The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > School children have a right to discuss their religious beliefs > Comments

School children have a right to discuss their religious beliefs : Comments

By Bill O'Chee, published 3/8/2017

In one document, the Department banned discussing Nelson Mandela's belief in forgiveness because using the words 'blacks' and 'whites' might 'draw unwanted attention to students within the class'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. All
AJ, if you want to use the terms evidance instead of experience; logic and reason instead of philosophy, so be it. It comes out to the same conclusion. When evidance doesn't match up our understanding, we change our logic and rational to account for evidance. That's the point I'm making that logic has to fit evidance, not the other way around. Making evidance (even weak evidance) hold more weight then logic and reasoning. Logic and rational are a form philosophy. Evidence and experience both rely on our 5 senses, so they are also of the same mold. Weak evidence can correct strong logic.

Moving on...
________________________

2nd point. My experiences with prayer.

One thing you keep repeating is that is there is any other explanation to an answered prayer, then it is a more reasonable explanation. However, the experiences I gave for your benefit hold a wide enough range to not be easily dismissed by just one explanation. The more explanations you have to give the less reasonable they are. This by Occam's Razor's principle should be enough. However Occam's Razor should not be the final word for what is reasonable or not. There are many very complex and complicated elements in our world and our lives. Even to take a simple explanation can become complex when put into practice. But the more explanations you need to explain away an experience, the less likely those explanations have merit. As for the experiences themselves I gave you two figurings. One is that to judge mine, you have to first judge me. If I am rational and sensible, then there is no reason to doubt what I account to have happened. (No reason outside of connivence. That you don't want to believe them). The other is since you don't know me you have no reason to trust what I say.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 1 September 2017 12:53:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
3rd point. Theological issues.

When trying to raise doubt in my faith you've turned to theological paradoxes. The problem with these is that even if you find a theological issue to try to disprove God, if you know God exists because of your experience then the theological issue is a moot point, and likely just a large misunderstanding. Sound logic is only sound if it has enough information to not be misinformed. You challenged me to reconcile those theological issues. I assume you did not think there could be rational to counter them. But as said before, even though these are my findings, what difference do they make? They don't change the reality we live in. Right or wrong our world is still the same. But to offer you a reconciliation to your challenges, I did that.

For your reference. Prayer is not useless. God answers prayer. If we do not pray how will God answer them? And since God wants us to pray (as well as have a relationship with Him) He will allow us to pray before answering the prayer in the way He has already decided. Indeed God may place us in difficult times to remove us from sin, or to lean closer to Him. Sometimes we are placed in difficult times so that we do pray. These are again my figurings but they do justice against your criticisms as without needlessly tossing out experiences for argumentative logic.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 1 September 2017 12:58:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
4th point. Your discarding experiences because of evolutionary theories. (Yes there are splinter theories so I include them as a group.)

Evolution is not a reliable standard of thought to be able to dismiss your own experiences. If you do dismiss them over evolution then I have to question your experiences as a whole. The original element of evolution based on biological elements has it's merits, but there are also other explanations as well. Similarities between species (as opposed to similarities within a species) might exist due to having a similar environment. We all live on earth, and in that shared ecosystem our proteins and genes should hold similar foundations. Even to say that the genes of a banana and a man overlap quite a bit. Another explanation for evolutionary findings is the same explanation for doubting answered prayer. It was just coincidence. To say that evolution is solid enough to doubt your own experiences is to nose dive into a bad rational.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 1 September 2017 1:05:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
5th point. The bible as a solid foundation.

When traveling through life there are many many ideas out there that only distract us away from what's right or what is true. Some are lies, some are confusion, some are ill applied and misinformed ideas. To go through all it requires at least some kind of foundation to stand on. Or it will only be based on luck that you find the right ideas and are not swept away from haphazard negligence and unsafe ideas. A solid foundation for a house keeps it from falling apart. Solid and true framework allow the home to be built, and even to be expanded or remodeled if the home owner decides. Like an engineer's text book is a solid foundation for an engineer to hold already tested solid foundations, from there the engineer can text the waters of other ideas or measure their trustworthiness by the knowledge he already knows. There are many foundations that stabilize us. Some from studying and college, some from family and the wisdom of our parents and relatives, some from seeing things first hand and knowing things hands on (and hopefully learning from our mistakes).

The bible is a solid foundation because of it's own authorship (inspired by God) and by the wisdom held with in it. So those who listen to it and apply it to their lives are doing well to hold onto a solid foundation regardless of the excess of ideas and philosophies that exists throughout the world.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Friday, 1 September 2017 4:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//The bible is a solid foundation because of it's own authorship (inspired by God)//

Qbasic Christianity:

10 PRINT "We can believe everything we read in the Bible because it is written by god."
20 PRINT "We can be sure it is written by god because"
30 GOTO 10
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 1 September 2017 9:44:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Not_Now.Soon, to some degree.

<<When evidance doesn't match up our understanding, we change our logic and rational to account for evidance.>>

But how do you know that your experiences are indeed the signs of a god without applying logic and reasoning to them? (Answer: you can’t.) This is where things begin to get a little circular.

Let’s say, for example, that you have lost your keys, then you pray to Jesus that you find, and then immediately find them. That, by itself, is a fact: you lost your keys, you prayed, then you found them. Is that a fact, or is it evidence? Initially, it’s only a fact. It could also be evidence of something, but then it could also just be a random occurrence.

In such a scenario, there are three possibilities:

1. Mere co-incidence.
2. The the prayer gave you a moment’s pause to calm down, making your keys easier to find.
3. Jesus lives and answered your prayer (while allowing millions of children to starve, mind you).

Why should we assume 3 when 1 and 2 were so much more reasonable?

Now, let’s say that this seems to happen consistently. Here are the four possibilities, as I see it:

1. Mere co-incidence.
2. There is no pattern and you are employing confirmation bias by only remembering the occasions where you DID find your keys straight after.
3. That prayer gives you a moment’s pause to calm down, so you are more likely to find your keys.
4. Jesus lives and is answering your your prayers (and, again, while allowing millions of children to starve).

Your experiences are evidence for something, but how do you know what that is until you apply logic and reasoning to them?

<<That's the point I'm making that logic has to fit evidance, not the other way around.>>

It goes both ways. And, yes, that’s circular, but it’s a circularity that we unfortunately cannot escape.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 2 September 2017 8:48:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy