Pollux
Member
Thank you for actually explaining that. I was wrong about science as I described it.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
High school student successfully sues her school to remove a religious prayer banner
- Thread starter Korey
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for actually explaining that. I was wrong about science as I described it.
Its an infraction of the constitution.
No, science does not ask you to accept that there is life out there in the universe. It suggests that it's possible, but we don't have enough information to say anything with certainty.
Until there's evidence, we just have a bunch of hypotheses.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
O geeez stop being a drama queen. "Following you"? It just so happened that from everything that you posted that I have seen I have always thought you as an atheist.
I am just surprised that you are not.
whiteknight
Banned
pointless lawsuit and to all the people jumping up and down saying good ridance to religion in schools i belive you are just as misguided as the religions your arguing against. Does having that motto that promotes decent values actually hurt anyone? its been there for 40 odd years was it REALLY worth the time and effort let alone the cost to remove it? and from the backlash she recieved it sounds like shes offended a lot of people.
the problem with religion isnt the fact they have decent values (no religion in particular but when you get down to it they all pretty much promote the same ideals) but rather they force the other crap onto people (and not to mention the other incidents that seem to flourish under religions but thats beside the point) This lawsuit seems to be the same thing, people were happy with a nice looking motto (and tbh it looks non offending and a nice part of the schools history) and shes forcing her views on them.
im not a religious person (i choose to be a fence sitter, agnostic) and am all for just getting over it.
the problem with religion isnt the fact they have decent values (no religion in particular but when you get down to it they all pretty much promote the same ideals) but rather they force the other crap onto people (and not to mention the other incidents that seem to flourish under religions but thats beside the point) This lawsuit seems to be the same thing, people were happy with a nice looking motto (and tbh it looks non offending and a nice part of the schools history) and shes forcing her views on them.
im not a religious person (i choose to be a fence sitter, agnostic) and am all for just getting over it.
We don't "accept" anything when it comes to science. Science is constantly being tested and reviewed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Once we observe something that breaks our current model for how something works, it goes back to the lab for more testing. An example is that recently they observed neutrino particles that travel faster than light, which has the potential to break a lot of what we know about physics and what not.
YOU AND I "accept" what scientists tell us because obviously not all of us can be scientists. However, within the scientific community (thousands of smart people from all over the world that have nothing to do with each other, other than their fields of expertise), they are constantly peer reviewing each other. If someone comes up with the wrong conclusion, there's thousands of people there to call them on it. Scientists have no affiliation with each other and have no agenda (as a whole) to participate in a giant conspiracy to fool the public. Bringing up the neutrino example, most scientists think there was an error in the test, so they're going to do more tests to see if they can reproduce the results.
Nothing in science is set in stone, and is always subject to change. NOTHING is accepted by faith. Observations and tests become a model to describe our universe, and this is held until something comes along and challenges it.
This is the complete antithesis of religion, specifically Christianity, which just tells you to accept the bible as being true because it says it is.
Also, it's not about "knowing" it's made up. It's about not having a reason to believe it's real in the first place. You literally have no reason to believe any deity exists. We've pretty much ruled out Zeus and Hercules as being fairytales from an ancient era, God is just another string of fictional characters created by primitive humans to explain things they couldn't comprehend at the time (lightning=Zeus being angry, where we came from, where we go when we die, etc).
Christianity is just the most contemporary version of religion. Think about how absurd religions from 10,000 years ago seem to you. That's how people 10,000 years from now will think of your religion. And the ONLY reason you believe what you do is because life rolled a dice and you were born when you were, where you were. If you were born at a different time, or on the other side of the world you'd believe something else. Hell, if you were born to the family next door you might have been raised Hindu.
If you take some time to THINK about why you believe what you do, you'll probably eventually end up an atheist. Lots of religious people in the Atheism vs Theism thread have been converted just by reading a bit there and then thinking about it a few months later. Just one quote or nugget that really stuck out to them and made them question..."why?".
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/od6b3/this_is_the_quote_that_made_me_an_atheist/
Also, most atheists were brought up religious, so they often know more about religion than the religious people they're arguing against, because they've actually spent the time seriously thinking it through to arrive at a conclusion. What I'm trying to say is, many of us were like you at one point. Defending our religion and what not. But if you take the time for yourself and sit down and think about it, you'll find there's not much to defend.
I've never posted "There is no God" in my entire life.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Can't remember why I thought of you as one either...
But rest assured that this is just a casual observation of mine and not me creepily stalking you from thread to thread like a crazy fangirl chasing Justin Bieber.
The original constitution only refers to religion in the following way:
[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
And of course:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Which means removing the banner prohibits the free exercise.
I find it stupid to take offense on something that has been there longer then the person in question, and which could have been viewed well in advance.
Are you forced to go a specific school?
But hey, let's keep money which refers to God, let's have presidents who focus on God; but let's abolish that one innocent banner that wants to heighten school spirits and has been there for how many years.
I remember that case. I'd fire an employee for that bullshit too.
Count Dookkake
Member
Freezie KO
Banned
Thumbs up.
Korey said:
Speaking of "extraordinary claims"...
Let's get a second test before jettisoning Einstein's theory.
I guess I'm just a sucker for tradition. Even though I'm an atheist myself, I like religious motifs a lot of the time.
If she was offended, whatever. I don't really identify with that sentiment, but I'm not her.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Funny thing is, now, due to it's presence causing a federal court decision, ect, this plaque is now a genuine historical artifact.
They should move it to the school library, put a plaque next to it explaining the case and the court decision, and leave it there as an educational device for discussing the US Constitution.
Let's see someone argue that it can't be used in that context.
They should move it to the school library, put a plaque next to it explaining the case and the court decision, and leave it there as an educational device for discussing the US Constitution.
Let's see someone argue that it can't be used in that context.
I think the goal here is baby steps. You know how much of a backlash there would be if they tried to remove under God from money?
ATHEISTS TRYING TO CORRUPT OUR ECONOMY, POSSIBLE CAUSE OF RECESSION?
One asks you to believe in things which are grounded in observable evidence which you can study and examine, and then there's believing in something which has no grounding whatsoever in reality.
Trent Strong
Banned
Edit: That's surprising.
bump
Kinda; but my beliefs are centered around how effective a course of action is. I'm not saying my belief is more effective... I'm saying we should believe in and think in ways that produce more effective and useful results. From that central point of agreement, we can derive our other beliefs and rules of thumb.
If you don't agree with that... then there's not really that much to argue about. It's kinda like arguing against... better. And I mean, that in the most literal sense.
No mandatory courses anywhere in the US afaik. If you're lucky there might be a comparative religion elective in your junior or senior year of high school.
Freezie KO
Banned
In my experience, there are courses about religion, but those are usually elective courses at the college/university level. They are not required, and they are certainly not advocating religion.
There was not a course about religions in my K-12 public school, no, other than bits and pieces in like a social studies class maybe
Well, it could be argued that the way it is written suggests that the desired traits can only be achieved or gifted by divine intervention. Though supporting doctrine might suggest we need to help ourselves, that isn't visible here to complete the message and those without belief may feel excluded or discriminated against.
It could be rewritten in such a way so as to promote a desirable model allowing students to draw inspiration and strength from whereever and however they felt the text spoke to them, whether it be the god of their religion, their parents, their peers, or from within. At a guess, without having read the background detail, such a compromise was probably suggested by one party or the other but presumably heels were dug in (at the very least it should have been raised).
My 2 minute edit resulted in
"Let us each day desire to do our best.
To grow mentally, and morally as well as physically.
To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
To be honest with ourselves as well as others.
Let us be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
Let us learn the value of true friendship.
Let us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West."
The message is intact and nobody, whether religious or not, need feel excluded or powerless.
Mortrialus
Banned
Going through the thread, and while it is mostly awful with theists to blame, this is particularly embarrassing that I have to comment on it. Thankfully someone else already pointed out how stupid this post was.
ZackieChan
Member
If God is really God, then why are only "many" of his rules morally just? Shouldn't they, ya know, ALL be?
But then, are they morally just because God says them, or does God say them because they are morally just? Then where do morals come from, if not from God? If they do come from God, then why aren't ALL of the rules morally just?
Some (most) of the religious posters in this thread are throwing around logical fallacies like crazy. Maybe you should read up on them, so that you can stop using them constantly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
To be fair, he admitted he was wrong and was thankful for being corrected already.
My public schools offered Bible (Christian) History as an elective.
Other religions, just bits and pieces in Social Studies like Korey said.
Freezie KO
Banned
In before "then who maed logic, huh?"
Asking to be educated is stupid?
That's what I meant, we have a mandatory course about all the major religions in our upper secondary school.
I don't even know why you guys are explaining science as a whole when he specifically brought up theories and implied one should believe theories as fact. I mean, that right there is backwards. A theory is like a hypothesis, a good one usually, and may indeed ultimately be proven correct but only an idiot would teach theoretical shit to you as fact and only an idiot should take a theory as fact because it's right there in the name, "theory!"
