Students to be taught there isn't a God

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Aermacchi

If you would like, I can quote everyone of them for you?

I save stuff like that = )

Cheers

So either this thread is about me or your entire post is against TOS. What does attacking me have to do with students, God, and what is being taught to whom about it?

Light, if you don't like the responses to your off topic questions, then I suggest you quit asking off topic questions and you won't get off topic answers. Simple isn't it ? Now if you would like we can resume the topic as relevant dialogue may permit but only if you refrain from personal attacks.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Light, if you don't like the responses to your off topic questions, then I suggest you quit asking off topic questions and you won't get off topic answers. Simple isn't it ? Now if you would like we can resume the topic as relevant dialogue may permit but only if you refrain from personal attacks.

I will do this ONCE.

I am not responding to posts that are nothing but personal attacks on me. If anyone has a problem with a person on ATS, there is the Alert and the U2U. Anyone who feels they need to waste an entire post just talking to me for no good reason does not really deserve my time. Get back on topic.

When the mods finally sweep your last two posts up they can take mine as well.

People are really getting upset over nothing.

These classes are in Victoria, my home state, and are part of a long-running tradition of allowing qualified volunteers to teach Religious Instruction in government schools for 30-60 minutes per week.

These classes cost the schools, students and taxpayers nothing.
The teachers are all volunteers.

These classes are completely voluntary, and parental approval is sought. Each parent gets a form to fill in, which specifies the RI choices that school offers and asks them to choose one of the alternatives or private study.
If the form is not returned, the child attends the private study class, so the parent cannot force the child to study something they don't want, and the child cannot study something the parents don't approve of.
Any student not taking RI classes has supervised private study instead.

Humanism classes are offered as just one more alternative for parents to choose from. This is not going against anyones' rights. These classes are supporting the parents' right to choose the philosophy/religion that their child is exposed to.

There are no exams in these classes and they do not affect the students school results in any way.

So relax, no-one is trying to turn Australia atheist.
All that is happening is that some schools are offering parents a choice of a non god-based class in the RI timeslot.

reply to post by Kailassa


Shhhh, you have an informed opinion about something that actually relates to your life in some infinitesimal way. That just takes all the fun out of these threads.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by Kailassa
Shhhh, you have an informed opinion about something that actually relates to your life in some infinitesimal way. That just takes all the fun out of these threads.

Very sorry, please accept my deepest apologies.

Please y'all go back to arguing about about why God doesn't exist, why atheism is ruining the world, why theists are stupid, why atheists are stupid, why this is a waste of taxpayers' money and an infringement of parental rights, why Bobby is going to fail school now for believing in God, how many people God and Stalin have killed and . . . . .

Hmmm, have I got it all, or did I leave something out?

Originally posted by papabryant
That is intellectual cowardice. When statistical data reach certain points it is perfectly proper to call something "proven" or "impossible" until new data is available.

Proven or Impossible.

Black and White.

...I suppose simply saying "I don't know" is completely out of the question? After all that is the only true fact, is it not?

Amazing how narrow minded and silly the ego can make us look.

Originally posted by Kailassa


Hmmm, have I got it all, or did I leave something out?

Nah, i think you got it all. Thanks. So anyway, this delusional creationist walks into a bar and....

reply to post by HunkaHunka

and they are going to learn it from a person, so it might as well be what you believe is true.

That is the crux of the thing is it not?
What is true?
I have some pretty darn good ideas as to what is true but I take myself with enough of a grain salt to realize I could be wrong, which is why I will not thrust my beliefs on anyone else, even my children.

There is room for doubt regardless the belief.

reply to post by AshleyD

I'm sorry but if you cannot look at history and see what atheists have done to take religion out of school and the lengths they have gone to, then there is nothing I can do to help. At this point they're being very hypocritical to have their views taught. I'm truly saddened you don't see it.

Tis always easier to recognize the crimes of others than to recognize your own.
One of the sad truths of humanity.
I think of it as "Crusader's Disease".

