This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Do you believe in God?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
Nothing was stopping them, but being involuntarily immersed in a Buddhist prayer ceremony made them uncomfortable and they were forced to choose between compromising their own beliefs by going along with it or being conspicuously nonparticipant and being ostracized by their community.
But if they're praying, how can anyone tell who they are praying to? The person over the speakers may have been a Buddhist, but they could have prayed to God for the exact same things.Perhaps they didn't feel that was compatible with their beliefs? You may have been fine with them, but I know my parents wouldn't have been, and these people might not as well.
The same can happen for those that move to the south, since that is where the writer is from. Would a Buddhist come to a football game here and refuse to do a prayer because it was to God?No kidding. I live in Texas. Having my principle lead the class in prayer at my High School Graduation was extremely uncomfortable for me, and I knew it was illegal, but I didn't say anything because the last guy who did that in my state got death threats afterwards.
Post by
Nathanyal
Perhaps they didn't feel that was compatible with their beliefs?
They didn't think it was compatible to pray to their God while others around them we praying to a pagan deity? Sounds ridiculous to me. Would God rather them not pray at all because of what was happening around them?
The same can happen for those that move to the south, since that is where the writer is from. Would a Buddhist come to a football game here and refuse to do a prayer because it was to God?No kidding. I live in Texas. Having my principle lead the class in prayer at my High School Graduation was extremely uncomfortable for me, and I knew it was illegal, but I didn't say anything because the last guy who did that in my state got death threats afterwards.
Yeah I live in the panhandle of Florida and our school is a small one. Our graduating class had 96 students in it. Most of the students have been together since grade school. It is a close knit school and a lot of them seem to be religious.
We have a group called the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Each morning the students would go to the flagpole and do a prayer. They also did other things such as make signs for the games and had pages in the yearbook. No one thought anything of it, mainly because there was nothing around to say otherwise. Even in band, before we would march on the field at half time would say the Lord's Prayer. We weren't forced do it, but we still did. And our director gave us plenty of time to do it between warming up and getting on the field.
If our school was a little bigger and more diversified, we would have heard more about other things. If I known about it being illegal to do a prayer at a school sanctioned event I would have brought it up.
Post by
Skreeran
They didn't think it was compatible to pray to their God while others around them we praying to a pagan deity? Sounds ridiculous to me. Would God rather them not pray at all because of what was happening around them?If it were my parents, they would feel that they were submitting to a pagan deity rather than voicing their descent.
I bet you anything they'd bring up
Sahdrach, Meshach, and Abednego
too.
Yeah I live in the panhandle of Florida and our school is a small one. Our graduating class had 96 students in it. Most of the students have been together since grade school. It is a close knit school and a lot of them seem to be religious.
We have a group called the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Each morning the students would go to the flagpole and do a prayer. They also did other things such as make signs for the games and had pages in the yearbook. No one thought anything of it, mainly because there was nothing around to say otherwise. Even in band, before we would march on the field at half time would say the Lord's Prayer. We weren't forced do it, but we still did. And our director gave us plenty of time to do it between warming up and getting on the field.
If our school was a little bigger and more diversified, we would have heard more about other things. If I known about it being illegal to do a prayer at a school sanctioned event I would have brought it up.It's not illegal to
pray
at school, even in a group, as long as it's voluntary. What's illegal is having and official school prayer or having the principle lead the assembly in prayer. And that's what my school did, but I didn't want to object if that meant getting a million death threats.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Those who tried to use your same argument against Moses were swallowed up by the ground
That's nice.
God never claimed to be "nice". If you want a God that will always be really "nice" to you, I suggest you go worship something you think is "nice", like puppies. Go idolize puppies.
Post by
1101548
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
b4xx
As far as i'm concerned the existence of a God has unofficially been proven false in today's times. These religions were made back before science and when people needed an explanation for the un-explainable.
I don't see how God could be anymore real then Zeus or Poseidon or Valhalla
Nothing has been proven false, nor true. I think that will remain the same until the end of times.
