The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2015, 05:09 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 04:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 04:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  

Okay. Okay. I'll stop dicking around, and own you folks real quick.

Do you know who would love to hold hands with you folks? The Discovery Institute, who made the same exact argument. lol:

Quote:"It should be apparent that "intelligent design" does not meet any of these definitions of "religion." Intelligent design says nothing about whether a person has or should have a relationship with a creator (if there is one), and says nothing about whether there are or should be any obligations or duties owed to a creator (if there is one). Nor does intelligent design require belief in, reverence for, or worship of a supernatural power. Intelligent design does not suggest that the intelligent is a supernatural intelligent cause. Intelligent design simply says nothing of whether the intelligent cause is a supernatural or non-supernatural intelligent cause. Furthermore, intelligent design does not suggest that all else in life is subordinate to it as a theory of origins or is ultimately dependent on it.

For an even starker contrast between intelligent design and religion, consider for a moment characteristics typically seen in religions -- characteristics which are clearly not seen in intelligent design.

Intelligent design has no liturgy or form of public worship, no clergy or people ordained for religious service, no observance of religious holidays, no sacred text, and no churches or other religious institutions. Intelligent design, unlike religion, takes no position on the existence of God or gods, does not require belief in God or gods, takes no position on any theory of morality or code of ethics, presents no opinion as to an afterlife, and holds no opinion on the ultimate meaning of life or the universe."

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/...ligion.htm

Of course the courts ain't buy that shit, and declared it a violation of the establishment cause, exactly because it was a religious belief.

If the courts didn't buy their silly argument, why would I buy yours?

Fuck dude, you still can't properly format a post to save your life.

Plus you are purposely missing the point. ID tried to distance itself in court from Creationism, which didn't work once it because abundantly clear in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case that those on school board acted with religious intent, and those behind the ID movement did too. This was made even more apparent when an early transitional manuscript for 'Of Pandas and People' was uncovered that showed that after the Supreme Court had ruled against teaching creationism, all they did was replace references to creationism with intelligent design in what had just been a de facto creationist book. Nothing else had really changed, it was a fast and sloppy Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V job that actually garbled things bad enough to create the now infamous "cdesign proponentsists" by inserting design proponents into the middle of creationists repeatedly throughout the manuscript.

And while you can contemplate the possibility of alien intervention or even alien abiogenesis, you certainly can't pass that off as science in a biology class.

TL;DR version.

Tomasia is being an ignorant little shit, also known as 'par for the course'.

[Image: F6ni0fO.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
21-01-2015, 05:35 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 05:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't even know what the hell you think you're buying. That is NOT the argument I made. YOU asked why designers could be accepted, but not creators. I did NOT make an argument for ID. But nice try there to derail and deflect, sport. I simply poeinted out why non-deity designers were AT LEAST as coherent as a god.

You're really not up to this dear.

No, it's clear you're not up to it my dear.

Of course you didn't argue for ID as true, you argued along with others that this is not a religious belief. You basically agreed with the argument by the Intelligent Design proponents, that it is not a religious belief. If you're miraculously blind to this, then you can just consider yourself a tool.

If you want to now distance yourself from the pack, seeing the trap you walked right it to. You just go on right ahead, and just fade away, and I'll pretend like I didn't notice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 05:52 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 05:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck dude, you still can't properly format a post to save your life.

Plus you are purposely missing the point. ID tried to distance itself in court from Creationism, which didn't work once it because abundantly clear in the Kitzmiller v.

lol, read this article here:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/...ligion.htm

As per the close of the article:

Quote:"Is intelligent design a religion? Clearly, the answer is "no."

Would the First Amendment's Establishment Clause be violated by the presentation of intelligent design in the public school classroom? Again, the answer is "no.""

Their argument is as sound as anything made here, but do you agree with them, that teaching ID, is not a violation of the Establishment Clause?

Do you think teaching kids that there are intrinsic moral obligations, and eternal laws, would be a violation of the Establishment Clause? I want to see your answer to this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 06:43 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 05:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 05:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck dude, you still can't properly format a post to save your life.

Plus you are purposely missing the point. ID tried to distance itself in court from Creationism, which didn't work once it because abundantly clear in the Kitzmiller v.

lol, read this article here:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/...ligion.htm

As per the close of the article:

Quote:"Is intelligent design a religion? Clearly, the answer is "no."

Would the First Amendment's Establishment Clause be violated by the presentation of intelligent design in the public school classroom? Again, the answer is "no.""

Their argument is as sound as anything made here, but do you agree with them, that teaching ID, is not a violation of the Establishment Clause?

Do you think teaching kids that there are intrinsic moral obligations, and eternal laws, would be a violation of the Establishment Clause? I want to see your answer to this.

Short answer? You're a purposely obtuse shithead.

