Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you.
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.

Interesting...

Caution: possible religious material and specious reasoning ahead:

Spoiler:

Joey wrote:If you're going to say that something is beyond the realms of science then you may as well say that everything simultaniously exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Or you will have no way of telling whether it exists so may as well not think about it. Countless things may exist "beyond the realm of science", but by their nature we don't know about them, therefore we can safely disregard their existance.

So your answer to Schrödinger's cat is to disregard its existence?

Quantum theory is easily explainable by science.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/QED-Strange-Theory-Penguin-Science/dp/0140125051
I highly reccommend that book. Lucid and brilliant.

I don't see what the existence or otherwise of a deity that could be classed as God has to do with the actual issue at hand.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I don't see what the existence or otherwise of a deity that could be classed as God has to do with the actual issue at hand.

You've been to the OT before, right?

Joey wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I don't see what the existence or otherwise of a deity that could be classed as God has to do with the actual issue at hand.

You've been to the OT before, right?

Yep, but it's nice to point out how utterly pointless arguing about irrelevant side-issues is sometimes.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Joey wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I don't see what the existence or otherwise of a deity that could be classed as God has to do with the actual issue at hand.

You've been to the OT before, right?

Yep, but it's nice to point out how utterly pointless arguing about irrelevant side-issues is sometimes.

Bunch of people in America being incredibly rude, not much to talk about.
99% of humanity being wrong, plenty to talk about.

Joey wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:

Joey wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't.

That is incredibly insulting and small-minded. Plenty of people, myself included, believe that the existence of a deity is undetermined. We don't claim to know, or even believe, one way or the other.

Please don't try to force people into your definitions.

Nope.
Do you believe in god/gods? If the answer is no, you are an atheist.
If you're looking at evidence for proof of God, you can't be looking very hard. You think a burning, talking bush is empirically difficult to disprove?
Or a man coming back from the dead, or walking on water, or turning water into wine? You think those things may or may not have happened?
An agnostic is an atheist, usually philosophy students who regard absolute statements as like, totally uncool, because, like, we don't really know what happened like, in the before time.
What evidence is there for an existance of god? None whatsoever. Every single piece that has been put forward has been rebuked. Observing the universe as it is, at no point is the existence of a creator nessesary to make the explanation work.

I may not believe in the Christian god, however that doesn't mean that there isn't a deity figure in existence. Nor, does there have to be a deity in existence. Furthermore, there is no proof (or disproof) that there isn't a pantheon of gods.

An atheist is someone who actively believes in the lack of a deity
A theist actively believes in a deity
An agnostic has no proof one way or another so is open to the possibility of either.

I assume your education system doesn't teach rational thinking so allow me to enlighten you.
Nothing exists unless it is proven to exist.
God is unproven, and there is no evidence for it.
Therefore god does not exist.

I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist. That's getting way to philosophical. For example, I have no proof that you exist, for all I know you are a computer generating responses, or my own imagination, as such you are not proven to exist, so following your "rational" thinking, you don't exist.

True rational thinking would go something like this:
Something can only be known to exist if proven to exist
No proof of existence is not proof of non-existence
Therefore god cannot be shown to either exist or not-exist.

That's the point of agnosticism (can you -ism agnostic?). We have no proof, one way or another, for the existence of a deity, so either possibility is a reasonable solution. Or, do you argue that the universe ends 13.5 billion light years away from Earth? Or that black holes, the higgs-boson, and dark matter have the possibility of existing? Or that nuclear fission didn't exist before the 1930's?

Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.

Yes it does.

Joey wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.

Yes it does.

By that argument the gorilla did not exist before it was discovered, and as a result for something to exist it must therefore be discovered.
I'd consider that wrong, but for all I know you don't exist either. After all, I have no proof of your existance.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Joey wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.

Yes it does.

By that argument the gorilla did not exist before it was discovered, and as a result for something to exist it must therefore be discovered.
I'd consider that wrong, but for all I know you don't exist either. After all, I have no proof of your existance.

You do, because we're having this conversation.
And yes, before the gorilla was discovered, the statement "the gorilla does not exist" would have been true.

biccat wrote:
Condone it (and by "it" I mean publicly praying, I do not consider their actions 'heckling')? No, I think it was disrespectful.


While I agree that the Christians in the gallery should have deferred out of respect.

I'm glad we agree on that. I don't see their actions as unlawful either, I do see them as Un-Christian.

biccat wrote:
The law and the Constitution don't require civility or respect.

No, but Christ asked us to be civil and respect each other...

