1 Guess that makes me Hindu then.

2

I am impressed Hindus are so into science.  I am obviously the wrong faith.  And where are all these science believing rational Muslims? 

And Catholics vs. Jews, not to much difference, except on philosophy?  All that Spinoza I assume? 

Why no athiest/agnositic catagories? 

3 This explains a great deal since "common sense" is about as common and sensical as Egyptian hieroglyphs translated to pig Latin and then into debased English.

4 If I remember right Hindu's don't believe in evolution, they say that everything has always been here.  They have done alot of study trying to debunk the theory.

5

On the question of what's right and wrong, I think the pussified answer is the 'it depends / its all relative' answer or as they phrase it in the survey 'practical experience and common sense'

6
Fuck this shit.

Seriously, Gabriel, enough with the controversial shit and passive-agressive progressivism.

7 When it comes to questions of right and wrong, I look to the size of my arsenal.

8 Good? Bad? Who cares - I'm the guy with the gun.

What Would Ash Do?

9 As an atheist, I tend to overlook that first column and skip over to experience and common sense.

10 Is a Mainline Christian one who doesn't believe in going to church?  What about Magic 8 balls?  That should have been one of the answer options, I think.

11 I just use my Magic Eight Ball

12 If were to really think on it and answer it seriously, I'd have to start by rejecting  the assumption that my religious beliefs and values are a source distinct from my intellectual reasoning and common sense experience. Strange way to frame the whole issue actually.

13 Scientific information when looking at right/wrong seems kind of silly to me. Science seem to be more of the "can it be done" part of the equation and not the "should it be done" part which is where right/wrong would come into play.

14 So...why is the category "common sense" mutually exclusive from "follow the teachings of my religion"?  To a lot of people, that IS common sense.

How's this going to be spun - that evangelicals, like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, don't believe in common sense?  That believing in the tenets of one's religion as guidelines flies in the face of common sense?

It's just another salvo in the culture war.

15 Seriously, Gabriel, enough with the controversial shit and passive-agressive progressivism.

Heh.

The survey is also perfectly stupid: Science is completely amoral. On right and wrong, science is mute.

16 How about ancestor worship?

17 The survey is ridiculous because it sets up an "either-or" proposition. Faith, common sense, experience, philosophy... most people make decisions based on some mix of these things; not one to the exclusion of the others.

18 I'm a (practicing) Catholic and would have a hard time answering this question because it is a little silly. 

The assumption is that all 4 of these answers are mutually exclusive to a certain extent.  I know that is says "most looks to", but still.  If you don't use all of them to the full extent that you are capable of, then you are missing something. 

The word "Catholic" means "universal", which means that there is one Truth that can be observed across the spectrum of science, practical experience, religious doctrine, philosophy, etc.  And I think a lot of other faiths think along the same lines.

I understand what they are going for here, but the question they are looking to answer can't even begin to be summed up in a poll. 

19 Im with Darling on this.

20 Pollsters should be required to take Introduction to Logic.  I suppose it's fitting that PEW did this survey, because it smells like shit.

21 Am I supposed to put a lot of faith in the common sense of my fellow man?

22
Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with Prop 8.

In other words, I question the timing.

23 It might be a false dichotomy. I've found my faith, my reason, and my experience all to point me in the same direction most of the time.

24 So, if Iponder "I shouldn't kill that guy over there for his Air Jordans", I should look to the scientific method?

What if I think that "common sense" is "common" because the vast majority of Western Civilization shares at least a historical influential religion?

25

Welp.. science didn't score well and philosophy and reason beat it. As it should. Science shouldn't be used to inform your morality (in large.. I mean beyond empirically defining results) because it can't. Science can tell you what IS. It can't tell you whether it's good or bad - merely that it is.

Seems reason and philosophy get their ass beat by everything else though.

Which is unfair. Religion IS philosophy, and also based on reason. Unless you pull your theology out of your ass. Which most people do.... But fortunately they have it handed to them by people who actually thought about it for a little bit.

It's unfortunate people don't think more about philosophy (or even their own theology). But thinking would involve reasoning, and we knew that wasn't happening.

I'm not sure how "practical experience and common sense" even works with that.

Hmm, Bob isn't looking... should I steal his french fries?

WTF are practical experience and common sense gonna tell you?

Practical experience tells us that he'll be pissed if he catches you and won't notice if he doesn't. That isn't morality, it's statistical risk analysis.

Common sense says if I rape that bitch, she'll probably get all huffy about it.

Don't tell me whether or not I should. Common sense might say 'you shouldn't go around raping people if you want to stay out of jail' but again, that's not so much morality as risk/reward analysis, which is situational and also, amoral and callous - and probably based entirely on reason to boot. Bad reason, since they probably haven't actually thought about it and just used 'common sense' intuition.

Which is probably a good thing because otherwise there'd be a lot more rape.

26
Looking to "Scientific Information" for the answer to questions of right and wrong is rather silly. What, after all, is the ethical content of the theory of evolution, or the helicentric theory of the universe?

The fact is that the only political/ethical systems that have claimed to have been built on science were both unscientific and unethical: Naziism, Communism, eugenics in its various forms.

But to answer the question: I use categories 1 and 2 to establish the general principles of ethical behavior, and categories 3 and 4 to determine how to apply those principles in a given case.

27 Yeah I'm calling Pollster Bullshit on the Muslim answers. That's supposed to be the hidden fucking joke right? Like Highlights for AoSHQ Morons or something? Or is this just a case of massive sample bias?

28 Doesn't anyone read chicken bones anymore?

29 Too bad they didn't poll the Scientologists. My wild guess is they would be right in line with the Jehovah's Witness crowd.

30

So, if Iponder "I shouldn't kill that guy over there for his Air Jordans", I should look to the scientific method?

I usually calculate my chances of being caught based on the statistical makeup of law enforcement in that area combined with weather conditions and time of day.  If my theory is correct, I won't be caught and thus I am right.

31 People are more likely to turn to Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists at a clip of 10:1 for scientific info than evangelicals? Excuse me? What kind of crap poll is this?

32

Well, I think for most people any decision involving right and wrong typically occurs outside of scientific info.  For example, have their been any scientific studies on whether tax evasion is 'right' or 'wrong'?  What about shoplifting?  There's really no scientific basis for questions of morality and right v wrong.  People simply default to the only forum that discusses the veracity of rightness and wrongness - their religion.

33 BoB, re: Muslims... you're forgetting that stoning an adulterous or beating your wife would be one of those very convenient times when religious dogma is tangent to common sense! Duh!

34

I am impressed Hindus are so into science.  I am obviously the wrong faith. 

