Should Religious based education be funded by government?

[Llama]

It's not 50/50 at all.

There is no reason to suppose a god exists.

There is no reason to suppose a god does not exist. Can you supply a reason why it is not 50-50?

It's not logical at all. Either fairies exist in some capacity or another, or they don't. The chance of either event is 50/50.

Correct.

 

[CptStern]

there is no actual evidence supporting the existence of god, therefore the percentage is 0 ..but in an either or case it's 50% : yes or no

 

[Llama]

There is no actual evidence supporting the unexistance (?) of god, therefore you are not correct.



Admittedly, the earlier post should have been logic rather than math. However, you have no evidence to show that a god does not exist. If you have, please show me

Also - Please note that I am an atheist myself.

 

[Warbie]

We need to take probability into consideration.

Dawkins goes on about this in The God Delusion:

'The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existance of something does not put existence and non-existence on an equal footing ... God's existence or non-existaece is a scietific fact about the universe, discoverable in principe if not in practise ... and even if God's existence is never proved or disporoved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50%'

In saying 'there is a 50 / 50 chance that a god (or gods), in some capacity, exists' suggests that both possibilities are equally likely.

 

[noQ]

Talking about probality of god's existence...makes my hangover even worse..

 

[The Monkey]

There is no actual evidence supporting the unexistance (?) of god, therefore you are not correct.

There's also no proof of the nonexistence of an alien called Bob who landed on Greenland two million years ago, performed a small dance number titled "I am gay today" infront of three confused polar bears, and then took off in a pink spacecraft with a picture of David Hasselhoff on it.

Yet few people would say that the odds of Bob existing is 50%.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

There's also no proof of the nonexistence of an alien called Bob who landed on Greenland two million years ago, performed a small dance number titled "I am gay today" infront of three confused polar bears, and then took off in a pink spacecraft with a picture of David Hasselhoff on it.

Yet few people would say that the odds of Bob existing is 50%.

Yet logically, it would have to be D:
But rationally, it wouldn't be.
PIME TARADOX.

 

[Solaris]

No logically it would not have to be.

Logically, if there is no reason to suppose something, then we do not suppose it.

We have zero evidence for a god, so we do not suppose it's existence.

 

[Absinthe]

We need to take probability into consideration.

Dawkins goes on about this in The God Delusion:

'The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existance of something does not put existence and non-existence on an equal footing ... God's existence or non-existaece is a scietific fact about the universe, discoverable in principe if not in practise ... and even if God's existence is never proved or disporoved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50%'

In saying 'there is a 50 / 50 chance that a god (or gods), in some capacity, exists' suggests that both possibilities are equally likely.

Bingo.

The moment you start thinking God has a fifty/fifty chance of existing, you have to start applying that to every other unproven claim, regardless of context or criteria. Suddenly, probability becomes meaningless and goes *poof*.

As it stands, the existence of a god is very improbable given our current understanding of the world, the universe, and all its laws wherein.

 

[kirovman]

The probability of God existing approaches 0%.

Why would the probability of God be 50:50? That's just an arbitrary convenience.

That Richard Dawkins book explains very well why it is not 50:50 at all.

 

[Absinthe]

Indeed. The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.

 

[Jintor]

*Brain freezes.*

 

[Kula Meenur]

Religious values should not be employed on those who are not yet mature to understand what they are being led into, period. Wasn't one of Trumans reforms: Freedom of religion?

 

[V-Man339]

I beleive that the children should be allowed to, but not forced to.
They should have special courses or something if the state would allow it, but not only should they not be forced upon the children, but they should hear all sides of the issue also.

 

[Spoonoop]

Bingo.

The moment you start thinking God has a fifty/fifty chance of existing, you have to start applying that to every other unproven claim, regardless of context or criteria. Suddenly, probability becomes meaningless and goes *poof*.

As it stands, the existence of a god is very improbable given our current understanding of the world, the universe, and all its laws wherein.

Meh... I still think there is a big difference between a higher being and a spaghetti monster...

 

[Stigmata]

Meh... I still think there is a big difference between a higher being and a spaghetti monster...

The only difference is how many people actually believe it. They're both equally wrong.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Meh... I still think there is a big difference between a higher being and a spaghetti monster...

Your sig made me laugh for a few seconds. Great job :thumbs:

 

[Jintor]

Meh... I still think there is a big difference between a higher being and a spaghetti monster...

Only superficially.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Meh... I still think there is a big difference between a higher being and a spaghetti monster...

Both have no evidence for their existance. Thats why its commonly used.

 

[Llama]

I dunno, my pasta last night was pretty lively...

and It seems logic has trounced me yet again. Kudos to those who made it happen, I retract my points on the matter

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Why should I, the taxpayer, pay for indoctrination?

You already do.

Yes, well I don't know how it is over where you live here, but theres not much enjoyment in paying the public school taxes when they do NOTHING with the money, no new books, no new desks, no remodelling, no hiring new teachers

I've seen several changes at my past schools. For example, new computers, new theater equipment, metal detectors, etc. Although the board of education is still unwilling to do what it absolutely needs, they'res still progress but I can understand places that don't have it like we do. Several of the schools I used to attend provided us literary work from the 1980's.

However, it might also be that the topics have not received any large enough changes to require a replacement textbook.

catholic schools spend an inordinate amount of time teaching fantasy ...if you're referring to private schools where academia takes precedent over religious teaching (like my catholic highschool)

Wait, what?

 

[PvtRyan]

Meh... I still think there is a big difference between a higher being and a spaghetti monster...

Not when the spaghetti monster is a higher being.