They were asking about children's heroes and apparently didn't initially like this little girl's selection:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588979/School-apologizes-and-accepts-students-original-assignment-about-God.html

That teacher is a dumbass. I'd get rid of her ASAP.

I'm only really annoyed when teacher don't accept my excuses for my homework...

To be fair, a school assignment about god is dangerous ground to be getting into. For example, what happens if the teacher gives her a bad grade on the assignment? Now they're in trouble for criticizing the child's religion and violating separation of church and state. What happens if they have a class discussion about their assignment and it starts an argument about my god vs. your god? Etc. I can sympathize with a teacher who just doesn't want to deal with that minefield and says "pick something safer to talk about".

Santa Claus and Harry Potter would have also been acceptable then.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, a school assignment about god is dangerous ground to be getting into. For example, what happens if the teacher gives her a bad grade on the assignment? Now they're in trouble for criticizing the child's religion and violating separation of church and state. What happens if they have a class discussion about their assignment and it starts an argument about my god vs. your god? Etc. I can sympathize with a teacher who just doesn't want to deal with that minefield and says "pick something safer to talk about".

I mean, as a former teacher I completely disagree. It's the perfect opportunity to make it a teachable moment, especially since shes 10. So and so choose God. Do any of the rest of you go to church or synagogue or temple? Is there anyone from your religion that you'd consider an idol?

The "she didn't know what to do" excuse is one of the most pathetic cop outs that teacher could have possibly used, and then not accepting it based on those grounds was ridiculous. I'll assume all of this means she's a young teacher, but that's still no excuse. How the hell is she going to handle any real adversity?

If a teacher that teaches young even brings up religion, she is in a gak storm from everyside. Might aswell take the safe route.

I think we all know the Judeo Christian God's stance on idolatry.

"The original class assignment was for students to write about an idol of choice"

any human seeking to imitate the Most High is guilty of hubris and/ or blasphemy. Frankly, I question this child's grasp of theology.

I think she just chose an easy word to write. Three letters, one of them is a circle, and one of them is a circle and a line. Really the most complicated is the G. I mean if she was picking between that or George Washington, I can totally see her going for God.

I can't believe that anyone learning about God in Tennessee doesn't learn about Jesus. You can try to emulate Jesus, he was more or less human according to the mythology. Trying to emulate an omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe is once again, full of blasphemy and hubris. Not to mention a lazy and fairly stupid effort.

I think the bigger point is that God doesn't make any sense in the context of the original question. Picking God as a hero makes about as much sense as picking applesauce.

There's a reason that Christianity teaches that God came to Earth in the form of Jesus, afterall.

To be fair if someone had turned in a piece of work mostly covered in purplr and green scribbles i would have rejected it anyway

lets to forget that because of the nature of Christianity in schools it is VERY likely that if this teacher had marked this work in ANY way GOOD or BAD, she would have gone through a gak load of bs

Well apparently it got 100% so i think the next bit of work i submit might have to be religious in nature...

I just want to say that I noticed how quickly this thread shifted towards tearing into the quality of the little girl's homework and understanding of theological concepts, and that I am honestly very proud of you all for it.



EDIT: not even joking. Lately it is kinda rare to be proud to be a denizen of DakkaOT, but this restores some of my faith.

What an interesting scenario,

"I just wanted every Christian to know that we have a right to be able to express ourselves," Erica Shead said to a news reporter, according to the press release. "We understand that they've taken prayer out of schools, but they cannot take God out of our children."

Aaaaaand I've lost interest.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a teacher that teaches young even brings up religion, she is in a gak storm from everyside. Might aswell take the safe route.

Now that is just a ridiculous stance to take on it. The question was asked "who is your idol?" Whats wrong with the girl picking God? If thats her idol, thats her idol, the school isnt teaching or preaching about God, nor the teacher, so they would be safe from any fallout because its the LITTLE GIRLS idol. She stuck to the theme of the project end of.

It really isn't a big deal, and it makes sense from the perspective of a little kid I reckon. Who's your idol? The guy who I've heard made the whole world, that's pretty amazing, better than anyone else I've learnt about in the 6 years since I started reading properly (or whenever normal kids start reading). I mean she doesn't exactly have a huge pool of candidates. Her parents, siblings, rest of family, teacher if they are nice and a fireman or something if they met one. I mean really how hard is it for someone who you heard created the world just because he could to top that lot?

plastictrees wrote:Santa Claus and Harry Potter would have also been acceptable then.

Hey!, they were supposed to write about their idols, not their favorite fictional chara.... Ohhhh I see what you did there

SilverMK2 wrote:To be fair if someone had turned in a piece of work mostly covered in purplr and green scribbles i would have rejected it anyway

Agreed, the project was to write about your idol, not blind your teacher with clashing colors!

I dunno; I read her responses. They're pretty well written for a 4th grader. Sentence structure is there, content of the responses is solid.

She's a 4th grade girl. They all like to make everything as colorful as possible.

 KingCracker wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a teacher that teaches young even brings up religion, she is in a gak storm from everyside. Might aswell take the safe route.

Now that is just a ridiculous stance to take on it. The question was asked "who is your idol?" Whats wrong with the girl picking God? If thats her idol, thats her idol, the school isnt teaching or preaching about God, nor the teacher, so they would be safe from any fallout because its the LITTLE GIRLS idol. She stuck to the theme of the project end of.

Nothing is wrong, but the teacher should not have to deal with religion in class. IT is a touchy subject that can end up in hurt feelings and possible lawsuits and loss of job.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Nothing is wrong, but the teacher should not have to deal with religion in class. IT is a touchy subject that can end up in hurt feelings and possible lawsuits and loss of job.

You're wrong here. It only becomes a touchy subject if a teacher pushes one or the other. Like I said, it would have been a great teachable moment for her to open it up to other kids in the class to talk about people in their religion they looked up to. It would have also been a great teachable moment to show the kids that other religions have value as well.

She's a bad, gutless teacher, IMO.

I love that her next choice was Michael Jackson

"I just wanted every Christian to know that we have a right to be able to express ourselves," Erica Shead said to a news reporter, according to the press release. "We understand that they've taken prayer out of schools, but they cannot take God out of our children."

Just like we cannot keep his believers out of children

 Bromsy wrote:
I think we all know the Judeo Christian God's stance on idolatry.

"The original class assignment was for students to write about an idol of choice"

any human seeking to imitate the Most High is guilty of hubris and/ or blasphemy. Frankly, I question this child's grasp of theology.

Thin.

The word idol has changed over the years, just as many other words have. The concept of an idol has been diluted.

While it is possible to idolize a sports star without literally bowing down and worshiping them. While some would poetically put social responses to celebrities as akin to worship, it is a world apart from it. I am sure there are extreme cases but those are more in common with envy or lust than actual idolatry.

There is a secondary definition of idolatry, which is to love anything more than God, its a tough one to avoid and even those who are devout do this all the time, God is generally ok with this so long as you keep coming back to him.

Also while on the subject of idolatry, its normally associated with 'graven images', fortunately in the context of raising up and worshiping them, because most if not all of us would sport a collection of graven images larger than all but the richest of Ancient Egyptian priests, and that includes people like me and generalgrog.

 Senden wrote:
Just like we cannot keep his believers out of children

Yes, because every Christian minister is a child molester...

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If a teacher that teaches young even brings up religion, she is in a gak storm from everyside. Might aswell take the safe route.

Now that is just a ridiculous stance to take on it. The question was asked "who is your idol?" Whats wrong with the girl picking God? If thats her idol, thats her idol, the school isnt teaching or preaching about God, nor the teacher, so they would be safe from any fallout because its the LITTLE GIRLS idol. She stuck to the theme of the project end of.

Nothing is wrong, but the teacher should not have to deal with religion in class. IT is a touchy subject that can end up in hurt feelings and possible lawsuits and loss of job.

Its only an issue if a teacher forces it onto a student. Not bringing up religion period is an extremely stupid thing to do, and similar to schools that skirt around the issue of sex ed, only leads to trouble. You can teach ABOUT religion, you can even talk about it, you just can't tell students to follow it. In my social studies classes in high school we had several projects we had to do concerning religion as it has a huge influence on history. If you don't teach about what each religion entails, kids can grow up assuming every Muslim is a terrorist waiting to blow up the school, or that every Jew is a money grubbing backstabber.

Its when you have prayers in the school, or a school official starts strongly suggesting you go to church or follow a certain faith, that it becomes something they can get in trouble for. And since this school is in the south, I doubt any of the parents would have cared.

Maybe up in New York or California the mere mention of religion can get a teacher canned, but where I went to school learning about how different religions worked and influenced history was an important part of the curriculum, and the only people who moaned about it were ignorant rednecks who didn't want to learn about "those durn terrorists." Having a student bring it up entirely on her own should have been no problem whatsoever. If she managed to get canned because she gave the kids paper a high/low grade, that would be more of a sign of an insanely overzealous parent, not any fault of the teacher.

Agreed completely. You cant talk about or teach History at all without having to touch on religion, its impossible to do so. Religion, whether you agree with it or not, has shaped our planet as a whole.



And again Hotsauceman, The teacher doesnt have to teach about it in her class, she doesnt even need to bring it up, but completely denying a child their report simply because the child is talking about religion of ANY KIND is just pathetic and inexcusable. Shes a frigging terrible teacher IMO

Considering all the horrible things god it said to have done in the bible, I feel it's more concerning that the child is looks up to god.

The teacher in question has every right to say if someone/something is unacceptable for an assignment. I found no concrete information on what the assignment was besides a single line, but if it was implied being a person, it's gotta be a person. You can't idolize your cat/dog.

 juraigamer wrote:
but if it was implied being a person, it's gotta be a person

This line exemplifies the thorny debate that can arise. Christians claim God is three persons and that one of those persons was fully human and completely historical.

I really sympathize with the teacher here. Even without considering the kerfuffle any mention of religion in public schools is bound to generate one way or the other, I highly doubt the assignment contemplated this kind of answer.

 juraigamer wrote:
Considering all the horrible things god it said to have done in the bible, I feel it's more concerning that the child is looks up to god.

The teacher in question has every right to say if someone/something is unacceptable for an assignment. I found no concrete information on what the assignment was besides a single line, but if it was implied being a person, it's gotta be a person. You can't idolize your cat/dog.

Most Christian children do not know of God's divine assassinations (other than Noah's Ark) and have a limited understanding of the Bible, as do numerous believers, since they haven't read the Bible fully.

Again, I can see how this was going to be a problem in any circumstance. Though our RE assignment was fairly fun, someone did the South Park Jesus.

 Manchu wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
but if it was implied being a person, it's gotta be a person

This line exemplifies the thorny debate that can arise. Christians claim God is three persons and that one of those persons was fully human and completely historical.

I really sympathize with the teacher here. Even without considering the kerfuffle any mention of religion in public schools is bound to generate one way or the other, I highly doubt the assignment contemplated this kind of answer.

I don't. They made a mountain out of a molehill. Suck it up or quit.

 Frazzled wrote:
They made a mountain out of a molehill.

Nah, the girl's mom did that by making a teacher's decision into a First Amendment issue.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They made a mountain out of a molehill.

Nah, the girl's mom did that by making a teacher's decision into a First Amendment issue.

Because it is.

There you go again, making mountains out of molehills.

 Manchu wrote:
There you go again, making mountains out of molehills.

Tell that to the ACLU.

 Manchu wrote:
There you go again, making mountains out of molehills.

Took the words out of my finger tips.

While I can empathize with the Teacher... I think all parties here are over reacting here.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There you go again, making mountains out of molehills.

Tell that to the ACLU.

I know you're a card-carrying member and all. On some issues at least.

Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

o.O

Why does that matter?

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

o.O

Why does that matter?

*prepares for the thread turning into a 23 page gak storm on race and skin pigment*

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

o.O

Why does that matter?

Doesn't matter at all. I saw "south" and "god" and immediately thought white bible beater . Really just surprised, thats all. And thats despite the fact that I'm fully aware of how predominate baptist churches are in the south.

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

Didn't know that, which makes me wonder why martin luther king jr wasn't chosen instead... or someone else that has had a profound impact on her and her family.

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There you go again, making mountains out of molehills.

Tell that to the ACLU.

I know you're a card-carrying member and all. On some issues at least.

You're right. I am actually. The annoying thing is all the email updates however. Between them, FIRE, and the NRA, they flood my email and my snail mail.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imposter101 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

o.O

Why does that matter?

*prepares for the thread turning into a 23 page gak storm on race and skin pigment*

Well in truth, if she was blue I think it would have surprised all of us.

 Peregrine wrote:
To be fair, a school assignment about god is dangerous ground to be getting into. For example, what happens if the teacher gives her a bad grade on the assignment? Now they're in trouble for criticizing the child's religion and violating separation of church and state. What happens if they have a class discussion about their assignment and it starts an argument about my god vs. your god? Etc. I can sympathize with a teacher who just doesn't want to deal with that minefield and says "pick something safer to talk about".

I don't see how that would play out in this scenario though... When I was 10, I remember what assignments I had were VERY cut and dry. If her assignment was to provide a number of reasons why God was her idol/hero (they should avoid the use of the word idol, as it can/does offend MANY religious types) and she gave the minimum number of reasons, then there is nothing to mark her down for. If it were a High Schoolers assignment, then the instructions probably would have included caveats about grammar and spelling, for which a person could legitimately be marked down for.

The point is, some little kid could do a less than perfect as per the instructions assignment on a religious topic and get marked down. And then parents could make it out to be, and depending on the particulars perhaps compellingly, about religion.

 cincydooley wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

o.O

Why does that matter?

Doesn't matter at all. I saw "south" and "god" and immediately thought white bible beater . Really just surprised, thats all. And thats despite the fact that I'm fully aware of how predominate baptist churches are in the south.

Except the early part of the article clearly talks about Memphis.


BUT..... on the other hand, it is DESERET "NEWS" which is the LDS media outlet, so go figure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The point is, some little kid could do a less than perfect as per the instructions assignment on a religious topic and get marked down. And then parents could make it out to be, and depending on the particulars perhaps compellingly, about religion.

all of my teachers growing up marked up my papers, either showing what I did wrong, or made a note listing the faults found.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I don't see how that would play out in this scenario though... When I was 10, I remember what assignments I had were VERY cut and dry. If her assignment was to provide a number of reasons why God was her idol/hero (they should avoid the use of the word idol, as it can/does offend MANY religious types) and she gave the minimum number of reasons, then there is nothing to mark her down for. If it were a High Schoolers assignment, then the instructions probably would have included caveats about grammar and spelling, for which a person could legitimately be marked down for.

You make a good point, do we even know if the homework fulfilled the minimum criteria for the assignment, barring the issue about the chosen topic?

After thinking about it, this seems like what happened, only now it's blown out of proportion.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
all of my teachers growing up marked up my papers, either showing what I did wrong, or made a note listing the faults found

It wouldn't matter because angry parents will say they are reading between the lines. As in this case. Teacher says, this work does not meet the criteria of the assignment. Mom says daughter's First Amendment rights are violated.

I must have missed the Memphis part when I was reading. I knew it was in Tennessee, but associated it with more Nashville/Spring Hill/Franklin area as thats what I'm most familiar with.

Alfndrate wrote:

plastictrees wrote:Santa Claus and Harry Potter would have also been acceptable then.

Hey!, they were supposed to write about their idols, not their favorite fictional chara.... Ohhhh I see what you did there

I don't see any problem with selecting a fictional character to be your idol. Hell, Odysseus and Achilles were both crafted to be idols, each as a teaching method on what values should be exemplified.

The problem arises if the assignment was to select a non-fiction person as your idol, in which case the US-Education-problem-nuclear-bomb detonates, because God is not real until it is proved to be, and Russell's Teapot is poison to religion, and religion always responds like a wounded animal.

Manchu wrote:The point is, some little kid could do a less than perfect as per the instructions assignment on a religious topic and get marked down. And then parents could make it out to be, and depending on the particulars perhaps compellingly, about religion.

Also this. Parents will go bugnuts crazy over their precious snowflakes' school experiences, and if you throw their faith into the mix, then the level of fervor will be comparable to giving a machine gun to a chimpanzee on PCP.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Russell's Teapot is poison to religion

So he thought. The mistake lies in assuming faith is a collection of fact claims in the same sense that physics is. I'm not saying atheists are the only ones to make that mistake.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:



Now that is just a ridiculous stance to take on it. The question was asked "who is your idol?" Whats wrong with the girl picking God? If thats her idol, thats her idol, the school isnt teaching or preaching about God, nor the teacher, so they would be safe from any fallout because its the LITTLE GIRLS idol. She stuck to the theme of the project end of.

Nothing is wrong, but the teacher should not have to deal with religion in class. IT is a touchy subject that can end up in hurt feelings and possible lawsuits and loss of job.

 sebster wrote:
I think the bigger point is that God doesn't make any sense in the context of the original question. Picking God as a hero makes about as much sense as picking applesauce.

There's a reason that Christianity teaches that God came to Earth in the form of Jesus, afterall.

Sorry, that is wrong theology sebster. Prior to the incarnation of Jesus it was difficult to know God, though some claimed to do so they were very few; so you would be correct that Jesus was sent to open the way. In the New Testament era however one can know God because of the Holy Spirit, it fact it is best to say that one can know God, the Holy Spirit and only know of God, the Son.

 cincydooley wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

o.O

Why does that matter?

Doesn't matter at all. I saw "south" and "god" and immediately thought white bible beater . Really just surprised, thats all. And thats despite the fact that I'm fully aware of how predominate baptist churches are in the south.

There are a lot of black Christians in the US, fewer ministers probably and fewer ultra rich televangelists, but I would not be surprised is there is a larger percentage of Christians in the black community than in the white.

In the UK black Christians help fill the urban churches, to the extent the denominations involved are growing rapidly.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Just like we cannot keep his believers out of children

Yes, because every Christian minister is a child molester...

That is not acceptable at all, and I have to call you out on that.

Yes there is child abusers in the churches and we regret this and the damage they do. However two points must be made clear.

1. Under no circumstances whatsoever is there ANY excuse to accuse all Christian ministers of child molesting, or even to imply it is more than a minority. That is just bigotry, and is not acceptable even as a joke.

2. The Roman Catholic church, which bears the brunt of these accusations is one of the largest organisations in human history, and is almost certainly the largest today, dwarfing even the Chinese armed forces in terms of numbers of employees, paid and voluntary. The Roman Catholic church has more employees than many established and sovereign nations have people.
With that in mind is it not inevitable that a portion will be bad? It would be like realising there are paedophiles in Danish prisons so Danes are therefore child molestors. No one would be allowed to get away with that conclusion and there are more Catholic employees than there are Danes.

<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

 Orlanth wrote:

 sebster wrote:
I think the bigger point is that God doesn't make any sense in the context of the original question. Picking God as a hero makes about as much sense as picking applesauce.

There's a reason that Christianity teaches that God came to Earth in the form of Jesus, afterall.

Sorry, that is wrong theology sebster. Prior to the incarnation of Jesus it was difficult to know God, though some claimed to do so they were very few; so you would be correct that Jesus was sent to open the way. In the New Testament era however one can know God because of the Holy Spirit, it fact it is best to say that one can know God, the Holy Spirit and only know of God, the Son.

 cincydooley wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Was anyone else sorta surprised that the little girl was black? Surprised me a little bit.

o.O

Why does that matter?

Doesn't matter at all. I saw "south" and "god" and immediately thought white bible beater . Really just surprised, thats all. And thats despite the fact that I'm fully aware of how predominate baptist churches are in the south.

There are a lot of black Christians in the US, fewer ministers probably and fewer ultra rich televangelists, but I would not be surprised is there is a larger percentage of Christians in the black community than in the white.

In the UK black Christians help fill the urban churches, to the extent the denominations involved are growing rapidly.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Just like we cannot keep his believers out of children

Yes, because every Christian minister is a child molester...

That is not acceptable at all, and I have to call you out on that.

Yes there is child abusers in the churches and we regret this and the damage they do. However two points must be made clear.

1. Under no circumstances whatsoever is there ANY excuse to accuse all Christian ministers of child molesting, or even to imply it is more than a minority. That is just bigotry, and is not acceptable even as a joke.

2. The Roman Catholic church, which bears the brunt of these accusations is one of the largest organisations in human history, and is almost certainly the largest today, dwarfing even the Chinese armed forces in terms of numbers of employees, paid and voluntary. The Roman Catholic church has more employees than many established and sovereign nations have people.
With that in mind is it not inevitable that a portion will be bad? It would be like realising there are paedophiles in Danish prisons so Danes are therefore child molestors. No one would be allowed to get away with that conclusion and there are more Catholic employees than there are Danes.

I'm currently praying god gifts you with a sense of humour.

 Orlanth wrote:
With that in mind is it not inevitable that a portion will be bad? It would be like realising there are paedophiles in Danish prisons so Danes are therefore child molestors. No one would be allowed to get away with that conclusion and there are more Catholic employees than there are Danes.

And you just missed the point entirely. The Catholic Church doesn't get criticized because some of its priests raped children, it gets criticized because the organization's response to priests raping children was to cover it up and send them elsewhere to rape more children because telling the police would have been bad for their image. We aren't just talking about a few bad people here, this was a problem with the organization itself.

Bullockist wrote:


I'm currently praying god gifts you with a sense of humour.

If anyone were to say that 'all blacks/whites/gays/gamers/French/doctors/Americans/priests are child molestors', whether in jest or not I would hope Dakka would see fit to chastise them for doing so rather than attack anyone who critiques such a vile comment as lacking a sense of humour.

Bigotry is not a laughing matter.

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

 Imposter101 wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
Considering all the horrible things god it said to have done in the bible, I feel it's more concerning that the child is looks up to god.

The teacher in question has every right to say if someone/something is unacceptable for an assignment. I found no concrete information on what the assignment was besides a single line, but if it was implied being a person, it's gotta be a person. You can't idolize your cat/dog.

Most Christian children do not know of God's divine assassinations (other than Noah's Ark) and have a limited understanding of the Bible, as do numerous believers, since they haven't read the Bible at all.

FTFY.

Otherwise clearly this little girl needs to be removed from this terrible forced brainwashing she's receiving... at the hands of her parents.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

I don't agree with how the Catholic church handled the molestation charges, but I also would be an idiot to assume that just because there were a few priests that had strayed from their path that that every priest in the Catholic church, and every Christian minister was a child abuser/molester.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
With that in mind is it not inevitable that a portion will be bad? It would be like realising there are paedophiles in Danish prisons so Danes are therefore child molestors. No one would be allowed to get away with that conclusion and there are more Catholic employees than there are Danes.

And you just missed the point entirely. The Catholic Church doesn't get criticized because some of its priests raped children, it gets criticized because the organization's response to priests raping children was to cover it up and send them elsewhere to rape more children because telling the police would have been bad for their image. We aren't just talking about a few bad people here, this was a problem with the organization itself.

No I didnt, the point was 'all priests are child molestors'. I oppose it vehemently.

Catholic officials covered up because they lacked the courage to do the right thing. It was a very bad call and it came out as well it should. However some of the fears that led the Vatican to hide the abuses have come true, people assume that there are more paedo priests than there actually are, as demonstrated comments on this thread.

Besides the whole church has had a shakedown right from the top, and we should credit them for that. Even if it is at least 400 years overdue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

I don't agree with how the Catholic church handled the molestation charges, but I also would be an idiot to assume that just because there were a few priests that had strayed from their path that that every priest in the Catholic church, and every Christian minister was a child abuser/molester.

But you posted as if you were such an idiot, and even refused to edit. As far as anyone can tell you were echoing Sendens 'joke'.

Sarcasm is detected by tone of voice and body language, not text. This is why we have emoticons, you could even post [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] its generally safer.

Besides there are one or two people on Dakka who have a serious hate issue regarding religious people, and I would not put it past them to come up with gak like that for real.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

Not only was it dripping, it was rainbow colored and screaming. The sarcasm couldn't have been more obvious. I think Orlanth needs to lay off the coffee and take up yoga or something.

~Tim?

I'm pretty sure you were the only one so far to think he was serious Orlanth, or at least the only one to post as such in a rude and abrasive manner.