Hindus in this country are not a representative sample of the religion. Take this survey in India and you'll see different results. Over here they are mostly doctors and engineers.

And Catholics vs. Jews, not to much difference, except on philosophy?

Yes, it's surprising that Catholics are so reluctant to look to their faith for ethical guidance. Jews, not so much, although it does not specify if it meant "religious Jews" or not. Sometime the label is not a religious one.

35
Science is completely amoral.

Not when it comes to accepting belief in man-made Global Warming and if same-sex marriage is okay, apparently.

And tax cuts. And illegal immigration. And communism. And stem-cells. And killing unborn babies. And killing Terry Schiavo. And guns.

Funny how "science" supports every single fucking facet of Leftist/Progressive ideology.

36

I try to ask myself, "What would Bill Clinton do?"

 

37 And where are all these science believing rational Muslims?

Same as with the Hindus, the Muslims in the US are the well educated ones. Maybe the Muslim world would be less batshit crazy if all the sane ones did not move here.

38 OT You tax payers living in Kansas...Fox just reported that you aren't getting a state tax refund.  If you work for the state government you might not get paid this month.

39 @36 What would Boy George do?  "WWBGD"

40 Not to mention that, if I am an actual adherent of a religion, it would follow that my sense of reason and common sense was informed by my religious beliefs to begin with.

41

Historically Black

WTF?

That's a religion, or....

I go to a church that was historically black (so you know I'm not a racist)?

I was historically black, but I went south-pacific islander recently?

42 Look, I have yet to face a major decision in life that the entrails of sheep or the coloration of a goat's liver couldn't guide me on.

If you performed your sacrifices with a clean bull instead of just using pigeons and crows, you'd know that.

43 the only thing i can think of in which science plays a role in ethics would be in determining one's own line when it comes to abortion.  other than that, its just some statistical "for the greater good".  triage on the battlefield is one thing, applying that to the populace is different.  science as a moral compass can lead us to things like eugenics and the freakonomics argument that abortion is good for society.
Rather difficult for me to answer as I rarely say "b/c the bible tells me so", but rather say "b/c it is the just/honorable thing" philosophically, even though that is in line with my religious beliefs.  And then practical experience eliminates the veneer of naivete that would normally come with my faith and philosophical outlook - its the height of irresponsibility to allow bad people to continue doing those bad things.

44

What color of goat's liver says, "Yeah, that's cool....go ahead with that shit."?

I also firmly believe you can make entrails/intestines say whatever you want it you have enough them....sometimes in cursive if I'm feeling pretty that day.

45 I'd like to see a breakdown of the Jews responding to the survey.  There's such a vast range between Hasidics and Reconstructionists, you're likely to get very different answers.  It offers just as much insight as a Catholic/"Mainline"/Black/etc.etc. does for Christians.

I'd be interested to see the same for islam, though I understand the various divisions there fall along the lines of "Which of mohammad's ancestors was more badass?" and not anything theological.

46

the only thing i can think of in which science plays a role in ethics would be in determining one's own line when it comes to abortion.

... for verifying the situation or the results.

But you can't actually base anything on that. You can use biology to study what IS in there, and what will happen if you do kill it. But it can't tell whether it's right or wrong to do so.

Science can't even tell you if it's right or wrong to kill the mother, the doctor, the doctor's family, 6 million jews, and a random nun. And then use their skulls to build a palace.

It CAN tell you whether or not the design of your skull palace will be structurally sound, however.

47 The more I think about this survey, the more I understand why it is that it gives me a good chuckle. 

It is common for the secular Left to project its own weaknesses on the Right and often on the religious.  One weakness of the secular Left is their inability to reconcile their scientific knowledge, their philosophical beliefs, their experiences/common sense, and finally any possible psudo-spiritual views with a holistic, singular view of existence and morality.  A good example from today is how scientific knowledge and experience are distorted to conform to their philosophical belief that humans are killing the Earth (global warming). 

The secular Left looks at the faithful like they are animals in a zoo.  They look at them from the outside and observe their actions, but do not understand them at all.  This seems like a very childish attempt to understand just what makes those religious-type-people tick.

48 >>If I remember right Hindu's don't believe in evolution, they say that everything has always been here.  They have done alot of study trying to debunk the theory.

Toad,
The Hindu scriptures talk about how life started, and the theory is not drastically different than evolution, albeit with the claim that God made it all happen.

Educated Hindus take their religion like their alcohol, in moderation.

BTW, most Hindus back home, educated or not, would be more inclined to resort to common sense than religious text. Science just serves to get the empirical data right, before you mull the right and wrong.

49 science is an invalid category, science is only a tool it says nothing about about morals or ethics

50

More likely scenario:

When militant muslims were asked, "When it comes to questions of right and wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance?" they hung the pollster for being a "fag".

51

science as a moral compass can lead us to things like eugenics and the freakonomics argument that abortion is good for society.

Well, no, I mean not even. 'eugenics' or abortion is an example of people using science to get results that are consistent with their morals. Their morals aren't at all based on science.

Science cannot say that abortion is 'good' because it can't say that a million unwated babies is bad in the first place. It MIGHT say that abortion leads to less unwated babies... But it can't tell you whether or not you actually want that.

Science might say that more unwanted babies means more crime... but is crime bad? Do we want more crime? Science dunno. Maybe crime is good and desirable.

Anyone who answers 'science' is a dipshit who's never actually bothered to think about it. It's a tool.

Is a screwdriver moral or immoral? Can you base a sense of morality on what you can do with a phillips screwdriver?

52

#25

well said, i completely agree

53

BTW, most Hindus back home, educated or not, would be more inclined to resort to common sense than religious text.

If there's one thing I've honestly anecdotally noticed from almost all the hindus I've known, it's that I've never met a damn one of them take the religion all that seriously.

It's kinda like "Meh.. yeah maybe. I think that's what I believe happened.. let me ask my mother..... She says 'on tuesdays'. It's just a metaphor."

54 Coin flip, bitches!

55 >> But you can't actually base anything on that. You can use biology to study what IS in there, and what will happen if you do kill it. But it can't tell whether it's right or wrong to do so.

You are correct that science will certainly not give any final answer as to whether any given action such as abortion is moral or not.

But the facts of science can be used in one's evaluation of the morality of any given situation.  For example, concerning abortion, science does tell us that the embryo is its own, distinct human life form.  This is useful information in thinking about such an issue.  From there, we go on to figure out whether or not it is moral to kill it.

56 "Historically Black" would probably be voodoo and Santeria.

