|
On May 28 2011 04:44 Otak wrote:
Anyone who thinks he should have just gone with it is wrong. If he doesn't want the prayer as part of the ceremony and it's against the law anyway then he has every right to speak up about it. Also, does it make anyone else laugh how the supposed Christians were threatening to beat him up and/or kill him along with his parents who threw him out of their house. What a great, positive attitude from these children of God. They should be the ones who burn in hell (I love how they actually use that phrase as well - I would literally laugh in someones face if they told me i was going to "burn in hell")
They just reacted accordingto the bible!
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." - 2 Cor.6:14-17
|
On May 28 2011 04:52 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 04:31 DoubleReed wrote:On May 28 2011 04:26 Chocobo wrote:On May 28 2011 04:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Dear Lord in Heaven, agnosticism isn't what the thread is about! Stop trying to convince the guy is an atheist. No one cares. He says he's agnostic. Can we move on?
This is about separation of church and state. This is about Christians who completely ostracized someone for upholding the law. This is about atheists coming to aid of a kid who did something stupid but right IMO. Why do you call it stupid? Are you saying it's stupid to stand up for your rights and fight against illegal activities if the risk of personal loss exists? Er... is there anything to show that the kid was brave and actually knew the real risks to his personal life? Sorry, I just kind of doubt that he would have gone through with it if he knew he was going to be disowned from his family... I just assumed that he did not expect the shitstorm that ensued. If he really knew what he was getting into then more power to him. But he's a kid, and I sincerely doubt it. He expected some backlash, but nothing on the level of what happened, especially not being kicked out by his parents. Maybe you can say it was a bad choice for his personal life. I thought you were calling the act of standing up for his rights stupid though, if that's not what you meant then I misunderstood.
Yea, that's what I was referring to. I definitely think what he did was right. But it was just unwise and unfortunate.
It reminds me of people I know who were disowned when they came out of the closet. They almost never expect that their parents would actually do such a thing, but the cold hard fact of the matter is that they do. It's shocking and depressing how much families can break due to intolerance.
|
On May 28 2011 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 04:35 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 03:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Agnosticism can't be a religion or have anything in common with it because it deals purely with facts and has nothing to do with belief. Strong forms of theism and atheism deal with making claims of knowledge that they don't actually posses, making them similar in that regard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism Hmm, what would you call an atheist that says : Statement that god exist is "false"/wrong, because there is no proof that he exists. I used "false" as there is no definition of truth within science. He makes no claim outside of epistemology, specifically scientific method. No claim of knowledge is in such a statement. It is just a statement that basically means, concept of god is useless from the point of view of describing the universe. For such an atheist, when he says there is no god, he means god-concept is irrelevant in the same way as unicorn or fhsdfhjks or opkhanic,.... Pretty sure that would be some form of Strong Atheism, assuming I understood you correctly. You have to realize that claiming a statement is false is claiming you know something. To know something isn't true is just as much a form of knowledge as knowing something is true.
Hmm did you note my explanation of "false". You are applying logical concept of false to a statement done in a language that has no real concept of false, just a concept a "false" which is a shorthand for "that statement is useless".
In your last two sentences you are still using concept of true which does not really exist in science. It seems you did not understand what I was writing, so I will try to add more.
Since non-existence of entities is default position in that case, then saying that god-exists-statement is wrong/"false" , because there is no evidence, does not mean anything more that no knowledge about god-concept exists and therefore it is as useless as any other similar concept and not worthy of considering its existence.
EDIT:Ah, you edited, so I will add some more clarification.
My last paragraph might seem like weak atheism/agnosticism, but it is still saying "god does not exist". I was just trying to explain more what does that statement mean for example for me. I do not care for question of whether god exists or not outside of describing the universe, as outside of that I find not only the concept of god, but the whole question useless. And inside that context, saying something does not exist has slightly different meaning, that I tried to convey. In that context God does not exist in the same sense as aether does not exist. Basically there is no proof of it nor is there any need for it to explain anything, therefore we fallback to default which is non-existence. There are still different degrees/probabilities of existence/non-existence, but god as most similar ideas falls into the one of "basically-zero" chance of existence. Which is another aspect of saying that something does not exist in that context.
|
I'm a semi religious guy... well honestly I don't know where I stand... but whenever I hear things like this I honestly think that the whole entire world is fucked up and God is facepalming at everyone
|
Why did he go so far just to get a little prayer out of his graduation? Why did he care?
|
I find it incredibly terrifying that a lot of people from the US are calling this guy a troll. He was basically acting as an upstanding citizen and fighting for his rights in line with the U.S. laws and the constitution. Especially when taking into consideration U.S. foreign policy, where lots of wars have and are being fought against oppressing regimes this duplicitous sense of morale is incredibly striking.
