|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Limits of Religious Belief | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
To me abortion is not a religious issue but rather a moral issue. [voice=Dr Erskine at Steve Rogers' final enlistment attempt]So you want to kill women.[/voice] Abortion is also a necessary medical treatment for a failed pregnancy without which the mother will die or, if she survives, will become infertile. The rash of state anti-abortion laws have the effect of condemning those women to a horrible death. Even though many of those laws give lip service to allowing abortion to save the woman's life or health, in practice she has to be on the verge of death before the doctors are legally allowed to do their job. Horror stories include the woman having to leave the ER and go wait in her car until she has almost bled out. Consider the recent case of Kate Cox who needed an abortion to treat her failed pregnancy in Texas. She had to appeal to the state courts to get permission, which was blocked by Ken Paxton:
quote: Kate Cox had to flee the state in order to receive the medical care she needed. Remember all the Republican hysteria over their imaginary "death panels under Obamacare"? Well, those death panels are very real and are created and operated by anti-abortion Republicans. So, why do you hate women so much? Or is it just that your god demands human sacrifice?
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. Yeah, right! While your side also attacks access to birth control as well as sex education in order to keep young people for learning how to prevent pregnancy. Instead, you [pl] push "abstinence only" programs which don't work. Sex education and easy access to birth control do work to reduce abortion rates. Your [pl] opposition to them only serve to drive up the demand for abortions. What are you [pl] thinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
You know other things that are an injection of religious belefe into the public sphere? Prohibition on murder Prohibition on theft Prohibition against rape Being honest Care for fellowman Concepts of justice ... WE could go on with many more. Those are all moral precepts, not religious. Every single human society has them even though details can vary. Has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs, except that religion keeps trying to steal credit for morality (doesn't one of them deal with theft?). Indeed, don't religious beliefs often require violating morality (eg, requiring the withholding of vitally needed emergency care for pregnant women)? Leaving for our monthly Atheists United breakfast.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
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. 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 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: I also reposted a parody news article, Pascal's Casinos Under Fire, from an old site:
Pascal's Casinos Under Fire: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Your correction of the formatting of your Message 44 made all the difference. Best to verify that one's message is formatted correctly and to correct any problems before walking away from it.
And what I was talking about was where all the oil came from that I had mentioned in the message he replied to. But that still does not answer my question (Message 45):
dwise1 writes: 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? I see you arguing that the earth's past biomass over vast periods of time originated through accretion; id est, it rained down from interplanetary space onto the earth's surface thus increasing the earth's mass.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Oscar? Hence my question, "What the hell are you talking about?" Accretion is not how biomass forms. How could you possibly not realize that biomass starts forming from photosynthesis converting pre-existing molecules of water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates (eg, C6H12O6) and oxygen. That biomass then provides food for animals, as so on. Planetary accretion from space plays no direct role in the formation of biomass. Why would you ever think that it did? And how could you possibly expect Big Bang Theory to explain the formation of biomass? Biomass forms because matter and energy already exist and will form regardless of how that matter and energy came into existence. It's like how evolution, being an inherent property of life, exists and operates regardless of how life had gotten started in the first place; the moment that life got started (regardless of how that happened) evolution also got started. So your "questions" do not make any sense at all. (Message 44)ICANT writes: Thats a total of 182,740,600,000,000 trillion tons of material. I'll interpret that as
1.827406 × 1014 × 1012 × 103kilograms = 1.827406 × 1029 kilograms A big number. A truly astronomical number. The problem with such large numbers is that unscrupulous types (eg, creationists such as Kent Hovind, Republicans trying to gut social programs or aid to Ukraine) will use them to deceive their audiences. I discuss such a case in my page, DWise1: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim, which examines a Kent Hovind claim that at the rate that the sun is losing its mass through "burning its fuel" (5 million tonnes per second) then five billion (109) years ago the sun would have been so massive and have so much more gravity as to have "sucked the earth in". The rate of mass loss is close enough, but Hovind's deception comes from throwing astronomically large numbers at you and then doing a lot of hand-waving. By doing the math (which Hovind doesn't do and which he forbids his audience to do or to listen to anyone who has done the math), we find that in 5 billion years that sun had lost 788,923,149,367,500,000,000,000 tons (7.88923×1023 tons), yet another astronomical number. But we can get some perspective by comparing that number to the total mass of the sun: 1.98855 × 1027 tons. That means that the total solar mass lost so far is only 0.03965755% of the sun's total mass, a few hundredths of one percent. And since the sun's gravity is directly proportional to its mass, then the ancient sun's gravity was just a few hundredths of one percent greater, far too little change to have "sucked the earth in", but rather instead by only about 40,000 miles. In the case of Republicans, they try to "balance the budget" by cutting vitally needed social programs which in reality only account for a couple percent of the total discretionary budget; starving the poor will only succeed in starving the poor, not in balancing the budget. So don't let anyone fool you with big-sounding numbers. But looking at your own very large number and comparing it to the earth's total mass, I found something interesting:
The earth's total mass is 5.972168×1024 kg. You gave a total biomass mass of 1.827406 × 1029 kilograms That is about 30,000 times greater than the mass of the earth. Something isn't right. While I'm not intimately familiar with coal formation, it does make a lot of sense that much of the biomass' mass would have returned to the environment to contribute to the formation of more biomass. I do not understand why you would work with raw biomass figures instead of decayed biomass. As an example, consider peat bogs. And it's not clear why you talk about accretion of matter from space. Are you assuming that the only way for that decaying biomass to be buried is through the accretion of meteoric matter from space? Don't you realize that the earth's surface is geologically active? Sedimentary layers are not formed through the accretion of meteoric matter, but rather through the redistribution of materials on the earth's surface.
ABE:{
IOW: Yes, it is indeed a geological phenomenon.
} What part of geology don't you understand?
It can be very difficult and tiring to try to figure out what scientific illiterates are talking about.
ADDENDUM:
Could you please do me a favor? Please tell me how you think that the sun "burns its fuel." I honestly have no idea how the non-scientific think that it happens, since I had learned the answer in elementary school (Our Mr. Sun from the Bell System Science Series (1956 - 1964) ). And what I've read from and about Kent Hovind indicates to me that he doesn't know how the sun "burns its fuel", very much how what creationists say about "evolution" indicates that they don't understand anything about it. So could you please enlighten me as to how others think that the sun works? I would appreciate it.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
From your Message 60:
ICANT writes: How would a Geologist know how the bio mass got covered with a pile of rock and dirt that was 5 miles thick or any other depth to produce the 1500 to 2200 psi it is under How? By having studied geology and then spent their careers in geology which involves a helluva lot of work in the field examining and analyzing literally mountains of data. IOW, geologists know a lot about geology because they have seen and worked with a lot of geological evidence. Now compare that massive expertise with the arrogant ignorance exhibited by both yourself and stupid ignorant creationists in a religious crusade to disprove reality. Nu?
I believe floods can make changes to the landscape. Yes, they do. And geologists not only know the same thing, but they also know in great depth and great detail HOW floods make those changes. As well as the kinds of changes and the diagnostic characteristics of those changes. Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot.
So I will ask, do you think floods can make the changes YEC's put forth. No, because the "changes" that YECs put forth have no basis in reality. Geological evidence not only does not support what YECs claim, but it actually contradicts their claims. Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs.
I also believe volcanos can change the landscape in their vicinity. Yes, of course. And in addition geologists know what kinds of changes volcanos can make. YECs don't know that, but rather just make up stupid stuff. Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs.
I also believe that earthquakes can change the landscape where they happen. Yes, of course. And in addition geologists know what kinds of changes earthquakes can make. YECs don't know that, but rather just make up stupid stuff. Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs.
But not one of them can add volume to the earths surface. What the f**k does that have to do with anything? Why are you so fixated so stupidly on something that has nothing to do with geological change?
Volume has to be added from an outside source unless it can be manufactured. [DWISE1: my emphasis added] What the F**K are you talking about? What is that even supposed to mean? Is this some new form of creationist stupidity trying to push a crazy idea of "continuous progressive creation" in which your god continually creates new mass for the earth? That's sheer insanity in addition to being incredibly stupid! And yet again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the geological processes being discussed. Why are you so obsessed with such flagrantly stupid things? Is it a side effect of having devoted your academic career with made-up stuff? (NOTE: since the supernatural is completely outside our very limited and fallible human capabilities, no detailed examination (well, any examination at all) is possible, which means that detailed descriptions of the supernatural are necessarily all made up)
The entire earth was built by accretion. It was formed from material that was flying around in space. Yes, it was originally formed by accretion, but, while miniscule amounts of matter is still being accreted, that has no bearing nor effect on geological processes such as erosion and depositation. Why are you so unwilling to even try to understand that? Here's an analogy. You were formed in your mother's womb through the accretion of material from her body. After you were born and weaned (ie, no longer gaining sustenance from your mother's body), you continued to grow. According to your own reasoning, the only way you could have grown was to have continued to accrete matter from your mother's body. How is that supposed to have worked? Obviously (so obvious that even you would have to agree), that is not at all how you grew through childhood and into adulthood. To argue otherwise would be most extremely stupid.
Now if I am wrong please correct me. Yes, you are wrong and, yes, we have corrected you. Repeatedly. But you refuse to accept correction. Geologists know a lot because they have seen and studied a lot. Creationists know nothing because they refuse to even look but rather just make up stupid stuff to support their false beliefs. As Percy points out in Message 56:
Percy writes: A quick search reveals that misinformation similar to what you posted is plastered all over the Internet. Stop listening to creationists. Creationists are lying to you! Listen to geologists, since, unlike creationists, they know what they are talking about. Your SSC is in the Tampa area which includes the campus of the University of South Florida (USF), which does have a geology department. You also have community colleges. Use those educational resources!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024