The Limits of Religious Belief

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. So you do not support or vote for people who favor coercive laws? 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. 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? South Carolina was just an example, and your state of Florida is just like South Carolina when it comes to abortion. 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? But only within the bounds of the constitution, right? Separation of church and state and all that.--Percy

Car safety improvements since 1960:

• Safety belts
• Collapsable steering columns
• Headrests
• Cage around passenger compartment
• Front-end crash absorption
• Third brake light
• Anti-skid systems
• Air bags

Gun safety improvements since 1960:

• ---

--Percy

why would an astrophysics theory need to provide a explanation for a geological phenomenon?

Oh, that's the Big Barrel Theory, obviously!

Probably not. But that is not what is happening in either of these cases. 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.​It is both a religious belief, and a belief held by non-religious persons. Of course it does. You're being naive if you think otherwise. What supposed dishonesty is being promoted that needs to be explained? 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? 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. 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). 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)

quote:

---

Of course it does. You're being naive if you think otherwise

---

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 149There are plenty of other examples of dishonesty in ID - which works would you like to discuss?

quote:

---

What are you talking about? I didnt mention law.

---

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.

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? 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. 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. 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. Nothing's 100%, but religiosity is strongly correlated with views on abortion. Why are you disputing the obvious? Why do you think science says this? 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? 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. 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. And you know this how?--Percy

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,

quote:

---

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?

---

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

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. No matter how big the majority, it cannot pass unconstitutional laws that violate both civil rights and separation of church and state. 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. 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. Can't the majority refrain from restricting people's rights? There is no indication that anyone has ever gone to heaven, or that it even exists.Leprechauns bless!--Percy

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:

---

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

​

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

---

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.

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.
​ 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. 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.
​ Again, you can't possibly know this for sure.
​ 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.

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

Hi Doc,Long time no hear you.But that was not you problem but mine as I was real busy the last ten years. 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. Thats a long time.God Bless,

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?