|
|
|
On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 05:04 mcc wrote: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. 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.
Nope, I am not really trying to redefine words. Words we are discussing have all vague definitions, I am trying to narrow them down, without really going into it too much as this is already pretty big off-topic anyway.
And no by not having definition of truth science is not in any way inferior to logic, it is just a different tool for different purpose and does not really require concept of truth for its function. So in fact as a tool for gathering empirical knowledge it is superior to logic.
On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
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.
As for limitations of science. Here we differ, I think as far as describing the universe scientific method is the best known tool, therefore god, as explanation of anything, has everything to do with it. As for obtaining objective knowledge I know no better tool, and I think we can ignore subjective knowledge (is it even knowledge if it is purely subjective), so scientific method is the only good way of obtaining knowledge for now, unless you have something different/better ? I ignored math as it is a formal tool and we are talking about different knowledge domain. I could add it there but the sentences would become even more convoluted.
And math is no foundation of science, math is a tool science uses. There is a definition of truth in math/mathematical logic, but it is not transferable to science, because as I said science is not an extension of math, but uses parts of math for some purposes.
On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
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.
Well I am refusing it as in my opinion existence of god(as far as it pertains to describing the universe) is matter of science, therefore definition of truth from logic does not really apply. Also I would actually love to know what is the conventional definition of truth in your opinion ?
On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
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.
Nope, apatheism is not it. As I am not apathetic to the question, I am only apathetic to the question outside of the specified context, as outside of that context that question is not only vaguely formulated, but in my opinion also nonsensical. By that I mean that it is similar to the question "How the music smells ?". We just do not see it because unlike verb smells that has perfectly well defined connections to nouns the verb exists is so abstract that is has no such restrictions. But that last part is just my speculation so feel free to ignore it.
|
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?
there are dozens of posts like this in this thread and i don't really understand it. yes, of course most people would have just bowed their head and let the prayer go on (i know i probably would have). what is the point of posting that? if everyone agreed with the kid the story wouldn't even exist, so i find this type of thing pointless.
i admire his resolve to make an issue out of this when most people would have simply given in. publicly funded schools should not preach religion, there are laws against it and its simply ridiculous.
|
Wow at the amount of people saying his decision making was terrible. You should all be embarrassed.
There is a reason why we have a separation of religion and state and why it is illegal to hold prayers in schools. This being one of them. Why should somebody of a different religion or belief be forced to listen to a single religions prayer i.e. another religions beliefs?
What this school, community and his parents did is disgusting.
|
[QUOTE]On May 28 2011 06:03 redviper wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 28 2011 05:19 ChellaPopper wrote:
Seriously what has happened to the school system in the US? [/QUOTE]
It's become an elaborate daycare/prison system.
|
Props to the Christians in this story for upholding god's will. I'm certain these people are meeting the requirements they believe are in place for acceptance into heaven.
/sarcasm
|
i think he forgot that he lived in louisiana
|
Looks like he gained a whole lot for standing up for what he believes is right. What a retard.
|
Why do people think government sponsored prayer is against the constitution? Does no one read the damn thing anymore, so annoying.
It states clearly in the 1st Amendment that the government cannot make law in regards to religion - there is no law about prayer in schools, first off. This is more about free speech, and the school is, at least constitutionally, free to say whatever they want without inciting violence.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state, no where does it say that. It says *congress*, specifically, cannot impede or respect the establishment of religion. States are free to do what they like, and respecting religion and respecting an establishment like a specific church are totally different things.
I am an atheist, but it really bothers me when people try to ban prayer. If you don't like it, don't pray. No one is forcing you to pray.
Sorry to hear what has happened to this guy though, but it's a christian country and people are idiots. There's a lot of blame to go with who leaked his name.
|
|
|
Never have I been so angry reading a news article before. Sure, this whole situation could have been avoided, but the fact that the responses were such as said in the article is absolutely ridiculous.
|
On May 28 2011 06:48 Belial88 wrote:
Why do people think government sponsored prayer is against the constitution? Does no one read the damn thing anymore, so annoying.
It states clearly in the 1st Amendment that the government cannot make law in regards to religion - there is no law about prayer in schools, first off. This is more about free speech, and the school is, at least constitutionally, free to say whatever they want without inciting violence.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state, no where does it say that. It says *congress*, specifically, cannot impede or respect the establishment of religion. States are free to do what they like, and respecting religion and respecting an establishment like a specific church are totally different things.
I am an atheist, but it really bothers me when people try to ban prayer. If you don't like it, don't pray. No one is forcing you to pray.
Sorry to hear what has happened to this guy though, but it's a christian country and people are idiots. There's a lot of blame to go with who leaked his name.
Public schools .... are run by the state. Separation of Church and State.
Get it?
|
On May 28 2011 06:48 Belial88 wrote:
Why do people think government sponsored prayer is against the constitution? Does no one read the damn thing anymore, so annoying.
