pop morality

[Athene]

Of course not. 
Do you?

Then why did you use the 'past tense?' Upgraded? This would indicate that you have made the ultimate upgrade and would not need another.

My message simply instructed to not fear or take offense when someone shows you a thought or thinking process different than your own, and not to be reluctant to 'upgrade' if infact that process is better than what you currently use.

Drich, really?

You implied that I might consider "upgrading" from determining what I deem to be moral through my own internal processes, to recognizing the Biblical principles of atonement and redemption .

I then informed you that I was taught to believe in the magical power of redemption, just as you do: In the past, I accepted it as true. Today, I no longer do. I personally consider disengaging myself from the magical thinking that I utilized before, to be a significant improvement; Thus, my usage of the word 'upgrade' in the past tense. 

I'm completely capable of giving serious consideration to adjusting my thinking and approach in regards to such matters when presented with a truly compelling reason to do so. Are you capable of the same?

Or is it safe to assume that it's only right and proper for Drich  to believe that he's made the Ultimate Upgrade?

[dyresand]

We know that both the higgs boson and black holes exist.

Ah.. no. Not even close. They are both still theories. Google it. Black holes Eg: a Gravity well/What sci-fi depicts has this massive whirlpool in space sucking in everything including light, have never been witnessed, probed or even identified. All we have are long ranges pictures of unexplained darkness where we think their should be light. therefore we created 'blackholes.' then someone does that math and it is possible (on paper if 1/2 a dozen other unverified theories hold.) Then we begin to build on them and before long people like you insist on believing in them when in reality their is only as much poof of a black hole, as their is of God. For you, you have closed the gap between verifiable proof of a black hole, and just trusting that 'science' is right with the same exact faith we have in God.

Either way the claim you made that 'science is only about things we can document and verify' is so far off the mark it is not even funny. In the case of black holes I'd be almost willing to bet the farm that you nor I will ever come close to seeing the 'scientific proof' of a black hole. Yet here you are can't distinguish the difference between scientific theory, Science fiction and reality.

Science is the opposite of what you think it is, science is looking at the facts in as dispassionate away as possible, removing all preconceptions.

Then explain the hadron supercolider?
Scientists didn't start out building this multi billion dollar pig in a poke, they started out with several smaller versions, all looking for the illusive 'higgs/boson' or the 'god partical.'
Problem is all the info they collected said it did not exist, which was reinterpreted to say "our equipment is not sensitive enough to record the partical decay." So what did dispassionate science who only looks for facts do? It petitioned several different goverments as well as private and corperate sources to provide funding for the multi billion euro pig in a poke 'supercolider.'

So what did they find after 3 or 4 years of running this POS?

The Same exact thing they found with the smaller particle colliers. They just dressed it us as 'new info' but if you actually read/are aware of what they already have, it is more of the same.

If you don't think Money is not the Primary driving force in science they you are obscenely naive, and deserve to live under a government who funds studies for 'science' to provide you with the catalyst needed for Government to rule over every single aspect of your life.

'Science' may have started out as you say, but those days are long, long over.

What you were thinking about is religion, where people have tried to prove their pet idea that there is a god for millennia, failed and decided  that because it can't be found it must be "outside of science". The answer should have been to throw out the idea.

Open your eyes sport this same measure of Control people used "god" as the supreme authority and control has already been replaced by your god 'science.'
'Science' is the new religion. Look at how it is used to manipulate the things we eat, the products we buy or the products we stay away from. Governments use it to try and even tell us the sky is falling, and the only way to free ourselves from is is to pay a 'Carbon tax.'

You have traded one mind controlling religion for another.

1. Black holes have been proven to exist. Black holes do not suck things in they fall in you could have a safe orbit around a black hole without falling in. We have the technology to find black holes for one oh look evidence of black holes http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/16_rele...10616.html. 

2. Science is far better than that junk  you believe in. At least with science it can be wrong but you know what 
religion can never be wrong because people like you never want it to be wrong. With science sure something can be wrong
but that's a good thing that means we still have more to learn. Religion doesn't teach anyone anything useful in life science
does a better job than religion in that regard.

3. The LHC is particle accelerator something you couldn't possible wrap your head around. Oh the 4 years of running the LHC
they found higgs field and found out what gives particles their mass, it even found new quarks, quark-gluon plama, and others so go fuck yourself with that fairy tale book.

4. Oh science is long over.. um no religion is overdue to die asshole. 

5. Burden of proof you still don't have evidence for god. So again go fuck yourself.

TLDR Dirch go fuck yourself and put away that childish god  belief

[KevinM1]

Something that's really kind of funny is how a lot of theists still view science as this weirdly nefarious, clandestine, dishonest thing that is basically a stand-in for religion, just with a different name.  It's not.  That would be Scientology, which is a particularly despicable form of woo.

No, science is a process.  An incredibly simple and logical one.  Observe.  Question.  Hypothesize.  Experiment.  Apply the results to reality.  Do they match the hypothesis?  If so, is there anything else that the results show?  If not, why not?  Hypothesize.  Experiment.  Etc.

We don't have faith in science.  Science isn't a deity.  We understand and trust in the process, but still realize that it's only as sound as its weakest links - the humans engaging in it.  That's why peer review is a necessary step.  We also realize that the answers science provide are merely the best explanation given the evidence we currently possess.  Science never produces absolutes, which is something that seems to confound those that don't understand it.  It's never "That's just the way it is, period" but rather "According to observation, experimentation, a lot of math, and peer review, this is our best explanation."

But, when you have people who don't understand science, who view it through the lens of religion (binary), and who are more than willing to swallow wholesale what people who have a similar distrust of science say (climate change deniers, Higgs deniers, anti-vaxers, etc.), ignorance perpetuates itself under the guise of 'free thinking' and society itself suffers.

[drfuzzy]

[LadyForCamus]

Something that's really kind of funny is how a lot of theists still view science as this weirdly nefarious, clandestine, dishonest thing that is basically a stand-in for religion, just with a different name.  It's not.  That would be Scientology, which is a particularly despicable form of woo.

No, science is a process.  An incredibly simple and logical one.  Observe.  Question.  Hypothesize.  Experiment.  Apply the results to reality.  Do they match the hypothesis?  If so, is there anything else that the results show?  If not, why not?  Hypothesize.  Experiment.  Etc.

We don't have faith in science.  Science isn't a deity.  We understand and trust in the process, but still realize that it's only as sound as its weakest links - the humans engaging in it.  That's why peer review is a necessary step.  We also realize that the answers science provide are merely the best explanation given the evidence we currently possess.  Science never produces absolutes, which is something that seems to confound those that don't understand it.  It's never "That's just the way it is, period" but rather "According to observation, experimentation, a lot of math, and peer review, this is our best explanation."

But, when you have people who don't understand science, who view it through the lens of religion (binary), and who are more than willing to swallow wholesale what people who have a similar distrust of science say (climate change deniers, Higgs deniers, anti-vaxers, etc.), ignorance perpetuates itself under the guise of 'free thinking' and society itself suffers.

^^^ This.  Perfect.  So simple, and yet so powerful science is.  I wish I could give you 10 kudos for this post.

[Silver]

For example Is Killing babies to you, making a 'positive difference' on society?

Correction:

For you, it is erroneously thought of as killing a baby.

For those of us who are more rational and intelligent, it is the understanding of removing a bundle of cells that could potentially be a baby if it progressed past the point of legal termination via abortion.

Seriously, learn to science.

[LadyForCamus]

Oh, and don't forget food conspiracy theorists! (I'm a dietitian so I have to deal with that shit all the time. It's a constant uphill battle)

[Ryantology]

Now again, to you is killing a baby a "positive" thing?

Depends. Is this fried chicken?

[KevinM1]

That Chick Tract is hilarious and terrible. Jesus certainly wants it to be hot.

[robvalue]

Just gonna shove this in:

How morality works

1) Decide what you think the goals of morality should be. What are you trying to achieve, regarding how your actions affect other people and society as a whole?

2) Try to find the best way to go about achieving those goals.

I find that step 1 is often omitted in morality discussions, brushed aside as "obvious". But what goals are Christians working towards? If we don't even agree on the goals, it's useless argueing about the method. And if they can't even state what the goals are with any coherence, it's similarly pointless.

If we do agree on the goals, it's up to them to demonstrate that "Christian morality" is generally better at accomplishing those goals than secular morality.

Your average person employing secular morality will constantly be reviewing both step 1 and step 2, to try and improve. Religious dogma would have us believe it's better not to review them. Don't ask questions, and don't think about it too much. Just do what we say.