Anyways, I do actually believe that science, for most people, is indeed akin to faith. While theoretically we do have the ability to review scientific discoveries in practice that ability is limited for the vast majority of us. I can not reproduce a LHC experiment, nor can I actually say with 100% certainty that the LHC even exists having not seen it! I will not send a rocket to the moon, split the atom in my basement, if I can't build it with parts from Radio Shack then chances are that I am taking these discoveries on a bit of faith.
Now, there's still a difference between religious faith and scientific faith. Religious faith can not get peer reviewed. At all. While it's true that I myself can also not review most scientific facts men with more money, different jobs or people who are just plain smarter than me can. And do. Contrast that with religion where no one can know what's going on from the lowest member of a church all the way to the Pope and that's a very real difference. They both rely on a type of critical mass of sorts for the public to recognize them as truths but the difference is is that in science it means smart men from a wide variety of backgrounds, sometimes even of conflicting beliefs have battled it out, and other smart men in schools and research facilities have also tested it and I, if I really, really desired could do the same. I know it's far fetched, as I said, I probably won't ever actually verify most of what I've been taught in life but the ability to do so if I desired is there and enough other people have done it to the point I feel comfortable believing in many scientific facts without question. It's like Geography. There's enough damn people in the world now with the means to call you on your bullshit if you're wrong so since that isn't happening in many areas of science you gotta assume they got it more or less right. With religion I can never verify it. Maybe, perhaps when I die, but then, fat good that does any one else. It's not having faith in your fellow man to weed the lies from the truth like in science it's flat out believing in something that not can I not verify but that no one can.
So while I do think both are faith based in practice for most people in a very basic sense there's still a huge gulf between science, even theoretical science, and religion as far as faith goes.
Anyways, I do actually believe that science, for most people, is indeed akin to faith. While theoretically we do have the ability to review scientific discoveries in practice that ability is limited for the vast majority of us. I can not reproduce a LHC experiment, nor can I actually say with 100% certainty that the LHC even exists having not seen it! I will not send a rocket to the moon, split the atom in my basement, if I can't build it with parts from Radio Shack then chances are that I am taking these discoveries on a bit of faith.
Now, there's still a difference between religious faith and scientific faith. Religious faith can not get peer reviewed. At all. While it's true that I myself can also not review most scientific facts men with more money, different jobs or people who are just plain smarter than me can. And do. Contrast that with religion where no one can know what's going on from the lowest member of a church all the way to the Pope and that's a very real difference. They both rely on a type of critical mass of sorts for the public to recognize them as truths but the difference is is that in science it means smart men from a wide variety of backgrounds, sometimes even of conflicting beliefs have battled it out, and other smart men in schools and research facilities have also tested it and I, if I really, really desired could do the same. I know it's far fetched, as I said, I probably won't ever actually verify most of what I've been taught in life but the ability to do so if I desired is there and enough other people have done it to the point I feel comfortable believing in many scientific facts without question. It's like Geography. There's enough damn people in the world now with the means to call you on your bullshit if you're wrong so since that isn't happening in many areas of science you gotta assume they got it more or less right. With religion I can never verify it. Maybe, perhaps when I die, but then, fat good that does any one else. It's not having faith in your fellow man to weed the lies from the truth like in science it's flat out believing in something that not can I not verify but that no one can.
So while I do think both are faith based in practice for most people in a very basic sense there's still a huge gulf between science, even theoretical science, and religion as far as faith goes.
cutmeamango
Banned
Were they forced or had to pray? The text doesn't say or I've missed it.
If not, just a petty thing and time (and money) to waste.
If not, just a petty thing and time (and money) to waste.
Do you really believe that having that particular prayer hung on that particular wall somehow lowered the IQs of kids in close proximity to it?
Consider that one carefully before answering it.
ZackieChan
Member
My body is ready.
And there's the problem. Other people believe equally firmly that their way is better, and you're arguing against it. So why should everyone accept your definition of what's best at that level?
No, not a petty thing. Institutions of government authority (like public schools) do not get to make religious statements. Simple as that. They could have the sentiment in a non religious form, that would be nice, I think.
Freezie KO
Banned
In scientific terms, they're quite different.
The people doing experiments and communicating the results back to us are potentially unreliable, yes. But it's quite intellectually dishonest to compare this to the faith required to believe in something inherently untestable.
The faith required to believe in something that has no physical evidence is, excuse the phrase, astronomical. That is why most scientists don't try to "disprove" God. You can't. The proposal is flawed from the start.
It's just really intellectually dishonest to say that the faith required to trust in reviewed tests from a variety of sources formulating evidence to postulate a greater theory is even in the same ballpark as faith required to trust something, untested and either written in age-old books from illiterate nomadic tribes or else simply "felt" within.
Yes, but philosophically-speaking EVERYTHING is faith-based. That's why religion AND spirituality are so far divorced from science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat, et al.
You still don't really seem to understand what a theory is. A theory is a hypothesis that has predictive power and has undergone rigorous testing. Only an idiot would teach theoretical shit to you as fact? So where do you stand on the theory of gravity vs intelligent falling?
LOL
the supposedly divine bible is written so shitty that everyone interprets in differently
if is really was such a "godly" book it would be set in stone perfectly clear
1 book
1 movement/group
Violating the constitution is a lame reason for a lawsuit. You learn new things every day, I guess.
Yep.
Religion is a joke
Funny thing about that image...There were already numerous sects of Christianity-like religions at the time of Jesus' alleged existence. It wasn't until many years later that the Church sat down and standardized things.
Well... sort of. All the other groups still existed, they were just kicked out of the bigger groups.
Completely idiotic.
What happened to being open minded and letting people believe what they want? Why remove the thing many love just because you don't like it?
The mural didn't punch the student in the face every morning so I fail to see how it was a problem.
It's sad how there's no respect in this day and age. Everyone's a pussy who wants to make sure they get things their way (most people at least).
What happened to being open minded and letting people believe what they want? Why remove the thing many love just because you don't like it?
The mural didn't punch the student in the face every morning so I fail to see how it was a problem.
It's sad how there's no respect in this day and age. Everyone's a pussy who wants to make sure they get things their way (most people at least).
Lol. I do understand what a theory is and frankly, it's still basically a hypothesis. Unlike some people I have no problem accepting a theory as a theory and yet not as a fact. I don't see what the issue even is there. I was not taught any theories as fact but as theories, that's how they should be taught. They're works in progress, nothing wrong with that.
And sure, it is different in a way but I like to keep things simple instead of muck shit up with big words and make shit take twice as long, although that perhaps was a failing because now I've had to come back already.
Theory of gravity versus intelligent falling? Is this some kind of intelligent design joke? People know gravity exists, the specifics can be in flux without invalidating the conclusion but that does not make everything up and down the chain fact, nor does it have to. As for anything "intelligent" whether it be design or falling there's still zero evidence for any creator. Zero. It's not that we don't just have the specifics down but that we also don't have the end game down either, so obviously they're worlds apart as far as theories go, not that I'd call intelligent design a real theory anyways.
Some people I believe just need facts. Have to have things as fact, I'm not like that. I can function just fine with something being "best we can come up with" without needing to make it anything more than it is. Sure, I'll give some credit where credit's due and admit that in science people are usually ready to discard their facts but I think that's a psychological failing. People are comfortable with the known and even when they know they don't have something 100% they want it to be known anyway for some reason. That's fine. But that, in my opinion, still doesn't make a whole theory worth much more than a good hypothesis. Religion doesn't even fit a hypothesis to me so don't take it personally. I just can't care to assign some bullshit scale between not fact and fact. When everything in the theory becomes fact then it can be considered a fact, until then it should not be construed as fact. Just because it's not a fact is not a negative, if you've given me 90% of a puzzle completed to work with that's still more valuable than a completely unassembled puzzle in the box but it's not complete yet.
Mortrialus
Banned
He was hardly asking to be educated. He was regurgitating the "Science uses faith too!" meme in question form. He did correctly and honestly conceded shown how wrong he was, so you can give him that.
Scientific theories comprise law and hypothesis, explain facts, can be used to make predictions which can be tested. They're the highest level possible. It's completely different from the colloquial definition of theory.
This is about as reasonable as saying "I'm not sure the Everest exists, I've never climbed it".
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I am surprised that you (seem to?) take his statement literally.
I think he is saying that: hanging religious prayers hung on walls = shoving religions down the children's throat.
And as we all know, believing in religion is equal to lowering IQs for everyone.
So he is simply thankful that students are saved from something that will make them less intelligent than they normally are.
That's pretty much a yes. Maybe not as literally but a yes none the less.
Neogaf mang.
Freezie KO
Banned
Not in scientific terms. If you are using colloquial definitions, fine. But the two are quite different as they are used in the scientific method and the process of testing.
That said, the rest of your conclusions seem reasonable and logical, but the quoted statement is incorrect.
edit: beaten, even with the word "colloquial." Hivemind confirmed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked