The Limits of Religious Belief

They are basic tenants of 'most' societies, not all. Yet, they were basic tenants of 'most' religions before any of those societies existed.What other "social animal" besides humans acts based upon a moral (or religions) principle? What are you talking about. Of course they are religious precepts. And they are moral precepts. Morality and religion are two different things, but they both have been heavily influenced by each other. In the same vein, the same could be said of religion. I guess it depends on the religious belief and the moral belief. You seem though to be assuming that the moral belief you cited is necessarily superior to the religious belief. Why is that?And what religious belief is against "vitally needed emergency care for pregnant women"? I hope you are not pointing to your example in Message 7, cause there was nothing in your whole rant that pointed to the decision being a religious one. Despite all that, why would your morality be any better than ICANT's or Ken Paxton's. So what makes them "obvious"? Never said it was the ONLY reason. Just hinting it is a major, contributing one.So my question for you all is: What is the basis of your supposed religion-less morality?

But it's a vastly important similarity. The key question is whether the public in general should be governed by the beliefs of religious groups they don't belong to. Some American Indian tribes have religious beliefs that burying human remains on the moon would be desecrating and wish to impose that belief on everyone else. And some religious groups believe abortion is murder and wish to impose that belief on everyone else. If you think abortion as murder is not a religious belief, perhaps you should have a conversation with ICANT who describes how God feels about abortion, for example: --Percy

quote:

---

Never said it was the ONLY reason. Just hinting it is a major, contributing one.

---

It isn’t. ( Indeed, in the case of Crestionists and ID supporters religion seems to promote dishonesty. Perhaps you would like to explain that?)​

quote:

---

So my question for you all is: What is the basis of your supposed religion-less morality?

---

Are you changing the subject? Law is not the same as morality. Surely you know that much.

There are many examples. There's a video on YouTube that shows a buffalo helping a tortoise lying upside-down. With its horn the buffalo flips the tortoise and then goes about its business. It has nothing to gain from helping the tortoise, so why it does it is anyone's guess, but it seems very much like a moral act on the side of the buffalo.Another example of morality in non-human animals is the indignant reaction of a monkey that gets treated unfairly. That's another video on YouTube, you can look it up.The primatologist and ethologist Frans de Waal has studied the phenomenon of moral behaviour in animals. You can take a look at his TED-talk. In it, that same monkey is featured. The previously mentioned examples should suffice, unless you think that these non-human animals are religiously inclined. But other than that, the age-old precept of "Treat others as you would like others to treat you" is probably as good a starting point as any. (By the way, it is noteworthy that this adage does not figure anywhere in the Ten Commandments, which in my opinion makes them rather lame.)

Hi Tangle, I don't think so. I have been preaching for 63 years I have never tried to coerce someone to accept my God.The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 failed to obey one rule that he was given and so by that disobedience sin entered into the universe. Thus everyone who has followed on the earth is condemned to a devils Lake of Fire.So when God created mankind in Genesis 1:27 He gave them a body mind and spirit. The body is carnal the mind is where the choices are made. The body wants to do all kinds of things the spirit (which most call a consciences) tells man what is right and wrong. Then the decision is made in the mind. mankind has the ability to choose which he will follow the body or the spirit. Whatever decision man makes is OK with God. He just would rather everybody choose to follow the spirit. But He allows mankind to make any choice they choose to make. He could have created mankind like the angels, and they would not be able to choose what they want.But that was not what God wanted. He wanted something He could love and they could choose to love Him back, so He created mankind and gave them the ability to make that choice. He loved us enough to come to earth go to the cross and shed His blood so we could receive a full free pardon.You and many others here have made the choice that God does not exist, He is a Myth that is OK with me. I just want to make sure when I type something about how you and others can go to heaven I get that right. That is why I quote Jesus when He says "ye must be born again". That is accomplished by believing God is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. When a person does that and trusts Him to give them eternal life they have it at that moment and anytime that a moment becomes now.Some of the other things I talk about are speculative just like the BBT and and evolution are. No one in science knows where the material that the universe was created out of began to exist. According to science energy and matter cannot be created. They can be manifest in either form. But where did it come from? Science says we don't know so it has to be assumed it just did and we will go from there. That is not science. What is the origin of life on earth. We don't know but we assume some chemicals or something got together and life was formed. We can not prove that is the way it happened so we will assume that is what happened and we will go from there. That isn't science either.If I remember anything from my science class it is that anything that cannot be reproduced in a Labatory is not a fact. Then maybe I was taught wrong.Tangle just remember that people do whatever they want to do. If they want to kill somebody they will. If they want to get drunk and get in a car and drive it a 100 mph they will. Everything we do outwardly is because of the choices we make. An remember people do what they want to do always. I can't change them and neither can you.

