Prayer in schools? Aww, crap...

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Maybe I was laboring under a misconception here. My impression was that they were doing it for their own benefit, and subsequently someone else brought the media into it.

Irrelevant. Christians have this undying need to shove their religion into everyone else's face; they call it evangelism. That's what leads them to whine and complain whenever they're not allowed to procure whatever facilities they wish to evangelize.

Their reasoning for doing it on the front lawn, I was thinking, was that they were refraining from engaging in such an ignorant display within the school walls.

It's on school property. If kids can be busted for smoking outside school walls, restrictions on religious demonstrations should damn well apply outside schools walls, as well.

As I said, we're discussing ignorant little high school kids here, and such are not typically privy to this level of logic.

To answer the question of whether or not I've been "indoctrinated" into believing that Christianity is good; quite the contrary. My parents taught me from a young age that 1) Christianity, as a religion, is right up there with the other Middle Eastern religions on the bloodshed charts, and 2) because it usurped, distorted, lied and massacred its way to prominence in Europe (by way of the Roman Empire) it should be driven back whence it came. That last tenet has always struck me as being ignorant in its own right, but it also seems poetically just.

Then you should see no problem with restricting Christian practices, just like every other religious practice, on school grounds.

Actually, the argument could be made that there are myriad "other religious practices" allowed on school grounds. The high school I attended, for example, permitted (i.e. they neglected to put a stop to) covens, Islamic prayer groups, Buddhists and others. But not Christians. They didn't know what to make of the Thor's Hammer pendant I wore.

[Durandal]

Off-Topic: White Cat: Deism is a religion. They worship God (but not the god of the bible) and pray.

That's completely contrary to deists' beliefs, no offense. Deists believe that God created the universe but does not interfere with its operation. Praying would be a useless activity for a deist, and they may or may not choose to worship. [/list]

[Durandal]

Actually, the argument could be made that there are myriad "other religious practices" allowed on school grounds. The high school I attended, for example, permitted (i.e. they neglected to put a stop to) covens, Islamic prayer groups, Buddhists and others. But not Christians. They didn't know what to make of the Thor's Hammer pendant I wore.

Well, I can't say I support that. All religious practices should be banned from schools.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I agree. I believe in equal treatment of all belief systems. But I should also make it clear that I consider Atheism to be a "belief system" (not a religion). Atheists believe, on faith, that there is no higher power than human beings. They should be treated like every other belief-based group.

This is why, although I am not religious, I typically find myself defending people who are (with the exception of extremists). No one has the right to mock anyone for their spiritual beliefs, because no matter how you slice it, as human beings we all have them.

[Darth Wong]

Strowbridge, does that mean that if a religion doesn't teach hate and intolerance, it should be allowed on school grounds?

If so, please make a list of which religions would and wouldn't be allowed on school grounds under the above criteria.

Humanism. A humanist can be a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or an atheist. Name one other belief system which freely includes members of other religions as members.

[Darth Wong]

I agree. I believe in equal treatment of all belief systems. But I should also make it clear that I consider Atheism to be a "belief system" (not a religion). Atheists believe, on faith, that there is no higher power than human beings. They should be treated like every other belief-based group.

Wrong, dumb-ass. Atheism is the only logical conclusion. There is no evidence for the existence of God, therefore there is no more reason to believe in God than there is to believe in Santa Claus. Do you think that disbelief in Santa Claus is a religion, based only on "faith"?

This is why, although I am not religious, I typically find myself defending people who are (with the exception of extremists). No one has the right to mock anyone for their spiritual beliefs, because no matter how you slice it, as human beings we all have them.

Wrong. I have no spiritual beliefs. We are biochemical machines.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Again, since you are not omniscient, you cannot verify the nonexistence of a higher power, or even supply directly contradictory evidence. This is nothing like a belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., as we can catalog all known elements of these myths and disprove them.

On the second thrust, yes, we are biochemical machines. Whether or not these meat puppets we wear are all there is to us, on the other hand, is a different matter.

[Darth Wong]

Again, since you are not omniscient, you cannot verify the nonexistence of a higher power, or even supply directly contradictory evidence. This is nothing like a belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., as we can catalog all known elements of these myths and disprove them.

Wrong. It is precisely like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. You can rationalize aspects of the Santa Claus myth through the use of miracles just as easily as you can rationalize the belief system of any religion.

On the second thrust, yes, we are biochemical machines. Whether or not these meat puppets we wear are all there is to us, on the other hand, is a different matter.

Not if you have a spark of rational thought in you. It is quite clear, even if it's not what you want to hear. Ultimately, religion is about telling ourselves what we want to hear, and then sticking our fingers in our ears when someone comes along and tries to tell us the truth.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

You insist on ignoring the main point I was making about the difference between belief in a higher power and belief in Santa Claus; allow me to clarify it. People have physically catalogued, I would guess, the majority of the North Pole. Satellites in orbit would detect even the slightest hint of EM or thermal emissions produced by anything remotely resemling a toy factory, eight tiny reindeer, etc. Thus we can say with absolute certainty that there is no Santa Claus. This is the most stupid thing I have ever been forced to argue. A divinity, however, does not come with such material, detectable accoutrements, and is stated to exist independent of time or the material world in quite a few belief systems. It cannot be detected. It is, by its nature, not physically qualifiable or quantifiable. It is safe to say that it is antiscientific. That is, in several religions, the test humans are required to pass. Rise above your meager science, it says, and believe because it is within you to believe, or some quasipoetic crap.

Second... what is "quite clear"? That we have souls, or that we don't? What are you trying to say?

[Master of Ossus]

And the Greeks clearly catalogued the top of Mount Olympus. That did not prevent them from believing in God. Satellite images have shown conclusively that there is no heaven in the clouds, but many Christians still cling to that ridiculous belief that we just aren't looking hard enough. Belief in Santa Claus is clearly analogous in all respects to a belief in God.

[Darth Wong]

You insist on ignoring the main point I was making about the difference between belief in a higher power and belief in Santa Claus; allow me to clarify it. People have physically catalogued, I would guess, the majority of the North Pole. Satellites in orbit would detect even the slightest hint of EM or thermal emissions produced by anything remotely resemling a toy factory, eight tiny reindeer, etc. Thus we can say with absolute certainty that there is no Santa Claus.

No, we can't. The stories of Santa Claus might have been allegorical. He might exist in a parallel dimension, or ethereal plane, beyond the reach of our observational devices. That's the sort of excuse used to explain away Biblical problems; it works fine for Santa too. I made this point before; you ignored it. Please learn to read.

This is the most stupid thing I have ever been forced to argue. A divinity, however, does not come with such material, detectable accoutrements, and is stated to exist independent of time or the material world in quite a few belief systems.

Any divine entity which has any influence over the physical world would have material, detectable accoutrements. We do not observe them. The absence of verifiable "miracles" disproves the existence of supernatural gods just as the absence of Santa workshop disproves the existence of Santa. Either could be explained away by resorting to miracles and "non-literal interpretations", which is simply an evasion tactic.

It cannot be detected. It is, by its nature, not physically qualifiable or quantifiable. It is safe to say that it is antiscientific. That is, in several religions, the test humans are required to pass. Rise above your meager science, it says, and believe because it is within you to believe, or some quasipoetic crap.

But you characterize atheism as a religion, and atheism does not ask you to take any such irrational leap, does it?

Second... what is "quite clear"? That we have souls, or that we don't? What are you trying to say?

We don't have souls. If you want to believe in them, go ahead, but such belief is based on irrationality.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

If we don't have souls, what is it, then, that makes us self-aware individuals capable of introspection? What makes us ask these questions of ourselves? Are you, personally, saying that you are not a person? Do you hold yourself in no greater regard than you do a particularly impressive automobile? How sad.

[Durandal]

If we don't have souls, what is it, then, that makes us self-aware individuals capable of introspection? What makes us ask these questions of ourselves? Are you, personally, saying that you are not a person? Do you hold yourself in no greater regard than you do a particularly impressive automobile? How sad.

We have consciousness because of our brains. Appeals to human arrogance won't get you anywhere.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Well, that was a simplistic explanation. Thank you, Durandal, I had no idea that consciousness has anything to do with increased synaptic function.

No, there's a difference between raw consciousness and the qualities I described. Your cat is conscious. Does it meditate? Does it genuflect? Contemplate its place in the universe? Do you suppose it wonders who made the scratching post it enjoys, or wonder whether you bought it that scratching post out of a sense of affection?

[Darth Wong]

No, there's a difference between raw consciousness and the qualities I described. Your cat is conscious. Does it meditate? Does it genuflect? Contemplate its place in the universe? Do you suppose it wonders who made the scratching post it enjoys, or wonder whether you bought it that scratching post out of a sense of affection?

How do you know it doesn't? Animals think. We think. Our intelligence is greater, hence we can think about more interesting things. However, there is no reason to presume that there is some fundamental difference between our thought and theirs apart from the level of intelligence.