57 What Would Crom Do?

58

this is great!

we are finally at the heart of the question here.... what it comes down to is this

if you are a person who has a solid moral and ethical base you don't need government to make you do right

if you are not, no amount of government will stop you from doing wrong 

why? because right and wrong doesn't come from the government

59 Tea leaves, bitches. 

60

This is useful information in thinking about such an issue.  From there, we go on to figure out whether or not it is moral to kill it.

But that's just giving you information on the situation. It don't tell you dick about what to do in a situation, merely what IS the situation.

I mean I agree. But the answer is just a silly answer to say 'science'. Science cannot tell me whether or not to smack a bitch.

It might tell me "Wait, that's not a bitch, that's a mannequin" and then I'm free to smack away.

But science told me what my situation was. That informed my decision on what to do.

It didn't actually inform my decision on whether or not smacking a bitch is wrong, or smacking a mannequin is wrong. The moral reasoning exists completely and utterly outside any scientific reasoning whatsoever.

Whether or not it's a person or a plastic doll, my views on whether or not it's wrong to strike people (and wrong to strike objects) haven't actually been changed by the science or even influenced at all.

61

The poll or survey does seem to have been written by those who assert that Christians are unthinking troglodytes. I am a Christian and I employed as a biologist when I first got out of college. My training in science does not defeat my spiritual faith with 'logic' or 'facts'. I have always thought science points the way to the majesty of God. The same with common sense - the biased view of Christians holds that we ignore rational thinking, common sense etc. and 'go with the answer' that is foolish and irrational out of slavish, blind duty to our faith. It's just not true. Proverbs (book in the Christian bible) is comprised of pragmatic, easily remembered common sense statements intended to promote good day to day decision making. The survey was meant to 'prove' that even we troglodyte Christians 'agree' that our faith is mutually exclusive with rational thinking, lifes experiences etc.

62 I find that for guidance on major events, reading the entrails of a freshly gutted hobo works just fine.  It hasn't let me down yet.

63 Christianity asserts that people are inherently immoral. A position I wholeheartedly agree with having gone to high school and college with people. Moreover, Christianity, having established that whatever sense is common and whatever experience is human must needs be influenced to some degree by the immoral nature of man, attempts to offer guidance that is untainted by man (i.e., revealed by God). If you accept the first premises of Christianity (the immoral nature of man and the means to redemption via Christ) then it's entirely reasonable and logical as a philosophy. Thus when Christians say Religion tells them right from wrong they are implicitly saying Philosophy and Reason guide them. They just disagree with some of the Atheist's first assumptions that Reason and Philosophy follow from. So the poll attempts to establish a false dichotomy for political purposes - obviously. The problem in the design of this poll is that all religions are logical so long as you accept the first premises. That's why they've endured for thousands of years instead of going the way of E.S.T. or other psyche influenced belief systems. Gabriel's attempt to heap calumny on Prop 8 supporters? FAIL. It's not even a very clever attempt, well below par Gabe. Stick with Constitutional arguments and efforts to persuade and avoid your Alinsky's Rule #13 method. You'll make fewer enemies and you might even find a few allies - allies other than Andy Sullivan and his Bug-shit crazy crew.

64 "Common sense" (and its retarded sibling "conventional wisdom") in action: http://tinyurl.com/av927h

65 >> But the answer is just a silly answer to say 'science'.

Exactly.  Frankly I think the people who actually put this poll together are complete moral idiots. 

This points out another stupid thing about this poll.  Nobody actually uses "science" as their only means of moral guidance.  Some idiot might think that he is, because he is a pompous fool who doesn't understand life. 

Asking people what they look for to guidance is not something that people just know off the top of their heads typically speaking.  It would be like asking "What exactly is it that makes you unhappy at times?"  People feel compelled to answer the question somehow, but what use is the answer?

66 Personally, I find the morality of theft can be summarized by two words:  Boyle's Law.

67 Yes, it's surprising that Catholics are so reluctant to look to their faith for ethical guidance.

Speaking as a life-long Catholic? ... No, it's not.  Like many in the Church I was raised in post-Vatican II "everybody can be right," horsecrap, doing prayer painting and singing hymns in Spanish instead of learning proper catechism and historical teachings.  "Feelings" were emphasized over moral absolutes.  And now the American church sits there and wonders why over 90% of the US Catholic population is on the pill.  Well, when the Church isn't emphasized as a moral authority with Christ as the bedrock, of course people going to go to the MSM for life advice.

68 the Bible doesn't teach that human beings are inherently immoral, it teaches that everyone has the choice between morality and immorality, what it could be a little clearer on is how hard it is to be moral and how easy it is to be immoral

69 Entropy you are arguing from a different perspective than what the poll asks. It asks what gives you guidance, not what proves right or wrong.  If a scientific answer provides someone guidance than its not a false choice. 

70

@65  

I agree  --   I know that killing someone is wrong, but I have no idea which one of those choices tells me that.  I just know.

71 I agree with others who say this is kinda' a silly question. Science does not belong in the list of responses, imho (and I'm a scientist). I have to say, I don't quite get how practical experience and common sense enter into determining morality either, unless they mean that the practical experience of being punished for doing wrong when you were a kid informs your world view (common sense). Anyhoo, R.C. here - but I picked Philosophy & Reason. I concur with those who pointed out that a religion like Catholicism is pretty closely linked to philosophy and reason (as opposed to other religions that are more about mysticism). A person's religious views inform their philosophy -- reason is used to determine when philosophy applies (as opposed to when science applies, for example). Atheists and Agnostics should have been included... I would have also been quite interested to see Christian Scientists' and Scientologists' responses. How is this a slam against Prop 8 supporters? Why is Gabriel getting shit for this post?

72 >> Christianity asserts that people are inherently immoral.

I agree with a good deal of what you say, but your first sentence just isn't right.  I don't know what branch of Christianity you practice, so I can't speak to that.  But there are all different kinds of language coming from different flavors of Christian theology that explain the state of Man's inherent soul.  For example the Catholic church teaches that Man has a "tendency towards evil", which is a BIG difference from saying that he is inherently immoral.

73

Nobody actually uses "science" as their only means of moral guidance. 

I agree. I am just going to pick a knit here and say nobody actually uses 'science' as ANY means of moral guidance.

There are both moral and non-moral (amoral) considerations whenever I take any action at all. Should I play ping pong? OK, well morally I find nothing wrong with that - that's one component - but now I ask myself 'do I feel like playing?'.

If science now tells me "Oh, I'm paralyzed I can't play ping pong", that influences my decision, but it did not at ALL influence the moral aspect of the decision.

Science may influence our decisions, but if so, it is because they influence the amoral considerations. They don't even touch the moral ones. Not at all.