Imagine that you are being forced to pray to Zeus and Poseidon during your graduation ceremony. Further imagine that it would be illegal for your school do this kind of prayers. What kind of sick logic and morale would tolerate aggression against you if you voiced your opinion?
|
If he didn't want to pray, then he didn't have to pray. Trying to have it canceled for everyone else because he opposed it was a dick move.
|
On May 28 2011 05:19 ChellaPopper wrote:
If he didn't want to pray, then he didn't have to pray. Trying to have it canceled for everyone else because he opposed it was a dick move.
He wasn't the only one opposed, there is this thing called the law you know.
|
On May 28 2011 05:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 04:35 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 03:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Agnosticism can't be a religion or have anything in common with it because it deals purely with facts and has nothing to do with belief. Strong forms of theism and atheism deal with making claims of knowledge that they don't actually posses, making them similar in that regard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism Hmm, what would you call an atheist that says : Statement that god exist is "false"/wrong, because there is no proof that he exists. I used "false" as there is no definition of truth within science. He makes no claim outside of epistemology, specifically scientific method. No claim of knowledge is in such a statement. It is just a statement that basically means, concept of god is useless from the point of view of describing the universe. For such an atheist, when he says there is no god, he means god-concept is irrelevant in the same way as unicorn or fhsdfhjks or opkhanic,.... Pretty sure that would be some form of Strong Atheism, assuming I understood you correctly. You have to realize that claiming a statement is false is claiming you know something. To know something isn't true is just as much a form of knowledge as knowing something is true. Hmm did you note my explanation of "false". You are applying logical concept of false to a statement done in a language that has no real concept of false, just a concept a "false" which is a shorthand for "that statement is useless". In your last two sentences you are still using concept of true which does not really exist in science. It seems you did not understand what I was writing, so I will try to add more. Since non-existence of entities is default position in that case, then saying that god-exists-statement is wrong/"false" , because there is no evidence, does not mean anything more that no knowledge about god-concept exists and therefore it is as useless as any other similar concept and not worthy of considering its existence. EDIT:Ah, you edited, so I will add some more clarification. My last paragraph might seem like weak atheism/agnosticism, but it is still saying "god does not exist". I was just trying to explain more what does that statement mean for example for me. I do not care for question of whether god exists or not outside of describing the universe, as outside of that I find not only the concept of god, but the whole question useless. And inside that context, saying something does not exist has slightly different meaning, that I tried to convey. In that context God does not exist in the same sense as aether does not exist. Basically there is no proof of it nor is there any need for it to explain anything, therefore we fallback to default which is non-existence. There are still different degrees/probabilities of existence/non-existence, but god as most similar ideas falls into the one of "basically-zero" chance of existence. Which is another aspect of saying that something does not exist in that context.
I feel like you're trying to use semantics to redefine words to suit your preference. You argue that truth does not really exist in science, and in that sense science is inferior to logic.
I see what you're trying to say but there ARE limitations on science for that exact reason, which is why the existence of God shouldn't have anything to do with science. It's a question beyond the scope of science at this point in time so it's pointless to use scientific definitions in regards to it.
Also, is mathematics not the foundation of science? Does truth not exist in mathematics? I'm just confused it seems like your saying science is the foundation of all knowledge when in reality it is just a tool/method with limitations just like any tool in science.
Something being outside the scope of science doesn't make it "unworthy" of science either. Science is not the ends of knowledge, it is the means to knowledge.
I'm just confused as to why you are refusing to use the conventional definition of "truth" in this situation when it doesn't even have anything to do with science.
Edit to your last paragraph: You just seem really apathetic so I guess the poster below me mentioned Apatheism which seems like the best word I guess.