I don't want to spend too much time on the "existance of God" debate but I would like to make a couple of points to those who smuggly suggest that we "know" anything about God, creation, the Universe, etc.

Anything you "know" ultimately comes down to Faith. No matter what your educational discipline is, you must ultimately accept a set of beliefs to be true, in order to build upon them.

I think that it is laughable that our educational system has become so smug and self-righteous to make bold pronouncements on any subject. It has not been all that long ago, that Newton was the ultimate word on all questions involving Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, and Math. Now Newton was a pretty smart guy and all, but much of what he "knew" has been overturned by those who came later. Don't forget that those who overturned Newtons theories began by assuming that Newton was right. Also, they didn't lose sight of the fact that Newton was a great man and he did a great job with what he had to work with. I would also like to point out that Newton was a theist and his writtings included religion.

I also find it very humorous that people who post on this forum would be bold enough to make statements regarding the existance, or non-existance, of an advanced being who may be millions or billions of years more advanced than the human race. Some of you take the Drake equation at face value and would state that the existance of extraterrestrial life is an axiom of highest order and therefore incontrovertable. You would of course quote the Drake equation and say that the numbers involved are simply too great to deny the existance of alien intelligence. I am not that old, but my first astronomy class in high school taught that the Drake equations where nonsense, since we didn't know the values of the terms and we may never know the values involved. My how education has changed!

Now that I have really pissed everyone off, let me say that I also believe that extra-terrestrial life exists, based on the numbers involved in the Drake equations. Let's be clear though that we are talking about belief and not proof. Whatever you think you know, it always comes down to belief, or in other words Faith.

I would like to finish by saying that the Drake equations probably point to millions or billions of intelligent races in the Universe. That probably means that there are millions of races that are far more advanced than us. What would a race of beings, millions of years more advanced be like? How about billions of years more advanced? We can't even begin to comprehend it. Suppose that one or more of these races had a hand in bringing life to the Earth, or had manipulated the genetics of that life, or had a hand in human development. What would we call such a race? For all practical purposes they would be called gods, or maybe even God.

The Drake equations not only suggest that such a race exists, but in all probability there are many races that would fit that description. Does this "prove" the existance of God? No, but it does suggest it. I think that it's funny that most of the PhDs in Astrophysics have not yet acknowledged (in public anyway) the true meaning of the Drake equation. Do they even realize the implications yet? I am sure that some of them do.

Originally posted by Navieko
Proven or Impossible.

Black and White.

...I suppose simply saying "I don't know" is completely out of the question? After all that is the only true fact, is it not?

Noooooo, since we're discussing how to use statistical data responsibly.Here is an South Dakota school textbook lesson on statistical data, including "impossibilities", so you can catch up to the conversation.

Amazing how narrow minded and silly the ego can make us look.

If that textbook helps your ego stop shooting off at the mouth before you know what you're talking about.... I'm happy to help! (You really shouldn't be so hard on yourself, though. )

Originally posted by papabryant
Noooooo, since we're discussing how to use statistical data responsibly.Here is an South Dakota school textbook lesson on statistical data, including "impossibilities", so you can catch up to the conversation.

Actually I'm talking about bothering with statistical data in the first place... a means to find an answer so that we can then say 'proven or impossible', as you put it. The reality is no matter what the statistical likelihood is, given the nature of the subject, it remains -- we simply do not know.

My question is why we can't stick with that until real evidence presents itself?

[edit on 17/12/08 by Navieko]

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
they are

And you call Christians bigots and arrogant, right? Kiss your mama with that mouth?

I could care less how you treat me. Your actions should be your choice, not mine. Thanks but no thanks. No desire to herd sheep but thanks.

Then you really don't mind if I treat you as nastily as you treat others? They have drugs for that, you know...

Huh? So you said something is true and portended to prove it with math but when I point out how you just made it up, it is now just some crazy example and I am stupid for not getting that?

