Question time!

[razeontherock]

Christians are allowed to pray in class.

And how is this enforced? Kids have this right violated all the time.

I can't speak for what clothing you're allowed to wear, but how do you know it was because of the Christian message rather than what people may have found offensive about it? I'm actually wondering if this was a t-shirt that said something that people thought was offensive.

This is not a mistake that can easily be made. I would not tell you such things. Did i mention this occurred in the same town where the Grand Poobah of the KKK lives?

that would be unconstitutional (and assuming it's a public school, that means it has to adhere to it).

No, not at all! It means they're supposed to. Again, how do you enforce it? I mean, where I went to HS, you'd just deck the teacher if he stepped out of line, but that's not appropriate with a woman teacher. The last time they called the cops one got run up the flagpole and left for quite some time, while the other one still in the squad car was terrorized, as other students defecated on the squad car's roof. That was the last call the Police responded to at that HS.

Clearly that is not a "normal" situation, and (most) kids these days aren't nearly so violent, or active. Either that or they tote guns, into school, and sometimes kill people there, with them. Either way, what the Constitution says is not some magic wand, and it gets trampled all the time. (In many ways, not just this one)

In that case that's a pretty dumb solution the school chose. Better to just include non-Christian music from other religions as well.

I have failed to make the point, that the school system wasn't looking for a "solution," other than to appease a tiny little minority, who really had no grounds at all. And you're overlooking the fact that a quality education means the Conductor knows the music well enough to teach it. When you're talking about a heralded Conductor from Europe, who has served there for long enough that he's way past retirement age, this ceases to be a valid solution.

I'm aware of the costs of getting license to play music and everything else. But you're saying this like it's the reason the music program went to hell (no pun intended). Why didn't they choose Bach or some other secular composer that wasn't terrible? (Assuming they didn't, you're the first I'm hearing of this.)

Cost. Good music, costs good money. What's been owned by the School system for decades, costs nothing.

 

[Taleswapper]

And how is this enforced? Kids have this right violated all the time.

Where? Praying in school is allowed as long as the school itself isn't sponsoring it. That's not something you can "enforce," it's something you're simply allowed to do.

This is not a mistake that can easily be made. I would not tell you such things. Did i mention this occurred in the same town where the Grand Poobah of the KKK lives?

Uh... why does the KKK matter? And I was asking if you knew what clothing it was; if that's what you won't tell me, I'm out of options.

No, not at all! It means they're supposed to. Again, how do you enforce it? I mean, where I went to HS, you'd just deck the teacher if he stepped out of line, but that's not appropriate with a woman teacher. The last time they called the cops one got run up the flagpole and left for quite some time, while the other one still in the squad car was terrorized, as other students defecated on the squad car's roof. That was the last call the Police responded to at that HS.

Clearly that is not a "normal" situation, and (most) kids these days aren't nearly so violent, or active. Either that or they tote guns, into school, and sometimes kill people there, with them. Either way, what the Constitution says is not some magic wand, and it gets trampled all the time. (In many ways, not just this one)

Well, obviously they're supposed to. If they don't, then they're a bad school and it's not the fault of the laws that have been passed.
I'm sort of lost on the first part of what you're saying. Is being able to deck a teacher a good or bad thing? Also if the police actually allowed this to happen and then stopped responding to calls from that school, then that's a pretty terrible problem with the police force in that town. What makes you think atheism has anything to do with that, though?

And you're overlooking the fact that a quality education means the Conductor knows the music well enough to teach it. When you're talking about a heralded Conductor from Europe, who has served there for long enough that he's way past retirement age, this ceases to be a valid solution.

So... the school board mandated that you get another conductor?

Cost. Good music, costs good money. What's been owned by the School system for decades, costs nothing.

Composers from the Renaissance up until the early 20th century are in the public domain. The only cost would be for ink and paper, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[lucaspa]

It was a bit of hyperbole on my part. Obviously, there must be a few Christians who have the same ideas about Scripture and God. I'm saying there's a lot of diversity, I would say more so than any other religion of which I'm aware.

You need to get out more. Did you notice that, for CF at least, that "Christian" is one who adheres to the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed states:

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

These are the things Christians agree on. Notice that scripture is not mentioned anywhere!

You seem to think diversity is a bad thing. Have you ever read the works of Imre Lakatos? He was a scientist and philosopher of science. Lakatos noticed that major scientific theories have as set of core statements that are essential. Then there are a host of auxiliary hypotheses that can be either true or false, but are not essential to the core hypothesis. A prime example is evolution, one of whose core statements is "the nonconstancy of species". This means speciation and speciation is essential to evolution. An auxiliary hypothesis (used by Darwin) was that most speciation happened by phyletic gradualism (or "gradualism" for short) in which a large population slowly transforms over generations to a large population of a new species. The fossil record does not bear out phyletic gradualism (even tho there are many instances of transitional individuals). Punctuated equilibria says that most speciation happened by allopatric speciation where a small population of a species is geographically isolated. The smal population gradually transforms over generations to a new species. When the new species increases in numbers, it migrates into the original range of the original species. Phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are "auxiliary hypotheses" and either of them can be true and the core statement "the nonconstancy of species" remains.

Christianity is like that. I strongly suggest you read the book Religion and Science by Ian Barbour. There are core statements (as in the Nicene Creed) and then a host of auxiliary hypotheses. These range from hypotheses about church governance (which accounts for a lot of denominations) to the mode of baptism to emphasis on faith or works for salvation. The diversity comes from those auxiliary hypotheses.

I think I intended this question to apply to Biblical literalists, but I imagine Christians themselves must have to deal with such passages at some point or other, unless they believe that the Bible was at least slightly edited for other reasons.... I'm wondering if they are teasing apart the "good" passages, like the miracles of Jesus, from the "iffy" ones like many of the rules in Leviticus, using morals they've derived from elsewhere.

Biblical literalism, or Fundamentalism, is a new religion that began in the late 1800s. Yes, stating that the Bible is literal and inerrant gives Fundamentalists lots of problems in interpretation. And yes, they do tend to cherry pick the verses they want and ignore those that don't fit their preconceptions.

It's a quibble, but you said the fact that atheists profess uncertainty puts atheism into the category of "religion" or "faith." Again, quibble, trivial, doesn'treallymatter.

No, I'm saying atheism is just as much uncertainty and lack of proof as theism. Therefore, by the same criteria we judge theism to be a faith, atheism is also a faith.

People being brought to atheism by some prominent figure does not bring it closer to a faith or religion.

LOL! Sure it does. One of the hallmarks of Christianity is to send preachers out to "bring people to Christ". Billy Graham is a prime example. People would give personal testimony of how Graham brought them to God. What we have is the same thing but with Dawkins cast in the role of Rev. Graham. So here atheism is taking on one of the trademark characteristics of religion.

I don't see the point you're trying to make. Why are you invoking "I believe a God does not exist," a statement I didn't make? To be clear, I lack a belief in God. I do not have positive belief that He does not exist, I just don't currently believe He does.]

Welcome to the dogma. Do you not see that "don't ... believe He does"? You equate that to "lack of belief". But it's not, is it. Let's take a couple of examples to illustrate the Special Pleading you are doing.
1. I lack belief the earth is 4.55 billion years old. What does that really mean? It means I do not believe the earth is that age, doesn't it?
2. I lack belief that the planets, including the earth, orbit the sun. Is that simply a "lack of positive belief" that the planets orbit the sun? Of course not. It's a statement of your belief that the planets do NOT orbit the sun.

The dogma is that many atheists accept the statement that atheism is "lack of belief" as an authoritive statement. And that is what Merriam-Webster defines as dogma: " something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet. "

One way to show that the claim is a "definite authoritative tenet" is to do what I have done: show it is wrong. A further way to show something is dogma is that the person holding the tenet will not let loose of it, even when shown to be wrong. So thank you for helping me prove atheism has dogma.

Also, an answer to the first question in this paragraph: "think" means the view I hold at the moment, "believe" was not given a context so I don't know in what sense you mean it.

Why do you hold that view? Do you have proof? If not, then "think" is not knowledge, is it? It is an opinion or ... a belief.

If you mean "belief" as in belief in God, then belief is simply whether I assert God exists.

Do we use the word "belief" only to refer to our view of God? Of course not! We use elsewhere all the time: "I believe Rush Limbaugh is a misogynist idiot." "I believe Obamacare is unConstitutional." "I believe we should intervene in Syria to protect the protestors." "I believe tofu tastes terrible." The list goes on and on. So, what is the difference between "believe God does not exist" and "think God does not exist"? They look like 2 ways to say the same thing to me.

I'm not sure the onset of antibiotics was the reason behind that becoming immoral, but you may be right.

I have researched it. When you find data contradicting what I said, please post it.

Of course, killing anyone now for any reason other than necessary defense is immoral, or at the very least highly contested.

Contested. But notice that the people who contested killing Terry Schiavo are mostly the same ones who think that Texas killing criminals is OK.

Some of the 10 Commandments have little to do with basic moral values, "I am the Lord your God" and "remember the Sabbath day" being examples. The ones about covetousness are also arguable because they're thought crimes, but God's law is not human law so I guess I can't completely disagree.

Morality is often about thoughts, not actions. The whole idea of tolerance is a mental attitude, isn't it? "I am the Lord your God" is NOT a commandment. The commandent is "you shall have no other gods before me." The first 3 Commandments (including the one to obey the sabbath) are morals regarding God. They are basic moral values in that they deal with the moral way to treat God.

 

[lucaspa]

I said earlier in this thread at least twice that evolution is not important at all to my atheism.

Then you are an idiot atheist. Evolution is essential to atheism. Without evolution by natural selection, atheism is not intellectually tenable.



What I pointed out is that evolution is not atheism. Evolution does not demand atheism. You can be a theist and an evolutionist. The reverse is not true, however, You cannot be an atheist unless you accept evolution. Without evolution you do not have an answer to the Argument from Design. What you have is an irrational faith, one contradicted by the evidence. Being an atheist without evolution is like being a flat earther.



What I am saying is that evolution is also important to theism. Denying God's Creation ends up denying God. When you deny evolution, you are denying God's Creation.

The person I was addressing in the post you're talking about here told me that you can't disprove a negative, therefore you can't introduce doubt that God exists. I meant to appeal to that sort of negative, i.e., something does not exist.

