When it comes to Prayer 76% of Americans Don't Give a **** About the Constitution

[Demonslayer]

Good try, old friend.

Who you callin' old?!

 

[Demonslayer]

How do we do that with god(s)?

The God-O-Meter.

**taps meter**

This thing has been stuck at zero forever

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You see leaves moving and have no doubt it is the wind. I see stars and planets moving and have no doubt it is God. Again it is faith and not everyone has it.

 

[Demonslayer]

You see leaves moving and have no doubt it is the wind.

But you can show this, test for it, prove it.

I see stars and planets moving and have no doubt it is God. Again it is faith and not everyone has it.

Which you can not do here.

Here's an interesting question...when you see the leaves moving, why don't you think it's God? Why do you accept that it is the wind moving the leaves?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Welp, again, I just went through a few pages of comments and don't have the time or desire to address and read each comment; but again, here are a few highlights:

I don't know what you mean by "already one", so maybe you can explain?

In regards to the latter sentence, all what I was saying deals with the fact that a moment of silence, as harmless as that may appear to be and maybe is, can be challenged whereas the school administration may have to justify it. IOW, is there an ulterior motive that's maybe involved?

Public schools were built for education, not prayer or meditation, although the latter could hypothetically be justified as being an entirely non-religious exercise that could be helpful in mental awareness, for example.

There was an incident of a group of atheists raising heck over "moment of silence" complaining that the "moment of silence" was religiously influenced; after all, it would just be terrible for an atheist to know that the one beside them might be praying silently? So, there is already a case out there of people raising heck over moments of silence.

Macro-evolution and abiogenesis are only theories and should be taught as such. And as long as you are going to teach unsubstabtiated theories why not also teach Creation? The first organism could very well have been created and that makes a lot more sense than any abiogenesis theory.

Because Creationism starts with the conclusion then drugs up evidence to support the claim; dismissing any evidence to the contrary. Science begins with a question then follows the evidence to the most likely conclusion. Evolution is substantiated by a great many facts. Creationism is not; no matter what ICR tells you.

Refer to icr.org and you'll see Creation theory. It is also based on science. So teach it.

No. It's not based on science. See above.

Science absolutely cannot prove in any way that no God or gods was involved in any way in the creation and evolutionary process, that should be taught in schools, it would take 5 minutes in a Science class to cover it, and it only fair, because among the theories of how life came to be what it is today, one of them is that a God or gods had influence in the process, no one cannot deny that and still claim to be rational.

What is taught in the science classroom should be consistent with the scientific method; and as pointed out, Creationism is not. As a result, it has no more a place in the science classroom than a lecture on Paranormal Investigation Science or "To Kill A Mockingbird".

Sorry but you don't seem to have an understanding of what a theory is compared to an established fact,

Theories are never promoted to fact. Theories contain facts.

Most of those theories are factual, at least in part. Macro-evolution is taught as fact in the US yet it is an unsubstantiated theory. This is due to simple anti-creation bias.

No. It is because macroevolution is a well established substantiated theory. Anti-creation bias exists because there is no evidence to support creation.

Now refute every scientific claim made on that site.

Don't have to. The misinformation on that site begins with a conclusion rather than a question. That makes all of the information there suspect.

Gravity and germs, tectonic plates etc are not theories they are established facts,

You simply do not understand "theory" then. You think you do. But you do not.

I've worked as a scientist in labratories, I think I damn well know what science is.

Shocking.

total BS, theories are never facts, facts are not theories, they are to distinctly different things with different definitions. Established facts like the existence of germs might start out as theories, but once you can see them under he microscope they become facts and are no longer theories. Ask a scientist.

Here, again, is the crux of your confusion. A "Theory" is not the same as an "hypothesis" or a "wild guess". A "theory" is an explanation of how things work; it is a "container", if you will, that contains knowledge, evidence and facts.

 

[metis]

There was an incident of a group of atheists raising heck over "moment of silence" complaining that the "moment of silence" was religiously influenced; after all, it would just be terrible for an atheist to know that the one beside them might be praying silently? So, there is already a case out there of people raising heck over moments of silence.

The question that I would have is why is the "moment of silence" important in a public context? Maybe there's a reason that is compatible with the 1st Amendment but maybe there's not. Atheists shouldn't be automatically opposed to a moment of silence since it is non-theistic, but it's also possible that those who propose it have an ulterior motive that goes beyond the secular.

 

[Lyndon]

If you go strictly by modern science, it's been around for awhile. If you broaden your scope, we've been testing and observing for a very long time, and even ancient cultures before the age of modern science made observations and discoveries that are cornerstones of modern science. And of course there is more that we don't know than what we do know. Our species will probably never reach a point where we know more than what is left to be known.

If, but because it is an if it is not taught as science. "If" is the hypothesis and testing. There would be too much to ever have an adequate test if science class taught the unproven "ifs."

This is more of why it's not science. Even with science, it's even possible to put things in laymen's terms so that everyone can understand it. You don't have to study magneticism to understand magnets, you don't have to be a biologist to learn about bacteria or evolution, and you don't have to be a chemist to learn about oxygen. You would at least be able to link us to sources that have peer reviewed data that proves their is a creator. Creationism does have its place in certain classes, but because no one has been able to show evidence of the existence of a creator, it isn't a scientific idea, making it unsuitable for a science class.

More BS, The big bang is a big if, and yet it is taught in textbooks.

 

[Skwim]

More BS, The big bang is a big if, and yet it is taught in textbooks.

And what's wrong with teaching "ifs" as ifs (theories as theories)? If nothing else, it shows students that science is not a dogmatic enterprise, but rather leaves the door open to amendment and elimination. Would creationist be willing to do the same with their claims? You can bet your last nickle they wouldn't.


.
.

 

[Lyndon]

And what's wrong with teaching "ifs" as ifs (theories as theories)? If nothing else, it shows students that science is not a dogmatic enterprise, but rather leaves the door open to amendment and elimination. Would creationist be willing to do the same with their claims? You can bet your last nickle they wouldn't.


.
.

Shadow Wolf said we shouldn't teach the possibility of God's existence because it is an if, not an established fact, well so is a lot of science taught in textbooks, like the big bang, one big if.

 

[Revoltingest]

More BS, The big bang is a big if, and yet it is taught in textbooks.

It's a testable theory which has had aspects verified experimentally.
Even gravity is "just a theory" which is still a work in progress, with
testing continuing still.

If you want to teach religion in public schools, which religion would
it be? Or if several, which get excluded? How would you decide?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More BS, The big bang is a big if, and yet it is taught in textbooks.

The Big Bang has evidence to support it, things we can actually see. We can see that the celestial bodies are moving outwards, we can see the microwave background predicted by the Big Bang theory, and we can even gaze at the past as we see stars and galaxies as they were billions of years ago, allowing us to see things as they were.

 

[Lyndon]

The evidence for God's existence is stronger that that for the Big Bang, great name for a band, though, or a gun shop.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The evidence for God's existence is stronger that that for the Big Bang, great name for a band, though, or a gun shop.

There is no evidence of god. None. And I see it as silly to insist there is when we don't even have evidence one way or the other of life existing on other planets.

 

[Lyndon]

Actually there is no evidence that you exist either, you could just be an atheist computer programme.

 

[Lyndon]

The strongest evidence of God's existence is the billions of people that claim to benefit from God's existence, that's pretty scientific.

 

[Revoltingest]

The evidence for God's existence is stronger that that for the Big Bang, great name for a band, though, or a gun shop.

I don't dispute the fact that there is evidence for gods, or for you a particular one named "God".
To list just a few examples.....
- The Bible says so
- Feelings of spiritual connection
- Statues which bleed
But not all evidence fits under the heading of "science".
To qualify as such, the evidence would have to be able
to disprove the theory. What experimental evidence
could possibly disprove "God"?

 

[metis]

More BS, The big bang is a big if, and yet it is taught in textbooks.

It is not a "big if" as it is based on what is known about red-shift combined with math. No cosmologist doubts the basics about it today.

 

[Lyndon]

I don't dispute the fact that there is evidence for gods, or for you a particular one named "God".
To list just a few examples.....
- The Bible says so
- Feelings of spiritual connection
- Statues which bleed
But not all evidence fits under the heading of "science".
To qualify as such, the evidence would have to be able
to disprove the theory. What experimental evidence
could possibly disprove "God"?

I don't think any experimental evidence could possibly disprove God, because God exists.

 

[Lyndon]

It is not a "big if" as it is based on what is known about red-shift combined with math. No cosmologist doubts the basics about it today.

nonsense

 

[metis]

The evidence for God's existence is stronger that that for the Big Bang, great name for a band, though, or a gun shop.

Then maybe post it here now if there's so much evidence for theistic causation. Maybe you can start by providing even the simplest evidence for how many deities made our universe? If you say one did, then maybe provide evidence that it couldn't be two or more?

As for myself, I don't jump to conclusions about whether there was theistic causation-- I may be old, but I ain't that old.