It states clearly in the 1st Amendment that the government cannot make law in regards to religion - there is no law about prayer in schools, first off. This is more about free speech, and the school is, at least constitutionally, free to say whatever they want without inciting violence.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state, no where does it say that. It says *congress*, specifically, cannot impede or respect the establishment of religion. States are free to do what they like, and respecting religion and respecting an establishment like a specific church are totally different things.
I am an atheist, but it really bothers me when people try to ban prayer. If you don't like it, don't pray. No one is forcing you to pray.
Sorry to hear what has happened to this guy though, but it's a christian country and people are idiots. There's a lot of blame to go with who leaked his name.
Engel v. Vitale. Supreme Court case that states "Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion."
So yes according to the Supreme Court, public school/government sponsored prayer is unconstitutional. This kid did what was right.
|
On May 28 2011 06:17 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 28 2011 05:04 mcc wrote: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. 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. Nope, I am not really trying to redefine words. Words we are discussing have all vague definitions, I am trying to narrow them down, without really going into it too much as this is already pretty big off-topic anyway. And no by not having definition of truth science is not in any way inferior to logic, it is just a different tool for different purpose and does not really require concept of truth for its function. So in fact as a tool for gathering empirical knowledge it is superior to logic. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
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.
As for limitations of science. Here we differ, I think as far as describing the universe scientific method is the best known tool, therefore god, as explanation of anything, has everything to do with it. As for obtaining objective knowledge I know no better tool, and I think we can ignore subjective knowledge (is it even knowledge if it is purely subjective), so scientific method is the only good way of obtaining knowledge for now, unless you have something different/better ? I ignored math as it is a formal tool and we are talking about different knowledge domain. I could add it there but the sentences would become even more convoluted. And math is no foundation of science, math is a tool science uses. There is a definition of truth in math/mathematical logic, but it is not transferable to science, because as I said science is not an extension of math, but uses parts of math for some purposes. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
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.
Well I am refusing it as in my opinion existence of god(as far as it pertains to describing the universe) is matter of science, therefore definition of truth from logic does not really apply. Also I would actually love to know what is the conventional definition of truth in your opinion ? Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
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. Nope, apatheism is not it. As I am not apathetic to the question, I am only apathetic to the question outside of the specified context, as outside of that context that question is not only vaguely formulated, but in my opinion also nonsensical. By that I mean that it is similar to the question "How the music smells ?". We just do not see it because unlike verb smells that has perfectly well defined connections to nouns the verb exists is so abstract that is has no such restrictions. But that last part is just my speculation so feel free to ignore it.
Well as for the definition of truth, "being in accordance with the actual state/condition of reality" seems like a fair definition.
The goal of science is to obtain knowledge, knowledge must be true. Therefore, when you say the question of God has everything to do with science, you are correct in that ideally science would like to answer the God question. What I mean when I say it is beyond the scope however is that there is no empirical data or evidence for or against the existence of god, therefore we cannot, at this point in time, use science as a tool to answer the question.
Both science and logic are tools yes, but at finding objective truth, logic and math are in fact superior to science in some ways because science works through inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning does not give truth, only probability, whereas logic and math work through deductive reasoning which assures certainty and truth. Granted, science is superior to these as you mentioned in using empirical evidence and at determining the probable truth of practical matters, it builds upon the deductive foundations math and logic have laid before it.
The existence of science is dependent on math and logic, however the existence of math and logic is not dependent on science.
|
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying"
|
On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying"
That's true.
|
While unconstitutional, Damon eh well.... he didn't have to pray....but he stirred up the shit storm I feel....
|
On May 28 2011 06:48 Belial88 wrote:
Why do people think government sponsored prayer is against the constitution? Does no one read the damn thing anymore, so annoying.
It states clearly in the 1st Amendment that the government cannot make law in regards to religion - there is no law about prayer in schools, first off. This is more about free speech, and the school is, at least constitutionally, free to say whatever they want without inciting violence.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the separation of church and state, no where does it say that. It says *congress*, specifically, cannot impede or respect the establishment of religion. States are free to do what they like, and respecting religion and respecting an establishment like a specific church are totally different things.
I am an atheist, but it really bothers me when people try to ban prayer. If you don't like it, don't pray. No one is forcing you to pray.
Sorry to hear what has happened to this guy though, but it's a christian country and people are idiots. There's a lot of blame to go with who leaked his name.
Sorry pal but this is a pretty clear case, it's been to court multiple times in various forms and every time has ruled in favor of the side this kid is on.
|
On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying"
He never tried to prevent people from praying he tried to prevent his school from promoting one religious belief over others.
|
On May 28 2011 07:09 Jswizzy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 07:03 Taku wrote:
What a misleading title. It should read "Student gets ostracized for trying to prevent everyone else from praying" He never tried to prevent people from praying he tried to prevent his school from promoting one religious belief over others.
Yes...yes he did. I'm under the impression he wasn't amused by the fact that a prayer was put forward but a *student* as part of the ceremony which was widely approved of by the rest of the student body. The prayer was not put into the schedule by any school official as far as I know. If this is not a fact then tell me now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
