|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 55 (9198 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,172 Year: 6,429/9,624 Month: 7/270 Week: 3/37 Day: 3/3 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Limits of Religious Belief | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22883 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
ICANT writes: 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. Now you're making it sound like you're pro-abortion, because it allows God to save more souls. Earlier you were arguing against abortion, saying that at the end of their lives people would face God as murderers.
But no I would not support them. So you do not support or vote for people who favor coercive laws?
I don't have any say about what other states do or don't do. Of course you don't, but Florida has the same 6-week abortion ban as South Carolina. You're drawing a distinction without a difference.
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. So if there were a federal ban on the death penalty, you'd be against it because you believe that should be left up to the states?
I don't have to like or dislike what South Carolina is doing or not doing. South Carolina was just an example, and your state of Florida is just like South Carolina when it comes to abortion.
I live in Florida and I do have a say in what goes on in my state. ... I can't coerce them [South Carolinians] any more than I can coerce you. But I don't have to like what either of you do. But again, your state of Florida has the same laws as South Carolina. You acknowledge you have a say in what goes on in your state, so do you support or vote for people who are in favor of coercing women to give birth? Like Ron DeSantis?
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. But only within the bounds of the constitution, right? Separation of church and state and all that. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22883 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
ICANT in Message 28 writes: Guns don't kill people. People use guns to kill people.Cars don't kill pepple. People use cars to kill people. Car safety improvements since 1960:
Gun safety improvements since 1960:
--Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2326 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
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.
why would an astrophysics theory need to provide a explanation for a geological phenomenon?It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4596 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.6
|
Oh, that's the Big Barrel Theory, obviously!
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WookieeB Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 190 Joined: |
Percy writes:
Probably not. But that is not what is happening in either of these cases.
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. That some Indian tribes have a religious belief about such a practice on the moon is in no way imposing anything upon the general public, because the general public has no activity on the moon. The general public probably has not thought about it either way prior to this issue being publicized. The Indian group(s) might have more stake in this than the general public because they do have a prior interest in it (religious or otherwise), but it really holds no weight with the general public. (It's roughly the same as a camel trader in the middle of the Sahara being upset over logging in the Pacific Northwest because he's concerned for Nature) Where the conflict does have any governing weight is with whomever potentially may try to bury remains on the moon. The Indian groups may try to make a moral claim based on their religious beliefs, but whether it has any effect or not really depends on how NASA and moon-visit-capable associates view it. Abortion is a totally different animal. Anti-abortion beliefs can be based on a religious view, but it they do not necessarily have to be. A society's stance on murder does have an impact on the general public. A prohibition on murder (a moral stance taken by most everyone, religious or not) combined with a belief that the human species is special, elevated, and unique compared to other life forms (this is also a moral stance taken by the majority and is already baked into laws based upon the moral prohibition of murder) and that a human life is created at conception (science says this), all fit within a moral framework that is not necessarily religious in nature. If you think abortion as murder is not a religious belief It is both a religious belief, and a belief held by non-religious persons.
PaulK writes: It isn’t. ( Indeed, in the case of Crestionists and ID supporters religion seems to promote dishonesty. Perhaps you would like to explain that?) Of course it does. You're being naive if you think otherwise. What supposed dishonesty is being promoted that needs to be explained?
Are you changing the subject? Law is not the same as morality. Surely you know that much. What are you talking about? I didnt mention law.It was many of your-side comments that insisted that morals have nothing to do with religion. So, if that is the case, what is the basis for those moral stances? Parasomnium writes: 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. As you said, "why it does it is anyone's guess". But jumping from that to "it seems very much like a moral act" is quite a stretch. What indication is there in any way that the buffalo has any understanding of right or wrong, good or bad? Same thing for the monkey that was indignant. You have no idea that such an emotion was due to some moral principle. The monkey's action could easily be explained as just an emotional action of wanting something it didnt get.Animals can show emotion. But they have no concepts of morals. 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. Yes, I watched it. Frans in no way demonstrated that the animals had any understanding of morality. They showed emotions, but there was nothing to indicate they had any understanding of right/wrong. Besides, Frans gave up his bias at the very end when he tried to link the supposed moral behavior with no need for religion (something he didnt mention at all during showing his examples).
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.) Nope, they do not suffice. And no, the animals are not religiously inclined, neither are they morally inclined. They are just emotional. The "Treat others as you would like others to treat you" precept is actually a religious concept. It was stated by Jesus (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31), and the ancient Jewish law at Leviticus 19:18 in the form of: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." (That is was not part of the Ten Commandments is irrelevant. Jesus and other Christian biblical writers referred to it as one of the greatest laws from the Jewish law covenant)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
quote: I’d say it is naive to think that religion is a major factor in any of them. Oh, and you can start with your dishonesty here Message 149 There are plenty of other examples of dishonesty in ID - which works would you like to discuss?
quote: Obviously the law is the main way that religious beliefs get enforced on others. Obviously the abortion issue is primarily about law. If you wish to decree that the primary topic of the thread doesn’t exist just because you didn’t explicitly mention it then you are an even bigger egotist than I thought.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22883 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
WookieeB in Message 35 writes: Percy writes: The key question is whether the public in general should be governed by the beliefs of religious groups they don't belong to. Probably not. But that is not what is happening in either of these cases. Then what do you think is happening? For states with laws that place tight restrictions on abortion, if it isn't driven by religion then what is driving it? And that the Navajos are pressuring private companies to respect their religious beliefs about the moon is just a fact. Consider this hypothetical. A permanent colony is established on the moon. Inevitably someone dies there and the Navajos will pressure NASA or whoever's responsible to return the remains to Earth. It currently costs $25 million for a trip to the ISS. It would cost much more to return remains, or anything, all the way from the moon. When the Navajos are informed that their religious beliefs will be respected if they can just pay the costs, I wonder how important the Navajos religious beliefs will be to them then?
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. That some Indian tribes have a religious belief about such a practice on the moon is in no way imposing anything upon the general public, because the general public has no activity on the moon. The general public probably has not thought about it either way prior to this issue being publicized. The Indian group(s) might have more stake in this than the general public because they do have a prior interest in it (religious or otherwise), but it really holds no weight with the general public. (It's roughly the same as a camel trader in the middle of the Sahara being upset over logging in the Pacific Northwest because he's concerned for Nature) No, it's everyone. Anyone can start a company to put remains on the moon. Anyone can pay to have remains placed on the moon. I used the term "general public," but that's just another way of saying everyone.
Where the conflict does have any governing weight is with whomever potentially may try to bury remains on the moon. There's no governing weight, just pressure, but yeah, basically what I just said. "Whomever potentially may try to bury remains on the moon" is everyone.
The Indian groups may try to make a moral claim based on their religious beliefs, but whether it has any effect or not really depends on how NASA and moon-visit-capable associates view it. Whether a request is right or wrong doesn't depend upon whether it has any effect. Prior to Dobbs a number of states had abortion laws on the books that had no effect, but whether those laws were right or wrong was still important. If this wasn't evident to some pre-Dobbs, it is most certainly evident to everyone now. Politically active evangelicals have put governors and state legislators in place who have made their views on abortion into law, but in those states that had state-wide referendums the right to abortion was backed overwhelmingly. This illustrates how religious views find their way into law. Achieving a majority of the voting public doesn't invalidate separation of church and state, but a number of states are increasingly violating this sacred principle.
Abortion is a totally different animal. Anti-abortion beliefs can be based on a religious view, but they do not necessarily have to be. Nothing's 100%, but religiosity is strongly correlated with views on abortion. Why are you disputing the obvious?
...human life is created at conception (science says this)... Why do you think science says this?
If you think abortion as murder is not a religious belief It is both a religious belief, and a belief held by non-religious persons. Again, religiosity is strongly correlated with views on abortion. You compared it to murder, but religiosity is not at all correlated with views on murder. Almost everyone believes murder wrong, but whether people believe abortion wrong strongly depends on their religious views. Why are you disputing this?
PaulK writes: It isn’t. ( Indeed, in the case of Crestionists and ID supporters religion seems to promote dishonesty. Perhaps you would like to explain that?) Of course it does. You're being naive if you think otherwise. What supposed dishonesty is being promoted that needs to be explained? I don't see it as dishonesty, but there's some strong dissembling going on that you're arguing that views on abortion aren't related to religiosity.
So, if that is the case, what is the basis for those moral stances? Morals likely have evolutionary origins because they provided a survival benefit. But morals are plastic. Everyone holds torture wrong, that is until it's necessary to cast out demons. Everyone holds murder wrong, that is until it's necessary to placate the gods with a sacrifice, or until it's necessary that the dead king have servants to accompany him into the afterlife, or until it's necessary that society be protected from some dangerous person or that the committer of some heinous crime be given the ultimate punishment, or until it's necessary to punish the persecutors of your people.