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:In the case of the school, it is, as I understand it, a state school and therefore should, in all likelihood, aim to balance it's religious education to include all major faith's teachings explained and be lead by none. If it's a private school, paid for by the Islamic faith, then it can teach as it pleases unless those teachings are found to be in direct conflict with the laws of the nation. If it is a state school, then it has no right to be hindu, muslim, christian or jedi, it should teach about faiths from a neutral stance and afford no direct favor to any.

So do you, or do you not, think that the Hindu protestors in this case were being "douches" (using your word) for trying to interrupt a public prayer?

Christian prayer had been removed some time ago from the schools, the Muslims were benefiting from 'positive discrimination'. The Hindus intended to demonstrate outside the building, not scream and shout through the prayer service. It is not the same as the incident in the OP, where one faith's prayers replaced another for a day out of many. In the school example you provided, Muslim religious practice was being afforded preferential treatment ahead of other faiths, not a similar case and no, I do not think local Hindus, Christians, Jews, Wiccans or anyone else protesting that are douches. If they stormed into the school and shouted through the service, then yes, they would be disrespectful douches. But, again, it is not a like for like scenario.



As an aside, mentioning that the bible tells us so would allow me to unleash a string of things the bible literally tells us to do (Leviticus is full of it...) that Christians don't do, so I left it out to diminish the trolling. Let's leave off that line of reasoning. Christ's basic message was the same as Bill and Ted's, Be Excellent to One Another. Shouting through someone else's prayers isn't being very excellent.

Joey wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

Joey wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:
I assume your educational system doesn't actually teach rational thinking. Just because something hasn't been proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist.

Yes it does.

By that argument the gorilla did not exist before it was discovered, and as a result for something to exist it must therefore be discovered.
I'd consider that wrong, but for all I know you don't exist either. After all, I have no proof of your existance.

You do, because we're having this conversation.
And yes, before the gorilla was discovered, the statement "the gorilla does not exist" would have been true.

Except that logic tells us that it could not have "not existed," as creatures do not spontaneously appear when they are observed.
And no, as for all I know the conversation I'm having is with a sophisticated simulation or figment of my imagination.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Except that logic tells us that it could not have "not existed," as creatures do not spontaneously appear when they are observed.
And no, as for all I know the conversation I'm having is with a sophisticated simulation or figment of my imagination.

Then nothing is real to you.
Either you accept that nothing is real, which is really cool and will make you fit in with all the other philosophy undergraduates, or you can accept that some things do exist and rely on your senses to be correct.
We know gorillas existed before we discovered them because of archiological evidence. After initial discovery, we'd have had no idea how long they were around for, now we have a rough approximation.

From your stand point science and discovery can be disregarded as wastes of time.

Your position is that truth is only what can be observed and that if something cannot be observed it isn't real (which we all know is false).

Something can exist even if you haven't observed it. DIscovery is essentially the observation of previously unobserved phenomenon. Phenomenon that do not spring into existence the moment they are observed and existed even though we didn't know they existed.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:No, but Christ asked us to be civil .

He did? Where?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I'm glad we agree on that. I don't see their actions as unlawful either, I do see them as Un-Christian.

Well then the title of this thread is, at best, misleading.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

biccat wrote:
The law and the Constitution don't require civility or respect.

No, but Christ asked us to be civil and respect each other...

I was only discussing the legal issue - whether there was any legal/constitutional violation. There may have been, but it wasn't against the Hindu priest.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:As an aside, mentioning that the bible tells us so would allow me to unleash a string of things the bible literally tells us to do (Leviticus is full of it...) that Christians don't do, so I left it out to diminish the trolling. Let's leave off that line of reasoning. Christ's basic message was the same as Bill and Ted's, Be Excellent to One Another. Shouting through someone else's prayers isn't being very excellent.

The problem with interpretation of anything is that you are relying on someone else accepting that interpretation. The teaching of Christ, according to the New Testament, could be interpreted differently. A lot of Christians take their religion very seriously, and really see non-Christian worship as harmful to the worshipper.

If a person were about to walk off the side of a building, the best thing for an observer to do would be to stop them from walking off the side of the building. Not to allow them to keep walking and ignorantly suffer the consequences of their decision.

biccat wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:As an aside, mentioning that the bible tells us so would allow me to unleash a string of things the bible literally tells us to do (Leviticus is full of it...) that Christians don't do, so I left it out to diminish the trolling. Let's leave off that line of reasoning. Christ's basic message was the same as Bill and Ted's, Be Excellent to One Another. Shouting through someone else's prayers isn't being very excellent.

The problem with interpretation of anything is that you are relying on someone else accepting that interpretation. The teaching of Christ, according to the New Testament, could be interpreted differently. A lot of Christians take their religion very seriously, and really see non-Christian worship as harmful to the worshipper.

If a person were about to walk off the side of a building, the best thing for an observer to do would be to stop them from walking off the side of the building. Not to allow them to keep walking and ignorantly suffer the consequences of their decision.

And so is sniffing glue or murdering people, however those same protesters aren't going wading into the slums of inner cities to help people avoid those dangerous things, they are shouting in a public area, not because they are concerned for his soul, but because they are outraged that it's not their brand of religion that's being used, for once. Masquerading it as concern for his spiritual well-being is un-Christian.

How about they lay off these vulgar protests and show with deeds what Christians are really about, lets see them working with the hungry and the poor and needy, not pillorying and grandstanding. It puts them with the scum from Westboro Baptist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:No, but Christ asked us to be civil .

He did? Where?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. - JC.

Thats not saying be civil. I'm not aware of any notation of Jesus being civil. He was quite the rabble rouser. I heard it ended badly for him.

this is pretty much what I see when I hear or see ppeople arguing over religion,it's like live and let live is a dead concept or something.

Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka, please off site hosting for any such images.

reds8n

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And so is sniffing glue or murdering people, however those same protesters aren't going wading into the slums of inner cities to help people avoid those dangerous things, they are shouting in a public area, not because they are concerned for his soul, but because they are outraged that it's not their brand of religion that's being used, for once. Masquerading it as concern for his spiritual well-being is un-Christian.

I'm glad you could discern their intentions and mindset. I was unable to do so from the context of the video.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:How about they lay off these vulgar protests and show with deeds what Christians are really about, lets see them working with the hungry and the poor and needy

They probably do. Christian charities are the largest private group that provides welfare for the hungry, poor, and needy. Christian charities do a lot in this country, and Christians as a whole are exceedingly generous.

Of course, if you're trying to convert someone, you can hardly do it simply by silently and unobtrusively doing good deeds. Religions don't spread that way.

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

biccat wrote:

Of course, if you're trying to convert someone, you can hardly do it simply by silently and unobtrusively doing good deeds. Religions don't spread that way.

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Shouting at someone whilst they are in prayer is not a good way to sway people's beliefs, just saying...

Joey wrote:Either you beleive in God or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist.

So the Hindu, Native American Indians and all old pantheonic religious groups were atheist? I'm fairly certain that's not true.

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:No, but Christ asked us to be civil .

He did? Where?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. - JC.

Thats not saying be civil. I'm not aware of any notation of Jesus being civil. He was quite the rabble rouser. I heard it ended badly for him.

It's not? What does it mean then? I always thought it meant to treat others with dignity and respect and be mindful of how you would like them to treat you, if for example, you were speaking a holy prayer...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

biccat wrote:

Of course, if you're trying to convert someone, you can hardly do it simply by silently and unobtrusively doing good deeds. Religions don't spread that way.

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Shouting at someone whilst they are in prayer is not a good way to sway people's beliefs, just saying...

You can't exactly threaten to burn people's fields, rape their wives, kill their children and sell them into slavery.

Say what you want about the old ways, but they worked.

For the record, the people shouting were from the gallery and not actual Senators.

Wow, and I get in so much trouble for upping the rhetoric. The guy was kicked out for calling the Hindu priest an abomination. That's pretty harsh.

And the part that makes me laugh out loud? The theists kill each other over specific varieties of imaginary friend.

Easy E wrote:For the record, the people shouting were from the gallery and not actual Senators.

And I find that surprising.

Jim says it all for me. NSFW

biccat wrote:
Congress can't ignore Constitutional restrictions simply by not passing a law. Any action by the government is subject to Constitutional scrutiny, even enforcement by the Executive.

Not procedural rules, per Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2.

I'll say it again, he was likely removed for being disruptive, not for being explicitly religious so the issue isn't really even an issue.

dogma wrote:I'll say it again, he was likely removed for being disruptive, not for being explicitly religious so the issue isn't really even an issue.

It doesn't 'matter if he was removed "for being disruptive," if the effect of the action is to suppress religious beliefs then it's an unconstitutional action.

Article 1, section 5 doesn't apply because there was no member acting.

biccat wrote:
It doesn't 'matter if he was removed "for being disruptive," if the effect of the action is to suppress religious beliefs then it's an unconstitutional action.

So if I hold a religious belief that requires me to slap anyone speaking in a Congressional chamber, I cannot be prevented from doing so?

biccat wrote:
Article 1, section 5 doesn't apply because there was no member acting.

Section 5 does not specify that procedural rules govern only members of the house in question.