The science tells you about your situation which you can then examine in a moral frame. But your moral views on any given situation were pre-existing and you came to your conclusion before you had any facts at all, and that remains unchanged.

74 re: entropy.

what you are getting at is the point I was making - the futility of using science as a moral compass.  It produces absurd things, sort of like how philosophy can do so, that runs contrary to common sense (see Socrates, Plato, Marx, and philosophy majors for examples). 

what i meant in regards to science and abortion would be things like "when is there a heartbeat?", "when is there movement?", "when are there brainwaves", "what about the dna - is it maternal or unique?".  using such things could act as a guide to someone trying to fit their own moral code to what is.

in eugenics (and, in anthropology, cultural evolution), one argues that certain races/peoples are intrinsically inferior to others.  To give an example: africa sucks.  it always has.  and trends suggest it will for a long time.  yet it is rich in resources. and its not like much of africa hasnt been exposed to successful methods of societal organization.  so does that make black people inferior?  does their societal immaturity justify colonialism and a paternalistic attitude toward those people?  if so, eugenics, slavery, et al. are ok, scientifically speaking.  ethically, we are taught otherwise; that each person has worth and we are to determine that by an individual's quality, not superficial reasons.

so I think you and I agree - core morality is rooted in one's personal philosophy/religion.  which makes sense as an ethical code comes from a person's beliefs.

75

Entropy you are arguing from a different perspective than what the poll asks. It asks what gives you guidance, not what proves right or wrong. 

Not really. You're compensating for their dumb answers by 'interpreting' them graciously. And maybe correctly. But still.

When it comes to questions of right and wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance?

It does not ask "what guides your decisions?". It specifically asks "what guides the moral aspects of your decisions?".

76  i'm not try to give anyone a hard time, this is a good thread, i luv it

77 Patently stupid poll as usual from Pew. You put bad data in you get bad data out.

These "questions of right and wrong" are they societal or personal? Is there a difference?
For those of who would answer there is, I think you could easily explain the differences in the denominations. Also, how many would consider their "practical experience and common sense" heavily informed by their religious CONVICTIONS, not just "teachings and beliefs"?
If you don't really understand the religious experience you shouldn't bother to formulate and ask questions. You are doomed to bad data. Ask our soldiers in Iraq. I would venture a large part of the surge's success is due to their coming to understand these things.

78

what you are getting at is the point I was making - the futility of using science as a moral compass.  It produces absurd things

No, though. Just no.

It doesn't produce absurd things - it doesn't produce anything.

If you press the numerical key, and type "Should I strangle this hobo?" into a calculator, you get "ERROR: INVALID FUNCTION".

79 Darling darling,

Science in its correct usage is amoral.

What has happened is that the left has destroyed science as we know it.  Classical Science was based on the Scientific Method, which required full disclosure (raw data, procedures, etc.) so that anyone else would be able to reproduce the study with a high correlation (thus validating the original study).

Too many times with the left a study is made with results that support their belief system (see James Hansen at NASA on global warming) and when the ectual study is requested, you get obfuscation, delays and the eventual "teh science is already settled."

I guess the Scientific Method no longer fits The Narrative™.

80 Science (fiction) all the way baby!

81

So what defines an "evangelical" Christian versus a "mainline" Christian?

If you're a Christian you know that you're called to spread the good news, to evangelize in other words. That's not the domain of just certain denominations or certain types of congregations, it's right there in the Bible, in red-letter ink, all Christians are told to spread the word of the kingdom of God.

I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who applies the label "evangelical" because it means they have no real understanding of what they're talking about, they're just trying to make some strange political point.

82

Science may influence our decisions, but if so, it is because they influence the amoral considerations. They don't even touch the moral ones. Not at all.

The science tells you about your situation which you can then examine in a moral frame. But your moral views on any given situation were pre-existing and you came to your conclusion before you had any facts at all, and that remains unchanged.

Exactly. Science can tell me whether an embryo or a fetus feels pain or not. But it cannot tell me whether therefore it is right or wrong to destroy it. That has to come from morality. I think morality is more primal than religion. Religion codifies morality, but morality does not originate from religion.

83 Entropy,

I think it is obvious that we agree completely, but I want to nitpick a little bit too. 

I use science as a tool to guide my morals.  It is one of many.  As an example, I read an article today about how a scientist claims that hamburgers have huge carbon footprints and so are bad for the earth.  If Science were to indicate to me that this man was correct, then I should decide that it is immoral to eat hamburgers.  But since I know that his claim is dumber than saying the world is flat, I could care less about the "study". 

Science without any metaphysical principles is useless as a moral guide.  But since we do have other principles, it is a useful tool for "guidance".    So really I guess it is a question of wording of the poll.  Again, the people who came up with this poll seem to be moral fools.

84

People may THINK they're using science to influence their morality, and they may SAY that, but they're wrong. They're using science to apply it, but they actually came up with a moral framework before that - completely devoid of any science, and based entirely on something else they haven't identified.

That said, this poll may not be totally inaccurate.

If you told me that 10% of a group walking down the street were outright sociopaths, 66% consistently operated intuitively on their first impulse (created mostly by social conditioning without ruminating on anything ever), and 3% were scared, confused and wanted to go home...

I'd say "Yeah, and?"

85 >>73 >>Nobody actually uses "science" as their only means of moral >>guidance. >/i> >> >>I agree. I am just going to pick a knit here and say nobody >>actually uses 'science' as ANY means of moral guidance. I think I disagree (if I understand the distinction you're drawing here). I think science can be part of the process of determining right and wrong. My training in developmental biology tells me that human embryos are humans, not a "potential human" awaiting some additional external factor or event to make them human. Philosophy and reason inform my position on abortion, but science establishes the truth about the circumstances to which I apply philosophy and reason to determine right and wrong. If science demonstrated that an additional factor was added at some point during gestation -- or at birth -- that changed an embryo (or a fetus) in some fundamental way to make him/her "human," then my position about fetal rights (and abortion) might be different.

86

Quoted from the link: "The answers to this survey explains a lot about American politics, actually.  (But the most surprising thing to me is Pew didn't think to include "Mom" or at least "family and friends" in the list of possible sources). "

Duh... Mom.  At least in my family, Mom's the right and wrong go-to.  And she's made up of a mixture of religion, philosophy, reason, common sense, experience, etc.

What a bs poll.  Right and wrong is not cut and dried like that and those categories are not mutually exclusive.  Besides, what the hell is science doing there?  I could see "scientists," since they have opinions, but science is just information.  What you do with that information tends to be based on the other factors - religion, philosophy, reason, experience, on and on.

87

Pew is a left wing group. Until I had the RAW data and the REAL questions asked, I would file this poll under, BULLSHIT.