Long answer? ID proponents claim ID is not a religion, because those pushing ID into schools are doing so in an express effort to sneak creationism into secular public schools by attempting (and poorly at that) to hide it inside a lab coat. The modern ID proponents, and their think tanks and propaganda vehicles (like the Discovery Institute you are quoting from like a retarded monkey), can draw a direct line back to their creationism (read: religious) origins. Nobody seriously pushing ID with the backing of money or political force is doing so in the name of anything besides the supernatural.

Biology classes are not being assaulted by Raelians demanding they teach that life was intelligently designed by extra terrestrials, and even if they did they would fail for the same reasons the creationists/ID proponents do; you cannot hide your beliefs and pretend they are science and teach them as fact without the actual facts to back them up. If they had actual facts, they wouldn't even need to attempt to rally public opinion, hire lawyers, and get elected officials to crowbar their preferred world-view into sciences classes; peer review and the scientific method would get the information into the class room eventually.


In short; quit being a fuktard, or at least have to good sense to masturbate in private. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-01-2015, 07:02 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 05:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you want to now distance yourself from the pack, seeing the trap you walked right it to. You just go on right ahead, and just fade away, and I'll pretend like I didn't notice.

This is your routine pattern.. thinking you have some trap to lay out that you are putting atheists here into.

The problem with this routinely is you base this so thought of moral thought up trap of yours on the premises of these boxes you categorize. The problem is you are constantly making assumptions to generate your ideas and these so called traps. And they're openly exposed before you get to any thing and you would get so much further in discussing with people if you were presuming things all the time. Instead, you exhibit this repeated behavior and trend with your threads.

Of course you almost never even get to your proclaimed leading up point to begin with because you are too frequently caught up trying to argue about the details leading up to it anyway.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 07:06 AM
The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 04:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps the Disovery Institute, should reorganize, ditch irreducible complexity, and campaign teachers to teach that we have intrinsic moral obligations, that there's an eternal moral law. And this wouldn't be a violation of establishment clause, and even atheists agree. And perhaps they can get some Rawlians on board.

You still don't get it.

Any chance you're ever going to address my last replies?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-01-2015, 07:57 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 07:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  For those who don’t believe in such a law, where do you think such beliefs came from?

From their imagination? Some people believe in leprechauns or ghosts. It doesn't mean there are actually leprechauns or ghosts. That's the problem with statements of belief: they don't so much as describe reality, but rather just describe the beliefs of a person.


(18-01-2015 07:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Many people also believe that we have intrinsic moral obligations, and responsibilities. That we are endowed with a moral purpose. That the rightness and wrongness of certain things are violation of something sacred and eternal.

Would you say all these beliefs are merely a product of religious indoctrincations? That without religion we wouldn’t be compelled to believe these things?

Not necessarily, but it could certainly spread those beliefs.


(18-01-2015 07:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you think that most moral statements of communities, of people, both historically and in the present, most statements protesting injustice, and evil, have this sort of understanding in the background, of eternal moral laws, of intrinsic moral obligations, that have been violated? That they tend to presuppose such a reality? Particularly in consideration that most societies and people have historically been religious.

(keep in mind that this is a question of beliefs regarding morality, rather than actual moral behavior)

In the past, I could see saying yes. In the present, it's harder to say. There are secular reasons for "moral" behavior as well, and keeping society working together is vital to maintaining society. That's why there are rules in place to keep people from taking the law (or morality) into their own hands; it hurts the system. The fact that these rules are also in place make me think that the people who created them have an understanding of the subjective nature of morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 07:02 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Of course you almost never even get to your proclaimed leading up point to begin with because you are too frequently caught up trying to argue about the details leading up to it anyway.

Well, that's because someone put cake in front of a fat kid. Did you think that I would avoid eating it?

Someone asked me quite incessantly to prove that an intrinsic moral obligations is a religious belief, and like always my favorite three stooges, my three frenemies, you, bucky, and evolutionkills show up, like they always do at the most opportune time.

You think I was going to pass up this golden opportunity to bust your balls, for adopting the argument of proponents of teaching ID?

This is our fundamental relationship, the ways thing are destined to be between us and your other two bandmates. Your the guys that barge in on a quite dinner, and break the monotony, by snorting coke and bringing in strippers. And I can't help but enjoy all of it, the quite dinner, and it's disruptive late arriving guest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 08:09 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 05:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Of course you didn't argue for ID as true, you argued along with others that this is not a religious belief. You basically agreed with the argument by the Intelligent Design proponents, that it is not a religious belief. If you're miraculously blind to this, then you can just consider yourself a tool.

If you want to now distance yourself from the pack, seeing the trap you walked right it to. You just go on right ahead, and just fade away, and I'll pretend like I didn't notice.

You delusional troll. You show me EXACTLY how I argued for what you claim. You can't even follow an argument. There is no need to distance myself from anything here. YOU are not the "superior" here except in your delusional incompetent mind. You NEED to box all arguments you come across into your pre-packaged rote garbage, as you are incapable of actually making an original argument you didn't get from "Apologetics For Dummies", dear.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-01-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 07:06 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Any chance you're ever going to address my last replies?

Yea, been a bit distracted
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: