Article "shut down the prayer"

[AUApostle 7,651]

48 minutes ago, 92AU said:

How petty god must be to condemn people to eternal torture because they don't believe in talking snakes, men living in the mouths of whales, talking bushes or zombies. Maybe the dude down below is better. He certainly has killed less people out old spite. 

Sin condemns and that condemnation, usually manifested in guilt, shame, loss of freedom, and loss of the power that you have through Christ Jesus separates us from God; God saves from condemnation. John 8:7-11, John 3:17, Romans 8:1.  Satan operates solely out of spite and out of wanting others to join him in his misery and in his eternal separation.

[aujeff11 6,243]

 

20 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Atheism is a religion

Indeed. 

[auburntiger1987 759]

I also don't see the peer pressure angle or forcing of players or staff to get in the circle or pray. As a Christian, i read a children's bible to my son every night i tuck him in, i teach him to pray, and i hope when he's old enough to go to school, he will continue to do so. I do not believe anyone should be forced to pray in a public school just like i do not want my child to be forced to practice any other religion in school.

Apparently to some I am a minority because I do stand for freedom of religion and believe  that all should have a right to practice their religion as long as it does not cause harm. If you are offended by that then I'm sorry for you. There is way too much division in this world already, lets truly coexist and stop being so easily offended by someone else's religious practices.

[jmcrosson 203]

16 hours ago, Auburn2Eugene said:

Yep. All of these people crying foul about the FFRF would sure have a different tune if it was about Islam. If it was "in Allah we trust" being put in schools or if it was mats being brought out and faced towards Mecca during school hours. They sure wouldn't be crying foul then.

No, as long as there was equality in the students/faculties ability to exercise their freedom, then it’s fine. I can disagree with your religious beliefs but defend your right to express them. The problem is that there is an environment of hostility with the expression of Christians that are exercising their freedoms to do such while there is no real equal criticism of anything else. 

In the example you provided, I have no problem with any of that because we are free to do this. Just so long as I can pray to my own God, read my Bible, whatever then we should all enjoy the freedoms that our country provides. 

Also, it’s annoying that environment is ignored. Like, people are coming to the south and bitching about the practice of Christianity in alabama? That’s like someone going to Utah and being angry at all of the pro-Mormon practice, or a Christian going to San Francisco and being offended that they encounter more practicing homosexuals. Guess what? Our weak society needs to grow up and realize that it’s ok to be offended and disagree. It’s not ok to inhibit one another’s rights and freedoms as American citizens. 

And that goes for every Christian, atheist, homosexual, black, white, Buddhist, etc. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, auburntiger1987 said:

I also don't see the peer pressure angle or forcing of players or staff to get in the circle or pray. As a Christian, i read a children's bible to my son every night i tuck him in, i teach him to pray, and i hope when he's old enough to go to school, he will continue to do so. I do not believe anyone should be forced to pray in a public school just like i do not want my child to be forced to practice any other religion in school.

Apparently to some I am a minority because I do stand for freedom of religion and believe  that all should have a right to practice their religion as long as it does not cause harm. If you are offended by that then I'm sorry for you. There is way too much division in this world already, lets truly coexist and stop being so easily offended by someone else's religious practices.

Here's where I could see the peer pressure angle.  What if it hurts you from a playing time perspective?  Does not participating in the team prayer mean you are then shunned?  Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that feeling is real.  I attended a church while in high school where everyone held hands to pray.  I found that awkward and refused to do so, but suffered the consequences of being a social outcast at the church (where I eventually left).  These things do happen and in a locker room situation, I would bet it's even harder for those who would like to not participate because of the "brotherhood" aspect of sports.

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, gr82be said:

That's the part non Christians don't get. Look, if someone doesn't choose Christianity they'll not only live with that decision but they will die with it too.  I do believe in the end they will warm up to it but it will be too late. 

What makes you think we don't "get it"?  And by "it", you presumably mean life after death?

But your probably right.  If I am on my deathbed with my family around me, they will be frantic to get me to profess my faith in Christ ...etc. 

And I'll most certainly do it, but only for their sake.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Your opinion is immaterial to whether people in position of power should be able to mock Christianity. But, okay. 

Apparently "people in power" can mock anyone they damn well please as long as it suits their purpose.  There's no "should be" to it.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, alexava said:

I don’t know what kind of peer pressure those who mentioned it are talking about. I am not religious. I don’t go to church. I don’t disbelieve anything but I’m just not drawn into it like most are. I have mentioned it before here several times but I envy you guys who get such comfort from Jesus. With all that said, I never have a problem during a gathering when others pray. I bow my head close my eyes  and mumble amen when it’s over. It’s not a problem for me and sometimes I get emotional about the words..., it hits home sometimes. but my point is I can’t say I would never be offended enough to opt out or try to stop others from prayer. But so far I have never had a problem with it as nobody really ever forced me to participate any more than bowing my head a few seconds.

I bet you just described a very large proportion of church goers in this country. 

[homersapien 11,373]

16 hours ago, AUGunsmith said:

The problem with Pascal's wager is that it doesn't answer the question of which God nor does it qualify for a non believer to get into the afterlife off the wager alone. One cannot will themselves into faith of the chosen religion, thus making their acceptance into the afterlife impossible. 

It is bad logic and a disservice to your supported religion to use the wageras an argument in favor of belief. 

Yeah, and then there's Catch 22:  If you try to spread your risk by wagering on other religions, the one you've already bet on kick you out as an apostate.       

[homersapien 11,373]

15 hours ago, triangletiger said:

What do you mean by the science of evolution?  Do you mean evolution in the Darwinian sense in which species mutate/evolve into different species through an unguided process of natural selection over vast periods of time?  If so, there are some challenges to that view from a scientific standpoint.

Yes.  And there are no serious challenges to the general theory. 

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, musicitytiger said:

You sound confused...

If you moved to a Polynesian island where the locals worshipped a 1980’s vcr, you could campaign for a change......or you could just let them do their thing.  Part of diversity is respecting others, if the local majority wants to worship the one true God.......show some respect.

I wasn't confused when I asked if you meant all Gods, but I sure am confused by this hypothetical.

To the Polynesians, their vcr is the "one true God", so I should respect that?   Well, I do.  Just like I respect your personal right to believe something else.

I don't really understand your point. 

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, gr82be said:

god might be petty, God isn't. 

I think you can disregard the capitalizing custom for the sake of this discussion.

For example, I use caps for "God" -  but not in the sense I am talking about your God - or someone else's - in particular.   It just seems grammatical to me - the Greek gods (for example) just doesn't look right for some reason.

Anyway, 92's point is a valid point - at least to a biblical literalist - caps or no.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

13 hours ago, TAYLORKEETON said:

Late to the party....but essentially I don’t  how anybody could not believe in nothing at all. Humans being on earth is a miracle. That this planet sustains life. That everything from the tilt of the earth to the distance from the sun. Everything is perfect. I consider myself a Christian but I’ve had my doubts too...but even when I did I still believed there must be a higher being, something that created everything. Something, somebody, had to start everything. I’m all for respecting each other’s beliefs. I have friends of all different religions. I wish instead of fighting over differences & beliefs/opinions, people could just accept/respect them. 

By "nothing" I presume you mean a Creator.

As far as humans / earth etc., it didn't require a miracle.  We understand every process that has produced the star systems and planets.  We understand how life developed on earth.

It's true the chances of life forming on a particular planet are infintesimal due to all of the variables you mentioned.  But, considering the number of planets and star systems in the universe there are undoubtedly many planets with the conditions that will support life. That's just a matter of statistics.

Now, none of that is proof there isn't a Creator, but we haven't reached the limits of our understanding of how the universe began and how it works. 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

Sorry friend, disagree. When someone specifically calls out Christians rights to pray of their own choosing, then they are attacking Christianity.

The most famous person to do this was Madelyn O'Hair.. She fought to have prayer taken out of public schools, and won that battle to some degree. She wound up murdered, stuffed in a barrel, and put in a pond by one of her most trusted employees.

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, gr82be said:

It's not about being frightened. It's about being enlightened about the supernatural things God does. 

Yeah, like condemning people to burn in hell for all eternity.

Now, if you are Muslim and are talking about the 40 virgins - or whatever - you would at least have a better argument. 

[homersapien 11,373]

6 hours ago, Swamp Eagle said:

As I said, if I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. No fear in that.

 

Yep, you've got your bases covered. 

(Assuming you picked the right religion. )

[triangletiger 1,599]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yes.  And there are no serious challenges to the general theory. 

