|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Limits of Religious Belief | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Have evangelicals overstepped their bounds on abortion by claiming that their definition of when life begins should hold for everyone? While contemplating whether this is presumptive, consider this even bolder claim: the Navajo Nation claims that for them the moon is a sacred place and that interring human remains there would desecrate it:
Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren: Two private companies are providing lunar burial services for cremated remains, and the Navajos object. As strongly supportive as I am of respecting the beliefs of native Americans, I can't believe they have the temerity, the audacity, the sheer chutzpah, to in effect lay claim to the moon and tell others what they can and can't do with it. Granted their request is a small one with no practical impact, but were it in any way respected or, even worse granted, it would set a remarkably poor precedent by opening the door to arbitrary requests regarding the moon by any and all religious groups. And how would conflicting religious beliefs be resolved? How will the sacredness of the moon for Navajos be reconciled with "The Church of Bury Me On The Moon When It Becomes Technically Feasible"? In my opinion, this comment from Astrobotic Technology CEO John Thornton was inappropriately respectful:
Astrobotic Technology CEO John Thornton: I understand Mr. Thornton's desire to make respectful comments in public, but I wish he had gone a different route by expressing respect for Navajo beliefs while noting the wide range of religious beliefs across the planet. I liked much better the comments of Celestis CEO Charles Chafer:
Celestis CEO Charles Chafer: Returning to what I said at the opening, isn't granting the requests of evangelicals about abortion, something that's already been done in many states, the same as granting the absurd Navajo request about the moon? Aren't state laws about abortion just elected officials improperly mixing church and state at the behest of their evangelical constituencies?
Faith and Belief? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
It took me a while to decide how to answer. I guess I believe the two situations have a significant common element: injection of religious beliefs into the public sphere.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
ICANT in Message 5 writes: Percy writes: injection of religious beliefs into the public sphere. Since 75% of the population in America claim to be religious why shouldn't their views count? Do you think that 25 % of the population should control our thoughts? What I think is that you should read what I wrote and actually respond to that. To me abortion is not a religious issue but rather a moral issue. Do your religious beliefs about abortion differ from your moral ones?
To abort unborn unwanted children to me is no worse than aborting an unruly child or a deformed child at 6 years old. So you believe getting an abortion is just as bad as murdering a 6-year-old child. And you belief those who believe abortion is wrong on religious or moral grounds should be allowed to force people who don't share those beliefs to give birth.
We have people that would like to have children but cannot. So people with unwanted pregencies should be forced to become baby factories for those wishing to adopt.
You pitch a fit when there is a mass shooting in a school and other places. Not the topic, but shouldn't everyone "pitch a fit" in reaction to a mass shooting?
The abortion issue could be solved if people who don't want to have children would abstain from having sex and if they can't do that do not have unprotected sex. Gee, what a great idea!
But you know my view on abortion as I have mentioned it before. Every child that is aborted goes to be with God. And you know this how?
As far as the Indians they have burial grounds on earth that are sacred to them. If ashes sent to the moon would desecrate it is not their burial grounds desecrating the earth? Indians don't bury their dead on their sacred grounds. Leprechauns Bless! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
WookieeB in Message 11 writes: I guess I believe the two situations have a significant common element: injection of religious beliefs into the public sphere. That is true. But that is hardly the theme of the story. Besides that one similarity, they are vastly different issues. 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.
WookieeB in Message 16 writes: They are basic tenants of 'most' societies, not all. Yet, they were basic tenants of 'most' religions before any of those societies existed. 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:
ICANT in Message 5 writes: But you know my view on abortion as I have mentioned it before. Every child that is aborted goes to be with God. Most if born would never have an opportunity to be saved. I say abort away and be prepared to stand before God with a murder charge. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
ICANT in Message 20 writes: Tangle writes: Tangle in Message 10 writes: But you know my view on abortion as I have mentioned it before. Every child that is aborted goes to be with God. Most if born would never have an opportunity to be saved. I say abort away and be prepared to stand before God with a murder charge. I think that would be a perfect solution. No need for the religious to interfere with the actions of the secular then eh? I don't think so. I have been preaching for 63 years I have never tried to coerce someone to accept my God. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
ICANT writes: Percy writes: 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? I have never been one to try to coerce anyone to do anything they did not want to do. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
ICANT in Message 46 writes: Percy writes: There is no indication that anyone has ever gone to heaven, or that it even exists. Sure it is there, Paul visited the third heaven. Sure he did.
Percy I believe in God just like you believe that something existed at T=0-43 that expanded into the universe we have today. I think you mean T=10-43. I believe that that time duration is part of a scientific theory representing our best understanding of the early universe based upon the available evidence and subject to change in light of new evidence and/or improved understanding.
You don't know where it come from or why it chose that moment 13.8 billion years ago to begin to expand. What does naming things we don't know prove?
There is nothing known about the first 300,000 years. There is a lot of speculation but that is all that it is. Even if what we think we know were just speculation, what would that prove?
so, whether you accept it or not you believe by faith that something existed just like I believe in God by faith. What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not faith. But the side comment I made in passing is not the thread's topic, which is whether people should be pushing their religious views into the public sphere. Leprechauns Bless! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
ICANT in Message 52 writes: Percy writes: What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not faith. Assumptions are not evidence. What is thought likely true based upon evidence is not an assumption either. You've been corrected on this dozens of times, yet you keep mindlessly repeating it. Here's you are making the same claim over and over (and usually being corrected) in this and other threads:
ICANT in various threads writes: The BBT is based on assumptions.... Because everything you believe is based on the assumption that something existed at T-43 ... The theory is based on assumptions according to Stephen Hawking. ... Assumptions is not evidence. ... All science has is assumption of what could happen... ... Which was an assumption on his part as he had no evidence to support the claim. ... There are more than 17 of those mysterious events in which no evidence is available to support the assumptions that have to be made to introduce them. ... That assumption has to be accepted as a fact. ... In other words Phat if you don't know the origin of something all the assumptions you make about the origin and the following things that happened will probably be wrong. ... Assumptions are involved. ... These are devised from the assumption made by men. ... The biggest assumption of all is that the universe began to expand at T=10-43 s. ... Some facts would be great to base things on than assumptions. ... If there is no scientific data prior to T=10-43 s, where would any scientist get data to make assumptions of what took place prior to T=10-43 s? ... They all require assumption after assumption to present anything. Why after all this time do you still believe that calling something an assumption is a valid argument? Certainly there are assumptions out there, and in the right thread we should examine them, but your knee jerk reaction to anything related to science is to mindlessly call it an assumption.
If it is then my Assumption that God exists are just as valid as those it takes to get to 300,000 years from the time that something began to expand. In the right thread, what assumptions are involved in reaching the 300,000 year figure?
I have enough experiences that God has been in my life that is evidence enough for me. If I told you some of those many experiences, you would not believe them so I won't waste my time. So it's evidence enough for you, but you know it's not enough for anyone else or you'd be telling everyone about it. Doesn't really sound like evidence, does it?
Percy writes:
But they have been named. What does naming things we don't know prove? We've never known everything and never will. What does reminding us of that prove?
Percy writes: ICANT in Message 46 writes: There is nothing known about the first 300,000 years. There is a lot of speculation but that is all that it is. Even if what we think we know were just speculation, what would that prove? It would prove that there are millions of young people that have been indoctrinated in your unreligious society in the last 63 years because they believed they were being taught the truth, because they were not told that everything they were being taught was based on assumptions. It was taught as a fact. You left out that I was responding about "the first 300,000 years," not about everything. I added it back in to restore context. Your dishonesty is kind of off-putting but very consistent. The religious have demonstrated many times here over the years that this is the kind of behavior to be expected of them. Unable to use honest means to defend their faith they resort to dishonest ones. I was asking what it would prove should the 300,000 years be one of those things we don't know. Why don't you try answering the question actually asked for change. If you try honesty you might be surprised to discover how much better you feel when you're not hunkering down in your religious faith blindly repeating misguided and long ago dispatched arguments.
Percy writes: But the side comment I made in passing is not the thread's topic, which is whether people should be pushing their religious views into the public sphere. What is the difference between pushing religious views and you pushing your unreligious views on the public? The secular is the public domain. Religious views are private. Let's quote Madison for you again:
Madison in A Memorial and Remonstrance: In case you find the references obscure and the language opaque, he's saying that a free government requires that government and religion ("each department") be separate. This is to the benefit of us all. While you no doubt would feel very comfortable with Christians controlling the reins of government, if it were legal for Christians to control government then it would also be legal for Muslims to control government. They could outlaw Christianity and require you to purchase a prayer rug and pray towards Mecca five times daily. It's not a good idea for religions to control government. So we require separation of church and state in our country so that no one is subject to the authority of another religion. That's the definition of a secular state, which we are. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
ICANT in Message 53 writes: Well since the earth is only 4 billion years old and the production of Bio Mass to produce 3.5 trillion barrels of oil would take a pretty big spell. Then you have to cover it up with up to 5 miles deep of soil and rock which would take a super big spell. Since you're math challenged, sedimentation 5 miles deep laid down over 4 billion years would be 0.00008 inches per year. Miniscule. 3.5 trillion barrels of oil in 4 billion years would be 875 barrels per year. Since the surface area of the world, including oceans, is about 200 million square miles, that would be 0.000005 barrels of oil per square mile per year. Again, miniscule. Of course that's not the way it really happened. There was no continuous sedimentation for 4 billion years. There were episodes of uplift and subsidence, of sedimentation and erosion, all about the world in an unending sequence. A quick search reveals that misinformation similar to what you posted is plastered all over the Internet. Which website did you use? About space dust, it is estimated that 40,000 tons of space dust falls to Earth every year. That is 0.0000000000000006% of the earth's mass. Negligible. Considering it over the Earth's entire history, that much dust falling every year for 4.56 billion years would be .000003% of the earth's mass. Again, negligible. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
ICANT in Message 59 writes: Now if I am wrong please correct me. You're wrong, but this is the wrong thread to correct you further. What's been provided so far is plenty, for example, the last two paragraphs of Message 56. In this thread discussion about the propriety of government support for private religious beliefs would be more pertinent. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22933 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
ICANT writes: But I am trying to discuss your personal religious beliefs and them being forced upon all our young people in America. If you have something to say along those lines then that *would* be on topic, so go right ahead.
You did not correct me by showing I am wrong. If you would like to start a discussion to correct me in please start one and I will join you. it was you who raised the off-topic subject. Find an appropriate thread or propose a new one. Leprechauns bless! --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024