ICANT:

---

I don't think so. I have been preaching for 63 years I have never tried to coerce someone to accept my God.

---

What's your hobby got to do with anything?

quote:

---

So when God created mankind in Genesis 1:27 He gave them a body mind and spirit. The body is carnal the mind is where the choices are made. The body wants to do all kinds of things the spirit (which most call a consciences) tells man what is right and wrong. Then the decision is made in the mind. mankind has the ability to choose which he will follow the body or the spirit. Whatever decision man makes is OK with God. He just would rather everybody choose to follow the spirit. But He allows mankind to make any choice they choose to make. He could have created mankind like the angels, and they would not be able to choose what they want.
​
But that was not what God wanted. He wanted something He could love and they could choose to love Him back, so He created mankind and gave them the ability to make that choice. He loved us enough to come to earth go to the cross and shed His blood so we could receive a full free pardon.

---

Yeh and Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit. I'm an atheist, why are you quoting biblical nonsense at me?

quote:

---

You and many others here have made the choice that God does not exist, He is a Myth that is OK with me. I just want to make sure when I type something about how you and others can go to heaven I get that right.

​

That is why I quote Jesus when He says "ye must be born again". That is accomplished by believing God is and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. When a person does that and trusts Him to give them eternal life they have it at that moment and anytime that a moment becomes now.
​
Some of the other things I talk about are speculative just like the BBT and and evolution are. No one in science knows where the material that the universe was created out of began to exist. According to science energy and matter cannot be created. They can be manifest in either form. But where did it come from? Science says we don't know so it has to be assumed it just did and we will go from there. That is not science. What is the origin of life on earth. We don't know but we assume some chemicals or something got together and life was formed. We can not prove that is the way it happened so we will assume that is what happened and we will go from there. That isn't science either.

---

ICANT, you're as deluded in your pseudoscience as you are in your mythology. Give it a rest I'm not interested in hearing either from you.
​

quote:

---

If I remember anything from my science class it is that anything that cannot be reproduced in a Labatory is not a fact. Then maybe I was taught wrong.

---

Who are you trying to kid you never went to s science class - if you had you might not be chanting such bollox.
​

quote:

---

Tangle just remember that people do whatever they want to do. If they want to kill somebody they will. If they want to get drunk and get in a car and drive it a 100 mph they will. Everything we do outwardly is because of the choices we make. An remember people do what they want to do always. I can't change them and neither can you.

---

More rubbish. Secular laws can and do change behaviour. And so do your pulpit threats of everlasting damnation - for some. It's called deterrence and it's very real.
​

Would you vote for or support people who are fine with coercing others? Are you in favor of them coercing others to accept the rules of your God? Say His rules against abortion? And to that end would you favor coercing the medical profession to withhold care from those in need of an abortion? Or would you favor coercing people to not assist anyone in obtaining an abortion, including providing transportation to a state where medical procedures can be provided based on a person's wants and needs and not on someone else's religious beliefs?You go on to misunderstand science in a way common among the religious. This misunderstanding is largely responsible for religious interference in science. Scientifically developed views and theories are not accepted because they're science, but because we've learned that science is the best way for figuring out what is likely true about the universe.That doesn't make the Big Bang or evolution the right answers, but it does make them the best answers we have at the present time.--Percy

"Thus"? Do you mean that this universal condemnation is a logical consequence of the action of this one disobedient dustman? Such perverse logic defies any attempt at contemplating its merit. It's disgusting. But not enough, apparently, to be reasonable and not hold that first dustman's mistake against the rest of us. It's just more severely confused logic.