Quote

A few months back I gave my top three criticisms of Darwinian evolution that I think should be taught in public schools. But the problems with Darwinian evolution run much deeper. Here are my top ten problems with biological and chemical evolution:

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);
2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);
3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);
4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;
5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);
6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);
7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);
8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);
9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);
10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

[Eagle Eye 7 2,535]

On 10/29/2018 at 3:40 PM, AUsince72 said:

This is a good point for those both for & against religion, in general, but specifically Christianity.

It is our mission, handed down directly by Jesus Christ Himself, called The Great Commission, to spread the word of the Gospel and to make effort to lead all to Christ.

With that said, you can't (and HE wouldn't expect you) to FORCE anyone to believe....or even listen.

As long as it's voluntary, there should be no problem.  If it's being "forced" in any way, then #1, it's not what HE would want and #2, it wouldn't be effective anyway.

Yes I agree but today there are many who claim to be believers in God who do nothing more than use God’s name to justify their egos. Remember Christ himself warned not of the devil but of wolves in sheep’s clothes who will call theirselves as God’s chosen ones , even goes on to say they will even call themselves by Christ own name. Let that sink in for a moment. Then take a look around and see if you can actually find those Christ referred too.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's where I could see the peer pressure angle.  What if it hurts you from a playing time perspective?  Does not participating in the team prayer mean you are then shunned?  Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that feeling is real.  I attended a church while in high school where everyone held hands to pray.  I found that awkward and refused to do so, but suffered the consequences of being a social outcast at the church (where I eventually left).  These things do happen and in a locker room situation, I would bet it's even harder for those who would like to not participate because of the "brotherhood" aspect of sports.

Yeah, if we want what bammer has, we need to stop handing out bibles and start administering steroids, checks to the family, etc. 

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

23 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

I agree with everything but apparently you haven’t been in a classroom recently? The mockery of Christians and Creationism by the professors was somewhat frequent for me almost a decade ago. 

Creationism in a classroom should be mocked in exactly the same way that Piltdown Man is mocked in archeology and blood letting is mocked in medical school.  Now if it's a class in theology, then fine. Have at it. But don't pretend there is any basis for it in any historical record or science fact. There isn't.

As for a professor's personal mockery of anyone's religion regardless of what that religion may be, that's a reflection on the professor and not  a good one.  I am not a theist of any kind but I do not begrudge people their faith. Not my place.

[AUsince72 11,084]

39 minutes ago, Eagle Eye 7 said:

Yes I agree but today there are many who claim to be believers in God who do nothing more than use God’s name to justify their egos. Remember Christ himself warned not of the devil but of wolves in sheep’s clothes who will call theirselves as God’s chosen ones , even goes on to say they will even call themselves by Christ own name. Let that sink in for a moment. Then take a look around and see if you can actually find those Christ referred too.

As a Christian, you have to trust your own belief in Christ, pray and ask for guidance.

Also, you have to own up to your own sins and humble yourself before the Lord.

The problem is, a true Christian can spot many phonies.  However, someone new in their faith or perhaps does not have faith but is interested in hearing The Word, will have trouble deciphering the righteous vs the deceivers. 

That is the battle.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, triangletiger said:

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/

That is all pure BS.

Please, you are embarrassing Auburn University by posting such crap on this website. Not only is it crap, it's old crap. 

Tell you what, don't ask me to refute the whole thing - just pick out point at a time and we'll parse it.  I've got the time.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

Here's the "Cliffs Notes version:

...... Again, Evolution News is nonsense from a scientific standpoint; it is an example of propaganda and little else.

 

https://www.quora.com/Do-sites-like-evolutionnews-org-really-contain-evidence-against-the-theory-of-evolution

 

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

That is all pure BS.

Please, you are embarrassing Auburn University by posting such crap on this website. Not only is it crap, it's old crap. 

Tell you what, don't ask me to refute the whole thing - just pick out point at a time and we'll parse it.  I've got the time.

 

Let’s just start with, “How can life be randomly generated from non-life?”

[triangletiger 1,599]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Here's the "Cliffs Notes version:

...... Again, Evolution News is nonsense from a scientific standpoint; it is an example of propaganda and little else.

 

https://www.quora.com/Do-sites-like-evolutionnews-org-really-contain-evidence-against-the-theory-of-evolution

 

I would say that that quora piece doesn’t really address the arguments made on evolution news.  It’s pretty much just an ad hominem attack of the site.