Oh it is without a doubt true that different people think different things are ethical. This is easily shown just by considering that different people are at different stages of moral development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

However, this says nothing about whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. Just that if there are, not everyone respects them. Which is a "well duh!" That is true regardless of whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. It's a non-sequitor. Yes, we have criminals and psychopaths and people with behavioral issues and people who just don't have a lot of compassion and all that. That means that people think different things are ethical.

Despite these differences,

"There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commossion of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. The non-aggression principle is considered to be the central principle from which all other universal ethical principles are derived. Most cultures also have some version of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.[2]A practicable Code of Universal Ethics was proposed by Enno Winkler.[3]

There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it's better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society's government or its dominant ideology."

--from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Any person who views evolution as some sort of "God process" instead of a natural process do not understand evolution, by that fact alone.

wrong. if someone doesn't believe in evolution, that proves they don't know what it is. if you really understand it there's no way that you don't believe it. people not believing it is proof that they don't understand it. and that they don't understand science.

it's like 2+2=4. you're statement is like "just because people know math, doesn't mean they believe that 2+2=4"
no. people that don't believe 2+2=4 simply don't know math.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Repu...

Review
* ""Drawing on a growing body of empirical research, he provides an intelligent, nuanced and persuasive account of how conservatives and liberals tend to differ at the level of psychology and personality"" (Financial Times, April 2012)

From the Inside Flap

Why do so many Republicans believe man-made climate change is a hoax? The two most common explanations are that the deniers are uninformed or that they have been bought off by corporate money. Bestselling author Chris Mooney isn't buying either of those arguments. In fact, as he points out, the better educated a conservative is, the more likely he is to dismiss climate change concerns. How can that be?
Part of the answer lies with motivated reasoning—the psychological phenomenon of preferring only evidence that backs up your belief—but in The Republican Brain, Mooney explains that is just the tip of the cognitive iceberg. There is a growing body of evidence that conservatives and liberals don't just have differing ideologies; they have different psychologies. How could the rejection of mainstream science be growing among Republicans, along with the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy, and much more? Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: it's just part of who they are.

Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.

The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance, people more wedded to certainty tend to become conservatives; people craving novelty, liberals. Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are better predictors of political preference than income or education. If you like to keep your house neat and see the world in a relatively black and white way, you're probably going to vote Republican. If you've recently moved to a big city to see what else life has to offer, you're probably going to vote Democrat. These basic differences in openness and curiosity, Mooney argues, fuel an "expertise gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today over what is true.

Being a good liberal, Mooney also has to explore the implications of these findings for Democrats as well. Are they really wishy-washy flip-floppers? Well, sometimes. Can't they be just as dogmatic about issues close to their hearts, like autism and vaccines, or nuclear power? His research leads to some surprising conclusions.

While the evolutionary advantages of both liberal and conservative psychologies seem obvious, clashes between them in modern life have led to a crisis in our politics. A significant chunk of the electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no matter how strong the evidence. Understanding the psychology of the left and the right, Mooney argues, should therefore fundamentally alter the way we approach the he-said-he-said of public debates.

Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Repu...

Read it.

Or prove it. (and/or i should say)

Book description:

Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s Republicans reject reality—it's just part of who they are.
From climate change to evolution, the rejection of mainstream science among Republicans is growing, as is the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy and much more. Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts?

Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas and less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.

Goes beyond the standard claims about ignorance or corporate malfeasance to discover the real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts (e.g., there were no “death panels” in the health care bill).
Explains that the political parties reflect personality traits and psychological needs—with Republicans more wedded to certainty, Democrats to novelty—and this is the root of our divide over reality.
Written by the author of The Republican War on Science, which was the first and still the most influential book to look at conservative rejection of scientific evidence. But the rejection of science is just the beginning
Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.

this "take it figuratively" b.s. is known as "special pleading"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

and "moving the goal posts"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

if you can't see that children are not exactly the same as their parents, not only are you completely blind to observation evidence - ahem, science - but you are quite simply completely blind. period. evolution is so basic observationally that it should be a litmus test for basic sanity. and if you fail that test, i don't think any score on a science test is going to meaningful at all.

oh my god i am so sick of hearing that fallacy! oh, just take it figuratively. when the bible says you should stone children to death if they don't listen to their parents, that's meant to be taken figuratively. oh really? when the bible says the lord commanded someone to eat babies, they meant to _figuratively_ eat babies, right? how the f do you _figuratively_ eat a baby? it really just wows me when people think they can just wave a hand "figuratively..." and suddenly their immune to any rational discourse.

and of course, i don't mean any of this literally, only figuratively. so if you're offended by it, that's only because you're not using your imagination and understanding it figuratively.

smart as in having mental discipline. ability to apply rigorous thinking standards universally. atheists are clearly able to apply more rigorous thinking standards more universally than theists. so yes, in that sense, atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. they are able to apply philosophical skepticism better, evidenced by the fact alone of not being a theist.

republicanism, or conservatism, is just that: not willing to change / adapt, intellectually. liberalism is the opposite: willingness to change / adapt, intellectually. learning and thinking is by definition acquiring new information and altering ones behavior and mental models on the basis of it. by the very definition of liberals and conservatives, yes, conservatives are stupider than liberals. that's essentially saying "non-thinkers non-learners are stupider than thinkers/learners" it's a tautology. and tautologies are yes, inarguable facts.

the question on evolution, as the data shows, is the only question that reveals whether or not you are truly scientific, or simply ruled by cultural norms. that makes it the BEST question on the test. the data shows that if there is only one question on the test, it should be that one.

Also: http://whyevolutionistrue.word...

the only thing this shows is that people who are more religious are more likely to get this science question wrong.
in other words, religion makes you bad at science.
it doesn't show at all whether or not the question is indicative of science.
it just shows that peoples understanding of science is shallow and religion tends to decrease the depth of understanding.

Why in the world would a change advisory board think it knows more than ANY company putting out an update?

if you're looking for average lifespan of a country, you have to actually look at countries that are no longer around. since ones that are alive you have no idea of how long they will continue to be alive. maybe one day, maybe a thousand years. if all the countries you sampled are still around then your sample size - as far as survival time is concerned - is effectively zero. you could assume an exponential probability distribution and try to compose a maximum likelihood estimate based on they all will live longer than they have been around, or on average their expectation is twice as long as they've been around, but still... why make such extrapolations when you can use actual samples from countries that are no longer around?

you can think of it kind of like an ant colony; it lays pherome trails.