Bible Verse, (not cuts) draws ire of Lawmakers

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by rmm0484, Mar 20, 2014.

Loading...
  1. rmm0484

    rmm0484 Member

  2. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    I think the title is worded improperly. Increasingly, the ideal of religious freedom has been contrarily interpreted to mean that religion can only be expressed in the comfort of your own bathroom- lest any of your non-religious neighbors accidentally peak through your window and get offended. And yes, I do think that that is a bigger issue than budget cuts and its a scary proposition that educated individuals think otherwise.
     
  3. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Lot's going on at the old Air Force Academy.

    Air Force Academy Sanctions 'Ask an Atheist' Days

    "The atheist group behind "Ask an Atheist" days at the Air Force Academy is not violating any rules and will be allowed to maintain display tables and offer information to whoever wants it, academy officials announced Wednesday."

    Regarding the story mentioned above:

    One cadet's decision to write a Bible verse on a whiteboard outside his room on campus led to a complaint that ended with the verse being erased. Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson said the issue was a "gray area" and that both parties believed Air Force policy was violated. A female cadet's attempt to show the verse was improper by writing "there is no evidence that God ever existed" on the whiteboard outside her room led to two senior cadets forcibly holding her back while they wiped the board clean"
     
  4. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    The election season is starting (now appearing in my local media) so the congress man is looking for votes from conservative Christians. Discussions of the DOD budget (especially individual programs) is not of interest to most voters.
     
  5. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Aside from the fact that what she wrote was false and willfully ignorant, I don't see why it should be a problem for her to write it.
     
  6. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't normally mention this, but I think it's necessary to say up front: I believe in God. For 40-odd years I didn't -- but I do now. Not important why - at least here.

    That said, I don't see any reason to say the statement was ignorant, wilfully or otherwise. It's false to some, but not to her. I can't see how expressing an atheist belief is a sign of ignorance. Faith or lack of it has nothing to do with ignorance - or freedom therefrom. There have been some pretty darned famous intellectuals who were non-believers. And some who weren't famous or intellectual - and still aren't. Take me. I don't believe I got one bit smarter, or less ignorant, when I first believed, at around 55 years of age. That wasn't part of the miracle. :smile:

    I don't agree with her statement, but ignorant? That's judgmental, to say the least. However, as Maniac himself agreed, she has a right to express it. And Maniac has a right to express his feelings - and I have my right, to disagree with the "wilful" and "ignorant" parts.

    Ain't that wunnerful? :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2014
  7. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    duplicate - sorry J.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 21, 2014
  8. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    There is a difference between saying "I am not convinced that there exists a God." and "There is no evidence for the existence of God." The second one is a sweeping dismissal and therefore a begging-the-question fallacy (on top of being an immature jab at theists- outright accusing them of believing in something without evidence, which is a tried-and-true method of shutting down any type of rational discussion on the matter.). It's as silly and baffling as a fundamentalist preacher saying that the reason you should believe in God is because you will go to HELL if you don't!!! :dunno:

    To further illustrate the distinction and why I consider her statements to be ignorant and/or intellectually dishonest, compare these similar phrases.

    Ancient Flat Earther: "There is no evidence that the earth is round!" VS "The round earth theory has yet to be empirically validated."

    Maniac Craniac: "There is no evidence that homeopathy works!" VS "None of the many dozen studies on homeopathy show that its treatments are effective."

    Johnie Cochran: "There is no evidence that my client killed Sally the Camel!" VS "The evidence presented by the prosecution fails to show that my client had opportunity to kill Sally the Camel."

    There is ALWAYS evidence. Even evidence against innocent defendants and evidence for fictional leprechauns. The question isn't whether or not there is evidence- the questions are 1) whether or not our available collection of evidence is sufficient to draw a conclusion with confidence and 2) if so, whether or not a logically valid conclusion can be drawn from the available evidence.

    I used to be an agnostic due mostly to #1. Even as an unbeliever, I hated the condescending and arrogantly dismissive language that other unbelievers used towards believers. Especially since it is usually the unbelievers who have the phrases "logic" "facts" "science" "reason" and "evidence" prerecorded on their Yak Baks, like simply saying them out loud is enough to make an intelligent argument.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2014
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This implies cutting the budget and scrapping aircraft are bad things. They could also be interpreted as good things.
     
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Perhaps the man-handling of the cadet is more important than protecting someone's cherished myths.

    The AFA is a well-known seminary, and has been since the 1980s.
     
  11. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    I see your point(s) Maniac and why you feel as you do. On the spiritual belief front, the only ones who bother me at all are the "silly, baffling..." Hellfire preachers you mentioned. The rest -- meh, I can't get too excited, either pro or con. They're all gonna say what they're gonna say -- and I have this annoying tendency to stick my head in the sand. :smile:

    Johann
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2014
  12. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Ah, the fallacy of question-begging epithet... no one does it quite so often nor as seamlessly as you, Rich. My favorite myth, by the way, is the belief that condescension and abrasiveness correlate with factual accuracy. In fact, it has been disproven- BY SCIENCE!!!! Dunning-Kruger Effect

    (Note that I generally do not support citing Wikipedia- I just happen to particularly enjoy its current wording in the opening description of this one topic.)

    You can imagine that the cadet was manhandled. Another reader may imagine that the cadet went on a violent tirade and needed to be restrained in order to ensure the safety of others.

    Yeah, or that. The article doesn't give so many details about that incident. What we do know, so far as we can trust the accuracy of the article, is that a few words written on some white boards that were minding their own business, not hurting anybody, when the world around them went completely mad.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2014
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Well, let's ask someone who posts here and has experience training people to become Air Force officers. Oh, okay. I'll do it. Other than to protect one's personal safety, there is no excuse for anyone, cadet or officer, to put their hands on a cadet. If it's true and supported, they're going down.
     
  14. Petedude

    Petedude New Member

    Someone probably read the words aloud, and caused some microscopic alien fleet to launch a war against its microscopic enemies.

    (Yes, this thread makes me think of Douglas Adams and his cracks about things God did wrong, evolution, etc.)
     
  15. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    Are you saying it would OK if she said "There is no evidence for God up to this moment."
     
  16. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    That isn't much different than what she actually said. When you say there is "no evidence yet", as opposed to "I haven't seen any evidence yet" you DISMISS without CONSIDERATION. It lacks humility, since it assumes that if YOU have not seen evidence that the evidence doesn't exist, and sweepingly discounts the notion that OTHER PEOPLE may have important information or can demonstrate solid reasoning that YOU have not yet considered. Further, if you want to play that game under the guise of "skepticism", you empower yourself to be self-servingly selective (eg, biased) with what you are skeptical of and to what level. You can simply chose to say that there is evidence for [insert my belief here] and no evidence for [insert what I do not wish to believe] here. The philosophy of solipsism demonstrates that there is absolutely no limit to what you can rationalize as unproven by evidence.

    If you want me to illustrate what I am talking about, we can play a little game. How about you prove to me that you exist? There is no evidence that you do.
     
  17. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    A lack of evidence does not support a hypothesis. A lack of evidence refutes one.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    If the claim is that the phenomenon can only be experienced in non-evidentiary ways, fine. But it isn't science. And if someone says there is no evidence for the existence of God and, therefore, God does not exist, that should be refuted not with faith, but with counter-evidence. And if that person, again, says there is no God because there is no evidence of God, it has absolutely nothing to do with someone's faith in God.

    Believe what you want. But you should not expect those beliefs to be treated as fact by others simply because you believe. Respect is a two-way street.
     
  18. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Correct, but a strawman argument.

    False. Contradictory evidence refutes one.

    "Extraordinary" according to whose standard? The one who wants to dismiss a claim as lacking evidence before considering the evidence or being open to the idea that there may be evidence, extraordinary as required, that said one has yet to see? :baby:

    This game is too easy. The moment you wish to not believe in something, simply say that the evidence, no matter how strong nor voluminous nor consistent, is not "extraordinary". Then call yourself a skeptic and claim that everyone who thinks differently than you do does so on blind faith.

    [​IMG]

    Strawman argument.
    It's also not pepperoni pizza.

    Wait, NOW we need counter evidence?

    Right, but it is either logically invalid or a circular argument, depending on what you mean by "no evidence".

    I want to believe what is true. What is true is what is in question.

    Agreed. Red herring notwithstanding.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 23, 2014
  19. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    "This game is too easy."

    That about sums it up. Have fun.
     
  20. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    No thanks- I have plenty. Do save some for yourself.
     

Share This Page