaluation is referred to as heresy.

This shows a complete lack of understanding about religion. We are not to blindly believe what others tell us, we are to read the Word ourselves and (with honest prayer and an open mind), learn and understand. You are stuck many centuries ago, when men perverted religion for their own personal gain. Join us in the 21st century.

The concepts of sanctity & heresy are completely foreign to science.

AGW shows this statement to be false. Also, watch heads spin when someone says that Newton's Universal Law of Gravition has been proven false and should be discarded like the failed theory it is.

 

[monovillage]

You mean ex president Bush....
Obama happens to be very smart.

How good were his grades in college?

 

[ericlp]

Too stupid to understand Science?


Try religion!

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

Not at all, simply correcting your lack of understanding.



This shows a complete lack of understanding about religion. We are not to blindly believe what others tell us, we are to read the Word ourselves and (with honest prayer and an open mind), learn and understand. You are stuck many centuries ago, when men perverted religion for their own personal gain. Join us in the 21st century.

So, having read "the Word", if your interpretation commands you to kill for Jesus, it'll be OK, just like it was a few hundred years ago.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Too stupid to understand Science?


Try religion!

That belongs on a bumper sticker.

 

[dank69]

I never claimed all people are obligated to follow Christian ethics. I realize it is far easier to win an argument you invent, but please try to stop doing it as it only makes you look childish.

So back to what I said:

Did you not highlight the phrase "Christian Ethics", at the end of the group you did highlight, on purpose, or because you knew that it meant you would be foolish in your post?

Why do you still think this discussion is about the definition of ethics? Is it because you want to avoid the actual topic of discussion?