Edited

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Senden wrote:
Just like we cannot keep his believers out of children

Yes, because every Christian minister is a child molester...

That is not acceptable at all, and I have to call you out on that.

Yes there is child abusers in the churches and we regret this and the damage they do. However two points must be made clear.

1. Under no circumstances whatsoever is there ANY excuse to accuse all Christian ministers of child molesting, or even to imply it is more than a minority. That is just bigotry, and is not acceptable even as a joke.

2. The Roman Catholic church, which bears the brunt of these accusations is one of the largest organisations in human history, and is almost certainly the largest today, dwarfing even the Chinese armed forces in terms of numbers of employees, paid and voluntary. The Roman Catholic church has more employees than many established and sovereign nations have people.
With that in mind is it not inevitable that a portion will be bad? It would be like realising there are paedophiles in Danish prisons so Danes are therefore child molestors. No one would be allowed to get away with that conclusion and there are more Catholic employees than there are Danes.

The context I got out of Senden's quip was referencing the forcing religion on children by their elders, which I can understand.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
There you go again, making mountains out of molehills.

Took the words out of my finger tips.

While I can empathize with the Teacher... I think all parties here are over reacting here.

Yeah, all parties are being silly, excepting the school board.

The student was an idiot because she doesn't understand what an idol is.

The teacher is an idiot because its fourth grade homework, and she should have just given it a pass and moved on, maybe with a note attached explaining that an idol needs to be a person.

The parent is an idiot because she tried to make a constitutional issue over the fact that her child doesn't understand what an idol is.

The school board aren't idiots, because they did whatever they had to to resolve an issue about a fourth grader's homework as quickly as possible.

Dakka are idiots because we're debating this. Honest to God spending enough of our time to produce three pages debating a fourth graders homework assignment that from the look of it was done in the commercial breaks during Spongebob.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Sorry, that is wrong theology sebster. Prior to the incarnation of Jesus it was difficult to know God, though some claimed to do so they were very few; so you would be correct that Jesus was sent to open the way. In the New Testament era however one can know God because of the Holy Spirit, it fact it is best to say that one can know God, the Holy Spirit and only know of God, the Son.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

You have this really boring habit of just inserting in to other people's posts all kinds of other stuff so you can wedge them in to whatever theological issue you feel like talking about at that point in time. It's boring. Stop it.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

Not only was it dripping, it was rainbow colored and screaming. The sarcasm couldn't have been more obvious. I think Orlanth needs to lay off the coffee and take up yoga or something.

~Tim?

Here's another one for "obvious sarcasm".

 Orlanth wrote:

Bullockist wrote:


I'm currently praying god gifts you with a sense of humour.

If anyone were to say that 'all blacks/whites/gays/gamers/French/doctors/Americans/priests are child molestors', whether in jest or not I would hope Dakka would see fit to chastise them for doing so rather than attack anyone who critiques such a vile comment as lacking a sense of humour.

Bigotry is not a laughing matter.

It seems Bullockist's prayers were unattended to.

 sebster wrote:
The student was an idiot because she doesn't understand what an idol is.

I'm starting to wonder if you do.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

i·dol [ahyd-l]
noun
1. an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.
2. Bible.
a. an image of a deity other than God.
b. the deity itself.
3. any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion.
4. a mere image or semblance of something, visible but without substance, as a phantom.
5. a figment of the mind; fantasy.

I even went to the trouble of checking a couple different dictionaries and couldn't find any definition for idol that included aspiration to becoming or emulation. I think you're thinking of a different word.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm starting to wonder if you do.

In English, and most other languages, exactly which meaning of a word is intended by the speaker is generally figured out by context. This is a skill mastered simultaneously with very early language. A classic example is the sentence "I saw a dog in a pet store window and decided to buy it". Per the technical rules of English the 'it' that has been purchased would be the window, but by our understanding of the context of pet stores we know that it is the dog that is for sale.

Similarly, when asked to complete an assignment on an idol, context should play an important role in informing the student's that they are not being asked to write about an image of a deity other than God, or a figment of the mind.

Now from there it gets a little trickier. Because we have to use context to not only figure which meaning is being picked, but also add in extra details that might not relate to the that definition of the word in every situation, but most certainly apply in this situation. It is this understanding of context that allows us to interpret the phrase 'no talking during the exam' to also include whispering, shouting, sign language and all other kinds of communication that aren't 'talking', but clearly not allowed during the exam. This is stuff that kids often don't develop until they're about 5, and some particularly dim 10 year olds might struggle with.

And in this case, given the assignment for young children to write about an idol, it's reasonable to assume that it involves an idol that they want to be like, and not an otherworldly creator God.

 sebster wrote:
Similarly, when asked to complete an assignment on an idol, context should play an important role in informing the student's that they are not being asked to write about an image of a deity other than God, or a figment of the mind.

Indeed not. They could, for example, be asked to write about any person or thing regarded with admiration, adoration, or devotion.

Now from there it gets a little trickier. Because we have to use context to not only figure which meaning is being picked, but also add in extra details that might not relate to the that definition of the word in every situation, but most certainly apply in this situation. It is this understanding of context that allows us to interpret the phrase 'no talking during the exam' to also include whispering, shouting, sign language and all other kinds of communication that aren't 'talking', but clearly not allowed during the exam. This is stuff that kids often don't develop until they're about 5, and some particularly dim 10 year olds might struggle with.

And in this case, given the assignment for young children to write about an idol, it's reasonable to assume that it involves an idol that they want to be like, and not an otherworldly creator God.

Perhaps. I haven't seen the assignment, however, so making claims about its context is beyond my ken.

Regardless, claiming the student's an idiot for not knowing the definition of 'idol' seems rather ironic given that her initial choice is acceptable under at least two of the definitions of the word, and the definition you prefer does not appear to be listed in any known dictionary, dependent entirely on context. Sort of like "ratchet."

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Russell's Teapot is poison to religion

So he thought. The mistake lies in assuming faith is a collection of fact claims in the same sense that physics is. I'm not saying atheists are the only ones to make that mistake.

Skipping the theology debate as much as I can, I'm going to try to keep this in the context of my hypothetical problem: that the students were asked ot select a nonfiction person they idolize.

The kid cannot thus pick god, because god is not real, nor can be considered real until such a time as can be demonstrated otherwise. The question is not of faith; the question is very simple: is god real. And the answer is no, just as it is with vampires and wizards. Because while a person might have faith that god exists, s/he cannot demonstrate this belief in any way other than a pure reliance on the pre-existing belief in such. Thus, if the assignment asked for a nonfiction person to be selected, the god is an invalid choice, just as would be Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker.


However, as an aside, I would love for you to explain to me what you mean by "fact claims" in any sense other than the sense that includes physics; because it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine what "fact" pertains to.

 Orlanth wrote:

Besides there are one or two people on Dakka who have a serious hate issue regarding religious people, and I would not put it past them to come up with gak like that for real.

As opposed to those who want to wave away the serious criminal institutional wrongdoings the church engaged in for years?

People should be in jail for the coverups that went on, not just having el-pope's people say 'oh yes, we dealt with that internally by having a quiet chat with the priest who raped and sexually abused tens of children in his care'.

I don't care how rare or otherwise the actual abuses were, when you had people covering things up at the very highest levels of the church and no one going to jail over it, something is going wrong.

'Having a bit of a spring clean' is not fething good enough. The church needs to hand over everything and everyone they have to the police. Maybe then people might respect them...

 Seaward wrote:
Indeed not. They could, for example, be asked to write about any person or thing regarded with admiration, adoration, or devotion.

Just like American Idol constantly has dogs and antique furniture apply to be on the show. If any idol will do, because there's no such thing as context, then...

Perhaps. I haven't seen the assignment, however, so making claims about its context is beyond my ken.

Regardless, claiming the student's an idiot for not knowing the definition of 'idol' seems rather ironic given that her initial choice is acceptable under at least two of the definitions of the word, and the definition you prefer does not appear to be listed in any known dictionary, dependent entirely on context. Sort of like "ratchet."

I just explained this. People use context to gather the intent of another person's statement. It's actually a lot more important than the literal definition of what was stated. To repeat the example I already gave, 'no talking during the exam' literally means that people are not allowed to talk, but that other forms of communication like shouting or whispering would be just fine... but of course we all understand context and use that to determine what is intended.

As such, it may well have met the literal request of the homework assignment to do your assignment on God, or applesauce, but it's pretty clear the intent was to write about someone you admire and want to be like, because that's the kind of stuff that schools do all the time.

 Orlanth wrote:
That is just bigotry, and is not acceptable even as a joke.

Well, I was baptized Catholic, so it isn't bigotry. Just like you can only criticize an ethnic group if you are a member of it.


And if you God bothering types can't handle that you should be more careful about the political allegiances of the babies you spill water on.














Also I was talking about child molestation

 sebster wrote:
Just like American Idol constantly has dogs and antique furniture apply to be on the show. If any idol will do, because there's no such thing as context, then...

That's an interesting example, because if someone were to say, "Provide an example of a music idol," my answer would not include anyone I wished to emulate.

I just explained this. People use context to gather the intent of another person's statement. It's actually a lot more important than the literal definition of what was stated. To repeat the example I already gave, 'no talking during the exam' literally means that people are not allowed to talk, but that other forms of communication like shouting or whispering would be just fine... but of course we all understand context and use that to determine what is intended.

As such, it may well have met the literal request of the homework assignment to do your assignment on God, or applesauce, but it's pretty clear the intent was to write about someone you admire and want to be like, because that's the kind of stuff that schools do all the time.

Aside from the gaffe on the actual definition of the word, what I find so perplexing about your point is the assumption that the majority - or even all, perhaps - of fourth graders have an intricate, nuanced theologically-informed view of God, rather than seeing him as some guy who sits in heaven. What if she said her reasoning for naming God as her idol was that he is kind, loving, and wise? Plenty of children view God as a "person". I doubt the same could be said for applesauce.

So is there any chance of this thread getting back on topic, you know.... about a 10 year old girl and her report? Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BASHING RELIGIONS AND FONDLING CHILDREN!


Just curious is all.

No no chance whatsoever.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
<_<

I'm assuming you're talking to senden and not me?

I was addressing both of you, if you meant to be sarcastic then I suggest you rewrite your post.
Dont blame anyone but yourself if someone calls you out when you in plain text declare an entire profession to be made up of child molestors.

*sigh* I'm not going to edit it because I felt that the sarcasm was pretty much dripping out of every orifice.

Not only was it dripping, it was rainbow colored and screaming. The sarcasm couldn't have been more obvious. I think Orlanth needs to lay off the coffee and take up yoga or something.

~Tim?

Fair enough. If you think I owe Alfndrate an apology I will man up and say do so

Apology offered to Alfndrate for assuming that his comments about all priests being child molestors being literal rather than sarcastic.

I hope you all understand the offence it would cause if it was.

No need to apologize Orlanth, but it is appreciated .

As a former Roman Catholic (I was even confirmed!) I know that not all priests are child molesters and that the church handled it badly. Let's get back on topic to this young girl, though there doesn't seem to be much in the way of updates. The story about her not being able to write about God is a month old.

The girl should be able to write about people that she looks up to. If she only has experience with the love your neighbor God of the New Testament then so be it, he's not a terrible dude to look up to. If she looks up to fire and brimstone God of the Old, well I think we've found our future world leader

 azazel the cat wrote:
because god is not real

Begging the question, just like Russell.

 azazel the cat wrote:
it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine what "fact" pertains to

A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Sorry, that is wrong theology sebster. Prior to the incarnation of Jesus it was difficult to know God, though some claimed to do so they were very few; so you would be correct that Jesus was sent to open the way. In the New Testament era however one can know God because of the Holy Spirit, it fact it is best to say that one can know God, the Holy Spirit and only know of God, the Son.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

You have this really boring habit of just inserting in to other people's posts all kinds of other stuff so you can wedge them in to whatever theological issue you feel like talking about at that point in time. It's boring. Stop it.

If you don't want me to respond to you, stop talking bollocks on religion threads. People can choose their idol for several reasons, as someone to directly emulate, as a source of inspiration or as a provider, God can be all three.

