Missouri Passes Right-to-Pray Amendment

Missouri Passes Right-to-Pray Amendment

There are 148 comments on the abcnews.go.com story from Aug 21, 2012, titled Missouri Passes Right-to-Pray Amendment. In it, abcnews.go.com reports that:

Reiterating a protected right under the U.S. Constitution, on Tuesday Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution reiterating individuals' right to pray publicly and in schools.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at abcnews.go.com.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#102 Aug 26, 2012
Ex nihilo, nihil fit is every bit as logical as it has ever been. You want to simply sweep it aside, claiming it is invalid and you base it on something you admit is nothing but an unproven idea. That my friend is a perfect description of blind faith.
No, once again, it *is* a proven idea. We have actual observations of the effects of particles being produced spontaneously out of a vacuum.
The same goes for Newton’s First Law of Motion.
Newton's first law is dead in this context. Heisenberg's principles and quantum mechanics show it is wrong. These are NOT speculative ideas. They are well verified science that is the foundation of much of modern technology.

An easy way to see it is wrong. A particle at rest has a perfectly well determined momentum (it is zero). By the uncertainty principle, the position of that particle must be completely undetermined. It must be evenly distributed over ALL of space. That is impossible in practice, so it is impossible for a particle to *stay* at rest in quantum mechanics. This happens even without an external force producing an acceleration.

And, again, I want to emphasize that this is NOT speculation. Unlike string theory, quantum mechanics is not speculation. It is well tested and is accurate.
guest

United States

#103 Aug 26, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
There is no proof of string theory. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. But there *are* demonstrations of both quantum mechanics and general relativity . These alone show that newton's laws are wrong. That blows your argument.
You said yourself that “Until there is a *lot* more evidence, I will not consider them to be proven.” That’s my point. There are unproven theories that you and others cling to while rejecting known, proven scientific law and foundational maxims of logic. Like I told you, I simply don’t have the requisite amount of faith required to abandon what I know to be true and join in holding to fantastical theories that you readily admit need a “lot” more evidence to even be considered proven.

You have yet to offer any evidence, not merely what appears so in observation, that a body at rest can propel itself into motion. Until you do that, you haven’t negated Newton’s First Law of Motion.
OK, the Casimir effect shows that virtual particles happen. These are produced spontaneously out of a vacuum and affect measured results. The vacuum fluctuations are also crucial for a good part of modern particle physics. That destroys your 'nihilo' part of the argument.
Casimir, like you, ASSUME spontaneous generation, it doesn’t offer any evidence to support it. It’s based on an observation. And as I pointed out to you ad nauseum, it is entirely possible that an unobserved cause exists. In fact, logic dictates the existence of such a cause.

Here you’re claiming Casimir negates ex nihilo, nihil fit, yet Casimir offers no evidence to prove spontaneous generation, it merely notes that is what appears to be occurring. You want to believe what your eyes see and abandon what your brain knows to be true. Again, I don’t have enough faith in my observations to join you in abandoning reason and logic.

You have yet to offer any evidence that matter and energy can generate themselves into existence. Until you do that, you haven’t negated ex nihilo, nihil fit.

We can continue ad infinitum, but I choose not to. I’ve said my peace, you’ve said yours. I’ll stick with what I know to be true and leave you to cling to what you openly admit are unproven ideas.

You’re welcome to have the last word.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#104 Aug 26, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You said yourself that “Until there is a *lot* more evidence, I will not consider them to be proven.” That’s my point. There are unproven theories that you and others cling to while rejecting known, proven scientific law and foundational maxims of logic. Like I told you, I simply don’t have the requisite amount of faith required to abandon what I know to be true and join in holding to fantastical theories that you readily admit need a “lot” more evidence to even be considered proven.
You have yet to offer any evidence, not merely what appears so in observation, that a body at rest can propel itself into motion. Until you do that, you haven’t negated Newton’s First Law of Motion.
<quoted text>
Casimir, like you, ASSUME spontaneous generation, it doesn’t offer any evidence to support it. It’s based on an observation. And as I pointed out to you ad nauseum, it is entirely possible that an unobserved cause exists. In fact, logic dictates the existence of such a cause.
Here you’re claiming Casimir negates ex nihilo, nihil fit, yet Casimir offers no evidence to prove spontaneous generation, it merely notes that is what appears to be occurring. You want to believe what your eyes see and abandon what your brain knows to be true. Again, I don’t have enough faith in my observations to join you in abandoning reason and logic.
You have yet to offer any evidence that matter and energy can generate themselves into existence. Until you do that, you haven’t negated ex nihilo, nihil fit.
We can continue ad infinitum, but I choose not to. I’ve said my peace, you’ve said yours. I’ll stick with what I know to be true and leave you to cling to what you openly admit are unproven ideas.
You’re welcome to have the last word.
So from what you said before, you are demanding proof, but when questioned about the origin of this creator you claim exists, you refuse to give any details. If you are making a positive claim that something must exist, that YOU must provide evidence that it is real, and does exist. You have failed miserably to do so.

Remember, YOU claim that there is a creator. Yet the only "proof" you seem to have is "I don't know how the universe started, so it must have been a creator". That fails on every scientific level. Again, science does NOT EVER, EVER, EVER, assume, or give any kind of credence to the supernatural. The default posision is that there is no god or creator. It is ALWAYS that there is no supernatural.

Take your magic theory back to church.
guest

United States

#106 Aug 27, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
So from what you said before, you are demanding proof, but when questioned about the origin of this creator you claim exists, you refuse to give any details. If you are making a positive claim that something must exist, that YOU must provide evidence that it is real, and does exist. You have failed miserably to do so.
All I have stated on this thread is that science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being. Your statement that I claimed the existence of an intelligent creator is nothing but a straw man of your own building.

The characteristics of that supernatural force or being are not germane to the discussion, and your continued attempts to interject them are nothing but a diversion.
Remember, YOU claim that there is a creator. Yet the only "proof" you seem to have is "I don't know how the universe started, so it must have been a creator".
Review my posts on this thread, and then quote any post where I stated a claim for the existence of a creator or where I stated that “I don’t know how the universe started, so it must have been a creator”. I’ve never claimed either.

Again, your claim is false and nothing but an obvious diversion from the topic under discussion.
The default posision is that there is no god or creator. It is ALWAYS that there is no supernatural.
I realize that is your apriori position. But as I’ve shown you (and which you’ve utterly failed to address much less overcome) science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#107 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
All I have stated on this thread is that science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.
Haha, please, we're smarter than that. If you want to lie about science you're going to have to try harder.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#108 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
All I have stated on this thread is that science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being. Your statement that I claimed the existence of an intelligent creator is nothing but a straw man of your own building.
The characteristics of that supernatural force or being are not germane to the discussion, and your continued attempts to interject them are nothing but a diversion.
<quoted text>
Review my posts on this thread, and then quote any post where I stated a claim for the existence of a creator or where I stated that “I don’t know how the universe started, so it must have been a creator”. I’ve never claimed either.
Again, your claim is false and nothing but an obvious diversion from the topic under discussion.
<quoted text>
I realize that is your apriori position. But as I’ve shown you (and which you’ve utterly failed to address much less overcome) science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.
I am making your claim for a creator an issue. Since you claim(Incorrectly) that science and logic ditate that a creator exists, than it must follow that you have some real evidence for this. You do not. What you offer is junk. It has been refuted now a few times. Your response is "I don't want to believe real science". Too bad godbot, you don't get to make things up and have them accepted without question.

As for the rest of your post, it is dishonest evasion.

I am still waiting for your link from a credible scientific source that confirms your silly idea.

We here on the atheist thread are used to dealing with dishonest theists like you.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#109 Aug 27, 2012
At the beginning of the thread, guest wrote:
Science and logic unequivocally prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.

It's the atheist position that is wholly based on blind faith.
Atheism rejects assertions that any of the various deities actually exist. Therefore, in order for the second statement to flow logically from the first, that supernatural force has to be a deity that is consistent with atheist thoughts. It logically follows, then, that guest believes that such a deity created the universe. Since guest's arguments are nearly identical to others that have been presented by Christian fundamentalists and evangelists, it seems likely that he, too, writes from that point of view. His evasive style strongly resembles Nuggin's, as a matter of fact, and I suspect that they are one and the same.

Nuggin is not worth anyone's time. Neither is guest.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#110 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
To madscot and skeptic, here's the scientific and logical proof of the existence of a supernatural force or being:
I often hear the lame charge by atheists that theists throw logic and reasoning out the window, but it simply doesn’t wash. There exists sound scientific and logical proof that a supernatural force or being does exist.
The question really boils down this: Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being.
My position is that science and logic unequivocally prove the latter.
The consensus of science, based on cosmology and astrophysics, is that the universe is not itself eternal, did indeed have a beginning, and that all matter and energy at one time existed at one point. Then, there was a big bang that propelled it all into motion. And according to astronomers, it's all still moving today.
Newton's law of motion states that bodies at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. If the entirety of the universe's matter and energy existed at one point, any outside force would be outside of all matter and energy in the universe. Something outside all matter and energy in the universe is by definition supernatural. Therefore, according to science, a supernatural force was necessary to act upon the body of matter and energy causing the big bang.
Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates "ex nihilo nihil fit" which means out of nothing, nothing comes. IOW, things don't simply pop into existence from nothing, rather they are brought into existence by something. Therefore, if the universe did indeed have a beginning as science demands, then there is a logical necessity for a supernatural force or being (a something) to bring it into existence.
So, unless one “throws logic and reasoning out the window” as most atheists errantly claim theists do, he will come to the inescapable conclusion that a supernatural force or being exists.
"The question really boils down this: Either the universe itself has always existed (is itself eternal), or it was brought into existence by a supernatural power or being."
.
.
"Now, if we want to look at it logically as well, there is a maxim of logic that dictates "ex nihilo nihil fit" which means out of nothing, nothing comes."

See the contradiction and hypocrisy?

If it was bought into existance by "something".how did that "something" bring it into existance? In other words, if there was nothing, how would a "something" bring it into existance from nothing, and where did this "something" come from?

As I said before, you can't have it both ways. If you demand that the universe obey Newtons law, than your goofy theory must also obey Newtons law.

If you claim that your "something" is outside of Newtons laws, than the logical response is that the universe always was as well.

Sorry godbot, no proof of god as of yet. Your little creationist attempt fails here as always.
Oh, and I am still waiting for that link to a real scientific resource that confirms your joke of a theory. Oh, that's right, the science you claim to be using, NEVER EVER promotes supernatural mythology.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#111 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
You said yourself that “Until there is a *lot* more evidence, I will not consider them to be proven.” That’s my point. There are unproven theories that you and others cling to while rejecting known, proven scientific law and foundational maxims of logic.
1) String theory and multiverse theories are consistent with known scientific laws and with logic.

2) Quantum mechanics and general relativity *are* proven scientific theories and are enough to show your argument is invalid.
Like I told you, I simply don’t have the requisite amount of faith required to abandon what I know to be true and join in holding to fantastical theories that you readily admit need a “lot” more evidence to even be considered proven.
It is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of seeing what theories are consistent with what we already know. Yes, I take them provisionally, especially when asked which of many possibilities are true. But the foundational theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics are not speculative. It is only their extensions to string theory and multiverses that are speculative.

Furthermore, YOU are the one rejecting these extensions a priori before the evidence is in. The reason there is currently not enough evidence for these ideas is that the realm for testing them is beyond our current technology, although the LHC will have some things to say about string theory.
You have yet to offer any evidence, not merely what appears so in observation, that a body at rest can propel itself into motion. Until you do that, you haven’t negated Newton’s First Law of Motion.[QUOTE]
The gold standard is what happens in observation. That is where evidence comes from. Quantum mechanics shows it fails and general relativity shows it is irrelevant for your argument anyway.

[QUOTE]Casimir, like you, ASSUME spontaneous generation, it doesn’t offer any evidence to support it. It’s based on an observation.
OF COURSE it is based on observation! What other 'evidence' do you want? It is by observation that we know the properties of the universe.
And as I pointed out to you ad nauseum, it is entirely possible that an unobserved cause exists. In fact, logic dictates the existence of such a cause.
No, it does not. There are consistent, logical scientific theories that are not causal. Furthermore, these are the ones that actually explain what happens in this universe.
Here you’re claiming Casimir negates ex nihilo, nihil fit, yet Casimir offers no evidence to prove spontaneous generation, it merely notes that is what appears to be occurring. You want to believe what your eyes see and abandon what your brain knows to be true. Again, I don’t have enough faith in my observations to join you in abandoning reason and logic.
Then you go against the methods of science. In science, faith in observation is the central point. It is through observation that we know how the universe actually works as opposed to just playing with our preconceived notions of what 'must' be true.
You have yet to offer any evidence that matter and energy can generate themselves into existence. Until you do that, you haven’t negated ex nihilo, nihil fit.
What would you accept as evidence? Quantum mechanics?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#112 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
All I have stated on this thread is that science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.
And you are wrong. You are wrong because of your misunderstandings of both science and logic.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#113 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
I need something more than faith in someone’s ideas in order to abandon rational thought and move to your position.
Bingo.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#114 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
LOL. I’m not the one clinging to theories that allow “violations” of known, provable scientific laws.
You and only you are doing just that. Quantum indeterminacy and acausality are known, provable "laws." Ex nihilo is known to be wrong.

And the inapplicability of Newtonian physics as cosmological scales is a known "law."
guest wrote:
The reason it’s irrational and illogical to hold that particles can generate themselves into existence is ...
Whatever follows that is invalid. You might as well tell us why it's irrational and illogical that things should fall. I'd reject whatever the reason provided was, because things do fall, just as particles bootstrap themselves into existence. Incredulity is not a valid argument against empirical truths.
guest wrote:
Yet you have no way of knowing that you are observing all that is relevant, or even that your observations are wholly accurate.
The observations are not in dispute.

BTW, what would you do if I said that I was convinced, and that I needed more rigor and logic in my explanation of origins, and should reject any speculation. Would you tell me about Jesus?

I'd have to reject that. What could be more speculative than your god, and nothing less rigorous than faith.

If you convinced me that I needed a level of rigor that even science cannot attain, I'd be forced to go with the idea with the least speculation and the most empirical support. What do you think that would be?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#115 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
In your case, you see the sunrise and claim that it does so without cause because you have yet to discover the reason and cause.

Your bible teaches that it is because the sun is traveling over the flat surface of the earth, and then somehow getting over to the east at night to come up again. Your god was said to have stopped the sun in the sky. So, you have nothing to contribute to science.

Anything that you think that you know to contradict that cosmology came from rational skeptics, people who questioned dogma,authority and faith, and instead, observed and measured.

It was a great sin against faith, and also the birth of science. This cartoon summarizes the history of the relative contributions of dogma and skepticism.

[QUOTE who="guest"]This is my difficulty with your position. Here you openly admit that your view is based on “ideas”.
My difficulty is that you are suggesting that your view is not based on ideas, when obviously it is and must be, even if the idea is simply to obey your priests and to believe whatever you are told.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#116 Aug 27, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
The sine qua non of your style of apologetics is the way you attempt to control the conversation, and to keep it away from religion, even though your purpose for being here is to promote it.

You will try to do that not by defending your faith, or even admitting to it, but by attacking the foundations of the systems of thought that contradict it.

You will try very hard to avoid all questions about what you believe, and about faith. I expect you to frequently say something like, "I never said yadda yadda" without explicitly denying that you believe it, just to thwart such discussions.

How am I doing so far?
guest wrote:
All I have stated on this thread is that science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being. Your statement that I claimed the existence of an intelligent creator is nothing but a straw man of your own building.

The characteristics of that supernatural force or being are not germane to the discussion, and your continued attempts to interject them are nothing but a diversion.
Bingo. And this isn't the first bingo, either:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Do you deny Jesus? You have three tries before the cock crows. I would consider your failure to affirm your faith in Jesus following such a request the equivalent of a denial, would be considered an act of cowardice and a betrayal of the Holy Spirit.

But that's OK. You get forgiveness on demand, don't you? Just ask your god to forgive you for denying the Holy Spirit. It should be not problem for either of you.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#117 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
Review my posts on this thread, and then quote any post where I stated a claim for the existence of a creator or where I stated that “I don’t know how the universe started, so it must have been a creator”. I’ve never claimed either.
Read my post quoted above and you can quote where I predicted that you would do and say just this.
guest wrote:
Again, your claim is false and nothing but an obvious diversion from the topic under discussion.
Here's where you try to limit what can be discussed. The topic of the thread is "Missouri Passes Right-to-Pray Amendment." Any other discussion is at the discretion of the discussants, not just the Christian trying to control the flow of thought.

The topic under discussion for me is your behavior, and my ability to predict it.

How am I doing?
guest wrote:
I realize that is your apriori position. But as I’ve shown you (and which you’ve utterly failed to address much less overcome) science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.
And this is part of your tactic - to simply keep insisting that you have proven something to people that continue to disagree with you. That is like insisting that you have made people laugh when they aren't laughing, or that you complimented somebody that tells you that you insulted them. It's not your call to say that you proved anything to anyone, amused anyone, or complimented anyone, It's theirs.
Martin Williams

Atlanta, GA

#118 Aug 27, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
All I have stated on this thread is that science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being. Your statement that I claimed the existence of an intelligent creator is nothing but a straw man of your own building.
The characteristics of that supernatural force or being are not germane to the discussion, and your continued attempts to interject them are nothing but a diversion.
<quoted text>
Review my posts on this thread, and then quote any post where I stated a claim for the existence of a creator or where I stated that “I don’t know how the universe started, so it must have been a creator”. I’ve never claimed either.
Again, your claim is false and nothing but an obvious diversion from the topic under discussion.
<quoted text>
I realize that is your apriori position. But as I’ve shown you (and which you’ve utterly failed to address much less overcome) science and logic prove the existence of a supernatural force or being.
Told you! You are not really from Finland, are you?
guest

United States

#119 Aug 27, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
I am making your claim for a creator an issue.
I never made such a claim. As I said before, review my posts on this thread, and then quote any post where I stated a claim for the existence of a creator or where I stated that “I don’t know how the universe started, so it must have been a creator”.

That's your challenge. If you can't find where I've made a claim for a creator, and you continue to insist that I have even after I have corrected you, then you are intentionally lying.
As for the rest of your post, it is dishonest evasion.
I haven't been dishonest at all, but you sure have. You have no evidence to offer that disproves my position and are now resorting to prevarication. Pathetic.
guest

United States

#120 Aug 27, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
At the beginning of the thread, guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism rejects assertions that any of the various deities actually exist. Therefore, in order for the second statement to flow logically from the first, that supernatural force has to be a deity that is consistent with atheist thoughts.
Wrong. Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural being, deity or otherwise. Therefore, your premise is faulty as is the conclusions you draw from it.

All that is necessary to defeat atheism to to prove the existence of a supernatural force or being. Because you atheists are unable to overcome the simple proofs I put forth on this thread, you realize that the faith based nature of your view has been exposed and it pisses you off. In response you attack using red herrings, strawmen, and outright lies. All of that is nothing new, I've seen it many times before.

*yawn*
guest

United States

#121 Aug 27, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
If it was bought into existance by "something".how did that "something" bring it into existance? In other words, if there was nothing, how would a "something" bring it into existance from nothing, and where did this "something" come from?
Those are good questions, but they go much farther than the discussion at hand.

You may notice that a house has been recently painted and enter into a discussion about whether it painted itself or if someone painted it. If someone offers you proof that the house was painted by someone, musing about where the painter got the paint and brushes to do the job is far beyond the matter at hand. And such are your questions above, musing about the nature and characteristics of the supernatural force or being that logic demands brought the universe into existence.

If you indeed are truly interested in the topic, you might benefit from studying Plato's uncaused first cause. As for this thread, try to stay on point.
guest

United States

#122 Aug 27, 2012
Martin Williams wrote:
You are not really from Finland, are you?
Nope. As they say, American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min ChristineM 242,954
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 28 min Chimney1 19,739
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr Brian_G 6,159
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Thinking 9,152
Should atheists have the burden of proof? 17 hr Thinking 15
Atheists have morals too! Sun par five 3
News Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion Sun QUITTNER Jne 28 2015 53
More from around the web