Kemp

88 Speaking of which, if there is one question that creates a real moral conflict, it is: "Should I strangle the hobo?". His life? Or my enjoyment?

Centuries from now, philosophers and thinkers will still be debating this without a firm conclusion.

89

Your thoughts are not your own.

90 Stupid poll, I look to the New York Times to know what is right and what is wrong. And I blame Bush for what is wrong. It would be entertaining, though, to know the answer that the owner ('owner' is the culturally sensitive term, right?) of the headless wife gave.

91 Oh, and by the way, I was serious about the hamburger story, not making something up. 

Check it out, everything you ever wanted to know about a bacon-cheeseburger's carbon footprint:

http://tinyurl.com/bksltv

If that study really is correct, all I can say is: sorry mother earth, but you are going down bitch.

92

i guess the next question to be asked is:

are "right" and "wrong" man-made constructs, or do they come from something else, in other words if man creates "right" and "wrong" then does right and wrong change as ppl change, or does "right" and "wrong" come from soemthing less temporary and less changeable?

93

Where is the column for parental raising?

These surveys are all Bullshit anyway.

Anything that starts with "studies" or "surveys" is always BS.

94 How is this a slam against Prop 8 supporters? Why is Gabriel getting shit for this post?

Y-not, you've gotcher three kinds of people:

(1) Folks like Entropy, Dan-O, Tush, and Polynikes who want to have a pretty decent discussion about this thing. The faults of the survey, the numbers, the categories, etc.

(2) Then you've got yer Ash, gator, and Two Face crowd who know how to riff like mad and make you laugh soda through your nose. (Love them.)

(3) And then you've got the folks who are so irretrievably butt-hurt that every damned post has to be about someone else stomping on their poor little selves.

Really guys. This post is not about Prop 8. I posted a damned table of numbers that I got from Maggie Gallagher, fer Pete's sake.

95

I use science as a tool to guide my morals. 

No you don't.

As an example, I read an article today about how a scientist claims that hamburgers have huge carbon footprints and so are bad for the earth. If Science were to indicate to me that this man was correct, then I should decide that it is immoral to eat hamburgers

No. See, you disagree with causality here. That's not a moral component.

You are saying you agree that "killing the ecosystem is morally wrong" but disagree about what kills the ecosystem.

The science now influences your views on what to DO - what does or what does not kill the ecosystem.

But it didn't touch your initial MORAL assumption.

That "killing the whole planet is wrong". No science in that. It informs your decisions on what you do - along with morality. But it does not at all even influence the moral aspect of those decisions. It doesn't touch your moral principles.

You may say "x is good" or "x is bad" because science tells you it produces a result you find to be good or bad. Both are involved.

But the actual moral consideration is done elsewhere - beforehand. What is "good" and what is "bad"?

You can say "poking people with cattle prods is wrong because they might day". Science can tell you they might die. So science can influence your decision when you say "poking people with cattle prods is wrong".

But you're leaving out "because they might die". Poking people with cattle prods is wrong because they might die because that is killing and killing is wrong. That is the moral aspect. "because killing is wrong".

The "they might die part", that's not moral at all. That's amoral. It is what it is. It's observation of the empirically demonstrable. And science influences that.

The moral aspect, "killing is wrong", science doesn't touch that.

The practical aspect, "this might kill", that's not moral or immoral. It's a statement of observable fact devoid of any morality.

So your viewpoint "poking people with cattle prods is wrong" is influence by both science and morality. But the two aspects do not effect each other at all. "they might die" and "killing is wrong" exist completely independantly.

If the science CHANGED, and it was proven that actually, hey, "cattle prods feel good and are healthy", it would change your view on "poking people with cattle prods", but it would not in any way alter your moral view on "killing is wrong". You'd still think "killing is wrong", you'd just think that cattle prods don't do that.

96

After reading the comments, it's clear the only correct answer here is to blame it on the Joos. Pew's got plenty of them.

Kemp

97

This is obviously a anti-semitic poll because when it comes to questions of right and wrong people call me.

98

Opps, sounds like I am an idiot.  Not many Joos, mostly just UFO's.

Pew trust started with DIRTY oil money!! Obviously, the founder would be, like Henry Ford, rolling over in his grave if he knew what his money was doing now.

Read it all:

http://tinyurl.com/cf43aw

Kemp

 

99 Let's rephrase the question and answers:

When confronted with a moral question, which do you look to to answer that moral question, in a moral way, morally speaking?
A) The moral code of my religion
B) What fucking makes sense
C) Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics

100 Newton postulated laws about Thermodynamics?

101 Isn't it the New Age mantra that "science will be like religion, and religion like science?"

I think we're there now, so this stupud poll is meaningless.

The Church of Global Warming, The Church of England, what's the freakin' difference?

102 If you press the numerical key, and type "Should I strangle this hobo?" into a calculator, you get "ERROR: INVALID FUNCTION".

See?  an absurd result.  heh.  perhaps nonsensical or meaningless would be a better word choice.  but as i was trying to get at with the eugenics argument, i dont think statistical optimization would necessarily qualify as a moral choice, but largely stay in the realm of science. (i.e. its something a computer can do, whereas determination of morality and emotion, it cannot).  In an "I, Robot"-esque decision, science would determine it would be statistically optimal to re-enslave or exterminate all blacks, just as it would be an amoral decision to junk a useless piece of equipment.  It was through scientific reasoning that such determinations were made a century ago in anthropology.  but usually science gives no answer at all as it cannot weigh the moral pros and cons of a situation.

103

Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning it's illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world.

Ace of Spades HQ is my "The New Frontiersman"

-Rorschach

104
I am Catholic, which means that there is no conflict between my  religious, philosophical, scientific or practical opinions. They are in conformance and consistent with one another. Any apparent disagreement between and among those is the result of either ignorance or a failure to think it through on my part.

I feel sorry for anyone whose faith or understanding of science is such that they cannot reconcile these things.

105

Historically Black

WTF?

I was getting to that, but I'm still stuck on Mainline.

106 Newton postulated laws about Thermodynamics?

Posted by: Tushar at February 16, 2009 04:00 PM (PTWes)

Fuck I don't know.  I leave that to those engineers that can't get laid.

107 I rely on commen sense and a gut feeling--but that gut feeling was probably ingrained by the nuns beating the crap out of me for every minor infraction in Catholic school.
So, religion too.

108 Same for Reformation Christians, Rosonic: its all part of one worldview, and they all mesh perfectly without any problems. Art, science, entertainment, sex, ethics, politics, humor, everything.

109

optimization would necessarily qualify as a moral choice, but largely stay in the realm of science. (i.e. its something a computer can do, whereas determination of morality and emotion, it cannot).  In an "I, Robot"-esque decision, science would determine it would be statistically optimal to re-enslave or exterminate all blacks, just as it would be an amoral decision to junk a useless piece of equipment. 

That's not a "wrong" moral answer though. There's right, wrong, and 'not even wrong'.

ERROR: INVALID FUNCTION isn't wrong. It's 'not even wrong'. It's not an answer at all.

It doesn't give you wrong or absurd...it gives you squat. Umm.. Uhh... Errr.. Umm.. Uhh... Errr... Uhhh.. (repeat to infinity).

If killing 1 million people today saves 80 million over 80 years, is it immoral?

Depends on your moral views.

Is it impractical?

Depends on the science.

But the two don't actually touch each other.

Here's the point, I guess : You CAN operate strictly morally, and ignore science and reason. You're deluded and you'll fuck up everything, but you can do it.

You CANT operate strictly scientifically. Because science gives no imperatives. "More effecient"? For what? Science doesn't tell you to seek effeciency. Effeciency at what, anyway? Science doesn't tell you to do jack squat. It's not "I, Robot" it's more like your Core2Duo desktop.

So no, robots CAN'T exterminate 50 million people for efficiency's sake. That's fiction. In reality they only do what you make them. They do what you make them, because you make them. Not for "efficiency", no, but "because you told them".

Your desktop is purely rational. As such, it sits on it's ass and does jack shit all day until you tell it exactly what to do. And then it does exactly that and tells you exactly what it comes up with. There's no impulse to act on anything. There's no preference for anything in pure logic.

What is, is. Is. Before you can logically determine how best to slaughter 50 million people, you have to have something you want to slaughter 50 million people for. And that isn't logical.

Eating is not purely logical. Science can tell me, if I do not eat, I will die.

So what? Science doesn't tell me "don't die". So I sit here, say 'if I eat, I live, if I don't, I die' and then I go "hmmm. Well now I know" and do absolutely nothing.

And die.

Science can tell me how to stay alive but won't give me any reason to actually do it.

110 Im a protestant evangelical who goes to church a few times a week but Im sick of this moral relativity that we have.  The entire idea of "everyone is wicked in gods eyes so we shouldnt judge totally drives me nuts."  I mean I was talking about terrorists and they said, but were wicked too why should we judge them.  I got insanely ticked.   There is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished.

111

So I mean... maybe I have a hard time conveying what I'm trying to say.

We can say, rationally, "killing 5 today saves 50 tommorow" and use science to tell us that. And then do it.

But the science doesn't tell us "value human life" in the first place.

You have to have moral assumptions to begin with. Or why do you care? Why is it GOOD we save 50? To kill the 5, first, me must want to save 50. For that, we must put some irrational value on human life with no basis in science. Otherwise we go "hmm, well now we know" and do nothing because we don't actually care enough about anything to affect any of the changes we figgured out how to.

It will tell us "what" or "how" but not "why bother".

You can say:

Well, Entropy, rationally, 50 humans will produce more widgets then 5 humans so it's logical to save the humans even if you don't value life because you'll get more widgets.

Who told you to value widgets?

112

Warning. Thread killer coming up. Prepare to be bored.

The truth is this survey is unsound. It does not really attempt to answer the question it asks. Anthropologically speaking, the values that a person passes through life with are learned through culture. In the USA, there are various sub-cultures, but the truth is there are two cultures in the USA. There are traditionalists and there are progressives. The world view of most traditionalists is historically framed, which means that they have pretty much listened to the great voices through the Ages that have helped shape Western Civilization. The advantage of the traditionalist approach is that one can benefit from the wisdom of the ages, whether it be Socrates through Plato, or Jesus and Paul.

Progressives on the other hand are mostly postmodernists. They do not understand any truth to be absolute. When pressed, they will tell you that truth is only meaningful to the individual, and that it will change with the person. So it is not uncommon to hear "you have your truth, I have mine." The problem with such a statement is that truth basically becomes meaningless. If truth has no meaning, then a valus is a value of the moment only.

In the end, the traditionalist will answer with all of the above. A progressive will answer with, "What's a value?" Then he will try to convince himself, and you, that he is informed by all of the answers, only he does it better and more intelligently than a traditionalist.

113 It's Buuuusssshhh's fault

114

Pew is a left wing group. Until I had the RAW data and the REAL questions asked, I would file this poll under, BULLSHIT.

Why? I say again:

If you told me that 10% of a group walking down the street were outright sociopaths (I use science for cost/benefit analysis and have no moral component whatsoever), 66% consistently operated intuitively on their first impulse without any contemplation  (common sense), and 3% were scared, confused and wanted to go home (don't know/can't answer)...

I'd say "Yeah, so?"

115 Human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirits, gods and monsters, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods.
Religious ideas are common to all cultures: like language and music, they seem to be part of what it is to be human. Until recently, science has largely shied away from asking why. It's not that religion is not important, it's that the taboo nature of the topic has meant there has been little progress.

116 Trust in The Force to guide, I always do.

117 Sometime the label is not a religious one.

Hey, that goes for the Catholics too. I'm always surprised how many acquaintances tell me that they're Catholic, then, for example, let slip that they haven't been to Mass since Christmas. (Sunday Mass every week is a binding obligation for Catholics, btw.)

I try to be gentle toward my co-religionists, but dang, cultural Catholics annoy me to no end. And they seriously skew the results of these types of polls.

Considering how many Catholics supposedly voted for Obama, I guess it's not all that surprising that only 22% look primarily to their religious teachings for moral guidance. (Although I do agree with prior posters that Catholicism blurs the line between religion/philopsophy/etc.)

118 Me too,Yoda. Intuition is the starting point.

119

sickinmass,

The assumption of your statement leads me to believe that you think religion presents itself as a mystery. I will suggest that when you look at the Bible, the desire of the entire book is not to enshroud itself in a cloud of mystery, but to reveal God. I am not talking about whether you believe in God or not. I am just saying that the Bible consistently explains why it says and does things the way it does them. The question of what does it mean to be religious and what does a religious person do has been studied to death in a variety of ways, anthropologically, psychologically, theologically, philosophically. I would imagine that you will be disappointed if you look for an agent or a gene that predisposes some to be religious and others to not be so. In the end, it is a choice that we all make.

120 I am uncomfortable with religion (or anything else) that tries to address ALL aspects of human existence.

Islam dictates which day of the week to take a bath, for fuck's sake.

That kind of all-in-one is worse than a TV+VCR+DVD player.

121
I blame the Amish.

122 I blame the Amish Canadians.

123 I think we should totally kick their asses.

124 >> I am uncomfortable with religion (or anything else) that tries to address ALL aspects of human existence.

Well, if a religion doesn't (in a broad sense) address all aspects of human existence, then it isn't much of a religion.  If the assumption is that God created everything, and religion is meant to speak about God, then you are sorta addressing all aspects of human existence.

That is not to say that all religions need to micro-manage your life, i.e., your example about Islam telling you when to take a bath.

125

Seriously, Gabriel, enough with the controversial shit and passive-agressive progressivism.

My husband the minister keeps wondering why I'm always so focused on politics.  I tell his that politics is enmeshed with every facet of our lives.  The same goes for religion.  If you don't believe it, just watch t.v. or watch/read the news.  In fact one might wonder if politics and religion are the same.

126 For many on the left, politics is their religion. It demonstrably functions in the same way. As for me, my concern in politics is that I want the USA to be the best country possible. Unfortunately, we are currently going in the opposite direction.

127

I tell his that politics is enmeshed with every facet of our lives. 

Unfortunately.

128

As for me, my concern in politics is that I want the USA to be the best country possible.

I just want the USA to get off my dick.

129 105 "Historically Black" probably refers to churches (mostly Methodist and Baptist) that split off from mainstream Methodists and Baptists in the early 19th century-- like the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (AME Zion) for example. These churches grew rapidly after the Civil War, for obvious reasons.

"Mainline" refers to Protestant denominations like the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Baptists, who have a central structure (polity) of some sort (bishops, presbyteries, districts), require clergy to have a seminary (post-college) education, and were brought to the United States by European immigrants (i.e. they did not start in the U.S., like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses).

Hope this helps.

FWIW, I notice that the survey didn't have a category for Worshipers of the New Messiah.

130 dan-O, that is what I mean. I am OK with religion telling me that murder is wrong and don't covet your neighbor's wife or his ass.

I don't want it to tell me whether the designated hitter rule is right or wrong.

131 I will bet that you want the USA government to get off your dick. I did not say I want the Usa government on top of everybody. I said I want the country to be the best it can be. For me, that has everything to do with freedom and throwing all this socialism and communism overboard. It is ruining the country.

132
The implication is that Christianity, with their draconian beliefs and repulsion to science, is holding back progress in the United States.

This is, of course, bullshit. Could America have advanced this far and this fast without Christianity? No.

From where have most of the technological and medical advances originated? The United States of America.

Europe, the Scandinavian region in particular, is generally secular. Why aren't they making advances in medicine in leaps and bounds since they are not restrained by pesky religious beliefs? Why haven't they made significant discoveries and cured illnesses from stem-cell research?

Besides sex-change surgery, which they still can't perform perfectly, what has secular Europe given the world in the way of significant medical discoveries? Show me the evidence that Christianity is holding back the world from their greatest human potential. Until then, I'll keep believing and keep believing that the world is better rather than worse with the presence of Christian values.

133
This post is not about Prop 8.

You're full of shit, Gabriel.

You're not clever enough to fool the AoS morons.

134 I'm surprised that anyone would say that science can give them any answers as to what is right or wrong. I say this because I imagine that most who "look to science" believe in the theory of evolution in which case there really is no right or wrong, just survival of the fittest. Animals don't have a conscience and to them, that's all we are. But Bill Cosby sai it very well a long time ago; "There's no such thing as athiests because, if that ground shakes, you're gonna look up".

135

#132

The truth is that many of the ideas that we cherish such as the worth of the individual are based on biblical beliefs that were in direct opposition to cultural beliefs of the time, such as the divine right of kings. In the eighteenth century, royalists were claiming that God made George the king because he came from superior stock. The revolutionists rightly said that was hogwash and then opened their Bibles to prove it.

136 Darling, what the hell do you think this post has to do with prop 8?

Everybody knows that Gabe leans left on certain issues, so I don't think anybody is at risk of being fooled by some hidden maniacal agenda he has.  He linked NRO.  Take it easy dude.

137 I don't want it to tell me whether the designated hitter rule is right or wrong.

The designated hitter is a sign of the apocalypse.

I am uncomfortable with religion (or anything else) that tries to address ALL aspects of human existence.

I agree with a caveat: there's a huge difference between Islam's "we have the answer and rule for all of life" and the recognition that someone's worldview and philosophy clearly influences and shapes every single aspect of their life, no matter how trivial.

For me, understanding that I am a sinner saved by the doing and dying of Jesus Christ changes everything not merely ethical decisions. It shapes my entire understanding of the world, from the smallest thing to the most critical and wide-reaching.

Yet that's true of everyone, it's just that most don't recognize it, they are lacking in the self examination required to know that.

Your worldview is the basic understanding of all of life that shapes the answers you give to every question, from "what color of shirt should I wear" to "why is there evil in the world?" It is the unspoken presumption, the basic ideas of life that you never question but assume.

138

"I just want the USA to get off my dick."

"I am OK with religion telling me...don't covet your neighbor's ass."
Really guys. This post is not about Prop 8, controversial shit and passive-agressive progressivism.

Everything is still written in code--but it's getting easier to read the code. 

 

139 comatus, you misunderstand me. I was selectively quoting from the scriptures:

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field or his male servant or his female servant, his ox or his ass or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

140 I was actually using this whole thread as a metaphor for gay sex.

141

Entropy said:  "People may THINK they're using science to influence their morality, and they may SAY that, but they're wrong. They're using science to apply it, but they actually came up with a moral framework before that - completely devoid of any science, and based entirely on something else they haven't identified."

But still, it's interesting that a significant percentage of people think their idea of right and wrong (which may or may not be quite the same thing as "morality") is science-based.  And more interesting that it varies by religious identification.

142 >>But still, it's interesting that a significant percentage of people think their idea of right and wrong (which may or may not be quite the same thing as "morality") is science-based.

denise, I am quite sure that a large number of people who answered 'Science' would change their answer if given more time to think about it. A 'WTF, dude?' from Entropy would have the same effect.

143

 

Whatever you do, just dont mention that homosexuality is a genetic dead end.

It's a thread killer.

 

144
Well if this poll were given to government officials in Washington D.C. I suspect one would see a big spike in the "Refused" column, synonymous with "Whoever lines my pocket."

145 When The Force is elusive, it's always good to have a big light saber.

146 Well it's a slightly stupid question. It's like asking do you look for guidance in your parenting style from the government. Well., yes you make sure you don't do anything illegal, but other than that you figure it out yourself. In the same way, when me as a Concenred Evangelical, when deciding my dating practices, I first look to the Bible, which basically only says don't fornicate, then I look below that, because the Bible doesn't really meddle in the specifics of those kind of things.

147 The 10 commandments are not a multiple choice.
Sometimes  we are so caught up in who's right and who's wrong that we forget what's right and wrong.

148 The who versus what is a good point. If you are asking who, you just want to balme someone.

149 Well it looked like blame and I am only drinking root beer.

150 Ha!

151 Our forefathers created one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. These were men of high ideals, spiritually guided and inspired to create a nation and a civilization to be admired and respected, to set an example for the rest of the world. In exercising their free will under the guidance and direction of the Almighty, they created a Constitution and a Bill of Rights for every man, woman, and child, to live in freedom and in the pursuit of happiness. Over time, these high minded and spiritual men were soon replaced by others who, in the exercise of their free will, chose to put their egos and the greed for money and power before the Almighty and joust with His plans. We seem to have become a nation further and further from the spirit and influence of God. We have created sciences and philosophies to support activities that only recognize man's earthbound realities, but refuse to recognize the spiritual nature of man himself, and refuses to recognize even the existence of Almighty God.

152 We are members of the human race, universally created by God and given individually a free will by divine right, and we would not wish to have it any other way. Look back through history and you will find that every little act of free will that was not in accordance with God's plans, multiplied in its impact and its negativity on the future of man. Simple acts of aggression multiplied into acts of war between nations and world war. Acts of greed multiplied into human suffering and starvation. Acts of destruction of the environment of earth has multiplied into destructive forces of nature, earthquakes, floods, pestilence, nuclear destruction and nuclear waste. Acts of violence have escalated into acts of murder and the extermination of ethnic people for their appearance or beliefs.

153

Sick, well said. I personally believe that as a world civilization, we are no different from the nations around Jesus' time. We just have better or worse technology, depending on how you look at it. 

I think we are at a pivotal moment in history and a lot is riding on what happens over the next few generations. I believe that science and religion are intertwined and the sooner we get that, the better.

The sad part about humanity is that it's easier to create enemies than to make friends.

154 Where's the column for "Makes My Dick Hard?"

155

We are members of the human race, universally created by God and given individually a free will by divine right, and we would not wish to have it any other way.

That can spill over easily into one-world globalism and kumbaya "we are the world" sentiments. At least it did with Bush.

156 And your point is?

I personally believe that as a world civilization, we are no different from the nations around Jesus' time. We just have better or worse technology, depending on how you look at it.

People are just people, we aren't better or worse than the past people. We aren't smarter or dumber. We're just people. I believe traveling time would be shocking to a lot of people just because people would find out how little difference there really is.

157 Embrace the Dark Side and you'll never have to pay taxes again!  And if you already don't pay taxes, you'll get a rebate check courtesy of the suckers who do.

158 Speaking as a cradle catholic, my 'common sense' pretty much reflects the teachings of the church.  Some people have it in their bones.

159

I haven't read through all of the posts, so I'm sure I'll be late to the party..but:

I would use science to inform but never decide questions of moral right or wrong.

Religion, philosophy and common sense inform my decisions because they  all  flow from the same well. Modern day secularists regard them as separate things and how's that worked out for us? 

160 Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

161

We're just people.

I agree. That was the point.

162

"Common sense" presupposes that we all have the same moral compass and think alike.  And what the hell is practicality?  One man's practicality is another man's assbackwards way of doing something!

Anything based on human thinking is not pin-downable.  Practicality and "common sense" are open to all kinds of definitions.  What a joke.  I would never base my decision on something so vaporous.

Philosophy and reason is the same sort of deal.  Lots of artists who followed philosophy and modern man's reasoning committed suicide or lived in terrible despair.  And look where the world is today.

 

163

Acts of destruction of the environment of earth has multiplied into destructive forces of nature, earthquakes, floods, pestilence, nuclear destruction and nuclear waste.

Bleh.

164

Philosophy and reason is the same sort of deal.  Lots of artists who followed philosophy and modern man's reasoning committed suicide or lived in terrible despair. 

WTF?

165 I use lace wigs to decide right and wrong. They save me from bitter searches.

166

Science and reason are the way to go. The French revolution was delightful wasn't it?

Any science and reason fans out there would do well to look at global warming -  climate change, sorry. If they are making that up what else might they be making up for similar reasons?

5000 years of compounded human experience and wisdom (the Bible) shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

 

167 I hear you Christopher. This was/is a good thread to read! Thanks morons..

168 I agree Ralph..
We have taken God out of government, out of our institutions, and out of our schools. We have done everything we can to deny His existence and now we find ourselves in a world filled with wars, hatred, starvation, and death, and we do not seem to understand why the rest of the world does not follow our shinning example. We appear to be a nation at war with itself, filled with hatred, prejudice, crime, drugs, and murder. When we look to the Almighty and ask why these things are allowed to happen, we do not hear His answer, but are we really listening? I believe that God brought about the creation of our nation of high ideals for us to survive other empires and civilizations that have crumbled into oblivion when their leaders placed themselves above God, and now they are piles of dust or buried under the waters. I also believe that the Almighty is trying to get our attention by permitting chastisements to visit us in the form of storms, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, fires, etc. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that the pace of these incidents have quickened in recent years. Doesn't it seem logical that we, as a people and a nation, are being asked to return to the realistic and spiritual ideals that our forefathers gave us and we once had?
Just askin'.

169

Sickinmass,

That's for agreeing unfortunately I can't agree with you. I used to. I no longer do. Revelation 13:11 is the reason. To me we are definitely the lamb speaking like a dragon. My own obeservation guides me in this. We aren't the same as we were. It's not getting better. We are becoming facist. I hope it can be reversed but I doubt it. That's not just election gloominess either. The American style compromise between socialism and capitalism seems to be facism.

170

Entropy,

Just read #95.

Well said.

171 @36: a woodpile, if he thought there might be a snake in it.

172 169.. 666 (gubmint with the help of verichip)

173

Come on Ace readers..I cannot believe my eyes.

No one has mentioned that the most important method is missing...the WWOD...

What Would Obama Do?  That is the extent of moral questioning of far too many of our fellow Americans. I presented exhibit A...The "Stimulus Plan".

174

All I know is that the next time I am in a philosophical discussion, can Entrophy please come along as my back up?

175 Alasend Password Manager, as a professional automatic login tool, can remember and manage Google Password Manager almost all passwords on your computer including messagers (ICQ, MSN), files (Word, Excel, PDF, ZIP, RAR), Web Password Manager websites (Yahoo, Google), emails (Hotmail, Gmail), and games (WOW, Warhammer). Password Keeper

176

Blu Ray Burner>||<M4R Converter For Mac

177

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on