Dumb$%@ I LABELED IT AN EXAMPLE! I said nothing about its truthfulness, because its not the full argument, but an exerpt for example purposes only. I labeled it such in the first sentence!!

Maybe I am that stupid because I am lost now.

Well, you certainly don't know how to READ!!!

LOL. Sorry, I did not know it was post your credentials in your sig and brag about the ones you will get soon time again already. Sigh, well I could do the same and shut you up but then, I guess I am not as vain as you good Christians are.

Go ahead, post them. I'll bet it shows you're talking about subjects you have no formal training in. THAT is vainity my friend.

Definitely. But is there a reason you want to run from here to argue something else somewhere else? Are you just looking to prove you are smarter than me at something or make an actual point. I sure hope it is not about Jesus.

Don't try to weasel out of it; take your lumps like a man. Oh, and I'm not leaving here, just trying not to hijack the post. Of course, by you own admition you're not that smart, so maybe you misunderstood....

Huh? When did anyone show any specific instances?

Can't read your own words either?

I did not see any, much less swat any away. I say you can not ultimately prove it and you cannot prove it even a little. I say you cannot come up with ONE instance in which you can prove the chance for a god.

Alright, thats our debate then. Based on the article found here.

RESOLVED: Statistical analysis, used in normative manner, can sustain an argument for the existance of God.

I'll set up the posting and give you a week to post a response. What am I saying

Really? Why do you keep failing to show how you introduce the variable of a god into your stats?

Read the paper....

That is your whole argument? The bible says the bible is true so that makes it so?

Please learn to read, or at least pay attention at your next bail hearing. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! I can't say it any louder....

The bible is true until proven untrue? OKEY DOKEY!

Yup, and so is the Bhagavad Gita, the Nicomachean Ethics, the Illiad and your little black book of possible dating partners. Since it is clear you are unfamiliar with textual criticism, here is the full text of Aristotle's Poetics

I am gonna go write my own true book tonight and make up my own god. I guess by your logic, as long as I call it non-fiction, then it is true until proven untrue eh? Interesting

You're changing your name to L. Ron Hubbard?

[edit on 17-12-2008 by papabryant]

[edit on 17-12-2008 by papabryant]

Originally posted by Navieko

Originally posted by papabryant
Noooooo, since we're discussing how to use statistical data responsibly.Here is an South Dakota school textbook lesson on statistical data, including "impossibilities", so you can catch up to the conversation.

Actually I'm talking about bothering with statistical data in the first place... a means to find an answer so that we can then say 'proven or impossible', as you put it. The reality is no matter what the statistical likelihood is, given the nature of the subject, it remains -- we simply do not know.

My question is why we can't stick with that until real evidence presents itself?

[edit on 17/12/08 by Navieko]

My apologies; I misunderstood the nature of your objection.

This IS dealing with real evidence, and is simply another method of analysis.

I think I understand the why of your objection (if I'm incorrect, again , please let me know); the definition of "faith". I'll refer you here for a detailed examination of what the Bible means by faith, but the nutshell is that the Bible uses the Greek word "pistis" 240 times, and it is this word that is translated most often as "faith" in English.

The word is used by other writers of antiquity as well, Aristotle and Quintinius in particular. The word isn't Koine (or Common) Greek but a word used only in rhetorical arguments. As such it had a specific meaning when used as a noun (forensic proof) or as a verb (trust based on evidence). The Bible doesn't say faith is something you believe but cannot proove, but something you trust in because its already been proven.

Originally posted by papabryant
And you call Christians bigots and arrogant, right? Kiss your mama with that mouth?

Well that was a little tongue in cheek but since you bring it back up. No, I am not a bigot and I welcome you to prove outside that statement that I am. As for arrogance, when did I ever say that I was not? My religion does not forbid that though. See the difference?

Then you really don't mind if I treat you as nastily as you treat others? They have drugs for that, you know...