PS. See Occam's Razor again. Our theory: the brain produces consciousness. Your theory: the brain produces thought and consciousness but there's some special element besides brain complexity which we have and which makes more complex thought possible. Don't know what it is, don't know why it's not just brain complexity, but ... uh ...

[Master of Ossus]

If we don't have souls, what is it, then, that makes us self-aware individuals capable of introspection? What makes us ask these questions of ourselves? Are you, personally, saying that you are not a person? Do you hold yourself in no greater regard than you do a particularly impressive automobile? How sad.

Other animals are clearly self-aware, also. Some others do not appear to be. You seem to indicate that consciousness must, in fact, be related to a soul, which cannot be detected in any manner whatsoever. This is a false-dillema. You are asking us to choose between sentience and not having souls. There are clearly many third options. This is also a good example of circular logic. You assume that we are conscious of ourselves BECAUSE of our souls, and then use the fact that we are self-aware as evidence that we have souls. This is clearly flawed.

[Durandal]

Well, that was a simplistic explanation. Thank you, Durandal, I had no idea that consciousness has anything to do with increased synaptic function.

Well, it certainly has something to do with synaptic function, because it goes away when synaptic functions stop.

No, there's a difference between raw consciousness and the qualities I described. Your cat is conscious. Does it meditate? Does it genuflect? Contemplate its place in the universe? Do you suppose it wonders who made the scratching post it enjoys, or wonder whether you bought it that scratching post out of a sense of affection?

Who gives a fuck what my cat thinks about? As far as I can tell, her memory retention is less than 5 minutes. That has no bearing on anything we're discussing. You simply assume that thinking about God means that God must exist or that there must be a soul or whatever other bullshit belief you choose to justify it with. People think about having sex with cartoon characters for fuck's sake! Is that evidence of Ariel the Little Mermaid's existence?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

No, actually, I was attempting to make a clear distinction between consciousness and sentience. Consciousness may be a requisite of sentience, but it's not the whole enchilada.

And yes indeed, that is circular logic. Kind of like the kind that sees a man typing, "I am typing on a keyboard" at a keyboard. Even circular logic is sometimes logical.

[Master of Ossus]

And yes indeed, that is circular logic. Kind of like the kind that sees a man typing, "I am typing on a keyboard" at a keyboard. Even circular logic is sometimes logical.

1. Circular logic, by definition, is not logical. What part of this do you not understand.

[Darth Wong]

No, actually, I was attempting to make a clear distinction between consciousness and sentience. Consciousness may be a requisite of sentience, but it's not the whole enchilada.

You are presuming the existence of an invisible extra term to explain the difference, when we can explain it through differing brain complexity from species to species. Occam's Razor kicks the shit out of your ideas. Again.

And yes indeed, that is circular logic. Kind of like the kind that sees a man typing, "I am typing on a keyboard" at a keyboard. Even circular logic is sometimes logical.

What the fuck? "Even circular logic is sometimes logical"? Somebody PLEASE put that in his sig! That's the funniest dumb-fuck thing I've heard all day!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I'm thinking about it. (By the way, I'm glad you got the joke -- too bad you didn't realize it was one.) But this prompts me to ask, seriously now: is that statement untrue?

[Master of Ossus]

Which statement? The one about how we are self-aware because we have a soul? Yes it probably is.

The one about how someone typing on a keyboard that he is typing is not true? Well, that's not really a matter of circular logic. It would be circular if he said, "Because I am typing at a keyboard, I am typing at a keyboard," but his actually typing it provides evidence through observation that the original statement was, indeed, correct. Redundant, yes, but correct as well.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Which statement? The one about how we are self-aware because we have a soul? Yes it probably is.

The one about how someone typing on a keyboard that he is typing is not true? Well, that's not really a matter of circular logic. It would be circular if he said, "Because I am typing at a keyboard, I am typing at a keyboard," but his actually typing it provides evidence through observation that the original statement was, indeed, correct. Redundant, yes, but correct as well.

The statement I was referring to was that circular logic is indeed logical, on occasion. It was a joke, but Darth Wong probably didn't know that the humor was intentional. So I ask, is circular logic never logical?

[Master of Ossus]

Circular logic, by definition, is not logical. What part of my first post on the matter did you not understand?

[Durandal]

What the fuck? "Even circular logic is sometimes logical"? Somebody PLEASE put that in his sig! That's the funniest dumb-fuck thing I've heard all day!

Done.