Sorry, you don't get to duck your statement that easily. YOU stated that you could not prove a negative.

"Practical negative" was the way wrong term to use because practical negatives exist all over the place in science. Prove 2+2 does not equal 5, prove my leg is not a planet, etc.

You really should give me more credit. This is starting to get tedious.

You need to earn credit and you are failing at that. You say "practical negative". That isn't what is happening. Look at deductive logic. Being able to absolutely disprove (and thus prove a negative) is a consequence of deductive logic. Are you thinking that your examples cannot be proved?

I can get behind that. I really do appreciate that you would investigate any doubt you had. If you were to discover that God did not create the Universe, would that fundamentally change your belief in Him?

Not "my belief" but the concept in general. As I said, the Hebrews could accept a being as "God" that created Israel. As we understand more and more about technology, a very techologically advanced mortal being could have manipulated history as stated in the Exodus to create Israel. Similarly, a very advanced alien species might be able to have sufficient medical knowledge to resussitate a person dead for 36 hours. And "beam him up" later. So, except for creating a universe, I don't think we could consider a single alien (or species) to be "God" unless it created the universe. Consider the Q in Star Trek.

I mean that I don't hold the position that God exists.

So you hold the position that God does not exist.

The two statements are not the same, but the second implies the first. If I don't think God exists, I necessarily must not know that He does. This does not mean I think He doesn't.

You are missing the point. If you are going to say "I think God does not exist", then you MUST have some evidence for that. If all you have is "I don't know how the universe came about", then you have no basis to say "I don't think God exists." That "I don't know" in reference to the origin of the universe can ONLY lead you to "I don't KNOW if God exists or not." You can't go any farther because you don't have an alternative to God. But what you said is "I don't THINK God exists". Without that alternative to God as creator of the universe, you have no basis for the "think". Do you get it yet?

Saying "I don't know" is crappy investigation?

Yes, in this case it is. You have an argument for the existence of God: the existence of the universe and the fact that the universe had a beginning. IF you do not have an alternative to "God created the universe" then you have no rational reason to use "I do not know" to say "I do not think God exists". In fact, based on what evidence you have, the only rational position would be "I think God exists because God is necessary to create the universe."



What you need to do is the investigation to turn up an alternative to God creating the universe. You didn't. Considering how easy it is to find the alternatives, it's crappy investigation.

Do you think the onus is on me to decide for myself a belief on what caused the creation of the Universe, before I can say I don't believe something completely different occurred?

Of course the onus is on you to find a plausible alternative! You are staking out a positive position: the universe came into existence without God. So you have a burden of proof to back that position. Saying "I do not know" does not meet that burden of proof.



Remember, theists are basing their postion on evidence. If you are going to have a contrary position, you also need evidence to back your position. Let's take this out of religion. Right now a master's student is writing a thesis claiming that the protein p53 has a role in preventing oxidative damage to the cell. If I am to say that I think p53 does not have such a role, then I need evidence. I can't simply say "I don't know" and have a credible position.

Also why the fixation with accusing me of having faith?

Atheism is a faith. However, many atheists want to delude themselves that it isn't. It gives their ego a boost by making it look like their belief has more epistemological value than theism. You could say that it is none of my business what delusions you have. However, when you start stating those delusions as tho they are true and want me to accept them as true, then of course I am going to object.

I was 12 at the time. In Canada, that means after 3 years it goes off my record.

I'm afraid your inability to investigate is still there.

I fell out, ultimately, with the realisation that there's no real reason for me to think God exists aside from anecdotes. That's where I stand now. I'm operating from a position of negative belief, with the burden of proof on the religion, which is why I haven't re-converted.

So many fallacies here.

1. What do you think "anecdotes" are? Why are they NOT a reason for you to think something is true?

2. Sorry, the burden of proof is not only on religion. EVERY side has a burden of proof. I will admit that fallaciously shifting the burden to religion lets you cover up your failure as an investigator.

Quit picking on child version of me!

You seem to be owning the things you say -- as you are now.

He didn't do nobody no harm!

Your younger self is "nobody"? You are "nobody"? I happen to firmly believe that sloppy thinking does harm to the person doing the sloppy thinking.

Deism and atheism both result in a universe that operates without the intervention of a god. It's a very, very small leap in my mind between the two in terms of faith.

This gets back to your crappy investigative skills. You seem to think that what is "in my mind" (your mind) constitutes truth. Atheism requires several additional steps of faith. You mentioned one of them: a cause for the universe. Deism has such a cause. Atheism, the way you do it, doesn't. So you have faith that some other cause than God will come along for the origin of the universe. That's a big leap of faith.

The part you quoted was from the middle of my explanation of why pantheism, deism and atheism seemed very similar in my mind. I said it was because all three result in "a Universe that acts independently of a god." (Pantheism, where the Universe is god, has the Universe acting independently, at any rate) That being said, where the heck did you get the idea I said natural = without God? I didn't say pantheism, atheism or deism were natural or supernatural or any -natural.

With respect, you aren't listening. It doesn't matter where the quote came from. What I was trying to get you to do was think about it and the logical consequences from it.

Taleswapper: a Universe that acts independently of a god,

lucas: And THERE is the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. Tell me, what evidence did you have this is true?

Now, a universe that acts independently of a god. What does that mean? It means "natural" processes. Right. For instance, a "natural" process is that water runs downhill.When you say "acts independenly of a god", don't you mean water runs downhill without God being involved? What else could you mean? It's "just" gravity, right? But how do you know God isn't necessary for gravity to work? Or hydrogen and oxygen combust to form water. Is "independent" of a god, in your view. Right? But how do you know God is not involved? Would hydrogen and oxygen combust if God did not will it to? If God wills it to happen every time, how could you tell that God willed it?

The basic statement of faith of deism and atheism are that, when something "natural" is happening, it is the universe acting independently of deity. BUT, how do you know that is happening.

Pantheism has the physical universe and deity being the same thing. So, in pantheism, the universe is NOT acting "independenly of a god". The universe acting is God acting.

1. Yes, it did, and I have. Many theists I've met haven't falsified other versions of a deity other than by simply having faith in their god. Many said that it was because Christianity was based on faith alone whereas the other religions and deities require works/deeds. There are a plethora of other reasons I've heard that are not relevant to this discussion.

Sigh. No you didn't do any research. You just took opinions from people as ignorant as you. You need to go back thru the history of religion and see why people dropped the Greek pantheon, Mithra, the Norse pantheon, etc. The people who dropped them, not people now who have no idea what happened.

2. Valid means evidence that's relevant, verifiable and non-anecdotal.

According to Merriam-Webster "well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful"

In this case, "meaningful" would be "corresponding to objective reality". Anecdotal evidence is quite often valid. Nearly every medical treatment started off as anecdotal. So I have to ask why you threw in the "non-anecdotal".

Also, what do you mean by "verifiable"? Merriam-Webster says "verified" means "to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of" If that is the case, then your definition is circular. "Valid" evidence evidence that is established to be true because "verifiable" means to establish it as true.

If you are using "verifiable" as it has been used in science and the philosophy of science, you need to investigate the Problem of Induction.

I don't know where this accusation comes from. Is it wrong in your mind to use the term "valid evidence?"

As you used it, yes. Because "valid" now has nothing to do with "truth" or "correspond to objective reality", but instead becomes a means of getting rid of evidence you don't want to listen to. We see that in your arbitrary exclusion of "non-anecdotal". Something being anecdotal does not mean it is wrong or inaccurate. It simply means that very few people have seen the evidence.

 

[razeontherock]

Where? Praying in school is allowed as long as the school itself isn't sponsoring it. That's not something you can "enforce," it's something you're simply allowed to do.

And when the administration sends out it's mandate against it, what do you propose? Most people are just trying to get through life, not overturn King George.

Uh... why does the KKK matter? And I was asking if you knew what clothing it was; if that's what you won't tell me, I'm out of options.

You are failing to see the inter-relatedness of issues here. I have told you everything pertinent to the clothing involved, stop pretending otherwise. And presumably in a KKK stronghold, public views would not be anti-Christian, but strongly biased in favor of.

So this phenomenon is more advanced than most think, or realize.

Well, obviously they're supposed to. If they don't, then they're a bad school and it's not the fault of the laws that have been passed.

This is my point, but don't go conflating this with "bad school." Schools need to be gauged on academic achievements, and overall education. (Not always the same thing, there are other not so tangible factors, with music being among them)

It is a social problem, in this Country.

I'm sort of lost on the first part of what you're saying. Is being able to deck a teacher a good or bad thing?

I'm glad you were able to perceive I stated no opinion on that, but merely related pertinent facts.

Also if the police actually allowed this to happen and then stopped responding to calls from that school, then that's a pretty terrible problem with the police force in that town. What makes you think atheism has anything to do with that, though?

Didn't say it did. Just painted a broader picture, of things going on you'd have no way of knowing anything about otherwise.

So... the school board mandated that you get another conductor?

No. Mr Fenstermacher is invaluable, and literally irreplaceable. And rendered impotent as a teacher due to these ridiculous developments.

Composers from the Renaissance up until the early 20th century are in the public domain. The only cost would be for ink and paper, if I'm not mistaken.

Which was one of my first questions to you: do you have any idea what it costs, to buy sheet music for a large sized Orchestra, or choir, or band, or wind ensemble? Now you're going to impose that upon all of them, simultaneously?!? At a time when music departments are being removed altogether all across the Country, even in wealthy areas? And you're going to do all this in the face of open resistance not merely from the Christian 1/2 of the population, but the Jewish half as well?

All this is in response to your request for examples. Now you can see why there is some reaction on the part of Christians, against anything that might advance atheism, atheistic ideals, or restrict Christianity. When less than a 20% minority gets too big for their britches and harms the public good like this, they can expect to be squashed, by all means possible. Can you see that?

 

[lucaspa]

Where? Praying in school is allowed as long as the school itself isn't sponsoring it.

That is true. Someone once joked that as long as there are tests, there is going to be prayer in school.

What the students cannot do is pray aloud. But then, they can't ask a girl for a date aloud, say aloud what they are thinking about their teacher, etc. Speaking aloud on subjects not related to the class is forbidden because it disrupts the class. But prayer does not have to be aloud. People pray silently all the time and students can pray silently.

What Razorontherock and some others want is to enforce their religion on others. They want to pray aloud so that others in class are forced to hear about their religion and their god.

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory. It would be possible to teach it as such. After all, my daughter had an assignment where the observed positions of planets seen from earth were the data. They were asked to plot those positions based on geocentrism and heliocentrism with Kepler's orbits. It was quickly apparent that the observed positions did not fit geocentrism. So they learned one reason why geocentrism is a falsified theory.

We could do something similar with creationism. Provide some of the data -- such as the sequence of fossils in the fossil record -- and show how that does not fit the sequence of creation in creationism. But that isn't how creationists want creationism taught: they want it taught as valid theory. But it is not. We can't do that without lying to our children.

Yes, the Constitution is about what we as the government can and cannot do. We as the government cannot forbid people to assemble. Now, can a bunch of thugs in Selma AL in 1963 get together and disrupt an assembly? Yes, they did, and flouted the Constitution in the process. But the point is that we cannot use arms of the government -- such as the police -- to do so. And we are supposed to prevent individuals from flouting the Constitution.

All thru my grade-school years a huge portrait of Jesus hung in one of the stairwells. I thought nothing of it. After all, I'm Christian. About 10 years ago my parents called to tell me that the school had to take the picture down because some parents had objected. After I thought about it awhile, I realized taking the picture down was the right thing to do. The school was promoting a particular religion: Christianity. I could see Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, or atheists finding that inappropriate. And, according to the Constitution, it is.

When the Constitution was written, atheism was an irrational faith. The most anyone could be was a strict deist: God created everything and then disappeared to let it run by itself. The Argument from Design prevented atheism from being a rational faith. BTW, yes, living organisms are designed. But designed by natural selection. That's what we have learned over the years: there are other processes besides intelligence that produce design. Also, the number of adherents to other religions in the United States could be counted on the fingers of your hands. There were only deists and Christians.

Anyway, the Establishment Clause was meant to protect Christians from other Christians. For instance, Methodists (my denomination) had to pay a tax in Virginia because the official religion of the state was Anglican. Anyone who was not Anglican paid a tax that was used to support the Anglican churches in the state. However, the framers of the Constitution were smart enough to frame the Constitution in terms such that it could account for future changes in the society, demographics, technology, etc.

So while the framers were concentrated on Christian vs Christian, their intent was to make sure the government would not promote ANY religion. They had seen in the Reformation Wars how bad an idea it was to have a state religion. So now we have in our "melting pot" Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jainists, and atheists. It's still partly Christian vs Christian (as witness that the major opposition to teaching creationsm comes from Christians), but now it is mostly a subset of Christian vs everyone else, with some Christians wanting promotion of their religion by we the government. We can't do that.

 

[lucaspa]

Two things I'm aware of directly. When non-professing Christians need to change clothes that have really no meaning to them, but display some sort of symbol that a teacher thinks is Christian, but Muslims are allowed to pray facing Mecca right in the middle of class, or in the middle of a crowded hallway between classes, in either case disrupting everything and nobody dares say anything to them.

Can you give please give us documented examples of what you are talking about? You are basing a major argument on this "fact" but we don't have any details. Thank you.

 

[Taleswapper]

These are the things Christians agree on. Notice that scripture is not mentioned anywhere!

I know the Nicene Creed. It is referring to things that are in scripture. I would hope you agree, unless you think the virgin birth, the resurrection, the forthcoming return of Jesus to judge the living and the dead, and the neverending Kingdom are actually teachings of Christianity that somehow eluded mention in scripture. (Also it actually says "according to Scriptures" right in it...) Yours was a little different from the one I remember, so maybe it's a little lost in translation.

You seem to think diversity is a bad thing.

I don't know how you got that impression. I actually said in this thread that I think diversity is a good thing.
I will have a look at Ian Barbour and Imre Lakatos, though I'm not quite sure the point you were trying to make with evolution. I guess that the scientific understanding of evolution is as diverse as Christianity? Okay.

No, I'm saying atheism is just as much uncertainty and lack of proof as theism. Therefore, by the same criteria we judge theism to be a faith, atheism is also a faith.

I agree that atheism is just as much lack of proof as theism. But atheism isn't an assertion, it's a negative belief in an assertion. It's like if you were to ask me if I think Jackie Chan has an eating disorder. I'd say No. Do I need evidence or faith to support my position? No! It just requires that I not agree that he does.
This is the burden of proof. If someone makes a claim, they must provide the evidence to support it. It's not up to me to prove that your claim is false, it's up to you to prove it true. Otherwise we could make any assertion about anything and it would immediately have equal philosophical standing as its negative. (Like if someone told me there were invisible elephants in the Sahara. Can't prove they don't exist, so I guess that means they may be real, right?)

One of the hallmarks of Christianity is to send preachers out to "bring people to Christ".

You neglected my point that this is not exclusive to religion. As I said before, Mr. T brought me to WoW, Bill Nye brought me to science. Celebrities have that kind of pull. Tell me, if Drew Barrymore advertises L'Oreal and my girlfriend sees this commercial and buys herself some because of Barrymore's endorsement, does that make L'Oreal a religion?

1. I lack belief the earth is 4.55 billion years old. What does that really mean? It means I do not believe the earth is that age, doesn't it?
2. I lack belief that the planets, including the earth, orbit the sun. Is that simply a "lack of positive belief" that the planets orbit the sun? Of course not. It's a statement of your belief that the planets do NOT orbit the sun.

Yes, lucaspa, point 2. is simply a lack of positive belief that the planets orbit the sun. Just because the heliocentric solar system is so widespread, doesn't mean it's an assertive claim to lack belief in it. It just means the person making the claim has odd standards of evidence.

The dogma is that many atheists accept the statement that atheism is "lack of belief" as an authoritive statement. And that is what Merriam-Webster defines as dogma: " something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet. "
One way to show that the claim is a "definite authoritative tenet" is to do what I have done: show it is wrong. A further way to show something is dogma is that the person holding the tenet will not let loose of it, even when shown to be wrong. So thank you for helping me prove atheism has dogma.

"Thank you for helping me prove atheism has dogma." This comes across a little manipulative.
I merely use "lack of belief" because, as has been so adequately demonstrated multiple times in this thread, it's probably the only wording I can use that won't be misconstrued as "I believe God doesn't exist." If that makes it an authoritative statement, and that makes adherence to it a dogma, fine.
If you actually care whether I change my mind, you should come up with better logic than "Well if you 'lack belief' in something that everyone else believes is true, now it's a statement of faith!"

Why do you hold that view? Do you have proof? If not, then "think" is not knowledge, is it? It is an opinion or ... a belief.

I said in the part you quoted that I don't know what context "believe" was used in. Is this that context? You think "think" and "believe" mean the same thing?
If I wanted to express knowledge of something, I'd have said "know" instead.
I have certain beliefs, just not one in God. I think you're going after the wrong thing here.

So, what is the difference between "believe God does not exist" and "think God does not exist"? They look like 2 ways to say the same thing to me.

Again, you're using a specific meaning of "believe." That and you seem to be wording this to try to get me to say that I believe God doesn't exist (which is not what I believe).
If "think" and "believe" mean the same thing, then "believe" is in the sense of, "I believe I left my keys in my coat pocket," NOT "I believe in God." In that case, I can agree with you here that those statements are equivalent.

Without evolution you do not have an answer to the Argument from Design. What you have is an irrational faith, one contradicted by the evidence.

What I said was evolution was not important at all to my atheism. I did not say I do not believe in evolution.
I don't think a God designed everything. It could have been anything else, not just evolution, and frankly I don't see why I'd need, necessarily, to have a certain belief about how life was designed in order to NOT believe in something else that tried to explain the same thing.

What I am saying is that evolution is also important to theism. Denying God's Creation ends up denying God. When you deny evolution, you are denying God's Creation.

Or, you could hold that evolution is not the only possible explanation for the biodiversity we have now. I don't know why I'm arguing this point because I think evolution is accurate.

Sorry, you don't get to duck your statement that easily. YOU stated that you could not prove a negative.

I said you can't prove a negative and I was wrong. I explained why I said that, but it seems that doesn't matter.
You said more about this, but I'm just going to concede I was wrong on that point.

I mean that I don't hold the position that God exists.

So you hold the position that God does not exist.

I hold neither position.

If you are going to say "I think God does not exist", then you MUST have some evidence for that.

But I didn't say that.

But what you said is "I don't THINK God exists". Without that alternative to God as creator of the universe, you have no basis for the "think". Do you get it yet?

"I don't think God exists" does not equal "I think God doesn't exist." Do you think the Hutchinson Effect is accounted for by electromagnetism? You probably don't because you have no idea whether it does or doesn't. Does that mean you need to provide some alternate explanation in order to maintain that you don't think it's true? No. Saying you don't think something, or don't believe something, is not something that needs to be substantiated by evidence, even if that something is really obvious to most people. At worst, it just means you're being unreasonable.

You have an argument for the existence of God: the existence of the universe and the fact that the universe had a beginning. IF you do not have an alternative to "God created the universe" then you have no rational reason to use "I do not know" to say "I do not think God exists". In fact, based on what evidence you have, the only rational position would be "I think God exists because God is necessary to create the universe."

Or, the argument is invalid and therefore we can't draw any rational conclusions from it whatsoever. It implies exactly nothing about the origin of the universe, and therefore I still don't know anything about it.
You cannot force me to provide evidence for something completely different in order to understand that I find your evidence for God to be lacking.

Atheism is a faith. However, many atheists want to delude themselves that it isn't. It gives their ego a boost by making it look like their belief has more epistemological value than theism.

You're saying atheists aren't sincere, and are just insecure enough to want to adhere to dumb mental tricks to make themselves look better.
My atheism is just "I don't have any belief in gods." I assert nothing else. Everything else I believe, be it evolution or the Big Bang or karma or whatever, is secondary, as much as you'd like to try to make me believe that I need to prove something in order to say "I disagree with you."
I guess you could say I have faith, in that I have faith that God isn't obvious to me, or I have faith that the Universe behaves in the way I think it does. In that case, in your mind, I suppose I have faith.

1. What do you think "anecdotes" are? Why are they NOT a reason for you to think something is true?

2. Sorry, the burden of proof is not only on religion. EVERY side has a burden of proof. I will admit that fallaciously shifting the burden to religion lets you cover up your failure as an investigator.

1. Anecdotes are personal accounts that aren't corroborated by evidence. They aren't a reason for me to think something is true because they aren't verifiable.
2. Religion is making a claim that a god exists. They have yet to substantiate this with verifiable evidence. I'm not sure what you expect me to prove. The opposite? It's a non-falsifiable hypothesis, I can't disprove it.

Your younger self is "nobody"? You are "nobody"?

I chortled. But in case you were being serious, I was doing a textual impression of Archie Bunker.

Atheism requires several additional steps of faith. You mentioned one of them: a cause for the universe. Deism has such a cause. Atheism, the way you do it, doesn't.

Right. I do not make any claim about the origin of the universe. I don't know what caused it, or if it was caused. However, this, in particular, is not a step of faith. It's an abstention.

It doesn't matter where the quote came from. What I was trying to get you to do was think about it and the logical consequences from it.

I guess the logical consequence of a Universe without god is that all that is natural is also without God, but that's hardly a basic statement of faith.
For me, atheism just abstains from this sort of thing. It's just one answer to one question, no matter how hard you'd try to tack more beliefs on for me.

Now, a universe that acts independently of a god. What does that mean? It means "natural" processes. Right. For instance, a "natural" process is that water runs downhill.When you say "acts independenly of a god", don't you mean water runs downhill without God being involved? What else could you mean? It's "just" gravity, right? But how do you know God isn't necessary for gravity to work? Or hydrogen and oxygen combust to form water. Is "independent" of a god, in your view. Right? But how do you know God is not involved? Would hydrogen and oxygen combust if God did not will it to? If God wills it to happen every time, how could you tell that God willed it?

This is what I mean by a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It's by definition impossible to disprove God. Just like it's impossible by definition to disprove any invisible, intangible object immune to detection in any material sense. How do you know invisible, intangible unicorns aren't necessary for gravity to work?
The problem is that I could attribute the natural laws to literally any invisible, intangible, undetectable object I wanted and it would be exactly as valid. That's why we need evidence that God exists, and not evidence that He doesn't; evidence that He doesn't is, by definition, impossible to find.

No you didn't do any research. You just took opinions from people as ignorant as you.

You asked me "Did it ever occur to you to investigate how theists falsified other versions of deity?"
I thought you meant modern theists because those are the ones we're concerned with, like you were wondering if I ever asked other Christians how they falsified deities other than God. If you're just saying everyone I ever asked about this is ignorant, then I'm again out of options.
If you meant for me to go back through history, then the answer is no, I didn't, beyond investigating the major religions that people ascribe themselves to today.

So I have to ask why you threw in the "non-anecdotal".

Anecdotal evidence may well be valid for the firsthand witness, but if it cannot be corroborated then there's no reason to accept it if the anecdote in question isn't mine. I had a vision last night where Adam Savage appeared and told me to tell you "Lucas' mother needs him. Go, now!" Then he disappeared. This isn't something anyone but me can verify, so from your perspective, it's not valid evidence.

Also, what do you mean by "verifiable"? Merriam-Webster says "verified" means "to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of"

Evidence whose truth/accuracy/reality has been established independently. You say it's circular because you establish evidence as true by establishing it to be true. No, establishing evidence to be true means replicating conditions, having it examined and compared to other evidence, and so forth, so that we can verify whether it indicates anything, or is a forgery, or a false positive, etc.
The only reason I brought up my standards of evidence is because you told me I would discard anything that indicates God. In that case, why even bother arguing with me if you think I'm dishonest?

As you used it, yes. Because "valid" now has nothing to do with "truth" or "correspond to objective reality", but instead becomes a means of getting rid of evidence you don't want to listen to. We see that in your arbitrary exclusion of "non-anecdotal". Something being anecdotal does not mean it is wrong or inaccurate. It simply means that very few people have seen the evidence.

Getting back to my example of a vision of Adam Savage, would you accept that as evidence? If not, then over what threshold must this vision cross for you to accept it to be true?

 

[Taleswapper]

You are failing to see the inter-relatedness of issues here. I have told you everything pertinent to the clothing involved, stop pretending otherwise. And presumably in a KKK stronghold, public views would not be anti-Christian, but strongly biased in favor of.

I was wondering it the clothing had some message that was found offensive, and not because of its Christian content. I didn't mean to give you the impression I was ignoring you. The fact the place was strongly Christian only makes this question more pertinent to me.

This is my point, but don't go conflating this with "bad school." Schools need to be gauged on academic achievements, and overall education. (Not always the same thing, there are other not so tangible factors, with music being among them)

It is a social problem, in this Country.

I would add that schools should be gauged on the environment they provide as well.
Is the problem with the law, though, or with the people governed by them?

I'm glad you were able to perceive I stated no opinion on that, but merely related pertinent facts.

I was wondering if you were saying the fact you can't do that anymore is an improvement or a symptom of the rising problem to which you are referring.

Didn't say it did. Just painted a broader picture, of things going on you'd have no way of knowing anything about otherwise.

Okay. I had the impression otherwise because I asked for examples of how atheists were "push[ing] too far" and you seemed to be listing these examples.

Which was one of my first questions to you: do you have any idea what it costs, to buy sheet music for a large sized Orchestra, or choir, or band, or wind ensemble? Now you're going to impose that upon all of them, simultaneously?!? At a time when music departments are being removed altogether all across the Country, even in wealthy areas? And you're going to do all this in the face of open resistance not merely from the Christian 1/2 of the population, but the Jewish half as well?

I have no idea what it costs, but I'd be very surprised if the cost of printer paper and ink, even for a full orchestra, was so high as to cripple the school. I don't know if the only change was to different, public-domain music, but if it was, then the costs wouldn't actually increase unless you kept reusing the same sheet music year after year.

When less than a 20% minority gets too big for their britches and harms the public good like this, they can expect to be squashed, by all means possible. Can you see that?

I suppose, but if the law is on their side, it would be unjust to do so.

What the students cannot do is pray aloud.

I didn't even know that much. My school had a Bible study given by teachers, my Biology teacher didn't mind talking about God, and in my primary school we actually had school-sponsored prayer every morning. I don't know if that was the same way in the US back then, but I guess I'm sort of surprised at the disconnect.

EDIT: Lucas, should we take this to PM? I'm still sort of new, but we're mostly debating at this point and I'm pretty sure we'd get the thread closed for it. It's your call.

 

[razeontherock]

I was wondering it the clothing had some message that was found offensive, and not because of its Christian content. I didn't mean to give you the impression I was ignoring you. The fact the place was strongly Christian only makes this question more pertinent to me.

Yes, you're starting to see the picture now. If the clothing bore any normally potentially offensive message, I wouldn't mention it here. The thing that really irks me about this is we're talking simple fashion statements that happen to include a cross, worn by someone who's entirely secular, for whom the cross has no meaning. My point being, incidents like this are just ridiculous, and defy reason. I'm not saying such things are commonplace, but when you here of them from widespread places, there's not reason to think in every case somebody's just being melodramatic. Neither is everyone in such a situation in any position to even file a lawsuit, much less see one through.

Ironically, it is most frequently when a school board goes so far as to suspend or expel a student over such things, that lawsuits arise. That's the only way a concerned student has the time ...

It'd be interesting to have some gauge for how many more incidents there are that we never hear about, vs how many lawsuits get filed, on this type of thing.

I would add that schools should be gauged on the environment they provide as well.
Is the problem with the law, though, or with the people governed by them?

My point here is that the laws really aren't the way most atheists make them out to be, and that focuses on the way many school administrations think them to be. And wrongfully act like they are. So it's an enforcement issue. It's a common saying that police officers aren't lawyers, and don't know the laws they're supposed to enforce. This doesn't (or shouldn't) involve the police, but the same principle applies.

I was wondering if you were saying the fact you can't do that anymore is an improvement or a symptom of the rising problem to which you are referring.

Students keeping teachers, principals and by extension the larger administration in check via physical domination and just being downright unruly is unrelated, I think. The rare upside does not outweigh the negative consequences. Generally I'm glad to see our society become less violent, but I have to wonder why there is no corresponding elimination (or even decrease) in in school bullying.

Concepts like freedom isn't free, and the spirit of '76, are lost. If we had to face a major crises, I don't think we'd rise to the occasion the way generations past have.

Okay. I had the impression otherwise because I asked for examples of how atheists were "push[ing] too far" and you seemed to be listing these examples.

Yes, these are two instances of this that strike very close to home to me. The one is the school system where I attended through 11th grade, and the other is where my kids went, til the nonsense convinced their Mother to homeschool them.

I have no idea what it costs, but I'd be very surprised if the cost of printer paper and ink, even for a full orchestra, was so high as to cripple the school. I don't know if the only change was to different, public-domain music, but if it was, then the costs wouldn't actually increase unless you kept reusing the same sheet music year after year.

Yes, now you understand. Music already in your possession, is free. A fabulous teacher who has his house paid for and is just happy to be alive, having escaped Nazi Germany, and very patriotic about working for next to nothing, may not be too keen to apply himself to learning new music well enough to effectively teach, if he's 76 years old. And his salary is already in the budget. Hiring his replacement would cost more than double, for an inferior teacher, and his salary is NOT in the budget.

I suppose, but if the law is on their side, it would be unjust to do so.

Such is the 'social pendulum.' Too far on one side, yields too far on the other. If the non Christians were to pick their battles wisely, we could avoid all sorts of unnecessary polarization. As it is our society here is becoming increasingly polarized, and the media fuels that as much as possible.

My school had a Bible study given by teachers, my Biology teacher didn't mind talking about God, and in my primary school we actually had school-sponsored prayer every morning. I don't know if that was the same way in the US back then, but I guess I'm sort of surprised at the disconnect.

I grew up in one of the original 13 colonies, and moved to the Bible belt for my senior year. (Indiana) Our version of "school sponsored prayer" was the pledge of allegiance. (To the flag) I hated that and thought it rather dorky, and it has only one generic reference to God. Which of course has caused a MAJOR ruckus in recent years. Teachers could and would allow students to discuss God as it related to the subject at hand, including science. They would carefully avoid acting as if one religion was "school approved" though, and I support that type of stance. I think trying to teach people by pretending that the majority aren't Christians, and nobody has any questions, is horribly flawed.