Animals can show emotion. But they have no concepts of morals. And you know this how? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 247 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Percy,
I was reading your post and got to thinking about States and States rights. If 60% of the voters of a State do not want abortion to be preformed in their State why should 40% of that State demand that the 60% have to bend to their wishes and wants? Is that not the same thing in reverse? The 40% of the State is trying to impose its will on the 60% and it makes no difference in their religious views. Further more why should the Federal Government try to try to make the majority bow to the minority. There are a 1000 people moving to the State of Florida every day. Everybody knows what Florida laws are and if they don't like them they could go to whatever State suites them. You know my view I don't mind God getting 3.31 infants into heaven every second. Due to the families they would be raised in probably 90% of them if born and raised to adult hood would never make it to heaven. My views on this has caused me a lot of grief over the past 50 years, a lot of religious people don't like it. You also know that I believe that the taking of a fetus's life is murder. I don't know why anyone that believes abortion is OK would be against capital punishment. So I got 2 questions for you. 1. Why should the minority be able to impose their beliefs on the Majority? 2. Can't the minority just move to a State where they are the majority? PS in the time it took me to put this message together God received 4,567.8 children into heaven. That is more than I could reach in a lifetime. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17893 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0
|
quote: Wouldn’t it be more accurately phrased as “why shouldn’t the 40% have to bend to the wishes and wants of the 60%”? The 60% would not be required to have or to perform abortions. You will also find that when the States have referenda on the issue the vote usually goes in favour of permitting abortions. From November 2022: The Conversation
During the November 2022 midterms, voters added protection for the right to get an abortion to constitutions in California, Vermont and Michigan. Kentucky voters were asked a reverse version of this question – whether the state constitution should bar abortions. They said no.
Kentucky’s vote is similar to an August 2022 referendum on abortion that was held in Kansas. Fifty-nine percent of people in Kansas – a state with a history of anti-abortion policies and activism – voted to keep state constitutional protection of abortion rights.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22883 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
ICANT in Message 38 writes: If 60% of the voters of a State do not want abortion to be performed in their State why should 40% of that State demand that the 60% have to bend to their wishes and wants? Is that not the same thing in reverse? The 40% of the State is trying to impose its will on the 60% and it makes no difference in their religious views. You're stating this backwards. The 40% want nothing but the best for the 60% and want them to be free to make their own medical decisions. It is the 60% who based on their religious beliefs want to restrict the freedoms of the 40%. Or stated another way, if the 60% get their way then the 40% who would like access to abortion would be denied it. If the 40% get their way then no one is denied anything.
Furthermore, why should the Federal Government try to make the majority bow to the minority. No matter how big the majority, it cannot pass unconstitutional laws that violate both civil rights and separation of church and state.
You know my view I don't mind God getting 3.31 infants into heaven every second. Due to the families they would be raised in probably 90% of them if born and raised to adult hood would never make it to heaven. My views on this has caused me a lot of grief over the past 50 years, a lot of religious people don't like it. You also know that I believe that the taking of a fetus's life is murder. You said this before, and it's a pretty bad look. You're saying that you're in favor of murder because it saves more souls, something you couldn't possibly know.
1. Why should the minority be able to impose their beliefs on the Majority? They shouldn't. The minority belief that abortion is okay is not being imposed on the majority. The majority is still perfectly free to believe that abortion is not okay.
2. Can't the minority just move to a State where they are the majority? Can't the majority refrain from restricting people's rights?
PS in the time it took me to put this message together God received 4,567.8 children into heaven. That is more than I could reach in a lifetime. There is no indication that anyone has ever gone to heaven, or that it even exists. Leprechauns bless! --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6061 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Further more why should the Federal Government try to try to make the majority bow to the minority. Circa 20 June 1785 (a few years before he drafted the First Amendment), James Madison authored a pamphlet, A Memorial and Remonstrance (link to my page reposting the text), for a campaign against Patrick Henry's bill before the Virginia Legislative to allocate public funds (ie, tax money) to "[establish] a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion" (ie, clergy). This pamphlet proved so effective that when the State Legislature reconvened, Henry's bill was dropped without even being brought to a vote. Instead, Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was voted into law. The first item of Madison's pamphlet address your objection (my emphasis added with bold yellow) and the second has one of the earliest descriptions of the Wall of Separation between Church and State (my emphasis also added in the text).
A Memorial and Remonstrance: What we now see is a GOP minority which has achieved a bare political majority through devious means (eg, gerrymandering, election interference) trespassing on the rights of all members of society. The rest of A Memorial and Remonstrance describes the deleterious effects of mixing state and religion on society, government, and religion. And the first item provides us with the original intent of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2227 Joined: |
WookieeB writes: What indication is there in any way that the buffalo has any understanding of right or wrong, good or bad? Well, the action of the buffalo to flip the tortoise with its horn is not accidental. The buffalo even has to try a few times to succeed. It's clearly a deliberate act. Now, the buffalo does not gain any advantage by flipping the tortoise, which precludes a selfish interest on the part of the buffalo. That makes it not only a deliberate, but also a selfless act. To me, a deliberate selfless act by one creature to remedy another creature's bad situation strongly suggests a sense of good and bad. It's not absolute proof, but it sure is an indication, in the sense that the evidence points to this possible explanation. In any case, I dare you to come up with an alternative explanation based on animal emotions only. The monkey's action could easily be explained as just an emotional action of wanting something it didnt get. Initially, the monkey was satisfied with a piece of cucumber as a reward every time. But when it saw that the other monkey was rewarded with a grape whereas its own reward was still a piece of cucumber, it seems its sense of fairness kicked in. The fact that it even threw its reward away with an angry gesture and slapped the board with its hand so as to demand a grape suggests this explanation even more strongly. If it had been a human displaying the exact same behaviour you would not hesitate to call it indignant behaviour. The differences between species are on a gliding scale, not only as far as morphology is concerned, but also in behavioural aspects.
Animals can show emotion. But they have no concepts of morals. Just as you tell me that I "have no idea that [...] an emotion was due to some moral principle", I can tell you that you can't possibly know for sure that animals have no concept of morals. And neither can I be absolutely sure that they do have them, but then again: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, remember? If it acts like a moral agent, it likely is one. [...] the animals are not religiously inclined, neither are they morally inclined. They are just emotional. Again, you can't possibly know this for sure. The "Treat others as you would like others to treat you" precept is actually a religious concept. It is a universal concept that even a child could come up with. It's found in many cultures all over the world, ancient and modern alike, in some form or other. It certainly isn't the exclusive Jewish prerogative to claim it as their invention, as you make it out to be."Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9570 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[20] A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13 faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000) has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002.[21] Creating the poster "took five years of research that included consultations with experts in each of the 13 faith groups."[21]
Rather nice image that I can't make appear is here in the Religious context: Golden Rule - Wikipedia
Edited by Admin, : Add image. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 247 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Doc,
Long time no hear you. But that was not you problem but mine as I was real busy the last ten years.
Dr. Jones writes: why would an astrophysics theory need to provide a explanation for a geological phenomenon? It is not a geological phenomenon. It is a creation problem as the earth had to be smaller when those trees and vegetation was growing on earth. Then by some method of accretion. It was covered and then more vegetation, trees, animals, and water creatures died and was covered and this had to repeat itself until the earth was 10 miles larger in diameter. In fact I think I read where oil was discovered 7 miles deep in Russia. It takes 98 tons which equals 196,000 lbs. of biomass to produce 1 barrel of oil.Since 1870 we have extracted 135 billion barrels of oil from the earth. That requires 13,230,000,000,000 tons of decayed material to produce. There is 1.7297 trillion barrels of oil left in the earth. That required 169,510,600,000,000 trillion tons of material to produce. Thats a total of 182,740,600,000,000 trillion tons of material. If I divide the total bio mass that covers the earth today into the bio mass requires to produce the oil I will get the times the earth had to be covered.I get 332.2556363636364 times the earth had to be covered. If I multiply the times covered by the years to produce the bio mass I get 166,127.8181818182 years. That ought to shake the YEC's up a bit. Bing AI writes: If the Earth were to gain mass at a constant rate of 40,000 metric tons per year, it would take approximately 2.6 x 10^16 years (or 26 quadrillion years) to add enough mass to the Earth to increase its radius by 5 miles and its diameter by 10 miles. This is an incredibly long time, considering that the age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.8 billion years. Thats a long time. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : Had to correct formatting "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6061 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
You claim that DrJones* wrote all that.
Where did he write that? And what was he talking about? And what the hell is the conversion of existing terrestrial matter into biomass supposed to have to do with the earth accreting more mass? What the hell are you talking about?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024