The Limits of Religious Belief

so you don't know what geology is. Why would this be something that would be covered by astrophysics?

quote:

---

There you go making assumptions about what I believe. If you want to know what I believe just ask me.
​
I believe floods can make changes to the landscape. But not to the extent YEC's do. Maybe you think they could. I do not make any assumption to that affect.

---

If you believe that deposition can occur by other means why do you insist that the burial of the material that became oil must be due to accretion?

quote:

---

So I will ask, do you think floods can make the changes YEC's put forth.

---

I don’t believe that individual floods can, but I do accept the standard geological explanations for the existence of sedimentary rock - which does include flooding. Why don’t you?

quote:

---

But not one of them can add volume to the earths surface. Volume has to be added from an outside source unless it can be manufactured.

---

Adding volume to the Earth is not the issue. The issue is the burial of the material that became oil. You insist that it must be due to accretion. Why?

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

Hi Percy But I am trying to discuss your personal religious beliefs and them being forced upon all our young people in America. 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.God Bless,

From your Message 60: 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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) 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. 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: 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!

Hi Paul, But where did the material in those deposition come from? But I do believe in sedimentary rocks and dirt, but that it took over billions of years if not trillions of years maybe even quadrillions of years to take place.The earth started from one speck of dust and grew to the size it is today all by accretion. That is a supernatural event in and of itself. According to your religion it might not matter to you. But to me it matters as I want to know how things happen, and maybe why.If the earth is only 4 billion years old that means there was nothing about the earth that existed not even the core which I have been told is pretty hot.As to your why? That is the only way you can add volume to the earth. All the other things you mention are rearranging what already exists.Your beliefs are based on assumptions yet they are accepted as fact. So why should your religious beliefs be forced upon our young people by our government in our schools.My beliefs are based on the assumption that God exists which I also believe is a fact as the evidence I can examine says He does exist. Yet my views are forced out of the schools by your beliefs, by our government.But you say no I don't have a religion. Sure you do because you believe supernatural events have occurred. You believe the universe began to exist with no source for any energy or materials yet it was contained in a pin point.Today it is said to have trillions of galaxies as big as our milky way and larger.You believe all that come from something the size of a pin point or a pea. That would be a supernatural event.God Bless,

quote:

---

But where did the material in those deposition come from?

---

If you don’t know and can’t be bothered to find out then you are assuming that it came from space. It didn’t. Most of it is formed by the erosion of existing rocks.

quote:

---

But I do believe in sedimentary rocks and dirt, but that it took over billions of years if not trillions of years maybe even quadrillions of years to take place.

---

The question was why you reject the explanations from the science of geology. Obviously you do, but you don’t give any reason.

quote:

---

According to your religion it might not matter to you. But to me it matters as I want to know how things happen, and maybe why.

---

Obviously that is completely false. Assuming that the burial is due to an increase in volume is begging the question. And you do that because you don’t want to understand how it works. You want to stick to your ignorant and false assumptions instead.

quote:

---

My beliefs are based on the assumption that God exists which I also believe is a fact as the evidence I can examine says He does exist. Yet my views are forced out of the schools by your beliefs, by our government.

---

Your assumption that the depth of oil fields must be explained by accretion is NOT based on the assumption that God exists. It is based on the assumption that your ignorant opinions can’t be wrong. Even when they are.

quote:

---

But you say no I don't have a religion. Sure you do because you believe supernatural events have occurred. You believe the universe began to exist with no source for any energy or materials yet it was contained in a pin point.

---

Even if I did believe that supernatural events had occurred it wouldn’t make my beliefs a religion. That you call natural events supernatural just makes it a bigger joke.

If you have something to say along those lines then that *would* be on topic, so go right ahead. it was you who raised the off-topic subject. Find an appropriate thread or propose a new one.Leprechauns bless!--Percy

Religious beliefs cannot be part of public education because of separation of church and state, but I started this thread out of concern that that separation is beginning to crumble. For instance, posting excerpts from the Bible like the 10 commandments in the public schools would be a violation of that separation, but if the electorate votes for it and the Supreme Court approves it, as seems increasingly possible lately, then we've lost that separation.It's difficult to see how the Supreme Court could approve something like this that eroded that separation because then it would seem impossible to exclude excerpts from other religion's holy books such as the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita and so forth, but I fear the current Supreme Court might find a way to allow one and disallow the others, further eroding the separation.--Percy