I dunno, is that a threat? Are you threatening to be mean to me on the internet? I am not sure how but i am going to try real hard not to let that make too nervous. I have ignore, off, and a life. All great alternatives if I no longer enjoy the treatment I receive here. Thanks anyway, be as rude as you like. I will get over you.

Dumb$%@ I LABELED IT AN EXAMPLE! I said nothing about its truthfulness, because its not the full argument, but an exerpt for example purposes only. I labeled it such in the first sentence!!

An example of what exactly? How you can just magically interject god into some imaginary equation and say he is probable? What is that an example of other than your imagination?

Well, you certainly don't know how to READ!!!

Must be since I read your little theory a few times, called it BS and here you are calling me names. At least I back up my insults with the point I am making. You are just calling me names and getting mad because I am actually responding to what you wrote. Was I supposed to read something else?

Go ahead, post them. I'll bet it shows you're talking about subjects you have no formal training in. THAT is vainity my friend.

Ah. Funny funny stuff. You must be young. I can post anything I want in my sig. So can you. I can put "former astronaut to pluto" in there If I like. What does putting something in your sig prove? If you are educated enough to make your argument then what is the need for a signature credential pissing war? That really is just silliness and I will leave that to the kids.

Don't try to weasel out of it; take your lumps like a man. Oh, and I'm not leaving here, just trying not to hijack the post. Of course, by you own admition you're not that smart, so maybe you misunderstood....

Nope. Never admitted to such a thing. Now you are just making stuff up. Is that how Christians win arguments? Vanity and lying?

I say you cannot come up with ONE instance in which you can prove the chance for a god.

Right. I would also never even try such a thing. Are you paying attention to anything I am typing?

That is right.

Alright, thats our debate then. Based on the article found here.

RESOLVED: Statistical analysis, used in normative manner, can sustain an argument for the existance of God.

I'll set up the posting and give you a week to post a response. What am I saying

HUH? Set up the posting? Give me a week? What are you going on about?

Please learn to read, or at least pay attention at your next bail hearing. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY! I can't say it any louder....

How is the exsistance of a god equal to innocent until proven guilty? What crazy leap of logic are you working on. I can read, can you think?

Since it is clear you are unfamiliar with textual criticism, here is the full text of Aristotle's Poetics

And that proves what about your point?

You're changing your name to L. Ron Hubbard?

You really are slow. Did I say I was changing my name to a dead guy's?

Originally posted by papabryant
Alright, thats our debate then. Based on the article found here.

That's probably the worst form of the Kalam cosmological argument I've ever seen (not that any are convincing)...

Cosmological:
(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: the universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

1. is an assumption. It perhaps does apply to the space and time in which we find ourselves. but causation requires time a>b. We'll roll with it for fun.
2. Probably
3. I would think so
4. roflwaffle. Non-sequitur.
5. Falls at 4.

Looks like logic wasn't your strong point. I'm sure you did great at bible studies, though.

ABE: and if we accept 1, then we can apply to 5.

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) god exists.
(3) Therefore: god has a cause of its existence.
(4) If god has a cause of its existence, then ?

(Therefore: the argument is naff, perhaps the cause was mucho beer).

RESOLVED: Statistical analysis, used in normative manner, can sustain an argument for the existance of God.

Poppycock.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Well that was a little tongue in cheek but since you bring it back up.

Riiiiiight. You just outed yourself.

I dunno, is that a threat? Are you threatening to be mean to me on the internet?

Further proof you cannot read....

An example of what exactly? How you can just magically interject god into some imaginary equation and say he is probable? What is that an example of other than your imagination?

NOTE TO OTHERS OBSERVING THIS DISCUSSION: I know he cannot be this dense, but for YOUR benefit I'll play along.

(back to discussion) Sigh.

Nooooooo, I'm giving you an example of how this all works. If you think the Flying Spagetti Monster is an option, then take the observations, calculate their statistical likelihood for FSM and whatever control you wish to use -- Yahweh, Jove, Sol Invictus, chance, ponzi scheme, overdose on Exlax, whatever. The process is the same regardless of which option you think of.

Not once, but twice:

This is what I mean by dense... FIRST off, I'm using this as an example of how the process is supposed to work. It wasn't mean't to be a full fledged argument; if I had meant that I would have provided the link I gave AS THE ARGUMENT!!!

Must be since I read your little theory a few times, called it BS and here you are calling me names.

You haven't understood the first thing I written, even after explaining it to you in plain English. I'm talking above your head, so you respond with sarcasm on what you think I said.

At least I back up my insults with the point I am making.

You're incapable of understanding what is being discussed. All you are doing is setting up straw men, Don Quixote.

...If you are educated enough to make your argument then what is the need for a signature credential pissing war? That really is just silliness and I will leave that to the kids.

Translation: "I have no credentials. I am talking about subjects I have no formal training in, and I am passing off my opinions, which no one denies I'm intitled to, as facts, without any credentials to show I know what I'm talking about. All I give is attitude in an attempt to bluff my way past this fact. Papa, ya caught me...."

Nope. Never admitted to such a thing. Now you are just making stuff up. Is that how Christians win arguments? Vanity and lying?

Huh? So you said something is true and portended to prove it with math but when I point out how you just made it up, it is now just some crazy example and I am stupid for not getting that? Maybe I am that stupid because I am lost now.

I agree with your conclusion.

HUH? Set up the posting? Give me a week? What are you going on about?

Don't try to get out of a debate that way.

How is the exsistance of a god equal to innocent until proven guilty? What crazy leap of logic are you working on. I can read, can you think?

MORE evidence you cannot read; we're discussing textual criticism? Remember? How to do it? You assume the text is being truthful until the text is proven wrong by verifiable facts?

You at least knew what was being talked about last time. Do you have alzheimer's?

Since it is clear you are unfamiliar with textual criticism, here is the full text of Aristotle's Poetics

And that proves what about your point?

So you can read up on textual criticism.... Education is a wonderful thing.

You're dismissed. As irrelevant.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by papabryant
Alright, thats our debate then. Based on the article found here.

That's probably the worst form of the Kalam cosmological argument I've ever seen (not that any are convincing)...

Cosmological:
(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: the universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

1. is an assumption. It perhaps does apply to the space and time in which we find ourselves. but causation requires time a>b. We'll roll with it for fun.
2. Probably
3. I would think so
4. roflwaffle. Non-sequitur.
5. Falls at 4.

Looks like logic wasn't your strong point. I'm sure you did great at bible studies, though.

RESOLVED: Statistical analysis, used in normative manner, can sustain an argument for the existance of God.

Poppycock.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by melatonin]

Why not use the full quote just a little ways down instead of the introduction explanation (Because that would require actually READING and finding out how much further I took the argument. I answer my own questions around here...):

The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. If we plug in what we know about the Big Bang, the Standard Cosmological argument takes on this form:


(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is the Big Bang.
(5) Therefore: God exists.

This is a false argument. But there are other forms of the Cosmological argument that work better with the data. We can start with simply delineating more modifiers:

If you have a problem ith that, take it up with the professor of Medieval Philosophy who gave me an A+ for the paper in its original form.

I think religionS should be taught... in a comparative and analytical way, not by some clearly biased priest or whatever, which actually takes the form of a propaganda class.
Not teaching the existence of religionS promotes ignorance.
People should know the world they live in. They should know the history behind religions, ancient or relatively new, but never ever force anyone to take a side.

In this frame of reference, the word "god" isn't specific enough. Which "god" are we talking about?

Originally posted by papabryant
Riiiiiight. You just outed yourself.

Outted myself? As what? HUH?

Further proof you cannot read....

That is your rebuttal? Really? How about explaining what I missed?

NOTE TO OTHERS OBSERVING THIS DISCUSSION: I know he cannot be this dense, but for YOUR benefit I'll play along.

What is dense about asking you how the hell you came to the crazy conclusion you claim to? There is not one logical step in anything you have said. It is all useless claptrap and you know it. Calling me names does not make your case any stronger. Arrogant, dense, etc... If this is all you have, I am not sure why I have bothered. By the way, so far most reading this seem to agree with me so I would not worry so much about your public warnings and perhaps try and see if you can find an argument that makes sense.

(back to discussion) Sigh.

Nooooooo, I'm giving you an example of how this all works. If you think the Flying Spagetti Monster is an option, then take the observations, calculate their statistical likelihood for FSM and whatever control you wish to use -- Yahweh, Jove, Sol Invictus, chance, ponzi scheme, overdose on Exlax, whatever. The process is the same regardless of which option you think of.

So you are saying that the same logic that tells you there must be a god will also tell me their must be a flying spaghetti monster? So all I have to do is plug in whatever god I want and viola? Yeah um... that is exactly what I said was so flawed in it. Thanks for repeating it, but louder and more rudely.

Not once, but twice:

This is what I mean by dense... FIRST off, I'm using this as an example of how the process is supposed to work. It wasn't mean't to be a full fledged argument; if I had meant that I would have provided the link I gave AS THE ARGUMENT!!!

Was it meant to make sense, be relevant, or help your case. It did none of that either.

You haven't understood the first thing I written, even after explaining it to you in plain English. I'm talking above your head, so you respond with sarcasm on what you think I said.

LOL. I do not know why you think I do not understand. I think the problem is that you do not understand the logic I am using to point out how terribly terrible flawed this argument is. I think if you would stop calling people dense and arrogant for a moment, you may realize how you are now going so far from logic as to sound like a street corner nutjob. Need a crate and sign?

Translation: "I have no credentials. I am talking about subjects I have no formal training in, and I am passing off my opinions, which no one denies I'm intitled to, as facts, without any credentials to show I know what I'm talking about. All I give is attitude in an attempt to bluff my way past this fact. Papa, ya caught me...."

Which degree would you like in my sig, there is not much room with the warning and all. Or I could clear that out, list my degrees and make up a bunch too. What would be the difference. You can claim anything you like. This is not AOL. Your profile does not trump mine. If you are smarter and ore educated, then prove it by being so.

Nope. Never admitted to such a thing. Now you are just making stuff up. Is that how Christians win arguments? Vanity and lying?

Huh? So you said something is true and portended to prove it with math but when I point out how you just made it up, it is now just some crazy example and I am stupid for not getting that? Maybe I am that stupid because I am lost now.

I agree with your conclusion.

That is how you respond to that? I just called you on using lies to win your argument. I also stated how not understanding how lies and ignorance win, then I must be stupid. If you agree, then please re-read the entire conclusion you agreed to. You are going to feel soooo silly.

Don't try to get out of a debate that way.

What is it with this tough guy attitude? Get out of a debate? When did you challenge me to a debate? Sweety, I am here. You have anything to say, say it. You want to open a thread or have a debate, have at it. I am not getting out of anything. Interesting how you try to be such a bully over the internet.

You assume the text is being truthful until the text is proven wrong by verifiable facts?

Why? Because it is not stamped fiction? Which texts exactly do we just believe until proven wrong? The weekly world news is not labeled fiction do I just believe that until proven wrong? Does this only apply to bibles? Christianity? Which version of the bible? There are a few ya know. Please please please explain this logic to me. Why do we just believe books again?

You at least knew what was being talked about last time. Do you have alzheimer's?

Stupid people saying stupid things throws me off.

So you can read up on textual criticism.... Education is a wonderful thing.

You're dismissed. As irrelevant.

Read up on it why? I am not lacking. I do not buy it. I am not saying I do not understand your complicated concept. I am saying it is BS, stupid, wrong, asinine, inherently flawed... and other such niceties. Sorry you are not getting this. Shall I type more slowly?

[edit on 17-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]