Page 37 of 46 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 455

Thread: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

  1. #361
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Not long ago it was taught to every school kid in America. But as I said, some would take actions to try and erase it from the history books.
    So you believe that their should be one official history that every school should teach? I don't know what your point is here.

    Washington's farewell address is not the law of the land and his thoughts on general value of religion are not that important. Why should it be taught?

    Besides, that as I pointed out, it is not at all the same. Washington was giving his general opinion on the value of religion as it concerned civics. He was not using the power of his office to encourage a specific practice of religion, in this example.
    Last edited by BayToBay; 07-20-11 at 12:37 PM.

  2. #362
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    The "Lemon test" is not law. It's a guide that some use to make a determination. Others ignore and even when used, seperate jurists have still came to different conclusions.
    You always seem to argue around the edges without making any relevant points.

    It is not codified or statuory law. It is case law.

    Any type of law can be interepreted in different ways. So?

    SlackMaster has made an argument that it cannot pass the first two tests. Sure, someone could interepret it differently but they would have to do so in a way that stands up to scrutiny by other courts. If they can offer no workable precedent then their interpretation will be discarded. Do you have some sort of viable interpretation that differs?

  3. #363
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    You always seem to argue around the edges without making any relevant points.

    It is not codified or statuory law. It is case law.

    Any type of law can be interepreted in different ways. So?

    SlackMaster has made an argument that it cannot pass the first two tests. Sure, someone could interepret it differently but they would have to do so in a way that stands up to scrutiny by other courts. If they can offer no workable precedent then their interpretation will be discarded. Do you have some sort of viable interpretation that differs?
    Case law is just as valid as statutory law. Judges may not ignore any law, regardless of its' source
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #364
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    BS. If some sort of being can demonstrate omnipotence and/or omniscience then there is proof that such a being can and does exist. God could be proven if he existed.

    You are just under some stupid delusion that atheist are as delusional and unmoved by proof as believers. That is not the case. It is believers that operate on blind faith not atheists.
    The only one under a stupid delusion here is you. Again, there was a time that some people like you believed that the appearance of a rainbow was god demonstrating omnipotence. They believed that only God was capable of producing such a thing.

    You're in the exact same boat. In saying "god parting the red sea would do it for me" you're adopting the premise "only god can part the red sea." That's an assumption on your part, and is not something that can be proven. To believe such a thing proves god exists is irrational. At best you've made a theory and found some support for that theory.

  5. #365
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    I don't see any promotion of a prayer rally on the Office of the Governor of Texas website.
    I don't really think there is. Though I will say that I do believe the whole of this to be more a publicity sort of stunt than any actual attempt to make it rain.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #366
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    The only one under a stupid delusion here is you. Again, there was a time that some people like you believed that the appearance of a rainbow was god demonstrating omnipotence. They believed that only God was capable of producing such a thing.
    That's not proof. It is an example of retrofitting and an argument from ignorance.

    IF God existed with ominpotence, as is claimed by most theist then he could prove his existence. He could say, "I am going to create a rainbow, right over there" and "!" there would be the rainbow. And he should be able to repeat that.

    You're in the exact same boat. In saying "god parting the red sea would do it for me" you're adopting the premise "only god can part the red sea." That's an assumption on your part, and is not something that can be proven. To believe such a thing proves god exists is irrational. At best you've made a theory and found some support for that theory.
    Nonsense. I am not adopting the premise that only God can part the Red Sea. I am adopting the premise that only a God could do it on command and without any other trickery.

    You are adopting the premise that all evidence is invalid, which is irrational, anti science and just stupid.

  7. #367
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Atheism could be proven false in the same way that one could prove false the proposition that magical powers/witchcraft does not exist. A magician/sorcerer could prove that he had magical powers, IF he had any. Of course, the test would employ controls.

    You are arguing some nonsese that all tests are invalid.

  8. #368
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    Nonsense. I am not adopting the premise that only God can part the Red Sea. I am adopting the premise that only a God could do it on command and without any other trickery.
    OHHhhhh! That's so much better! How are you going to prove that only God can part the red sea on command? And how are you going to verify that no trickery was involved, or are you assuming that, too? [hint: you're assuming that because you can't prove that, either.]

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    You are adopting the premise that all evidence is invalid, which is irrational, anti science and just stupid.
    No, I am the one taking the scientific viewpoint in this discussion, which is that evidence can be consistent with a theory but doesn't prove the theory.

  9. #369
    Advisor SlackMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    02-02-12 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    598

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by RStringfield View Post
    Atheism could be proven false in the same way that one could prove false the proposition that magical powers/witchcraft does not exist. A magician/sorcerer could prove that he had magical powers, IF he had any. Of course, the test would employ controls.

    You are arguing some nonsese that all tests are invalid.
    Not to detract from the discussion that you're having with the other poster, but I should point out that "atheism" in itself can't be proved wrong because atheism by itself makes no claim. It's just non-acceptance of a theistic claim.

    a = without
    theism = belief
    gnostic = knowledge

    a theism = without belief
    theism = with belief
    a gnostic = without knowledge
    gnostic = with knowledge
    There are two types of atheism and two types of theism.

    Gnostic Atheism (strong atheism) = "I know there is no god and I don't believe in one.". (Positive assertion, requires evidence to support claim)

    Agnostic Atheism (weak atheism) = "I don't know if there is a god, and I don't believe in one." (No claim made, no evidence required)

    Gnostic Theist (strong theism) = "I know there is a god, and I believe in it." (Positive assertion, requires evidence to support claim)

    Agnostic Theist (weak theism) = "I don't know if there is a god, but I believe in one." (No claim made, no evidence required)

    It's not about who can be proved wrong, but who can be proved right. The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

    If you setup a god concept that can be falsified and people fail to falsify it, that lends credence to your god concept. Does it prove it right? No, we just failed to prove it wrong.

    If however your god concept can not be falsified, nobody can prove it false. It's still up to you to prove it true though.
    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    Unicorns are the legitimate scientific study of biology.
    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    By the way unicorns to science are not mythology. They can be studied by biology because they are an animal.

  10. #370
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 08:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,226

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    OHHhhhh! That's so much better! How are you going to prove that only God can part the red sea on command?
    Who said anything about that? Now you are arguing that proof that a God exists does not disprove multiple Gods.

    You are going at this backwards. The existence of a God does not prove Christianity, monotheism or any other religious tenet and that was never the point. It would disprove atheism.

    And how are you going to verify that no trickery was involved, or are you assuming that, too? [hint: you're assuming that because you can't prove that, either.]
    Are you kidding? You check to see if there is any sort of device at work that could cause it. There is nothing difficult about that.

    There is no reason why we can't conduct the test in an environment that is more easily controlled, though, if that is your concern.

    No, I am the one taking the scientific viewpoint in this discussion, which is that evidence can be consistent with a theory but doesn't prove the theory.
    You are not taking a scientific position. Your view is DEFINITELY anti science. You are pretending that all proof is invalid or equally valid, whether it is vetted through the scientific method or not.

    Again, you are going at it backwards. I am not talking about proving any theory, but disproving the theory that God(s) do not exist.
    Last edited by BayToBay; 07-20-11 at 02:31 PM.

Page 37 of 46 FirstFirst ... 273536373839 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •