Page 38 of 46 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 455

Thread: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

  1. #371
    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

    If God comes down from the heavens and parts the Red Sea in a verifiable way then that IS proof of God. Does it end all debate on the matter. No, there are conspiracy theorist that still demand the moon missions were all a hoax and present the argument from ignorance for their belief in such nonsense. What constitutes proof to them is not the same as scientific proof.

    If God can pass the test then your "theory" of God would then have some basis in science. It could be properly termed a theory in scientific jargon. Is it possible that there may be a competing scientific theory for why the sea parted. Sure, but it would have to be based on something testable and falsifiable. If it were based solely on the argument from ignorance then that would be an article of faith or at best a hunch. It would not be a valid scientific theory.

    As it is now, the "theory" of creationism is not valid science and belief is solely based on faith. That is not true for atheism. I am atheist because there is NO proof for the existence of a God, not because I stubbornly reject all forms of proof.

  2. #372
    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 SlackMaster View Post
    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.

    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.
    I don't believe in magic. That belief is not based on faith but science that has proven all such testable claims false. For it to be based on science it must be possible that someone could prove that belief wrong. No one has.

    Yes, someone could pass the test but still not be magic. However, for a counter theory to have any credit it would have to offer some other testable explanation for the results, otherwise it is an article of faith.

    Atheism CAN be based on faith. That's not what I am arguing. I am arguing against the notion that it IS based on faith just as theism is. That is absurd and plainly wrong.

  3. #373
    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
    I don't believe in magic. That belief is not based on faith but science that has proven all such testable claims false. For it to be based on science it must be possible that someone could prove that belief wrong. No one has.

    Yes, someone could pass the test but still not be magic. However, for a counter theory to have any credit it would have to offer some other testable explanation for the results, otherwise it is an article of faith.

    Atheism CAN be based on faith. That's not what I am arguing. I am arguing against the notion that it IS based on faith just as theism is. That is absurd and plainly wrong.
    If one makes the claim that "there is no god" which is a positive assertion, that requires evidence to back it up. If sufficient evidence can not be provided to back up that claim and they persist in believing it... that is an article of faith.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all atheism is like this. Agnostic atheist are not making a truth claim. The burden of proof is not on them. No faith is required to be an agnostic atheist.

    I think the other poster was just pointing out that "parting the red sea" isn't a good enough standard of evidence to "prove" that such an entity is god. I agree. It would be impressive though

    Back on the topic 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.

  4. #374
    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 SlackMaster View Post
    If one makes the claim that "there is no god" which is a positive assertion, that requires evidence to back it up. If sufficient evidence can not be provided to back up that claim and they persist in believing it... that is an article of faith.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all atheism is like this. Agnostic atheist are not making a truth claim. The burden of proof is not on them. No faith is required to be an agnostic atheist.

    I think the other poster was just pointing out that "parting the red sea" isn't a good enough standard of evidence to "prove" that such an entity is god. I agree. It would be impressive though

    Back on the topic though....
    Your error is the same as Taylor's. You are going at it backwards. Science does not prove, it tests and falsifies.

    We can use logic to falsify most stated conceptions of God as you did in another post, e.g., [the idea of an "all good" and "all powerful" god makes that god logically inconsistent in a world where evil exists. That god can not exist.]

    The statement that there is no God can be disproven by demonstrating the existence of God or god, that is, an existent with the qualities of God. The test I outlined would be proof of the existence of a God. Would it prove the existence of the Christian God. No. Not the point. Would it prove that God created the universe. Nope. Again, not the point. It would offer proof of a God. Without some sort of alternate explanation for the test results any continued belief in atheism would be based on faith.

    Every experiment that test natural cause and effect is a test of atheism. That is, an atheist would predict that an existent would react to stimuli based on the nature of the existent and the stimulus rather than attributing it to God.

    How do you disprove magic? Is the lack of belief in magic an article of faith?
    Last edited by BayToBay; 07-20-11 at 04:01 PM.

  5. #375
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by SlackMaster View Post
    Which "she" are you referring to?

    Yea... Establishment Clause. Really. :-)

    Can you explain how proclamations for prayer and a Christian lead prayer rally is not a violation?

    I've already stated numerous times on this thread how it is. Did you read those posts?
    Did she lead a prayer?

  6. #376
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by SlackMaster View Post
    Rick Perry acting in an official capacity as "Governor Rick Perry" is the initiator of a Prayer Rally whose main purpose is the advancement of religion, specifically Christianity.

    Doing so violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

    Case Law shows that the test to determine if there is an establishment clause violation is the "Lemon Test".

    It has three parts. You need only fail one for it to be a violation.

    1. Government needs a secular purpose. (No secular purpose to the prayer rally)

    2. It must not have the primary purpose of advancing religion (The prayer rally's primary purpose is to advance religion, specifically Christianity)

    3. It must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion (We could argue all day about what is "excessive" but it doesn't matter because it's already failed the first two.)
    What does Rick Perry have to do with this thread? We were talking about the Governor of Oklahoma. I guess since she didn't fit your argument about the Establishment Clause well enough you had to bring in some other example. Kind of a lame debate tactic.

  7. #377
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,231

    Re: Gov. urges Oklahomans to pray for rain

    Quote Originally Posted by SlackMaster View Post
    Which "she" are you referring to?

    Yea... Establishment Clause. Really. :-)

    Can you explain how proclamations for prayer and a Christian lead prayer rally is not a violation?

    I've already stated numerous times on this thread how it is. Did you read those posts?
    Sure. It's called, "religious freedom", and it's guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

  8. #378
    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 jambalaya View Post
    What does Rick Perry have to do with this thread? We were talking about the Governor of Oklahoma. I guess since she didn't fit your argument about the Establishment Clause well enough you had to bring in some other example. Kind of a lame debate tactic.
    If you go back and read the earlier threads, you would see that Rick Perry was brought up because he did the exact same thing as the OK governor.

    For the record, the OK governor is also violating the establishment clause.

    Please, go back and read the arguments earlier in this thread. You're making arguments that have already been discussed.
    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.

  9. #379
    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 apdst View Post
    Sure. It's called, "religious freedom", and it's guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
    It's guaranteed to citizens. "The government" of which Governor Rick Perry is acting on behalf of, does not.
    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. #380
    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
    Your error is the same as Taylor's. You are going at it backwards. Science does not prove, it tests and falsifies.

    We can use logic to falsify most stated conceptions of God as you did in another post, e.g., [the idea of an "all good" and "all powerful" god makes that god logically inconsistent in a world where evil exists. That god can not exist.]

    The statement that there is no God can be disproven by demonstrating the existence of God or god, that is, an existent with the qualities of God. The test I outlined would be proof of the existence of a God. Would it prove the existence of the Christian God. No. Not the point. Would it prove that God created the universe. Nope. Again, not the point. It would offer proof of a God. Without some sort of alternate explanation for the test results any continued belief in atheism would be based on faith.

    Every experiment that test natural cause and effect is a test of atheism. That is, an atheist would predict that an existent would react to stimuli based on the nature of the existent and the stimulus rather than attributing it to God.

    How do you disprove magic? Is the lack of belief in magic an article of faith?
    I don't want to digress too much, but I suspect that we're in agreement on some things. I think perhaps we're (I'm) just getting caught up on the language.

    I think it all boils down to the definition of god, whether it is falsifiable, and then if the atheist is simply in disbelief of the claim or making the counter-claim.
    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.

Page 38 of 46 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... 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
  •