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]

[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.

[Kitan Etos]

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.