Hi Percy, Where do you find in the Constitution the phrase separation of church and state?
It don't exist. It says the congress can not establish a Church of any kind. That is why the Pilgrams left Europe and came to America. To get away from a church run government with the powers of the government. But I think we are just about under such a situation now and will be in the future.The government is not to prohibit the free exercise of religion, abridge the freedom of speech, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.It does not say anything about separation of church and state.10 Commandments and the Supreme Court Building.
1. A seated Moses is shown holding the two tablets of the law as the central figure of the east pediment on the exterior of the Supreme Court building.
2. An image of the two tables of the Ten Commandments is engraved on the frame of the bronze gates separating the courtroom from the aisle.
3. A marble frieze in the Chamber itself shows Moses holding a copy of the tablets on which the Ten Commandments are written.10 Commandments moved from the schools, and a courts property but still on many buildings in Washington DC. Seems a little hypocritical to me. I wouldn't have a problem with all religions being taught in a classroom as long as the truth of each religion was taught. Even your religion.God Bless,

great so we can teach that Christianity and all other religions are lies and that Odin the Allfather is the one true king of kings, lords of lords. That is The Truth.

Hmm, let see. Most western nations pretty much derive their laws and morals based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Laws against murder, rape, theft all historically have their origins in religious thought. Care for your fellowman, honest, and justice has no place in evolutionary thought, and all find their ideas in religions. Answered in Message 156 and subsequent posts in that thread. Love it when you just bring up a vague topic and then expect me to elaborate it for you. Why don't you choose Ah yes. I remember PaulK the Problem Projecting Parcer. As per the top of this post, the subject in our interactions was you think religion has nothing to do with morality, especially any regarding "banning murder, rape, or theft". I slightly disagreed, then asked a question about the grounding for your religion-less morals. To which I get a non-answer, an accusation of changing the subject (not really as it was related, though I was asking a question that might take things in a different direction than the OP), and a statement directed to me about the relation of Law and morality (which I didn’t bring up at all). I hadn’t mentioned law yet, nor specified any religious-abortion beliefs yet, but he projects that is my subject.Nope. not yet.Responding: And Law is the main way that non-religious beliefs get enforced on others (ie: religious people). And so what?
Never said abortion is not an issue religious people are concerned with, because it is. Abortion is also an issue that non-religious people are concerned with. And some religious people take a pro-abortion stance, and some non-religious people take an anti-abortion stance.I never decreed that the abortion issue doesn't exist. That only happened via fantasy in your head.

Perhaps it is, as I stated before, (1) most people don’t like murdering human beings, and (2) most people think unborn babies are human beings. It may be that in the camps of religious vs non-religious people that a higher percentage of religious people affirm the 2nd premise than the non-religious, but it certainly isn’t exclusive that one side totally agrees, and the other side totally disagrees.That being said, it is an issue that has profound implications on just about everyone, that being the wellfare and protection of life for newly generated humans. The Navajo issue is nowhere near as impactful as the abortion debate, and it's extremely more limited in scope. Despite you indicating that "anyone" can get involved with putting stuff on the moon, it is currently not the case that any significant percentage of people are involved with that, nor is that amount of involvement likely to change soon. It is the current level of involvement that is of issue, not some hypothetical possible future level. I agree with you for the most part here. The only thing though I would add is that this works both ways though. Religious people sometimes gain power and push agendas relating to their religions that many non-religious people dont like. But then also non-religious people gain power and push agendas that infringe on religious people that is not liked. Whether it happens more for one group or another is not really relevant. It is part of how the systems work, however flawed it may seem. Usually in democratic or republic style governments, elections matter. And though it may be a slow process, there is usually a way for people to address these inconsistencies over time.I did find it rather amusing, considering your anti-religious position, that you characterized the separation of church and state as a "sacred principle". I'm not disputing it. Abortion is an issue that many, probably a majority, hold according to a religious position. But that does not hold for everyone, nor is it exclusively religious people that are anti-abortion OR non-religious people that are pro-abortion. The level of how strong one side or another is is irrelevant considering that both views are significantly represented by persons from both groups. And that is primarily why I disagreed with your premise: "The key question is whether the public in general should be governed by the beliefs of religious groups they don't belong to."So to be clear, I am not saying that many people’s views on abortion aren't related to religiosity. For many, it obviously is. But for others, it is not related. And those others are not an insignificant population. These statements somewhat get to the core of my problem with this whole discussion. They seem contradictory to me.But I suspect we hold differences in what "morality" means. Can you please define what you mean by "morals" or "morality"? Not what constitutes them (ie, murder is wrong), but what is it itself.

Granted. You have no idea that this is true. The buffalo could be merely curious ("Hey, a moving rock. What's that?" *FLIP* "Oh, it looks mostly the same on the other side. Ok, on we go.")I searched for the video, found one that matches your description. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAjWB_UG-zY
So if that was the video you are referring to...... Noting the environment, it looks like the buffalo is in a pen, and the ground appears to be all dirt. No rocks anywhere else in the shot. So the buffalo could be noticing something that is not usually there, got curious, tried to interact with it with it's horns. Just curiosity. Nothing in that behavior necessarily says "I have concern for the turtle.Also that video shows people yelling and cheering on the buffalo. After it flipped the turtle, the cheers got louder and the buffalo then immediately started heading towards the people. It could easily be that the buffalo likes people and was reacting to their actions. When the input was at its highest, the buffalo seemed to forget about the turtle. There was no apparent concern for the turtle by the buffalo after it flipped it. If there was some moral impetus by the buffalo, one could say that it would have stuck around with the turtle to make sure things were ok with it. But that didn’t happen. But there was no indication by the buffalo that is has any understanding of what a "bad situation" is. For one, a turtle flipped on its back is not objectively bad (it happens to those animals all the time and they survive just fine). Secondly, once it was turned over, what indication from the buffalo is there that things were now "good". There is none.The problem is you are reading into the situation too much. You might even be anthropomorphizing the buffalo. Just because that action appeals to YOU as a good thing, there is no evidence that the same feeling is felt by the buffalo. Alternative explanation already provided above. I could easily think of many more that would fit the situation. That's the problem though, it's just me imagining what might be going through the buffalo's head. The same goes for your story. In reality, we both have no idea.So with your story, there may be an indication that it might be due to a moral view by the buffalo. But I don't buy it. Demonstrating morality involves a lot more than just an action that you or I would take as 'good'. There is no evidence that the buffalo, or animals, understand concepts of good or bad on a moral level. They can show emotions and evidence that they like or dislike something, but that is not the same as demonstrating morality. Humans can demonstrate their understanding of morals and link it to actions by their language. Animals do not have that capability. How do you know it was "fairness" that the monkey was thinking of? Probably because you are projecting your own thoughts to the monkey. You have no evidence that it was 'indignance' vs just 'anger or desire.'Fairness, like most aspects of morality, are abstract concepts, and animals don’t demonstrate a knowledge of them. There is no specific reason to link the actions to fairness. It looks more to me that the monkey just wanted the grapes (simple desire) once it realized they were available and acted out accordingly. If the monkey truly was interested in fairness, wouldn’t he have done something like give the cucumber to the other monkey and ask for a grape from the other monkey? That action would have been interesting, but I doubt even that is enough to demonstrate a knowledge of morals. Of course, neither of us can be 100% sure of our positions. And I am not claiming 100% certainty. But where I think the weight of evidence is against you is due to what would be required to show understanding of morals. It goes way beyond just an emotional response (that frankly could be interpreted in several ways). Yes, an emotional response to a situation could (would?) be part of demonstrating an understanding, but it is only a part. You need much more than that.As an analogy, just because a monkey drops a coconut from a tree, it doesn't mean it is thinking about Newtonian gravity. Anyone could easily claim: "Well you don't know for sure they aren't thinking about properties of gravity", and they could possibly be right. But I think it’s obvious, a monkey would have to demonstrate much more than dropping something for a reasonable person to entertain the idea that a monkey is considering physics of the motion of gravity. Why? Because an understanding of gravity involves more than just dropping things.In the same way, understanding morality involves much more than just an emotional response.

No one said it was a quote from the constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state" refers to the two clauses about religion in the First Amendment of the Constitution: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. What it actually disallows is the establishment of religion, not the founding of a Church, though it includes that, too. As interpreted by the Supreme Court it means that the state cannot endorse, promote or sponsor any religion. It's why prayer was disallowed in public schools in 1962. It's why the 10 Commandments were ordered removed from the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, which you mention here: To me, too. For a while it seemed like we were gradually removing religious references from public buildings, but I think this effort has stalled. I doubt many see problems with a religious studies course.An example of the actual problem is when 30 students in a classroom recite the Lord's Prayer without regard to whether all the students are Christian or even whether they wish to recite the prayer. Pressure, sometimes social, sometimes bureaucratic, sometimes authoritative, sometimes a combination, to recite a prayer contrary to one's wishes or beliefs is regarded as antithetical to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.I'm glad you're including the Unitarians (not to be confused with the Universalists). Unitarianism was dominant in the late 1700s and early 1800s, which is why the church on the town green in many New England towns is Unitarian.Leprechauns Bless!--Percy