1. God is a valid functional role model from a Christian perspective.
You are only correct in that one cannot become as applesauce, but we can become as God. Not only is it confirmed as a possibility scripture requires that we should attempt to do so

Christians for example are asked to become Christlike. Here are some scriptural examples:

Phillipians 2:5 - In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

2 Corinthians 3:18 - And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

1Corinthians 11:1 - Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

There are many, many more examples, but that is enough for now. Its not deep tgheology unlike the stuff on intercessory prayer, its face up stuff that can be read in plain text. All the above comments read very clearly in context that one is expected to see God as a functional role model.


2. God is an inspirational role model.
Even if God were not considered a functional role model that is not the only reason to do so. Someone could for instance choose Neil Armstrong as an idol, it would be a solid secular choice and I doubt anyone either you or the school would have any problem with the choice. However what if the kids who chose Neil Armstrong was disabled and had no hope of ever successfully applying ofr the space program. Can he or still not still choose Neil Armstrong as a role model? A role model can also inspire ones dreams, in fact its what they best do, and that also applies to God.

I wonder how far you take your dogma of only permitting functional role models sebster.

Teacher sebster : Now class I want you all to think of an idol for your homework and do a full page on your personal idol for next class.
Littlie Timmy: Sir!. Can I choose Michael Phelps the Olympic swimmer?
Teacher sebster: Sorry Timmy you have a congenital disorder and will never make the Olympic team, why not choose someone from the Paraplympic team instead.

3. God is someone to look to for comfort
God can be envisioned as a personal friend and someone to look to for comfort and protection according to many of His followers including myself. From the images I saw of the homework that is also the opinion of Erin Shead. Now it is plain as days from other threads that you don't like that theology sebster, but there is still value in this and thus it is an acceptable choice.
Here are some quotes from this child's work:

"God is my idol I will never hate him he will always be the 1 person I look up to."
"I look up to him because he put me on this earth. He is the reason I am on this earth."

10 year old Erin Shead believes that God is someone a person can look up to.

Why are you talking about 'knowing' God? Look at my example. Applesause. We 'know' applesauce. The reason applesauce makes no sense as an idol isn't because as much as we may like it and think its awesome, it makes no sense to aspire to be applesause.

That ten year old has a better grasp of theology than you do, should I be surprised.

 sebster wrote:

You have this really boring habit of just inserting in to other people's posts all kinds of other stuff so you can wedge them in to whatever theological issue you feel like talking about at that point in time. It's boring. Stop it.

You made my presence necessary. Time and again you want to redefine Biblical issues according to your non-belief and apply the twisted thinking that results as the opinions of others. I would not dare take a Buddhist quote say what it means from a non-Buddhist perspective ignoring all Buddhist teaching and insist that the garbled remains are what Buddhists actually believe. So why do you insist on doing same, and continue to do so even after the correct theology is presented because it doesn't match your opinions.
It doesnt help that in almost every case, this being the only exception, you want to propose that the comments spoken are something far less morally palatable than what was actually spoken

Ultimately if you demand sole right of translation you could in time make even Mohammandas Ghandi appear like a raving hate fuelled fanatic.

So I am staying right here.

The comparison of God to applesauce is inane and disappointing.

@OP: Who cares?
It's not like the kid was being kicked out for it, she just did a different one...

 purplefood wrote:
@OP: Who cares?
It's not like the kid was being kicked out for it, she just did a different one...

Your use of logic and reasonableness have no place here (plus I didn't know that).

Yeah she did Michael Jackson after he God one was rejected.

But I thought this was a First Amendment issue?

It is, now more than ever. Forced to turn from God to Jackson-oh the humanity!

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
because god is not real

Begging the question, just like Russell.

 azazel the cat wrote:
it sounds to me like you're trying to redefine what "fact" pertains to

A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

Well, we seem to agree on the definition of what is a fact. But Russel's Teapot is not about begging the question; it is about where lies the burden of proof. That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character. Be prepared to answer the following questions:

Where does s/he live?
Do you have any facts to prove that?
How can I get there?
Do you have any facts to prove that?
Can I meet god?
Do you have any facts to prove that?
Has anyone ever met god?
Do you have any facts to prove that?

I think you see the pattern forming. Because the question of facts can never be answered in the affirmative, then and positive answers to each preceding question can never be considered valid, thus there is neither evidence nor even implication that god is anything other than a character in a fictional story.

Now, I don't mean to tear into your belief system, so I'm trying to limit this issue simply to the hypothetical problem of the student being asked to select a nonfiction character. By selecting a character like god, who can only be considered to be real based in faith and belief rather than fact, the student forced her religious views to be challenged. This would be absolutely no different than if I erroneously completed a math problem, did not show my work, and claimed my answer was nonetheless correct.

All I'm saying is that if someone must select an idol, I've got no problem with choosing fictional characters (see my examples of Odysseus and Achilles); however, if the assignment specifically said a "real" person, then god is not a valid choice, not because god is not real (although that is my hypothesis) but because god cannot be proven to be or have been real.

Has anyone ever met god?

Since you asked, TBone the Yoda of wiener dogs remembers when sweet baby Jebus was sweet BABY Jebus. He's always missed in the manger scenes because he was hunting a nacho under the manger that someone had dropped when the photo was snapped.



TBone remembers when oil was still dinosaurs...

 azazel the cat wrote:
That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character.

The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

 Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character.

The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

Manchu... are you a psychiatrist?

I know a few... and they argue like you do... o.O

If you have a criticism, please state it plainly.

 Manchu wrote:
If you have a criticism, please state it plainly.

It's not a criticism... just an observation.

In this thread, I'm rooting for you.

It's just that responding on this kind of issue involves enough "cutting through," as it were, to even get at what is really being asked.

 Manchu wrote:
It's just that responding on this kind of issue involves enough "cutting through," as it were, to even get at what is really being asked.

Sorry... my bad.

Carry on.

No, all I meant was I would rather you tell me what you meant by the psychiatrist allusion rather than making me guess or solve it like a puzzle.

When people start talking about God, I find they bring a great deal of unspoken assumptions to the table that need sorting out. For example, many atheists believe that in order for God to exist his existence must be a fact just as the existence of any material thing is factual (or not). But this assumption actually precludes the Christian idea of God from the outset (hence, begging the question) because God is not, so to speak, part of that set. To put it another way, the Creator is not another thing amidst Creation.

 Manchu wrote:
No, all I meant was I would rather you tell me what you meant by the psychiatrist allusion rather than making me guess or solve it like a puzzle.

It's how you break down someone else's statement and your retort. I meant that as a compliment.

When people start talking about God, I find they bring a great deal of unspoken assumptions to the table that need sorting out. For example, many atheists believe that in order for God to exist his existence must be a fact just as the existence of any material thing is factual (or not). But this assumption actually precludes the Christian idea of God from the outset (hence, begging the question) because God is not, so to speak, part of that set. To put it another way, the Creator is not another thing amidst Creation.

No argument from me there.

It's a debating style meant to put you into an impossible position... and that you recognized it from the start and deftly countered the premise.

My two buddies (one is a Psy. D and the other is Ph. D) are just as adept in negotiating through this topic as your are... hence, my original question. Never meant to ruffle your feathers here...

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That being said, why don't you explain to me that god is not a fictional character.

The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character?

Yes, by definition.

Manchu wrote:Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

Absolutely correct. But we NEVER, EVER say that something (reasonably) disputable is factual.

But this is where we may as well end this: I do not need to prove that god doesn't exist; I need only for you to be unable to demonstrate otherwise. Because that is the nature of reality. We do not treat everything as being real by default, because it is impossible to prove a negative. That is, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. This is true with all real things, and ignoring this fact is the rock upon which your belief system is built. You assume that because it is impossible to prove that god does not exist, then it must be possible for god to exist, and thus you have faith that he does.

However, to use god as a subject when asked for a real person, you are tacitly forcing that teacher to share your belief and your faith; because the teacher cannot KNOW that god is real, and thus must take it on faith. And that is where the problem lies, because your entire faith must now be called into question due to that (so punny...) leap of faith that you demand be made in order to not mark your assignment as invalid. Because that is the core difference: that god may exist, and that god does exist are two very, very different things. However, your faith, by definition, does not allow you to segregate those two. Unfortunately, anyone asking for a real person to be used in the assignment may not share your faith, and thus is capable of recognizing the difference between what might be and what is.

Azazel your point is well made however two observations.

1. A de facto fictional character can still be a role model. Though arguably a weaker one, but not in all cases. Some fictional characters are analogies for certain virtues that are good to emulate, or are generally positive.
Homer Simpson was given an award as America's best dad. There is value in that as the group concerned chose to highlight the amount of time Homer spent with his children, and considered the character a suitable role model to encourage dads to spend more time with their kids.

2. The choice to beleive in God accompanies the choice to include God as a role model, the teacher need not believe in God to assess the childs work assessment on the assumption that the child does and its a subjective truth.
The bible deals with 'truths' rather than 'facts'. While truth can be absolute because all facts are absolute a fact need not be known in order for it to exist. So for example you dont need to know the fact of how many hairs there are on a persons head to know they have hair.
Truth can also be subjective, one can tell the truth and be mistaken.

Thus, there is ample room for a fair assessment on a study on God without a shared premise that God is real.

 Seaward wrote:
That's an interesting example, because if someone were to say, "Provide an example of a music idol," my answer would not include anyone I wished to emulate.

Yes, but your idol would be a person, and not a guitar or flute. And if a person was to respond to the question by saying their musical idol is a clarinet, and then justify that response by citing definition 3 that you provided above, "any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion" you'd think they were at least a little deranged.

I will repeat once again the example that you keep ignoring, 'no talking during the exam'. I will explain once again that if a kid was to shout during the exam and be penalised, then any attempt to get a dictionary definition that showed shouting wasn't talking and therefore it wasn't banned would be laughed at. And yet here you are...

Aside from the gaffe on the actual definition of the word, what I find so perplexing about your point is the assumption that the majority - or even all, perhaps - of fourth graders have an intricate, nuanced theologically-informed view of God, rather than seeing him as some guy who sits in heaven.

My religious education as a child was pretty close to zero, and yet I knew that any kid that aspired to and wanted to be like God would be kind of nutty.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
That's an interesting example, because if someone were to say, "Provide an example of a music idol," my answer would not include anyone I wished to emulate.

Yes, but your idol would be a person, and not a guitar or flute. And if a person was to respond to the question by saying their musical idol is a clarinet, and then justify that response by citing definition 3 that you provided above, "any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion" you'd think they were at least a little deranged.

I will repeat once again the example that you keep ignoring, 'no talking during the exam'. I will explain once again that if a kid was to shout during the exam and be penalised, then any attempt to get a dictionary definition that showed shouting wasn't talking and therefore it wasn't banned would be laughed at. And yet here you are...

Aside from the gaffe on the actual definition of the word, what I find so perplexing about your point is the assumption that the majority - or even all, perhaps - of fourth graders have an intricate, nuanced theologically-informed view of God, rather than seeing him as some guy who sits in heaven.

My religious education as a child was pretty close to zero, and yet I knew that any kid that aspired to and wanted to be like God would be kind of nutty.

Seb, The thing is, as you well know, that there are those to whom God is fictional, as real as Zeus, Odin, and all that. Well and good, but to a lot of us, God is not only real, but the author of what is real, and does look over us and in the end, is our all loving father.

 azazel the cat wrote:
But we NEVER, EVER say that something (reasonably) disputable is factual.

You're simply restating my premise about God in general terms.

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, to use god as a subject when asked for a real person, you are tacitly forcing that teacher to share your belief and your faith

That's nonsense. At most all you are asking is for the teacher to not reject that you yourself believe this.

 Orlanth wrote:
If you don't want me to respond to you, stop talking bollocks on religion threads.

I'm happy for you to respond, but if I don't talk about the limitations or lack thereof of knowing God, then don't respond with an essay on knowing God that's meant to contradict my post.

You are only correct in that one cannot become as applesauce, but we can become as God.

To become Christlike is not to become as God. You can do all the inane squinting nonsense you want and talk about how God and Christ are the same, but there's a basic reason they're seperated in your religion. Because it makes sense to desire to become charitable and spiritual like Jesus... but this doesn't mean you become a benevolent creator of Earth.

Even if God were not considered a functional role model that is not the only reason to do so. Someone could for instance choose Neil Armstrong as an idol, it would be a solid secular choice and I doubt anyone either you or the school would have any problem with the choice. However what if the kids who chose Neil Armstrong was disabled and had no hope of ever successfully applying ofr the space program. Can he or still not still choose Neil Armstrong as a role model? A role model can also inspire ones dreams, in fact its what they best do, and that also applies to God.

That's actually a pretty good argument. I'll accept that.

You made my presence necessary. Time and again you want to redefine Biblical issues according to your non-belief and apply the twisted thinking that results as the opinions of others. I would not dare take a Buddhist quote say what it means from a non-Buddhist perspective ignoring all Buddhist teaching and insist that the garbled remains are what Buddhists actually believe. So why do you insist on doing same, and continue to do so even after the correct theology is presented because it doesn't match your opinions.

I haven't actually quoted your book in this thread, or that other one. You're making stuff up again.

Anyhow, I have zero interest in debating the finer points of your religion. I don't want to do that with any Christian, let alone you, given how imaginative you've shown your arguments to be.

What I am interested in is discussing what good, ethical behaviour is, and my experience is that this is possible between all manner of people, no matter their religious background. As such, I hold Christians and people of other religions to the exact same standard I hold other atheists, and to be honest I find atheist's give unconvincing arguments at least as often as religious people.

To the extent that we butt heads is not because of your faith, but the way in which you attempt to use it to justify positions that simply do not work, either because they don't relate to the real world, or because they are simply not moral.

So I am staying right here.

I don't want you to go anywhere. I just want you to post stuff that's better. For instance, in your point above about a role model being aspirational, despite equal achievement being impossible, that was actually really good. You started with a simple, compassionate point let that speak for itself. There was no imagination, no attempt to rationalise anything through reference to elements of Christian theology.

Do that more, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Seb, The thing is, as you well know, that there are those to whom God is fictional, as real as Zeus, Odin, and all that. Well and good, but to a lot of us, God is not only real, but the author of what is real, and does look over us and in the end, is our all loving father.

Yeah, which is fine, and something I'm not questioning. I haven't made and don't buy the fictional argument, because exactly as you say God isn't fictional for a lot of people.

My issue was with God as an idol, because I would think an idol would need to be someone you could aspire to be, someone you could actually take steps towards being like. In this sense, I'd have no problem with picking Jesus.

Now, that said, I do find Orlanth's argument about a person aspiring to be like Neil Armstrong despite having a medical condition that would prevent them ever becoming an astronaught convincing, and recognise that my argument was limited.

Orlanth wrote:Azazel your point is well made however two observations.

1. A de facto fictional character can still be a role model. Though arguably a weaker one, but not in all cases. Some fictional characters are analogies for certain virtues that are good to emulate, or are generally positive.
Homer Simpson was given an award as America's best dad. There is value in that as the group concerned chose to highlight the amount of time Homer spent with his children, and considered the character a suitable role model to encourage dads to spend more time with their kids.

I agree wholeheartedly, and in no way was implying otherwise. Quite the opposite, in fact: I even stated that some fictional characters were created for the purpose of idolizing as a method of expressing which virtues ought to be held as valuable (such as Odysseus and Achilles).

Orlanth wrote:2. The choice to beleive in God accompanies the choice to include God as a role model, the teacher need not believe in God to assess the childs work assessment on the assumption that the child does and its a subjective truth.
The bible deals with 'truths' rather than 'facts'. While truth can be absolute because all facts are absolute a fact need not be known in order for it to exist. So for example you dont need to know the fact of how many hairs there are on a persons head to know they have hair.
Truth can also be subjective, one can tell the truth and be mistaken.

Thus, there is ample room for a fair assessment on a study on God without a shared premise that God is real.

The trouble is that (and this is where I know you haven't been following my conversation with Manchu) the problem I raised (hypothetically, of course) is if the teacher gave out an assignment to select a real person whom the students idolize. In that situation, the choice of god as the subject becomes invalid, and god has not been proven to be real.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
But we NEVER, EVER say that something (reasonably) disputable is factual.

You're simply restating my premise about God in general terms.

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, to use god as a subject when asked for a real person, you are tacitly forcing that teacher to share your belief and your faith

That's nonsense. At most all you are asking is for the teacher to not reject that you yourself believe this.

Question: selection a real person you idolize and write about him/her/

Answer: not god, because god has not been proven to be real.

Problem: if god is selected because the the student believes god to be real, then it requires the teacher to also believe god to be real in order to not violate the parameters of the assignment. Allowing the student to use a character from her favourite story on an assignment that asked for a real person is making a special allowance for her based upon her religion (a big no-no), or temporarily allowing oneself to share that belief so that the parameters of the assignment are met (another big no-no).

Let me put this in a more extreme case to help remove your bias: Let us say that I am a snake handler, and I believe that, uh, Set will protect from snake venom. In fact, I KNOW that Set will protect. Will you allow me to bring a rattlesnake into class? Will you hold the rattlesnake in your arms? After all, according to you, all I'm asking you to do is to not reject that I believe this.

You see, it all comes back to burden of proof. The person making a claim to the positive holds the burden to prove the claim true.

The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

Manchu wrote:The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

In math, science and, well, everything, it is referred to as the "null hypothesis", and it is the foundation of all claims about everything ever.

Otherwise, you wind up with crap like this: I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and it is up to you to prove otherwise.

The conclusion of the positive claim being false is always the default, simply because reality does not allow for people to prove a negative; we can only disprove a positive. This is factual and true in all things, except religion, which basically is forced to go "nah nah nah nah we can't hear you", because the very definition of "faith" is a believe in something completely lacking in evidence thereof. In other words, because god cannot be disproven, people may have faith that s/he exists.

However, (and to bring this back on point) that gak doesn't work outside of church. Outside of situations where faith is the law of the land, so to speak, the null hypothesis is the default answer, because that is how existence works.

case in point:

Claim: I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ
Null Hypothesis: No I'm not.
Conclusion: unless I can prove otherwise, I am not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ

Whether or not you have faith as to me being Jesus Christ reincarnated has no bearing on whether or not I actually am. And thus, this is why it is not okay for the student to select god as her idol in a situation where she is instructed to pick a real person, and to do so demands that the teacher embrace the student's faith, which is not okay to do in school.



EDIT: always remember: a positive claim being false is a failure to negate the null hypothesis and the default of every claim to the positive; whereas a positive claim being true by default is by definition a fallacy of assuming the conclusion. Your grasp of the concept isn't completely wrong, but it is (was?) backwards. But that is the nature of faith, and there's nothing to be done about that, so I shall not try. You believe in something despite being unable to disprove its null, and thus have faith. That's what faith is, and if it makes you happy, then more power to you for it.

What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

In math, science and, well, everything, it is referred to as the "null hypothesis"

No, the null hypothesis is something else. What you are engaged in is circular reasoning.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
So I am staying right here.

I don't want you to go anywhere. I just want you to post stuff that's better. For instance, in your point above about a role model being aspirational, despite equal achievement being impossible, that was actually really good. You started with a simple, compassionate point let that speak for itself. There was no imagination, no attempt to rationalise anything through reference to elements of Christian theology.

Do that more, please.

I will choose to see the whole post as a peace offering.

Its time we were not at each others throats, lets just accept we disagree on religious issues.

 Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:The problem with your line of thought is that it constantly relies on assuming the conclusion

In math, science and, well, everything, it is referred to as the "null hypothesis"

No, the null hypothesis is something else. What you are engaged in is circular reasoning.

No, it's just how the world works. When you're talking about existence claims the default state is no belief in the object's existence, and credible belief in the object's existence is obtained by presenting evidence that the object exists. That's the only way to get a sensible system of determining which existence claims to believe in. If you reverse the burden of proof and require proof of an object's nonexistence before you stop believing in it (even if you have no evidence that it does exist) then you have no escape from absurd situations like "prove that the space marine standing behind you doesn't exist". No matter how hard you try to prove that the space marine doesn't exist you will always fail, and the pro-space marine side will always be able to come up with an argument that it is possible, though incredibly unlikely, that the space marine exists. Even when you get to the level of "you're being mind controlled by aliens who are deleting the space marine from your vision every time you look at it" those arguments still prevent proof of nonexistence.

And of course that's how it works for everything but god. In everyday life you start from an absence of belief and only believe in the things that you've been given a credible reason to believe in. And if someone presents you with a claim that a new thing exists your level belief in that new thing is proportional to the evidence presented for its existence. This rule only stops working when you talk about god, who apparently gets special treatment because giving up belief in god is difficult.

We've already dealt with that.

Cheesecat wrote:What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

I'm not saying that at all, and I don't care for your strawman argument.

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

If you read my posts, you'll find that in no way am I suggesting someone should not hold their faith. They are welcome to, and generally, the number of gaks I give about it is exactly zero, one way or the other. However, I take a general offense to the mixing of faith with fact, and real with not-proven-to-be-real.

Manchu wrote:No, the null hypothesis is something else. What you are engaged in is circular reasoning

I cannot stress enough how incorrect you are on this. Circular reasoning is the opposite of the null hypothesis. Circular reasoning is what you get when your default position is that the positive claim is not rejected. Again, see my previous post, because I pre-emptively addressed your response.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:2. The choice to believe in God accompanies the choice to include God as a role model, the teacher need not believe in God to assess the childs work assessment on the assumption that the child does and its a subjective truth.
The bible deals with 'truths' rather than 'facts'. While truth can be absolute because all facts are absolute a fact need not be known in order for it to exist. So for example you dont need to know the fact of how many hairs there are on a persons head to know they have hair.
Truth can also be subjective, one can tell the truth and be mistaken.
Thus, there is ample room for a fair assessment on a study on God without a shared premise that God is real.

The trouble is that (and this is where I know you haven't been following my conversation with Manchu) the problem I raised (hypothetically, of course) is if the teacher gave out an assignment to select a real person whom the students idolize. In that situation, the choice of god as the subject becomes invalid, and god has not been proven to be real.

I can forsee a few big problems with that.

First, we ought to define what is real if we are going to go this far. If we have to prove who is real then to do it properly we are heading towards an existential crisis, I think thats a bit deep for ten year olds. I think its safer to accept we are real, so why not God also.

Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

Third, what would you suggest if the child chooses a real historical figure who has a lot of mythology built around them. like King Arthur, Wyatt Earp or Rasputin.

 Orlanth wrote:
Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

And it's even safer to dodge the problem entirely by requiring a non-religious figure. That way you don't have to worry at all about whether the teacher is crossing the line or not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

And it's even safer to dodge the problem entirely by requiring a non-religious figure. That way you don't have to worry at all about whether the teacher is crossing the line or not.

Good point. That would work if done before hand. If you said any role idol and someone chooses God then its a bit late.

One way to do this is to steer away from religion without looking like you are doing so by choosing from a historical subset. So for example "Class, for your homework, choose an role idol from American history that you admire and do a full page on them saying why you admire them and they are a role model to you."

Orlanth wrote:

First, we ought to define what is real if we are going to go this far. If we have to prove who is real then to do it properly we are heading towards an existential crisis, I think thats a bit deep for ten year olds. I think its safer to accept we are real, so why not God also.

Why not Batman, Luke Skywalker and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, too? Do I really need to axctually hold your hand and take you step by step through the muriad reasons why your suggestion is terrible?

Orlanth wrote:Second, the real problem. By saying that God cannot be proved to be real and doesnt fit the criteria it to make a direct statement questioning the existence of God by a teacher to a ten year old. If the school teacher is not allowed to make religious statements then this one is a big problem. Safer to pass no comment and allow the child to decide whether God is a suitable role model.

You've got it wrong. God can be proved to be real, and hasn't been yet. And stating that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim is not a religious statement. If I say I am 30 feet tall, then it is up to me to prove that, it is not up to you to prove me wrong. This is the fundamental nature of the debate: anyone who thinks the burden is not on them to prove their claim to be non-false is, simply put, incorrect.

Orlanth wrote:Third, what would you suggest if the child chooses a real historical figure who has a lot of mythology built around them. like King Arthur, Wyatt Earp or Rasputin.

King Arthur is not a historical figure. Anyway, if they choose a historical figure with a mythos around them as you suggest, then that's great. No problems there. Hell, if the girl chose Jesus Christ, I'd have no qualms about it, despite the fact that I do not subscribe to any of the mythos around him. But I cannot make the claim that Jesus was not real, and thus, the person of Jesus is a valid choice for the assignment. Pick Joseph Smith, pick Lao Tzi, pick Mohammed (just don't draw him), pick whoever is or was real. It matters not. Just don't pick Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker or god, because they have never been demonstrated to be real.

 Orlanth wrote:

One way to do this is to steer away from religion without looking like you are doing so by choosing from a historical subset. So for example "Class, for your homework, choose an role idol from American history that you admire and do a full page on them saying why you admire them and they are a role model to you."

What if they choose Joseph Smith?

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

One way to do this is to steer away from religion without looking like you are doing so by choosing from a historical subset. So for example "Class, for your homework, choose an role idol from American history that you admire and do a full page on them saying why you admire them and they are a role model to you."

What if they choose Joseph Smith?

Lol. After I wrote that I thought the exact same thing, then decided to leave it and hoped no one would notice.

Back to the drawing board then, damn you dogma.

 Cheesecat wrote:
What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

Because he's a person, and if there's one thing all people don't like, it's being disagreed with and knowing that others don't share their world view. Along with dying, it's just what people do.

~Tim?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

I'm not saying that at all, and I don't care for your strawman argument.

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

If you read my posts, you'll find that in no way am I suggesting someone should not hold their faith. They are welcome to, and generally, the number of gaks I give about it is exactly zero, one way or the other. However, I take a general offense to the mixing of faith with fact, and real with not-proven-to-be-real.

Sorry I just took your stuff out of context, but yeah for the purpose of the assignment when a teacher asks for you to talk about an "idol" they're talking about someone human, I agree on that (and pretty much everything I quoted here) just some confusion on my part about whether you're trying

to claim God isn't real in general (which is a useless exercise) but it seems you're being specifically talking about god in the context of the assignment (which I wasn't aware of). Btw, I'm atheist as well.

 Frazzled wrote:
You're right. I am actually. The annoying thing is all the email updates however. Between them, FIRE, and the NRA, they flood my email and my snail mail.

But think of the overtime for the NSA

 azazel the cat wrote:
What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

Is that the case here that the student was asked to select a real person? All the links from the OP just state that the girl was asked to write about her idol, or have I missed something that said the assignment had to be based on a real person?

Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:What do you hope to accomplish by telling people that God is fictional? Why does it matter so much to you that people believe it exists?

I'm not saying that at all, and I don't care for your strawman argument.

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

If you read my posts, you'll find that in no way am I suggesting someone should not hold their faith. They are welcome to, and generally, the number of gaks I give about it is exactly zero, one way or the other. However, I take a general offense to the mixing of faith with fact, and real with not-proven-to-be-real.

Sorry I just took your stuff out of context, but yeah for the purpose of the assignment when a teacher asks for you to talk about an "idol" they're talking about someone human, I agree on that (and pretty much everything I quoted here) just some confusion on my part about whether you're trying

to claim God isn't real in general (which is a useless exercise) but it seems you're being specifically talking about god in the context of the assignment (which I wasn't aware of). Btw, I'm atheist as well.

Thank you; I appreciate that.

...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

Is that the case here that the student was asked to select a real person? All the links from the OP just state that the girl was asked to write about her idol, or have I missed something that said the assignment had to be based on a real person?

Honestly, I do not know.

However, in my original post wherein I challenged Manchu on the issue, I suggested that the harm in selecting god as a subject for the assignment comes from the possibility that the teacher specified a real person

I do not know if the assignment actually called for it, but my original point was that the only problem with selecting god as an idol in this context comes from the possibility of the assignment requesting a real person, because it forces the teacher to either declare god to be an invalid selection, or else the teacher is tacitly forced to accept that god is real.

As far as I'm concerned, on its face the selection of god is perfectly fine if fictional characters are acceptable choices.

I guess I stand with azazel, on this case, but for different reasons. I mean, the kid did done derped. Having faith in God and in his benevolence is cool and all, but idolizing him for his achievements seems a bit dumb, since he is by definition perfect and all powerful.

B- at most.

 azazel the cat wrote:
...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Man, what is it with me today and misinterpreting people's posts (I guess the idea of you being critical about God made me assume you were atheist).

 Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Man, what is it with me today and misinterpreting people's posts (I guess the idea of you being critical about God made me assume you were atheist).

I believe the point he was making was that he did not discuss his own personal beliefs... he has not said he is or is not religious.

Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
...for what it's worth, however, I never said that I was an atheist.

Man, what is it with me today and misinterpreting people's posts (I guess the idea of you being critical about God made me assume you were atheist).

Jury's out with me. I currently do not believe in gods, but I'm perfectly willing to change that opinion once I see some evidence for it.

*shakes fist*

Then we come to the question of how everything began. The thing I have always wondered, even as a Christian is where anything came from,the matter that makes everything up, God, you name it.
A whole lot of questions in my mind in that direction.

God isn't made of matter.

Physics offers an explanation for how matter was created.

The problem that has not been solved physically, is what existed before the creation of the universe, however that is partly a psychological problem.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

My guess is mod magic

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

Physics offers an explanation for how matter was created.

The problem that has not been solved physically, is what existed before the creation of the universe, however that is partly a psychological problem.

That's what I am talking about. What existed before any of this universe. I'd like to know what the physics explanation is, and if it is more than theory.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The physics explanation is that the universe is a thing in itself and there wasn't anything before it existed. Or else that it is an infinite series of universes that expand and contract without beginning or end.

Both these explanations are contrary to the working of human mental make-up.

The physics explanation smacks more of "maybe" than a definite "aha!".

The thing that could be explained here for God, though, is that if he is made of matter, he formed first and controlled the formation of the rest of matter.
It's definitely something that is going to fuel many debates and theories from now until forever.

I can see you wouldn't want to mark down a child's work about her god, but why is it being graded anyway? I don't recall grades and percentages being applied to fun primary level work like this. Seems a bit depressing. 'Timmy, draw you favourite hero. Oh you've drawn superman, nice but the proportions are bit off really and he needs more blue so in giving you 60%'

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
God isn't made of matter.

How do you know?

If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

A seed persists in the tree, yet does not remain. God could be spent.

That is not the religious view, however.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
The physics explanation smacks more of "maybe" than a definite "aha!".

The thing that could be explained here for God, though, is that if he is made of matter, he formed first and controlled the formation of the rest of matter.
It's definitely something that is going to fuel many debates and theories from now until forever.

You need to be able to understand a lot of difficult maths to comprehend the physics explanation, which I don't, however I get the impression that physics is getting close to an "aha!".

 azazel the cat wrote:
Honestly, I do not know.

However, in my original post wherein I challenged Manchu on the issue, I suggested that the harm in selecting god as a subject for the assignment comes from the possibility that the teacher specified a real person

I do not know if the assignment actually called for it, but my original point was that the only problem with selecting god as an idol in this context comes from the possibility of the assignment requesting a real person, because it forces the teacher to either declare god to be an invalid selection, or else the teacher is tacitly forced to accept that god is real.

As far as I'm concerned, on its face the selection of god is perfectly fine if fictional characters are acceptable choices.

Thanks for the reply. Going by the article, and the links, there was precious little background to clarify whether the assignment specified a real person.

My own opinion is that even if the criteria was that a real person was to be selected, that having the child write about God should not have been a huge deal. It is perfectly reasonable to respect another's faith in a supreme being without having to agree to the existence of the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

What about energy as it can neither be created, nor destroyed?

(please note, above post based on GCSE level physics from about 15 years ago )

Energy can be converted to matter, and vice versa. They are merely different expressions of the physical being of the universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If the homework was to write about a real human being -- an historical figure, for example -- as an idol, then the girl should have lost a mark for failing to read that part of the question.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

God can't be completely outside the universe because god supposedly interacts with the universe (granting prayers, etc). And even if god is entirely outside the universe how do you know that there isn't matter outside the universe?

That is not the religious view, however.

IOW, "because I said so".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is not the religious view, however.

It's not proeminent, but Aristotle's view of God essentially had him spent and left to contemplate everything.

In regards to creation, the essential claims of theism is that 1) there is a creator and 2) he is intelligent. "Intelligence" could mean a lot of things. Our Judeo-Christian background kinda steers us in the way of imagining God as a subjective intelligence, but the other different avenues have been speculated in metaphysics. The view of God as a physical seed, or as the totality of the material universe is called hylotheism, and has been defended by Parmenides.

Edit : Now that would be awesome. The little girl comes in and hands over her assignement describing why she idolises the prime mover.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

God can't be completely outside the universe because god supposedly interacts with the universe (granting prayers, etc). And even if god is entirely outside the universe how do you know that there isn't matter outside the universe?

That is not the religious view, however.

IOW, "because I said so".

As you used a computer on the internet, you have interacted with a personality who was not inside your computer.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I cannot stress enough how incorrect you are on this.

I think you think I'm arguing with you about the teapot, which is only half right. The null hypothesis issues is not material to this discussion. Rather, I am addressing the idea that we cannot move forward because you keep arguing that God is fictional because he is fictional.

Fortunately, Killkrazy has helpfully restated the last meaningful point made in our discussion:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

And here is the context:

 Manchu wrote:
A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

 Manchu wrote:
The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

 azazel the cat wrote:

What I am saying is that in a situation where a student is asked to select a real person, then only real persons may be selected, and until can be proved otherwise, for the purposes of that assignment god is considered fictional, because the belief in the existence of god lies entirely in faith, not in fact, and to try and shoehorn god into an assignment about real people is to tacitly force the teacher to embrace your faith, or else render your assignment choice as invalid.

Except that in this case, we really don't know the exact wording on the assignment. I mean, if the assignment merely read, "who is your hero/idol/who you look up to" then there is nothing at all to suggest that there is an implied order of "real people only". Also, it is not covered in the article, but what if one of the other kids' in class used Iron Man as their hero? By your logic they should be made to redo the assignment for that as well (of course, because its a "hot topic" item, we'll never hear if someone did do that in class, only the God thing)


One thing that I can almost guarantee, is that the teacher will specify in more detail, or will accept whatever comes across her desk on that assignment next year.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I cannot stress enough how incorrect you are on this.

I think you think I'm arguing with you about the teapot, which is only half right. The null hypothesis issues is not material to this discussion. Rather, I am addressing the idea that we cannot move forward because you keep arguing that God is fictional because he is fictional.

Fortunately, Killkrazy has helpfully restated the last meaningful point made in our discussion:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If God was made of matter He would be a part of the universe, and therefore logically could not have created it.

And here is the context:

 Manchu wrote:
A fact (in the modern sense) is indisputable; the existence of God is disputable; hence the existence of God cannot be considered a fact.

 Manchu wrote:
The question seems to be, does the non-factual nature of God's existence render God a fictional character? I think not. Remember, our definition of "fact" is something that is indisputable. But we do not say that everything disputable is a matter of fiction.

Manchu, here is your fallacy (and an understandable one, given your background): the underlined begs the question, because it assumes that god is not a creation of your imagination and nothing more. In order to actually participate in this discussion beyond the point you current have, you are basically going to be required to question your own belief system; even set it aside temporarily to get yourself in a mindset wherein your baseline is something other than a firm belief that god is real. Because at this point, you have very distinctly demonstrated circular reasoning to the exact degree that would be expected.

And you ARE arguing about the teapot. God is the teapot. You are claiming god is real, thus the burden of demonstrating so is on you; it is not on me to disprove it.

When we talk about facts, it is up to the person positing the fact to prove it correct; it is not on anyone else to disprove it. Thus, if you claim god is real, it is up to you to prove that s/he is; it is not up to anyone else to disprove your claim. This has been stated time and again in this thread, and so aptly that the majority of the posters have moved on at this point.

If you claim that god is real, then it is your job to prove yourself not to be a liar. Otherwise, I can just do this:

"I am Jesus Christ."

Now, according to your circular reasoning, I am Jesus Christ because I am Jesus Christ. And if the burden of proving this claim is not on me for having made the claim, then your belief paradigms suggest that you now believe that I am Jesus Christ until such a time as you can factually prove that I am not.


Thus, things are considered fictional and not real, until such a time as they have been proven to be real. Hence, why the student should not be allowed to select god for the assignment if the assignment called for a real person.


EDIT: Anyway, Manchu, I'll continue this with you if you absolutely insist, but as far as I'm concerned you've already been hit with the coup de grace and have now definitively begun going in circles, as you're now dredging up quotes from our discussion that I have already responded to directly, and you have been pretending that I did not address them decisively. I recognize that is is difficult -if not impossible- for you to give on on your belief, and convincing you to do so is not my intent.

All I'm asking is that you recognize the fact that anytime you put someone in a position wherein they must accept god to be anything other than a work of fiction, you are demanding that they embrace your beliefs.

If the assignment called for a real person, and the student selected god, then this is exactly the demand that the student created, likely without even knowing it.




And I hope you will let that serve as the conclusion to this discussion.





















Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Except that in this case, we really don't know the exact wordig on the assignment. I mean, if the assignment merely read, "who is your hero/idol/who you look up to" then there is nothing at all to suggest that there is an implied order of "real people only". Also, it is not covered in the article, but what if one of the other kids' in class used Iron Man as their hero? By your logic they should be made to redo the assignment for that as well (of course, because its a "hot topic" item, we'll never hear if someone did do that in class, only the God thing)

I've addressed this NO LESS THAN THREE TIMES IN THIS THREAD, including in my opening statement.

You have not demonstrated that God is fictional; you have merely assumed it (moreover without even having demonstrated an understanding of fiction). I have not claimed that God's existence is a fact so your latest sortie is also irrelevant to this discussion.

Manchu wrote:You have not demonstrated that God is fictional; you have merely assumed it

EXACTLY!

I don't need to demonstrate that god is fictional; YOU NEED TO DEMONSTRATE S/HE IS NOT. God being fictional is the baseline assumption until it can be proved otherwise. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. That's why I brought up Russell's Teapot, that's why I explained to you how the Null Hypothesis works, and honestly, the fact that you keep pretending those concepts are not real is the reason why I dislike having conversations on the nature of reality with people who believe in magic.

Manchu, the entire debate is about a little girl potentially claiming that god's existence is a fact in her school assignment. Our debate is about the problem of selecting god for an assignment about a real person. The instant you select god for it, you are claiming god to be real.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu, the entire debate is about a little girl potentially claiming that god's existence is a fact in her school assignment. Our debate is about the problem of selecting god for an assignment about a real person. The instant you select god for it, you are claiming god to be real.

Where in the assignment did it say the person had to be real? Would you still side with the teacher if, say some boy said Tony Stark was his hero and accepted it, but not this girl's?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu, the entire debate is about a little girl potentially claiming that god's existence is a fact in her school assignment. Our debate is about the problem of selecting god for an assignment about a real person. The instant you select god for it, you are claiming god to be real.

Where in the assignment did it say the person had to be real? Would you still side with the teacher if, say some boy said Tony Stark was his hero and accepted it, but not this girl's?

I suggest you read my previous posts in order to find several answers for your first question, as I have explicitly answered it no less than three times already.

If the assignment called for a real person, then Tony Stark* is just as invalid an answer as is god, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter and Starscream.


*assuming, of course, that Tony Stark is of Marvel comics, and not just a coincidently-named cool uncle or something.

Hm the posts getting a little bit off topic.

The teacher was in the wrong, Religion is a touchy subject but the school system should respect peoples believes.
If the teacher would have rejected my homework on the dude i would have been upset, not realy the Dude abides.

God = the universe! (watch babylon 5)

 Manchu wrote:
You have not demonstrated that God is fictional; you have merely assumed it (moreover without even having demonstrated an understanding of fiction). I have not claimed that God's existence is a fact so your latest sortie is also irrelevant to this discussion.

Any sentence in which we attach a name to a predicate and must project the statement on the empirical world to derive it's truth value is a fact (allowing for negative facts ; if that create too large of a base for you this can be deflated).
Any sentence in which we attach a name to a predicate and must project the statement on an ensemble of other statements to derive it's truth value, and never on the empirical world, is a fiction.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
It's not proeminent, but Aristotle's view of God essentially had him spent and left to contemplate everything.

So he thought we worship Lorgar?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't need to demonstrate that god is fictional

Why not? I thought we agreed that we weren't talking about the set of empirical facts when we talk about God so the teapot is out. And I already established that this set beyond empirical facts is not the same as the set of fiction. It seems to me that you're arguing for a rather impoverished notion of reality; or more likely you're just content to assume your conclusion.

Maybe I missed this in the last couple pages, but why can not the null hypothesis for the existence of any deity be that they don't?

First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

 Manchu wrote:
First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

This sounds like my freshman philosophy class >_< While I'm enjoying the debate, it's fething going over my head in a few cases

 Manchu wrote:
First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

Well, without any snark intended on my part, I suppose we can both certainly agree to that.

As a Christian, I can say that no snark is necessary to agree that God's existence is not (and indeed cannot be) in the same set of phenomenon as, for example, atomic weight of elements or specific gravity.

 Manchu wrote:
As a Christian, I can say that no snark is necessary to agree that God's existence is not (and indeed cannot be) in the same set of phenomenon as, for example, atomic weight of elements or specific gravity.

God retreats from knowledge. It was easy to disprove the gods, faries and spirits who lived in the streams and on the mountains simply by going to were they were supposed to be. New gods were created who 'lived in the heavens' and when we found we could study the heavens and see no gods they died or changed as well.

Now we have a god who, handily, cannot be detected in any way shape or form in our universe and so cannot be 'disproven' and people seem to be happy with that... obviously ignoring any attempt to apply rational scientific analysis to their claims or to offer any kind of proof beyond some vague metaphysical hand waving.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Now we have a god who, handily ...

Now? Not quite. Our modern practice of science was not devised to investigate God and it takes a certain lack of historical awareness to be surprised that it's not up to the task.

 Manchu wrote:
First, we're not talking about any deity. We're talking about the Christian one, who is said to have created the universe. Materialist attempts to understand the universe are ipso facto inadequate to investigating such a being. If God exists, he cannot be found in a lab.

So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe? For example, granting prayers?

 Manchu wrote:
Now? Not quite. Our modern practice of science was not devised to investigate God and it takes a certain lack of historical awareness to be surprised that it's not up to the task.

Only if you define "not up to the task" as "finding that it's incredibly unlikely that any kind of god exists".

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe?

No.

 Peregrine wrote:
any kind of god exists

The line of reasoning you're employing cannot deal with "any kind of god." Indeed, it can only deal with one kind of god -- one that is only and entirely made of matter.

That's a loaded question. Nevermind.

 Manchu wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Now we have a god who, handily ...

Now? Not quite. Our modern practice of science was not devised to investigate God and it takes a certain lack of historical awareness to be surprised that it's not up to the task.

Indeed. Science is there to investigate reality.

And the nature of god has changed significantly over the centuries as science has pushed the boundaries of knowledge ever further. To keep to the earlier anology - god continues to move to 'just behind the next mountain' every time we scale a peak to the extent we now have people claiming essentially that god doesnt exist in order that they can maintain that god exists beyond science's ability to detect it.

And as has been mentioned it is very hard to disprove a negative... especially when the specifics of said negative keep on changing when you show there is nothing there...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe?

No.

 Peregrine wrote:
any kind of god exists

The line of reasoning you're employing cannot deal with "any kind of god." Indeed, it can only deal with one kind of god -- one that is only and entirely made of matter.

Something does not need to be made of matter to either be observable or have its effects be observable. We are (supposedly) sentient beings - there is no 'sentience' molecule but we can still observe sentience.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I don't need to demonstrate that god is fictional

Why not?

Because otherwise I get to claim that I am god, and you have to accept it if you cannot disprove it.

Manchu wrote:And I already established that this set beyond empirical facts is not the same as the set of fiction.

And I already informed you that "not consisting of facts" is the definition of fiction, in layman's terms. Either you play by reality's rules, or else you admit that god is not part of reality (and therefore not real)

Manchu wrote:or more likely you're just content to assume your conclusion.

This is basically a perfect example of irony.

daedalus wrote:Maybe I missed this in the last couple pages, but why can not the null hypothesis for the existence of any deity be that they don't?

It can be, and it is. Manchu just can't accept that (and understandably so), because it obliterates the pillar on which his religion is built.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Science is there to investigate reality.

Material reality. It cannot do more than that and any claim otherwise borders on religious.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
god continues to move to 'just behind the next mountain'

Again, not really. Early Christians claimed God created the universe long before much later Christians invented the scientific method.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
We are (supposedly) sentient beings - there is no 'sentience' molecule but we can still observe sentience.

An actual materialist will tell you that sentience is either a product of brain chemistry or nothing at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Because otherwise I get to claim that I am god, and you have to accept it if you cannot disprove it.

That's not how faith works, I'm afraid. Now, if we're talking about facts then I don't get to dispute anything. But as we've established, the existence of God is not a fact as per our agreed upon definition in that it is disputable.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And I already informed you that "not consisting of facts" is the definition of fiction

This is patently false. A history book is a collection of arguments about what happened in the past. That the arguments are disputable does not make them fictional.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Manchu just can't accept that (and understandably so), because it obliterates the pillar on which his religion is built.

Sorry but you're just not following along closely enough.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So what you're saying is that god never interacts with the universe?

No.

Then science can deal with god. If god grants prayers/performs miracles/whatever you want to call it then god is interacting with the world, and that should leave evidence behind that science can deal with. The only reason to wall off god from science is because you're afraid that science will destroy god.

The line of reasoning you're employing cannot deal with "any kind of god." Indeed, it can only deal with one kind of god -- one that is only and entirely made of matter.

Not at all. It doesn't matter what god itself is made of, as long as god interacts with the world in some way we can study those interactions. The only god science can't handle is one which never interacts with the world in any way, and at that point what's the difference between that isolationist god and no god at all?

The interaction issue is only problematic if you assume creation is merely material. Even without reference to God, I don't think that claim is true.

 Manchu wrote:
The interaction issue is only problematic if you assume creation is merely material.

No, it just assumes that god has some interaction with the material world, which is what every believer claims when they talk about prayer having a purpose besides making yourself feel good. You can argue all you want about the nature of god, but if you pray for, say, someone to recover from cancer, then you are talking about interaction with the material world that can be addressed by science. The fact that science has completely failed to find that interaction doesn't mean it's outside the scope of science, it just means that it's not very likely that it exists at all.

And sure, you're always free to fall back on the deist god who never interacts with the world, but I don't think many people actually believe in that god outside of forum arguments.

Even without reference to God, I don't think that claim is true.

So what else is there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, not really. Early Christians claimed God created the universe long before much later Christians invented the scientific method.

But that wasn't the point of the "always behind the next mountain" argument. Consider the explanations for the origin of life: "god did it" was always there, but the details of gods involvement have changed over time. As science has improved our understanding of the world "god did it" has been (credibly) invoked to explain less and less of the process, until now we have an explanation of evolution where the entire supposed "contribution" of god is indistinguishable from no involvement at all. And every time a theory about the "need" for god's involvement has been shown to be false (and explained by science) god's role has been redefined to be "just behind the next mountain" instead of admitting that god isn't necessary.

I agree with your argument insofar as I dont believe in magic. I dont think the materialist account covers the full range of the human experience of meaning. I think insisting that it does is another variety of fundamentalism.

 Manchu wrote:
I agree with your argument insofar as I dont believe in magic.

So what exactly does your god do then? Just sit up in heaven watching the world's biggest reality tv show and torturing the occasional sinner?

I dont think the materialist account covers the full range of the human experience of meaning. I think insisting that it does is another variety of fundamentalism.

What exactly doesn't it cover?

It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

 Orlanth wrote:
I will choose to see the whole post as a peace offering.

It isn't a peace offering.

That isn't to say we're still at war... because we're on a message board on the internet. We're not anything. You post as you please, I post as I please, and that's our relationship. If you say something that's worth commenting on, either because I believe it to be a good point, or one with what I believe to be an error, then I'll comment. I'd expect the same of you.

 Manchu wrote:
It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

What's your point? The fact that you aren't happy with the materialistic explanation of what causes pleasure and joy doesn't mean the explanation is insufficient. Nor does the materialistic explanation to existence questions like "is there a god" or "what brain mechanisms cause us to feel joy" prevent you from doing art/philosophy/etc to provide whatever meaning in life you want. And if you're going to abandon all existence questions and fall back on god providing meaning in life then you're conceding that religion is no more "true" than a good song or a beautiful work of art.

 Manchu wrote:
It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

I'm going to answer your question - it is the same as the difference between 'fast' and 'slow' - both are just things moving. The label we give them are just that, a label placed on the spectrum of movement.

I'm not a brain chemistry specialist so there may be other interactions which occur in the two different 'states' you describe which makes them more distinct than points on a spectrum.

 Manchu wrote:
It fails to account for varieties of human experience. For example, what is the difference between pleasure and joy. According to a materialist, it's all just dopamine.

It doesn't really matter what it's caused by, as long as we can study it. Consciousness, for example, is something that we can study. Maybe we have a soul and it has some kind of state that influences how we feel or think as well. That's within the realm of science too, though, as long as it has an effect on our lived experience.

If God intervened in the world, ever, then that would be observable and could be studied. Science could then come up with a theory of God.

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

The easiest way to defend a god is to say they don't ever interact with the world (whether that's to preserve our free will or for any other reason) but most Christians don't seem to go in for that, presumably because the Bible features a ton of God interacting with the world.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

Which could easily be explained by the scenario that we're not advanced enough to perceive the intervention. Our current science cannot explain everythingbut that does not mean that whatever it is we can't explain doesn't exist, only that we are (currently) incapable of understanding it. God works in mysterious ways and all that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

Which could easily be explained by the scenario that we're not advanced enough to perceive the intervention. Our current science cannot explain everythingbut that does not mean that whatever it is we can't explain doesn't exist, only that we are (currently) incapable of understanding it. God works in mysterious ways and all that.

Well, by "can" I mean it's possible for us to do it, somehow. If God intervened in the material world then it would be possible to detect it, and that would eventually lead to theories explaining that intervention.

For God to be interventionist and not detectable, God would have to be changing something that can't be perceived and, furthermore, doesn't affect anything that can be perceived, as that would let us infer the intervention. Basically, we can hypothesise that there's something completely separate from the material world and that God goes around flipping bits on that in response to prayer, but that intervention can't affect the material world (which for our purposes here includes anything we can perceive, like our consciousness) at all. Otherwise we can, at the very least, find phenomena that have no other explanation than divine intervention. So we might, for instance, be able to establish a link between prayer and certain things happening.

It's only an issue if you want a God who intervenes in the world. If you think God just sits in another plane and eats our souls when we die or whatever then it doesn't matter since that's not falsifiable.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

To have an interventionist God who isn't detectable by science, the intervention would have to have no effect on anything we can actually perceive in any way.

Which could easily be explained by the scenario that we're not advanced enough to perceive the intervention. Our current science cannot explain everythingbut that does not mean that whatever it is we can't explain doesn't exist, only that we are (currently) incapable of understanding it. God works in mysterious ways and all that.

Well, by "can" I mean it's possible for us to do it, somehow. If God intervened in the material world then it would be possible to detect it, and that would eventually lead to theories explaining that intervention.

For God to be interventionist and not detectable, God would have to be changing something that can't be perceived and, furthermore, doesn't affect anything that can be perceived, as that would let us infer the intervention. Basically, we can hypothesise that there's something completely separate from the material world and that God goes around flipping bits on that in response to prayer, but that intervention can't affect the material world (which for our purposes here includes anything we can perceive, like our consciousness) at all. Otherwise we can, at the very least, find phenomena that have no other explanation than divine intervention. So we might, for instance, be able to establish a link between prayer and certain things happening.

It's only an issue if you want a God who intervenes in the world. If you think God just sits in another plane and eats our souls when we die or whatever then it doesn't matter since that's not falsifiable.

I don't see where we disagree. My point was that we're not on a level where we can observe or understand everything that goes on, so we're not capable of scientifically determining whether God exists or not (nor are we likely to ever be).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't see where we disagree. My point was that we're not on a level where we can observe or understand everything that goes on, so we're not capable of scientifically determining whether God exists or not (nor are we likely to ever be).

Well, what I was mainly trying to point out originally (in the post quoting Manchu) is that emotional state is something we can observe ourselves, as we experience it. We don't need to be able to study it with brain probes or anything for us to Science it.

It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything. It just makes theories that try to explain observed phenomena. Those theories can be overturned at any time if something comes along that fits the evidence better, or there's something the theory can't fully explain.

If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them. When materialists say they are explaining something, they often are simply explaining it away. Moreover, pleasure and joy, in the sense that they are distinct human experiences, are no more available to science (in the proper use of that term) than God; the "intervention issue" again is only problematic inasmuch as it assumes that God must be materially available in order to exist (e.g., the woeful misunderstanding of prayer as magical wish-granting ITT). The subjectivity of human experience does not discount its reality, however.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything.

Nor can it make any claim to account for everything that is real.

 Manchu wrote:
If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them. When materialists say they are explaining something, they often are simply explaining it away. Moreover, pleasure and joy, in the sense that they are distinct human experiences, are no more available to science (in the proper use of that term) than God; the "intervention issue" again is only problematic inasmuch as it assumes that God must be materially available in order to exist (e.g., the woeful misunderstanding of prayer as magical wish-granting ITT). The subjectivity of human experience does not discount its reality, however.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything.

Nor can it make any claim to account for everything that is real.

I hope I'm not misinterpreting what you mean by materialist. Pleasure and joy are experienced sensations, which means we can study them and what causes them. Even if that's not a state of the brain, it's something we can make observations about and thus study.

I agree that science can't necessarily account for everything that's real. Maybe it can - but we can't ever know if there are things that exist that we just can't perceive. We'll never know, since you can't prove something doesn't exist.

If you mean to say there are things that are real and that we can perceive but that can't be studied scientifically, I don't really know what to say.

As far as the homework goes, I don't really see the harm in someone looking up to a theoretical perfect being and striving to be more like them. Kids should be exposed to different religions anyway.

HFP, I think you're eliding the sensation of joy with the reality of joy and that this sensation is ultimately collapsable into the materialist rhetoric of brain chemistry. This tendency shows up in your turn of phrase conflating "things that are real and that we can perceive." Do you mean perception in the material sense (the Five Senses)?

 Manchu wrote:
If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them.

Im not sure where you are getting that science cant tell us these things. You even gave one of the chemicals which is involved in your original post in this particular line of discussion.

Again, im not a specialist in brain chemistry but there are a lot of things we understand about what and how the brain experiences and how that translates into what t"we" experience. fMRI allows us to visualise brain activity, as do several other imaging modalities. They can show us the uptake and use of different chemicals in different parts of the brain under different stimulus.

If nothing else, joy and pleasure form part of a spectrum of emotion that we can observe and describe scientifically even with nothing more than asking people questions.

There may be a spectrum of how much of certain chemicals is present in some portion of the brain but that spectrum does not describe what is meant by the words joy and pleasure.

 Manchu wrote:
If a materialist account cannot distinguish between things like pleasure and joy then it definitely cannot explain what causes them. When materialists say they are explaining something, they often are simply explaining it away. Moreover, pleasure and joy, in the sense that they are distinct human experiences, are no more available to science (in the proper use of that term) than God; the "intervention issue" again is only problematic inasmuch as it assumes that God must be materially available in order to exist (e.g., the woeful misunderstanding of prayer as magical wish-granting ITT). The subjectivity of human experience does not discount its reality, however.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
It's worth keeping in mind that science doesn't ever make a claim to fully understand anything.

Nor can it make any claim to account for everything that is real.

Biochemical reactions in the brain in response to external stimuli causes pleasure and joy. It's really all a grand symphony of atoms and electrons that produce all of our range of emotions.

Science indeed cannot prove god exists or doesn't since god is unfalsifiable claim. "God is an all knowing and all powerful being that exists outside of nature" is difficult if not impossible to disprove since we can only study what -is- in nature. So... he well and truly can exist according to our current model of the universe. However, there are also many other religions out there and their claims are mostly just as valid as the Christian one by my reasoning. It's like in that one scene in South Park where a group of people enter hell and are informed that Mormonism is the actual religion of the universe. It's a big crap shoot if you think about it.

More on topic I think people overreacted to the situation but I also think the teacher should've accepted the project. Though having god as a role model is questionable...

 Manchu wrote:
There may be a spectrum of how much of certain chemicals is present in some portion of the brain but that spectrum does not describe what is meant by the words joy and pleasure.

Subjective interpretations of physiological changes can still be described by science in the same way you wpuld describe the feelings of jpy and pleasure. I would assume you would start by deciding what constitutes joy and what constitutes pleasure and then what makes each distinct from one another? Congratulatuons - you have just used aimple scientific method to characterise a 'non material' thing.

If you mean that science cannt explain the words used... not really sure that is a valid comment. The words are labels which are applied to a generally agreed upon set of sensations. If you agree on a definition for those words you can explain them. If those words relate to something which can be observed physically or inferred from other observations then you can descrube it scientifically.

No, joy is not as simple as pleasure "+ X."

 Manchu wrote:
No, joy is not as simple as pleasure "+ X."

So define the two terms for us.

 Manchu wrote:
No, joy is not as simple as pleasure "+ X."

Are you arguing for the existence of qualia?

 Manchu wrote:
HFP, I think you're eliding the sensation of joy with the reality of joy and that this sensation is ultimately collapsable into the materialist rhetoric of brain chemistry. This tendency shows up in your turn of phrase conflating "things that are real and that we can perceive." Do you mean perception in the material sense (the Five Senses)?

I wouldn't break it down to five, because that would exclude certain things (like emotion). Emotion is a thing that exists. We can "feel" an emotion. That feeling can, therefore, be studied.

I am not sure what you mean about sensation of joy vs reality of joy. Do you mean the lived experience vs (for example) the brain chemistry state that informs joy?

My view:

(1) Do you think god exists?
If yes, go to (2)
If no, go to (4)

(2) Do you think your god intervene in the universe according to your prayers or actions?
If yes go to (3)
If no, go to (4)

(3) Do you think your god wants/requires your prayers and belief?
If yes, go to (5)
If no, go to (4)

(4) There is no point in worshipping god, because s/he doesn't exist, doesn't listen, or doesn't care

(5) Why are you worshipping a god who wants obedience rather than self-reliance? I don't want to believe in a god like that...

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
HFP, I think you're eliding the sensation of joy with the reality of joy and that this sensation is ultimately collapsable into the materialist rhetoric of brain chemistry. This tendency shows up in your turn of phrase conflating "things that are real and that we can perceive." Do you mean perception in the material sense (the Five Senses)?

I wouldn't break it down to five, because that would exclude certain things (like emotion). Emotion is a thing that exists. We can "feel" an emotion. That feeling can, therefore, be studied.

I am not sure what you mean about sensation of joy vs reality of joy. Do you mean the lived experience vs (for example) the brain chemistry state that informs joy?

Emotions aren't sensitivity, tho. That's an illusion caused by our specific language. Emotions are reaction cues that direct us toward a certain set of behaviours. One thing that might add to the problem is that emotions in turns cause sensations. Jealousy provokes a sickening feeling in the guts, but it cannot be reduced to that feeling alone. Jealousy is also, and more importantly, a response of the mind,that of aggresively wanting what others have, confronted with a specific situation, that of lacking what we strongly desire and seeing others having it. In this case, jealousy is a continuous process that is founded in the perception of a state-of-affairs, continues in a cognitive process, and causes lateraly a physical cue (a specific gastroceptive feeling).

And there's a lot more than 5 senses.

Visual : Sight, electroception & magnetoception
Mechanical : Touch, audition, echolocation, proprioception, toniception, thermoception & nociception
Chemical : Taste, hunger & smell.

And a few more I don't remember.