Regarding whether God is real or not; well, that's purely a matter of faith.
Post by
asakawa
Well, you can't prove a negative but a deity is a weak idea in scientific terms because it fails as a testable hypothesis while also breaking Occam's Razor by taking superfluous assumptions. This is the why the issue of the burden of proof often becomes central to these discussions because the null hypothesis is that there is no god and any movement from that would need to be decisively demonstrated.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
b4xx
Well, you can't prove a negative but a deity is a weak idea in scientific terms because it fails as a testable hypothesis while also breaking Occam's Razor by taking superfluous assumptions. This is the why the issue of the burden of proof often becomes central to these discussions because the null hypothesis is that there is no god and any movement from that would need to be decisively demonstrated.
I don't follow. How exactly does it fail as a testable hypothesis? And why is a deity a superfluous assumption? And exactly who determines that that is the null hypothesis?
Post by
asakawa
Well, it's never passed any scientific tests that have been formulated so it has, thus far, failed as a testable hypothesis.
A deity is a very, very complex "solution" to the problem of current gaps in human knowledge and one that creates it's own further problems. Occam's Razor is like logical fallacies in that it's not pointing out when something is wrong, just pointing out when illogical or presumptuous ideas are being unnecessarily introduced. I also say that it's superfluous because in the current understanding a "prime mover" isn't required.
The null hypothesis is the one that does not require unproven ideas. It isn't decided by anyone.
The null hypothesis would be that there isn't a portal to Mars in my living room. If I wanted you to believe that there was then I would be required to provide (significant!) evidence.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
People
who believe in God just don't science, like me.
Post by
Skreeran
People
who believe in God just don't science, like me.I'm guessing you mean "There are scientists who believe in God."
To that I answer that scientists statistically have more non-believers than any other group.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think there's a difference between saying "Religious people don't understand science," and "Religion is not something that is measurable within the realm of science." I don't think it's an insult to say religion is not scientifically provable, and conclusions reached because of faith could not be reached through scientific method. I don't think they're supposed to be. Religious people can have a fantastic grasp of science- they just don't think that everything they believe needs to be quantifiable through scientific method. Non-religious people will have feelings and beliefs about specific people, relationships and morality that are similarly not quantifiable in hard facts or based on provable hypothesis. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have them- just that they don't need to evaluate them by a scientific standard of accuracy.
I don't think that saying religion isn't isn't scientific is an insult, because it isn't supposed to be. But, I don't think that saying that someone who is religious shouldn't be because of that is fair, any more than saying someone should not hold a moral belief about the value of human life because there is no scientific measure of its value, or believe they love someone because you can't measure or define love in scientific terms is fair.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
MyTie
Well said, Elhonna. I too dislike the false dichotomy.
Post by
b4xx
Well, it's never passed any scientific tests that have been formulated so it has, thus far, failed as a testable hypothesis.
A deity is a very, very complex "solution" to the problem of current gaps in human knowledge and one that creates it's own further problems. Occam's Razor is like logical fallacies in that it's not pointing out when something is wrong, just pointing out when illogical or presumptuous ideas are being unnecessarily introduced. I also say that it's superfluous because in the current understanding a "prime mover" isn't required.
The null hypothesis is the one that does not require unproven ideas. It isn't decided by anyone.
The null hypothesis would be that there isn't a portal to Mars in my living room. If I wanted you to believe that there was then I would be required to provide (significant!) evidence.
Ah alright, I misunderstood the first part.
I still kind of disagree on the Occam's Razor part. Complex, illogical or presumptuous to whom? Everyone have their own ideas of these things.
And in my knowledge, a "prime mover" isn't a completely tossed theory as long as the singularity remains unsolved. Or rather; A prime mover is required before we can prove what happened at the exact moment of "big bang".
We haven't yet proved that there is no God, so it is an unproven idea. Thus, it can't be the null hypothesis? (We're arguing the semantics here, but I trust you get my point. A logical solution might not be that for everyone.)Well, you can't prove a negative but a deity is a weak idea in scientific terms because it fails as a testable hypothesis while also breaking Occam's Razor by taking superfluous assumptions. This is the why the issue of the burden of proof often becomes central to these discussions because the null hypothesis is that there is no god and any movement from that would need to be decisively demonstrated.
I don't follow. How exactly does it fail as a testable hypothesis? And why is a deity a superfluous assumption? And exactly who determines that that is the null hypothesis?A: You cannot perform any test that would demonstrate the existence of God, so it's untestable. It's unfalsifiable as well, which is arguably worse, because there is no test you could perform to prove it false, either.
B: It's a superfluous assumption because it's unnecessary to explain the origins of the universe. Occam's Razor states that the simplest explanation that explains all the data is usually correct. The data we have suggests a certain way the universe has come into being, and adding a creator only makes it more complicated. For example, let's say M-theory is the best theory for explaining how the universe came into being. Adding in a a creator to create all those mechanisms for creating universes needlessly complicates things.
Yes I understood the first one.
Why is it unnecessary to explain the origins of the universe? I claim that the Occam's razor does not apply here, since it doesn't provide all the necessary data (see: the singularity). The data we have so far explains the way the universe has come into being to a certain point, but no further. Adding a creator might make it less complicated.
Your M-theory might explain it to a certain point. But while seemingly less complex than my J-theory, it doesn't provide all the data we need, unlike my theory. Get my point?
Edit: I agree Elhonna. But for the sake of discussion, I think this is actually a nice topic since it hasn't been discussed in this thread before (at least not in a large scale).
Post by
Squishalot
It offends me, and I'm sure there are other people who could be hurt by it.
Ok, so it hurts you because it offends you? What about it offends you? Not an example, as you've said with a person who's recently lost a loved one, but what thoughts and feelings go through your mind when you see that, that results in you feeling offended?
I hope you can see that we all make a lot of claims about things that irk us in life - I'd like to get to the bottom of some of those.
Post by
asakawa
And in my knowledge, a "prime mover" isn't a completely tossed theory as long as the singularity remains unsolved. Or rather; A prime mover is required before we can prove what happened at the exact moment of "big bang". I should be more specific that a supernatural prime mover isn't required in recent theories. Models have been developed for how the universe could have come into being without the need for a supernatural progenitor. It may be that a lot more work needs to be done before we can claim to have a deep understanding of the big bang but I gather we are far enough along to call a deity superfluous in terms of being a serious idea on the start of the universe.
Now, I don't actually think this has much impact on most religious people. Recent popes (for example) have happily accepted evolution and modern physics (even if they do make some dangerously unscientific claims too /grumble). This will simply be something else which we can understand and model without the need for any supernatural assumptions but I think most people with a religious faith are happy with a system of non-overlapping magisteria where deities and science simply don't cover the same ground. To be clear, I'm in now way attempting to even address the merits of religion here, I'm simply talking about a deity as a scientific hypothesis or explanation for otherwise unknowns.
We haven't yet proved that there is no God, so it is an unproven idea. Thus, it can't be the null hypothesis? (We're arguing the semantics here, but I trust you get my point. A logical solution might not be that for everyone.)
You can not prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the believer to present evidence.
So, you haven't disproved my assertion that I have a portal to Mars in my living room but that doesn't mean that it is the null hypothesis.
People
who believe in God just don't science, like me.If you don't actually make a point then people are left responding to something you might or might not be trying to say. This makes discussion really very difficult and doesn't show much respect for the people you're having a conversation with. Like, since your sentence doesn't make much sense I'm left wondering if you typed it wrong or if I'm just not understanding you. I'm also unable to figure out if you were responding one of the couple of conversations currently taking place or raising a new topic for discussion.
I humbly ask for a little more clarity and generosity of your ideas in future.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Gone
As far as i'm concerned the existence of a God has unofficially been proven false in today's times. These religions were made back before science and when people needed an explanation for the un-explainable.
I don't see how God could be anymore real then Zeus or Poseidon or Valhalla
I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bull!@#$ on this one. People were just as aware of the basic laws of physics as far back as Aristotle's time. Sure they didn't know as much as we do today, but that's just acquired knowledge. Two thousand years from now, people could look back on us and think we are the same ignorant savages that we paint the ancient Greeks.
A miracle is breaking the laws of physics, and that was just as implausible thousands of years ago as it is today. The fact that they didn't know that solid objects tend to sink below water because of the higher density of solids, in no way made the idea of a man walking on water more more acceptable.
We have a clearer understanding now of how some things work, but people still knew back then the way things worked.
The only scientific advance that brings anything in the Bible into question is perhaps things like carbon dating that tells us the Earth is older than the Biblical timeline. And just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen refutations that a religious person could make to counter that.
It offends me, and I'm sure there are other people who could be hurt by it.
Ok, so it hurts you because it offends you? What about it offends you? Not an example, as you've said with a person who's recently lost a loved one, but what thoughts and feelings go through your mind when you see that, that results in you feeling offended?
I hope you can see that we all make a lot of claims about things that irk us in life - I'd like to get to the bottom of some of those.
Because of the place that they put it. The intention wasn't for other atheists to see it and feel solidarity, that was targeted at Christians or those that might see a Christian display. To me that's disrespectful and inappropriate. I'm not addressing the question of whether it hurts anybody or not, because I can see it becoming a circular argument.
Post by
MikadoGG
I always found it kind of amazing about miracles that they tended to occur with such a fantastic frequency back when the only means of recording them was by word of mouth, "eyewitness" accounts. Now that we have the technology to capture miracles with different electronic devices, none seem to be happening all of a sudden. And call me crazy, but I tend to believe physical evidence more than word of mouth or eyewitness accounts because I know that people lie and people who to begin with, believe in miracles, tend to witness them very frequently.
The only miracles we seem to be getting now is some guy seeing the Virgin Mary in his burnt piece of toast or Jesus' face in an accidentally smeared bird poop on a windshield. For an omnipotent omniscient God these seem like very paltry miracles, if you can call them that. And "miracles" like crying/bleeding statues have been proven to be fraudulent every time an independent examination has been allowed (most of the time the blood's DNA has been proven to belong to the church's priest or a parishioner) In fact, I believe, they sell DIY kits for making weeping/bleeding/rose oil statues at the skeptics' conventions.
Post by
Gone
I always found it kind of amazing about miracles that they tended to occur with such a fantastic frequency back when the only means of recording them was by word of mouth, "eyewitness" accounts. Now that we have the technology to capture miracles with different electronic devices, none seem to be happening all of a sudden. And call me crazy, but I tend to believe physical evidence more than word of mouth or eyewitness accounts because I know that people lie and people who to begin with, believe in miracles, tend to witness them very frequently.
The only miracles we seem to be getting now is some guy seeing the Virgin Mary in his burnt piece of toast or Jesus' face in an accidentally smeared bird poop on a windshield. For an omnipotent omniscient God these seem like very paltry miracles, if you can call them that. And "miracles" like crying/bleeding statues have been proven to be fraudulent every time an independent examination has been allowed (most of the time the blood's DNA has been proven to belong to the church's priest or a parishioner) In fact, I believe, they sell DIY kits for making weeping/bleeding/rose oil statues at the skeptics' conventions.
The Bible covers that, says God isn't going to be making anymore appearances until the second coming.
See this is kind of what tweaks me out so much about debating my religion. One of the big cliches that certain atheists like to perpetuate is that religious people are uneducated and logic is on their side and etc, etc. But most atheists I argue with, at least on the internet, don't even bother to educate themselves on the scripture they are supposedly trying to refute.
It's not so bad around here where you have people like asakawa and Skreeran who actually do their research and such, but so many people I talk to other places seem to have all these flags to wave that are either refutable or irrelevant to the religion in question they are trying to impeach.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.