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.

 Swastakowey wrote:
regardless of belief, when they spout stupid things like calling the majority as humans around him as people dumb enough to believe in spider man (yes, he said that). Frankly he needs to go to the sensitivity camp mentioned earlier.

I agree that what he said was insensitive, but it was not stupid. He was pretty much spot on. The only difference between the Marvel myths and Bible myths is that the bible myths were made up thousands of years ago. Objectively, they are both just stories, and both bear little resemblance to the real world.

Why people choose to believe one and not the other is more complicated than people just being "dumb", but the result is the same. People shouldn't be shamed and called "militant" when all the evidence points to them being correct. I think it is far more shameful to humour these delusions, like they have any merit: "hmmm, well yes there might be a god, we don't know" sounds very reasonable, but I think it's too reasonable. It's like saying "pigs might fly, we don't know" which is a lie, because we do know, pigs don't fething fly! It is true we can't say it with 100% certainty (perhaps they fly when we're not looking), you can't say anything with 100% certainty, but it's still a fact. Pigs do not fly. Atheists shouldn't pussyfoot around this.

Here is a comment I found the other day whilst reading about the Brighton Pride parade at the weekend.

Homosexuality is a sin.This is not my opinion,it's what GOD SAYS.I am simply repeating what I read and believe in the Bible.Who on earth would want to shout out their sins?!"Hey,I'm a murderer!" or "Hey,I just had sex with someone else's wife/husband?" or "Hey,I just broke into my neighbor's house and boy,I made off with everything!" When will we realize that we are under great Judgement because of what we have allowed in our country?

This is a pretty hateful person, expressing hateful opinions. Oh but they are not his opinions they are "gods"... Seriously, feth these people and their sensitivities. Their god isn't real, and the sooner they realise that, the less stupid there will be in the world.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, that's really weird! I grew up Catholic and we always considered ourselves Christian. I'd say anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God who came to die for our sins and all that malarkey is a Christian.

Seems a bit insulting if others claim Catholics are not "real" Christians, but whatevs. I suppose it's just as bad to call others heretics.

You're only Catholic if your mass is in its original language...Spanish.

You just want a fajita bar at mass, Frazz.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
You just want a fajita bar at mass, Frazz.

Father Stan (the Man): Hey why don't you come by Friday. We're having Spaghetti
Frazzled: Spaghetti? You've piqued my interest.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
You just want a fajita bar at mass, Frazz.

Father Stan (the Man): Hey why don't you come by Friday. We're having Spaghetti
Frazzled: Spaghetti? You've piqued my interest.

Hate to break it to you Frazz, but spaghetti isn't spanish

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
You just want a fajita bar at mass, Frazz.

Father Stan (the Man): Hey why don't you come by Friday. We're having Spaghetti
Frazzled: Spaghetti? You've piqued my interest.

Hate to break it to you Frazz, but spaghetti isn't spanish

Yeah, they are actually from the same country that invented the kilt.

 Smacks wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
regardless of belief, when they spout stupid things like calling the majority as humans around him as people dumb enough to believe in spider man (yes, he said that). Frankly he needs to go to the sensitivity camp mentioned earlier.

I agree that what he said was insensitive, but it was not stupid. He was pretty much spot on. The only difference between the Marvel myths and Bible myths is that the bible myths were made up thousands of years ago. Objectively, they are both just stories, and both bear little resemblance to the real world.

If you had actually ever read a Bible, you would not say that. It is also very clear that you don't know what a work of fiction is (Spider Man and other Marvel stories are fiction, not myth), and how fiction is different from myth.

 Smacks wrote:
Why people choose to believe one and not the other is more complicated than people just being "dumb", but the result is the same. People shouldn't be shamed and called "militant" when all the evidence points to them being correct. I think it is far more shameful to humour these delusions, like they have any merit: "hmmm, well yes there might be a god, we don't know" sounds very reasonable, but I think it's too reasonable. It's like saying "pigs might fly, we don't know" which is a lie, because we do know, pigs don't fething fly! It is true we can't say it with 100% certainty (perhaps they fly when we're not looking), you can't say anything with 100% certainty, but it's still a fact. Pigs do not fly. Atheists shouldn't pussyfoot around this.

People should be shamed if they disrespect the beliefs of others (as do you) and they are "militant" if they insist that their personal belief is the only right one and go out of their way to shame others for daring to believe in something different (as do you).

 Smacks wrote:
Here is a comment I found the other day whilst reading about the Brighton Pride parade at the weekend.

Homosexuality is a sin.This is not my opinion,it's what GOD SAYS.I am simply repeating what I read and believe in the Bible.Who on earth would want to shout out their sins?!"Hey,I'm a murderer!" or "Hey,I just had sex with someone else's wife/husband?" or "Hey,I just broke into my neighbor's house and boy,I made off with everything!" When will we realize that we are under great Judgement because of what we have allowed in our country?

This is a pretty hateful person, expressing hateful opinions. Oh but they are not his opinions they are "gods"... Seriously, feth these people and their sensitivities. Their god isn't real, and the sooner they realise that, the less stupid there will be in the world.

Oh yes, please tell me all about how you think your unprovable belief in the non-existance of God is far superior to the equally unprovable but far more logical and supported belief of others in the existence of God.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own comment? You decry a person for being hateful, expressing hateful opinions, whilst your comment itself is being hateful and expressing hateful opinions. It is things like this why f̶e̶d̶o̶r̶a̶s̶ atheists are not taken seriously anymore.

"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

Yes, when both sides have no unbiased evidence (actually belief in the existence of God does have evidence, albeit not unbiased), it is logical to go with the option that offers the best explanation for the things it is supposed to explain.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.

So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?

That teacher needs unpaid leave. What happened was wrong, straight up.

I don't agree with a passing idea about punishing teachers that stray from the book. I imagine good teachers would do just that and crazies should get noticed and punished based on the content of what they teach.


I'm also a bit leery of the idea proposed by smacks that as soon as we get rid of religion things will be unreservedly better. If religion is so lacking in redeeming qualities and the majority of humanity indulges itself in it anyway, what on earth gives you the idea we wouldn't all move on to other, equally destructive vices immediately after?

(Christian here)

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.

So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?

Not appropriate example. It should be, if someone tells you when you die the big invisible dragon in their garage will take you to Valhalla.
As there is no evidence post death so far there's no default.

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

Jesus is a historical figure. Whatever the truth about his divinity his life shook things up dramatically.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.

So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?

Not appropriate example. It should be, if someone tells you when you die the big invisible dragon in their garage will take you to Valhalla.
As there is no evidence post death so far there's no default.

Ok...I think both the truth claims about the invisible Dragon and the invisible intelligence behind the universe are about on the same standing. Ie. Extraordinary claims backed by no good evidence.

In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.

You can claim it, but you claim has no more merit than anything else.

 jasper76 wrote:

In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.

I think skepticism in regards to God is fine, and I personally have no problem with it. But I find skepticism to be a different position as "knowing" that there is no God.

And if someone has reached the point to where they need to persuade that there is no God, then that person has gone far beyond skepticism.

But skepticism is not at all an unreasonable position.

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.

I think skepticism in regards to God is fine, and I personally have no problem with it. But I find skepticism to be a different position as "knowing" that there is no God.

And if someone has reached the point to where they need to persuade that there is no God, then that person has gone far beyond skepticism.

But skepticism is not at all an unreasonable position.

I think the same can be said about "knowing" that there is a God.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

In situations like these, I do claim a default position of skepticism.

I think skepticism in regards to God is fine, and I personally have no problem with it. But I find skepticism to be a different position as "knowing" that there is no God.

And if someone has reached the point to where they need to persuade that there is no God, then that person has gone far beyond skepticism.

But skepticism is not at all an unreasonable position.

I think the same can be said about "knowing" that there is a God.

I won't deny that.

OP gets 10/10 troll points for starting a thread involving religion, children, AND lawsuits.

Truly masterful.

Belief or disbelief in God is beside the point, gents.

22. On the day of the incident and for an additional two days thereafter, [the teacher] required that A.B. sit by himself during lunch and told him he should not talk to the other students and stated that this was because he had offended them. This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.

23. When V.S. was told by A.B. what had happened she called the Assistant Principal of the school and demanded an explanation.

24. The Assistant Principal set up a three-way telephone conversation with V.S., [the teacher] and himself.

25. [The teacher] confirmed her involvement in this matter as noted above.

26. V.S. demanded that the school not isolate her son or punish him for his beliefs.

27. After three days A.B. was allowed to join his classmates for lunch and all sanctions and restrictions were lifted.

The Principal knew what the teacher was doing and still did it. The child was isolated from his classmates without cause for 3 days.

Lawsuit time. Principal sacked. Teacher sacked.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.

So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...

How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?

@Iron Captain: the point was, as Sagan once asserted, extraordinary claims (such as a divine intelligence behind the universe) require extraordinary evidence.

In the mean time, any evidence will do. I am open-minded about the idea of a divine intelligence, I just think it's highly improbable, and I have never been presented with any evidence to sway my opinion to the "God is probable" side of the argument.

Sounds like time for a lawsuit and one I'd actually pursue.

 jasper76 wrote:
One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...

How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?

I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka

 d-usa wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...

How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?

I honestly think that at this point the discussion between two 7 year olds regarding the existence of God, or the lack thereof, is probably as developed and meaningful as a discussion about who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman. At least, judging by this thread, it elicits the same amount of responses here on Dakka Dakka

Superman duh! He'd just like fly around and shoot him with his phazer eyez!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:
"Far more logical and supported belief in the existence of God"

Yeah, it's far more logical to believe in something without there being actual, unbiased evidence for it, eh?

No evidence either way, and there is no default belief.

So if someone tells me they have a big invisible Dragon in their garage, what should be my default belief about that truth claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html

 jasper76 wrote:
One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...

How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?

@Iron Captain: the point was, as Sagan once asserted, extraordinary claims (such as a divine intelligence behind the universe) require extraordinary evidence.

In the mean time, any evidence will do. I am open-minded about the idea of a divine intelligence, I just think it's highly improbable, and I have never been presented with any evidence to sway my opinion to the "God is probable" side of the argument.

By reading about the formation of the solar system and the theory of evolution. There is plenty of information on those topics which is accessible to a 7 year old.

Both of those subjects directly contradict the version presented in the bible unless you do some mental gymnastics to twist the words and claim it is one of the sections that must be "interpreted" rather than the literal word of god.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
One thing that I've been wondering, though I think it's fairly irrelevant to the OP, because if a kid were segregated because he said he did believe in God, it would be just as bad. But...

How on Earth could a 7 year old be intellectually capable of forming a meaningful opinion on whether there is or is not a God?

@Iron Captain: the point was, as Sagan once asserted, extraordinary claims (such as a divine intelligence behind the universe) require extraordinary evidence.

In the mean time, any evidence will do. I am open-minded about the idea of a divine intelligence, I just think it's highly improbable, and I have never been presented with any evidence to sway my opinion to the "God is probable" side of the argument.

By reading about the formation of the solar system and the theory of evolution.

Both of those directly contradict the version presented in the bible of the formation of the earth and life on earth. Evolution is also a proven fact.

I think you may be overestimating the state of cognitive development of the average 7 year old. Were talking about 1st and 2nd grade here.

Religion has no place in school, it should be taught by the parents if that is there wish, in any part of society that has even the slightest bit of power, religion has no place.

People can practice their own beliefs however they like, just not in a way that they can use those beliefs to control others lives or enforce a certain code of conduct on others that don't believe the same.way, and if it is found they have, then it should be a criminal offence.