It appears this is a key proponent of apatheism though, at least from the wikipedia article:
Unlike theists, agnostics, atheists, etc, the unique feature of an apatheist is that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their beliefs and behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Which makes sense somewhat if you truly find the whole thing useless.
|
On May 28 2011 05:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 04:35 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 03:41 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Agnosticism can't be a religion or have anything in common with it because it deals purely with facts and has nothing to do with belief. Strong forms of theism and atheism deal with making claims of knowledge that they don't actually posses, making them similar in that regard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism Hmm, what would you call an atheist that says : Statement that god exist is "false"/wrong, because there is no proof that he exists. I used "false" as there is no definition of truth within science. He makes no claim outside of epistemology, specifically scientific method. No claim of knowledge is in such a statement. It is just a statement that basically means, concept of god is useless from the point of view of describing the universe. For such an atheist, when he says there is no god, he means god-concept is irrelevant in the same way as unicorn or fhsdfhjks or opkhanic,.... Pretty sure that would be some form of Strong Atheism, assuming I understood you correctly. You have to realize that claiming a statement is false is claiming you know something. To know something isn't true is just as much a form of knowledge as knowing something is true. Hmm did you note my explanation of "false". You are applying logical concept of false to a statement done in a language that has no real concept of false, just a concept a "false" which is a shorthand for "that statement is useless". In your last two sentences you are still using concept of true which does not really exist in science. It seems you did not understand what I was writing, so I will try to add more. Since non-existence of entities is default position in that case, then saying that god-exists-statement is wrong/"false" , because there is no evidence, does not mean anything more that no knowledge about god-concept exists and therefore it is as useless as any other similar concept and not worthy of considering its existence. EDIT:Ah, you edited, so I will add some more clarification. My last paragraph might seem like weak atheism/agnosticism, but it is still saying "god does not exist". I was just trying to explain more what does that statement mean for example for me. I do not care for question of whether god exists or not outside of describing the universe, as outside of that I find not only the concept of god, but the whole question useless. And inside that context, saying something does not exist has slightly different meaning, that I tried to convey. In that context God does not exist in the same sense as aether does not exist. Basically there is no proof of it nor is there any need for it to explain anything, therefore we fallback to default which is non-existence. There are still different degrees/probabilities of existence/non-existence, but god as most similar ideas falls into the one of "basically-zero" chance of existence. Which is another aspect of saying that something does not exist in that context.
Well, there is Apatheism, which is kind of along those lines, but doesn't make a claim of truth of falsehood either way, because its entirely irrelevant.
|
On May 28 2011 05:08 Snuggles wrote:
I'm a semi religious guy... well honestly I don't know where I stand... but whenever I hear things like this I honestly think that the whole entire world is fucked up and God is facepalming at everyone
But He knew it was gonna happen all along, right? 
|
On May 28 2011 05:18 Entertaining wrote:
Why did he go so far just to get a little prayer out of his graduation? Why did he care?
Because the prayer was forced upon him on a public school, in a country that has rules against that and a separation of state and church.
A christian student on his graduation also shouldn't have to listen to an atheist giving a speech about god not existing.
When you send your kid to a public school you count on it that they respect all opinions, races and religions equally and because of that they should not highlight one, especially not at a big moment in a persons life, his graduation.
If people want to have a christian prayer at their graduation that's fine, go attend a christian school or have a private prayer in the next room but don't force your religion upon others on a public school.
|
My experience dealing with kids as well as the final outcomes of this type of thing in the past makes me highly suspicious of this whole "child martyr" angle. I seriously doubt that this kid felt oppressed and came up with this idea all on his own. It is FAR more likely that he was just trying to be a dick or that he was put up to it by somebody (like those kids that wore political t-shirts and got sent home). I also am pretty sure that all the atheist support he is getting is largely commonplace bandwagoning in the absence of a more exciting cause.
But in the end if I have to take sides of course I'm with the kid because as one of my favorite Futurama quotes states, "[he is] technically correct, the best kind of correct".
|
On May 28 2011 05:19 Intr3pid wrote:
I find it incredibly terrifying that a lot of people from the US are calling this guy a troll. He was basically acting as an upstanding citizen and fighting for his rights in line with the U.S. laws and the constitution. Especially when taking into consideration U.S. foreign policy, where lots of wars have and are being fought against oppressing regimes this duplicitous sense of morale is incredibly striking.
Imagine that you are being forced to pray to Zeus and Poseidon during your graduation ceremony. Further imagine that it would be illegal for your school do this kind of prayers. What kind of sick logic and morale would tolerate aggression against you if you voiced your opinion?
If seemingly everyone else in the school wanted to pray to Zeus and Poseidon during graduation, and I didn't believe in zeus and poseidon, I probably would just tolerate it! Id bow my head, then once it was over continue on with my life. Its not like their prayer is going to cause me harm in the future.
I had posted earlier about how I felt Mr. Fowler was incorrect in acting the way that he did. I also made it clear, as most of the well formulated posts in the thread have said, that the aggression Mr. Fowler suffered cannot be accepted. I made the point about Mr. Fowler being incorrect because most of the comments I had seen seemed to be defending Mr. Fowler as right. By the letter of the law, yes he was right. The way he was treated by his community was undefendable. That isnt the issue up for debate, and im sure almost every one of the posters in the thread agree with you and I about this. They're just not putting it in their posts because, well, posting something everyone already agrees with isnt worth much.
But I can't help but feel he could have gone about this more maturely. Mr. Fowler did not simply voice his opinion. He acted on this opinion and tried to deny a lot of people of something they wanted. I view a prayer at a graduation as a well wishing for the future. Its a fairly innocent thing to deny those that want it.
Now, say the school was instead teaching Intelligent Design as opposed to evolution as the truth. That affects students ability to succeed in the future, and is much more worthy of action than a prayer at graduation.
|
I'm really sickened by every jackass here who thinks the kid's decision making was poor, but doesn't have anything to say about the parents' decision making, the kids who are threatening him and their decision making, or the school's illegal decision making.
It's like getting death threats for threatening to tell the ACLU that your school is selling marijuana only to have everyone say "Well he should have just not bought any marijuana"
|
On May 28 2011 05:45 Eknoid4 wrote:
I'm really sickened by every jackass here who thinks the kid's decision making was poor, but doesn't have anything to say about the parents' decision making, the kids who are threatening him and their decision making, or the school's illegal decision making.
It's like getting death threats for threatening to tell the ACLU that your school is selling marijuana only to have everyone say "Well he should have just not bought any marijuana"
Well I think it's because no one is really disputing that they are wrong too.
I don't think anyone actually feels the way his community does on these forums.
|
On May 28 2011 05:50 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 05:45 Eknoid4 wrote:
I'm really sickened by every jackass here who thinks the kid's decision making was poor, but doesn't have anything to say about the parents' decision making, the kids who are threatening him and their decision making, or the school's illegal decision making.
It's like getting death threats for threatening to tell the ACLU that your school is selling marijuana only to have everyone say "Well he should have just not bought any marijuana" Well I think it's because no one is really disputing that they are wrong too. I don't think anyone actually feels the way his community does on these forums.
I understand that, but we shouldn't be holding a high school student to a higher standard than we hold his parents and teachers and community in general. They are responsible for their own actions. His "poor decision making" has nothing to do with how he has been treated.
|
Religious people in large groups are scarier than a large ball of banelings, sure they may seem nice if you agree with their ways, but the second you disagree with 1 little thing shits hits the fan
|
On May 28 2011 04:52 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 04:31 DoubleReed wrote:On May 28 2011 04:26 Chocobo wrote:On May 28 2011 04:23 DoubleReed wrote:
Dear Lord in Heaven, agnosticism isn't what the thread is about! Stop trying to convince the guy is an atheist. No one cares. He says he's agnostic. Can we move on?
This is about separation of church and state. This is about Christians who completely ostracized someone for upholding the law. This is about atheists coming to aid of a kid who did something stupid but right IMO. Why do you call it stupid? Are you saying it's stupid to stand up for your rights and fight against illegal activities if the risk of personal loss exists? Er... is there anything to show that the kid was brave and actually knew the real risks to his personal life? Sorry, I just kind of doubt that he would have gone through with it if he knew he was going to be disowned from his family... I just assumed that he did not expect the shitstorm that ensued. If he really knew what he was getting into then more power to him. But he's a kid, and I sincerely doubt it. He expected some backlash, but nothing on the level of what happened, especially not being kicked out by his parents. Maybe you can say it was a bad choice for his personal life. I thought you were calling the act of standing up for his rights stupid though, if that's not what you meant then I misunderstood.
Yes he clearly underestimated the level of crazy in the town. That doesn't mean that he did anything stupid or cowardly. Infact the only cowards are the christians who think it is acceptable to harass someone for standing up for what is right because they are on the side of the tyranny of majority.
And it was a good choice for his life. His parents will eventually regret their decision, if not now then in the future when they are old and decrepit and their so called christian brethren will desert them.
He isn't the first child to be expelled from his house on basis of religious intolerance. And he won't be the last. And he has the support of his brother, sister and community backing him.
|
On May 28 2011 05:19 ChellaPopper wrote:
If he didn't want to pray, then he didn't have to pray. Trying to have it canceled for everyone else because he opposed it was a dick move.
Its like American schools have forgotten to not only uphold the constitution but also forgotten to teach the constitution. Even foreigners who live in the US know more about the BoR. It was ILLEGAL for the school to sanction prayers. It was a dick move to still have the prayer and to ostracize him.
Seriously what has happened to the school system in the US?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