Hi Percy, I have never been one to try to coerce anyone to do anything they did not want to do.Neither have I ever been in favor of anyone else trying to coerce anyone to do or not to do.I can't make people do something they don't want to do and neither can anyone else.So yes to your question.I understand if you can convince someone to believe your point they are unconvinced still. They just go along to get along. I don't try to interfere with science. In fact I think it is one of the greatest things that has ever happened to our country. I have worn glasses since I was nine years old. Science provided those. I have a stent in my right coronary artery about 2 inches from my heart. I watched the entire process of looking for the problem and how they pulled an inter piece out and put the stent on that piece and run it back through the tube that was in the artery and place it in the spot that was closing up then expand it to open the artery., That was amazing how they could do that. Science provided that knowledge and equipment, as well as the tv I watched the procedure on. I had knee replacement surgery in 2000 they wouldn't let me watch because I might flinch and mess things up but they made a video of the surgery for me. Now that is really amazing how they can drill a bone and place a shaft in the bone with a patella plate with receptors for the parts on top and this joint work so I could walk, work, swim, and bowl but no golf. It lasted for 16 years before it had to be replaced and I am still walking on the replacement.I believe in science and am grateful for what it has done for me. I can see and I can walk and my stent has been working since 2014. So I got no problem with science. Percy as I have said I got no problem with science.I got no problem with science trying to figure out how God created the universe and earth.I do have a problem with people trying to tell me that the theories are facts when they are built on assumptions.The BBT is based on assumptions. No one knows where the energy and matter required to create the universe came from. It is assumed that all the energy and matter required to create the universe existed at T=^-43 in a point or something the size of a pea depending on who you are listening too. On the surface to me that is preposterous that everything in this universe could be in such a small place. To me that would require an outside source of energy to continually create the matter that formed the billions of stars, all the plants in just our galaxy. There are 36 named galaxies and there are billions of galaxies in the deepest fields of the universe.Now when you have to get billions of galaxies into that little pea it makes it
impossible to believe.
GalaxiesThat is your scientific opinion not mine.
I disagree that the theories put forth are the best answers for existence. But again that is just my opinionBut both are just theories neither has been proven as neither can be reproduced in the lab. Not because it has not been tried multi-billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove them as a fact. But both are taught in our schools and colleges as fact and that is dishonest.You argue as if they are fact, and most of the posters here do also.I have one problem with the BBT besides the one above that nobody has ever addressed. All the trillions of barrels of oil that exists and they continually find more where did it come from. It is under 22,000 psi at 5 miles deep. It is made out of decayed matter, plant and animal how does the BBT propose that oil got there. Just a question for a discussion later.Why isn't my assumption that God created the universe as valid as your assumption that the energy and matter just existed at t=^-43.God Bless, My Web Site

You already said you wouldn't coerce anyone, so I didn't ask about what you would do.I actually asked if you would vote for or support those who *would* be willing to coerce others. You say you're from SSC. I don't know where that is, but if it means South Carolina then that state bans abortion after six weeks. No matter what state you're from, do you vote for or support those in favor of that law?Many in states like South Carolina are pushing for laws that would make it a crime to assist anyone in obtaining an abortion, such as by driving them to states where abortion is legal. Or to make it a crime for their residents to obtain an abortion in another state. Would you vote for or support those promoting such laws?The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, barred the abortion pill mifepristone nationwide. Their ruling has been put on hold pending an appeal before the Supreme Court. The lawsuit was brought by the Catholic Medical Association against the FDA for approving the drug. Do you believe religious groups should insert themselves into decisions about what healthcare can be provided to those who don't share their religious beliefs?If you answer yes to any of these questions then you're in favor of coercion, even if you personally don't do the coercing.You next shift onto scientific topics and at one point say about the Big Bang and evolution, "But both are just theories..." That is true, and people who say this are reflecting another common misunderstanding about science among the religious. This misunderstanding has undoubtedly been explained to you many times over the years.--Percy

Hi Parasomnium, So it is disgusting it's not your universe you don't get to make the rules. I am just glad he made it so easy for me to spend eternity with Him.
He gave you the choice to believe in Him or not. If you don't believe and trust Him you pay the consequences.If you believe and trust Him you reap the rewards including spending eternity in heaven.Sounds like a win win deal to me.But you do whatever you want to do.God Bless,

Hi Percy, No in my state. Why would I want to rob God. He gets 3.31 spirits a second from abortion. There is not that many people being saved a second.SSC Is Sun City Center, Florida.But no I would not support them.I don't have any say about what other states do or don't do.I live in Florida and I do have a say in what goes on in my state.I believe in our Constitution and that each state has the right to control what is done in their state.I don't like what our Federal government has morphed into. It is a long way from what it was intended to be. So I don't like politicians in Washington telling the states what they can do or not do. But that is just my opinion. I don't have to like or dislike what South Carolina is doing or not doing.I can't coerce them any more than I can coerce you. But I don't have to like what either of you do.I have a couple of rules I go by:
1. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
2. If you can change something just change it.
3. If you can't change it don't worry about it.When I obey those 3 rules I don't have anything to worry about. That makes life wonderful. If I remember correctly the Judges are appointed by the President appoints them when a vacancy exists. I don't remember a presidential Canidate stating what they would do nor a congressman.But since the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court are the law I have to abide by their decisions whether I like it or not. Do I support the Catholic Church and what they are doing no.Catholics have about 61.9 million members.Protestants have 157 million members.Thats 218.9 million people. 154.6 million people voted in 2020. At least 100 million of them were Protestants and Catholic. so if they were to get together they could do anything they wanted to do.God Bless,

Hi Tangle, Its not a hobby its a lifestyle. Why did you reply to my message? Then don't reply to any of my posts then. You mean to say that you don't have to have hard evidence to have a scientific fact? What did you study in science class? Then why do we have so many mass chootings?
Why do we have so many other murders?
Why do we have so many rapes.
Why do we have so many people getting drunk and killing people with cars.
Why do we have so much stealing going on?Guns don't kill people. People use guns to kill people.
Cars don't kill pepple. People use cars to kill people.
People don't rape themselves. People rape people.
I have never seen a piece of merchandise jump into somebody's pocket.So don't tell me people don't do what they want to do.God Bless and Good Bye.

“We” and other more civilised countries don't, the USA does. The reason is because you have virtually unrestricted access to guns and a culture of using them. We have crime because crime is normal. In your terms god made us that way. In scientific terms we're evolved apes and have many of their competive and survival traits. Our civilisation tries to moderate criminal tendencies with laws and punishments for breaking them, it works but is only a flawed and partial cure.
​ Now tell me why some people do those things and why most people do not.

That's Pascal's Wager. It's rubbish (British for "crap"). It's a weak argument and a cheap trick.That Wikipedia link describes it thus:

Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager:

---

The wager

​

The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

​

• God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives
• A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up
• You must wager (it is not optional)
• Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing
• Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
• But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

---

The article discusses Pascal's original intent and arguments, not your (and other proselytizers') misuse of it to proselytize or just as a cheap trick to win an argument -- that is where it's rubbish. My page on it, After-Life Insurance, is introduced with it having been tried on me through a car insurance analogy, hence the title. My reply to the "salesman":

DWise1: After-Life Insurance:

---

So I told my after-life insurance salesman that his after-life insurance was a rotten deal (unfortunately, I didn't think of that name for it until the next day, but that poor guy was already hurting too much). We had to pay an exorbinant price for a policy that would only pay in the most restricted and oddest of circumstances. By the car insurance analogy, it would only pay if you were hit by a green Edsel -- on the northbound side of the Santa Ana Freeway -- while it was exceeding the speed limit -- backing up -- at night -- with its lights off -- being driven by a one-armed Lithuanian midget.

​

He had been so self-assured that his argument was flawless and unassailable. He couldn't understand what had just happened. I think he still doesn't know what had hit him.

​

Which goes to show that it does pay to read the classics.

---

I also reposted a parody news article, Pascal's Casinos Under Fire, from an old site:

Pascal's Casinos Under Fire:

---

"Safe Bet" Ruins Lives

​

In the Seventeenth Century, Pascal invented a wager that intertwined philosophy, religion, and gambling, and he opened a casino in which his new game was exclusively played. In time, Pascal's wager proved so popular that franchises sprouted in virtually every neighborhood around the world.

​

Basic gameplay follows the original recipe. The dealer asks, "God is, or He is not. What will you wager?" The players then bet on one of the two possibilities. If you bet that God exists and win, you win everything; if you lose, you lose nothing. If you bet that God doesn't exist and win, you win nothing; if you lose, you lose everything.

​

For obvious reasons, most players choose to bet that God exists, but that's only the beginning. They are given a complex regimen of "do-s" and "don't-s" to follow throughout their lives -- if they don't, they can't win. Some players come to regret their bet.

​

"If you lose, you lose a helluva lot more than nothing," said Jerrold Alwell, who is kicking a weekly gambling habit with the help of detox therapy. "They tell you it's a safe bet, but they make you sign your life away. I almost lost my mind to those liars at Pascal's."

​

"And they don't tell you that only one casino will have winners," added Angela de la Reese, also a recovering addict. "Players at all others will go to the winning casino's hell." Because each casino's regimen prohibits play at any other, players can't hedge their bets by playing more than one. Detox therapists call this the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem.

---

The basic error the Wager makes is that the choice is not just either-God-exist-or-not, but rather includes choosing the right god (from among 288,000 gods) as well as the right theology associated with that god (eg, from among about 45,000 different theologies for the "Christian God" alone). As I discuss it on my page :

DWise1: After-Life Insurance:

---

First there is one very basic question which never gets asked here: which god? Just because some of the gods may exist, does not mean that they all exist. Which one do you choose? Remember, if you choose the wrong one, the outcome will be the same as for not choosing any (ie, #3 and #4). Each god has roughly the same probability of existing as any other (ignoring some of the pantheon package deals out there), or that none of them exist. So choosing the right god is not 100% as presented to us, but rather is a fraction of 1%.

​

Even worse, you not only need to choose the right god, but you also need to choose the right theology. Some gods have a variety of theologies associated with them, each one considering itself the True Faith and the others heresies; e.g., the various sects of Christianity. So even if you choose the right god, if you choose the wrong theology, then you are just as out of luck as if you had chosen the wrong god, some times even more so. Pascal was a Catholic, so he was talking about choosing to be a Catholic. The Protestants using his Wager in vain have already chosen the wrong theology and so picked the losing side of the Wager and are trying to make losers out of everyone they proselytize to. To choose none of the gods actually turns out to be the safer bet, because, unlike the Christian god, a lot of the gods couldn't care less whether you believe in them or not.

​

And what happens if you choose a god and it turns out that none of them exist? Pascal naively assumed that being a Catholic had an inherent benefit of making you a better person, which you could not achieve as a non-believer. While there may be some room for argument in the first part, the last part is blatantly untrue.

​

Pascal maintained that believing in his god and theology costs you nothing, but that is not true of his own theology, nor of most of the theologies that exist. What if you could not pursue your dream career because your chosen god forbade it? Or marry your one true love (your "media naranja", or "half orange", as my wife's grandmother had put it) because your god forbade you to marry that kind of person? Or learn the sciences because your god forbade you to study the truth? Or to think for yourself because your god forbade it? Or had to suffered from a horrible disease or injury or had to watch your child die horribly of a treatable disease because your god forbade the medical treatment for it? For many of us, that would be too great a cost to bear.

---

So you have already lost the Wager. You are going to Hell. Salvation is for Catholics while Hell is for heretics, especially you heretical Protestants.You have already lost.