The early settlers of Canada brought with them the religious feuding of Ireland leading to a divide between the majority Protestants and incoming minority Catholics. Like hockey players seething in the penalty box, the two sects were segregated into independent religious schools. This was prior to even the writing of the Canadian constitution and forming of the country itself, and thereby it was written with the allotment for this school system.
That system persists to this day, having survived a supreme court decision upholding the right of government funds biasedly towards a religious sect or sects, despite the updated Canadian rights as formulated in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So obviously it is legally permitted.
Canada is fortunate in its current religious climate. While boasting similar religiosity demographics as the United States, with ~70-80% Christian and 10-20% non-religious, it's much more of a pacified faith than what is seen south of the border. There is a war in the US, fought not with guns but with legislature and propaganda with science education and minority rights at risk. This all with the establishment clause demanding freedom of and from religion right there in the Constitution preventing favourable treatment towards Christianity or any other religion.
The situation in Canada with regard to religious schools is not in violation of our legal rights, but that should not be the end of it. While I would prefer it, I am not calling for the suspension of government funds to these schools (yet). What is needed--however needless as it may seem right now--is a constitutional amendment providing freedom of and from religion and the separation of church and state--while we still can.
The consitutional freedoms in the United States constitution is the only thing holding their school systems together right now. While Canada's are doing relatively fine, the constitutional rights aren't meant for the easy times; they're meant for the worst of times. We have the opportunity in the time of peace and tolerance to properly protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
The multimedia lobbyists are already pounding at Canada's door, leading to a fight for our rights with regard to digital media; let's close the door on the religious lobby that could well follow.
Recently Spotted:
SupremeAC (8m)
The word god is used to illustrate a religious construct. I don't care what you call it, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Odin; they all follow the pattern I mentioned prior, and that gives it definement. Rejecting the word doesn't eliminate the concept.
So then fine, it's not atheist, it's aYahwehist, aAllahist, aVishnuist, and aOdinist. That's just a lot of extra words to say the same thing.
If something defies natural laws than we humans have not observed it correctly. There are already many laws that only work in an certain domain and outside that domain it does not comply.
Basically we observe an input and output. We do not know what happens in between. That's called a blackbox. Now we figure out a formula, and that formula we call a natural law.
If something acts in defience of the natural laws, than it means that our natural laws are incorrect or not fully understood.
Like in the words of Arthur C. Clarke: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
This is exactly a problem with the definition of a deity. You say that the exploding head is a deity, while I say it is a being that is so highly evolved we see his power as supernatural.
I was trying to make an example that is so far gone from what is observably possible that it is beyond naturalistic expectation (mainly it was the being able to undo it that was more impressive).
What I mean is that under all conditions of natural existence, the matter and energy should not act in that way. If you have a perfect vacuum and suddenly a frog appears in it, that then grew into a lion in three minutes. Eventually there's a point that you destroyed everything we know about the world.
Regardless, yes, the generic claim of a god is not falsifiable; that makes the claim worth less than the label. That's why it's wrong. It doesn't invalidate a personal use of a word. If you're in the United States and someone asks "Do you believ in God?" you can make a pretty good estimate as to what they mean.
First we had Newtons idea of gravity, which was basically Empty space with objects in it. Than Einstein came and threw a whrench inta that, by saying the empty space is not empty. It is curved in 4 dimension or something.
Now there is a theory called the Holographic universe that totally destroys all the fundamentels in Science, plus it will make your head explode trying to understand it!
And what you describe with the perfect vacuum, stranger stuff than had happened in Quantam Physics.
My believe system is simple. If it happens than it is natural, humans are there to observe what happens and try to explain it according to their views.
Now about America and their deity. Well the Cristian God has these 3 charecteristics.
-Omnipotent
-Omniscience
-Omnibenevolent
Well let's say that this is pure bullcrap. If he is so ifnitely good why is their evil in the world. Some would say that God gives us free will and will not force us to choose good
But he is omnipotent he is able to give us free will and a ability to always choose for good. Or the famous saying: " Can God create a rock so heavy even he cannot lift it?"
The concept of Christian God is contradictory and impossible. If you believe this you got to get your head checked.
The thing about Newtonian gravity is that we already knew that things fell down--that didn't change. And I'd also think it unfair to compare today's knowledge as relatively unreliable as five hundred years ago.
The theory of relativity, for example, was formulated after the slightest of inconsistencies in Newton's equation. It was revolutionary but didn't destroy everything we knew, it merely refined it. Breaking many laws and theories not slightly but entirely all at once I would arguably suggest is enough.
I don't think a virtual particle is stranger than fully grown oranisms materialising and morphing. C'mon, be fair here.
And the holographic principle appears to be a part of string "theory" (it doesn't really qualify as a theory, yet).
While I don't think any of your examples work, it doesn't really matter. It's a semantic argument, and thereby pointless. Call it what you will, most have a common understanding, however convoluted, of the word "god."
I have no problem with practical naturalism.
I am not saying that suddenly a apples will fall upwards, I mean it will change our understanding of things.
Einsteins theory explanation why things orbit is different than Newtons theory. I am not saying that suddenly the observed stuff are irrelevant.
Plus we recently discovered that the universe is accelerating rapidly. This means that there is a force that repels mass. An anit-gravity if you will.
So in a sense things are falling upwards, but only in a cosmic sense. But like you said this is semantics, but wait I am also now a practical naturalist?
Man first I discovered my believe system is Ignoticism and now it seems I am also a practical naturalist. Man and I thought I invented these things myself.
But do you agree with my assesment of the Christian God and not is not logical? And do you agree that for instance Greek Gods make more sense than the Christian one?
Naturalism is that nothing exists beyond the natural world. Practical naturalism is that for all intents and purposes, nothing exists beyond the natural world.
To have another thing you didn't invent, your assessment of the Christian interpretation of God is Epicurus' Problem of Evil.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
My assessment is that it's completely sound, but completely unnecessary. The problem of evil requires Omnipotence and Omnibenevolance. Omnipotence alone is self-defeating by definition:
Omnipotence
1. Nothing is impossible
2. Impossibility is impossible
Number 2 is an impossibility, therefore statement 1 is false. Problem of Evil is more poetic though
As for making more sense, it's a weird question, since I think "sense" is mostly binary, but the Greek gods at least aren't self-defeating (well, for what little I know. Honestly, I'm not well read on them). I can tell you I'd much rather have the existence of the Greek gods than the malevolant, vindictive, hateful, spiteful, meandering, biggoted, sexist, slave-trading, child-stoning monstrosity that is Yahweh.
Well the best gods are the Nordic ones Yoda, because they can be killed
And de Christian God changed over time in the Biblle too. And if you trace it back the christianity has different elements of various earlier religions too. That I find weird, most Christians are Atheist when it comes to the earlier religions, while believing there own.
Why only their own, why not the older one or the Spagetti monster? The answer is simple they are Christians becuase they are raised to be Christians.
Conclusion: people are dumb sheep!
P.S. how the fuck did we end up in this discussion anyways?
A great Dawkins quote also predates you,
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
All discussions on why someone is religious where the person is willing to admit logical errors leads to one of two results:
1 - It's faith
2 - It was a personal experience
And as we demonstrated earlier, it had better be one hell of a personal experience to attribute it to the supernatural.