For A, it is basically that; the effects are identical.
Of course, in real life A interacts with B and C and if they are sighted then the analogy breaks down (also vitamin D and photosynthesis). But for A, sitting in his room alone, becoming blind or no light in the universe are the same (with th provisos given).
Can I have my child have fun at church functions without the constant Sunday morning indoctrinations? Remember, the title was “What if we did something different on Sunday morning?”, not “What if we never attended any fun church functions?”.
Ají de Gallina, as the only theist still in the thread, could you possibly make an argument for or against the OP’s idea rather than yet another argument whether religion is better than/the same as atheism?
Sorry. I meant, I would not forbid them from attending a church function with their friends. In fact, they have on several occasions. My philosophy is that they should be exposed to religious views and have an understanding of them.
The title was also not “What if they all stopped being Christians and didn’t ever listen to what preachers say”.
also:
I guess they apparently can have fun at church functions without the constant Sunday morning indoctrinations.
Thanks for clarification, QS.
Of course they can. I don’t think the capacity for fun in church was ever in dispute in this conversation. What I think we’re discussing is whether or not the average person would benefit more from a lecture about the Big Bang Theory than a lecture from the Book of Genesis.
Personally, I would have gone with Cosmos, but to each his own. 
No - but I was just responding to the question/point Czarcasm had made. But to take my earlier question further: what would you say if your son wanted to go to actual church on Sunday with friends? I don’t imagine you’d forbid it, but would the discussion include:
You: Wouldn’t you rather have a lecture about the Big Bang Theory.
Him: Yeah?!
You: Umm, not the sitcom.
Him: 
eta:But my main argument FOR church going was a social network aspect, not the benefits of religious teaching.
You know, I almost went with “The Universe from Nothing”, but then I thought that’s pretty much how Genesis starts out. 
I would want to check out everything about this church, because I am older and wiser than my son, and I know that going to church consists of much more than friends getting together for some fun. In fact, I don’t understand why you keep trying to make this going to church business as some sort of fun adventure that we might be denying our children. What church are you referring to where children want to go to to have fun?
I don’t think we can easily dismiss that the “social network aspect” of regular church attendance has some pretty considerate strings attached.
And after the chain ends, it has no effect. Hence not “lasting”.
As mentioned, this is an act of faith, and not provable. “This will disappear without a trace, and therefore it has value” is not a statement that can be proven.
If one is going to assert that the null hypothesis is that there is no God because there is no evidence to prove He does, then isn’t the null hypothesis that moral statements have no meaning because they cannot be proven?
Regards,
Shodan
Sure. We pay taxes for our “secular social network” as well. We all have to pay taxes, but about 40% of Americans take the voluntary strings of church attendance.
Czarcasm, I am not trying to argue church is some sort of fun adventure. It was merely a little side conversation about if it was fun.
Only if you have trouble telling the difference between statements of fact and statements of personal opinion-null hypothesis doesn’t usually apply to the latter.
This sticky has only been up on the Great Debates forum for six years.
This is a Warning that you are out of line. (And coming out of left field to make a personal attack is beyond inappropriate, as well.)
[ /Moderating ]
Sure.
The OP was
It is so full of mistakes and fallacies it’s hard to see where to start.
-
I fail to see to either/or stance. After church we (my family) have lunch and it’s always dinosaurs or Hawking and the black hole thingy, history, epigenetics, elections, etc. We love our science (my kids are between 10 and 14). I’m sure most atheist families use the same time we had in church and talking about science watching TV, playing Wii or drinking beer.
-
Most people, religious or not, don’t want to learn about science, and except for a small number of Christians, the reason believer don’t study science is not depending on their religious beliefs. I’m all for more education for people, but the OP’s barking at the wrong tree.
-
Most Christians don’t tithe. At least in my parish we have basically open books. A large chunk of the money we give goes to poor people. The total non-priest/nun staff of the parish is less than 10 full time people. Special things, like when we build the temple, don’t come out of the general donations, it’s a different fund. The OP assumes the atheist/non-beleivers actually give 10% of their income to science (because it assumes that beleivers cdon’t) which, it’s not hard to guess, is completely wrong.
Lasting for someone’s lifetime is lasting. And like I said, things don’t have to be eternal to have value, something I expect you to agree with, if you value anything besides souls (a pet, for instance, a work of art, your job, etc).
No moral stance or value judgment can be proven.
I have no problem with this. There are a few atheists who insist they have no beliefs whatsoever, including some on this board, but I’m not one of them. I consider that stance nonsensical.
As Czarcasm pointed out, the null hypothesis applies to statements of fact. What’s the null hypothesis for “Shawshank Redemption is a great movie!”? There isn’t one.
Garsh! I’m guess I’m just a poor dumb atheist ‘cause I don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout that there “history”, “eppygeneticks” and “black hole” stuff-I’m too busy downing PBRs while watchin’ wrassling.
Son of a bitch, could you be any more condescending?
I’ve been reading the posts in this thread, and am not convinced you understand what was meant by ‘hijack’ in this context.
It means coming into a thread and attempting to change the subject to something you want to talk about.
For instance say I started a topic about the proper care and feeding of purebred huskies. Then someone came into the thread and started talking about how cats were far superior pets to dogs. Czarcasm merely did the equivalent of saying the debate about cats and dogs is an interesting one, but how about starting its own thread, since this thread is about caring for purebred huskies?
he wasn’t insulting you. I hope that helps.
Will you run away screaming hijack again?
I’ll humour you (you seem to like getting beaten).
I’ll start by saying I’m sorry my family’s awesomeness shames you.
I’ll continue by saying that reading comprehension is your friend.
Since I was responding to the OP, where the intent is “dumb churchgoers, do something useful!!”, I was saying that it was wrong because, a) some churchgoers did do sciencey stuff and b) most atheists didn’t do science on Sunday. Hence, the premise was wrong. I’ll furthermore stipulate that the number of believers and non-believers that spend Sunday figuring out adult stem cell research or GTU is about the same, and it is a very low percentage (maybe favouring atheists a bit)
Finally, my mom *was *a bitch; her ass put us all through college. We prefer, however, “stress relief professional”.
Atheist and hipster, didn’t see that one comin’.
You fail to notice the difference between hijack and “hijack”.
A hijack is what you aptly described.
A “hijack” is when the poster is losing and wants to get out and not lose face, claiming a hijack.
Hence, my stating of a “hijack”.