Bryan

Oh, really? On what topic is my mind made up regardless of the evidence? Be careful not to snare yourself. You just said "'you belong in hell.'" Is there no question that you were offering a religious opinion? Or might we wish to consider the context?

What about those whose culture does not agree with the single ethical framework? Our way or the highway? Good; at least you're aware of it.

Who (other than the Mormons) says God evolved? Anything may be called an entity within the standard definition of the term, BTW (minor point, but it may assist with effective communication). One odd thing in mathematics is that infinities are actually fairly simple. An omni-infinite god, IOW, might be far simpler than you suppose. Ditto for theology. Have you read (Richard) Swinburne or Plantinga? This guy apparently read up on it. http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/...ins/index1.html

Your report is inaccurate. I did not attribute the odd opinion of my debate opponent to utter stupidity. I asked him what could account for his opinion other than utter stupidity. Clearly, that leaves him the opportunity to provide an explanation that should exclude the proposition that he is utterly stupid (and I was open to the explanation, albeit skeptical that he would produce). How come you couldn't figure that out? If you look a bit more closely, you'll see that Matija answered questions for the site between 2002 and 2004. He graduated in 2004. That means he was a graduate student (or extremely recent graduate) when he answered the questions. So that means you'll apologize to me, right? I'm a knowledge generalist. I'm four years old and I'm considered above average in my preschool class. Fortunately, I'm more savvy about the way I treat scientific claims that the student Matija. And you. Heh. Just think about what a hypocrite you are right now. Let it sink in. Next you'll offer me something Einstein wrote when he was 3 years old and tell that it reflects the wisdom of the guy who came up with the theory of relativity. Not until you realize the implications of what you're saying, which is that any point of reference may be considered the center of the universe. It's just harder to come up with a parsimonious explanation depending on what point you choose. It should be a simple point, but you miss it in your zeal to pursue your anti-fundie vendetta (I guess). I don't remember forcing you to use the term "absolute" in making your claim. You want me to apologize for your poor choice of words? Experiments, as you should know by now, do not prove anything. Theories may be falsified via experimentation, but it is not the theory of a fixed Earth that is falsified in any of the experiments you cite. Rather, the experiments support (not prove) a theory contrary to the fixed Earth idea. That doesn't mean that a fixed Earth theory could not be developed and supported via experimentation. But it would be complicated, to say the least. I'm not wrong. You were wrong about Matija's qualifications in the material you cited, however. Okay, so when you say "absolute" you don't mean "absolute"--and I'm the one playing the word game. Gotcha. It's about time you taped up the mirrors in your house, isn't it?

Incorrect. I was leading you to examine your pool of knowledge (whatever the extent) to get you to figure out why legally the First Amendment applies beyond Congress. It's been discussed at some length in this forum by now, but you (AFAICT) have given no hint of possessing an understanding. Once you understand today's application of the First Amendment, you're logically forced to see that the First Amendment as you know it wasn't invented for decades after it was written. Plus you might figure out how it applies to government entities and not government employees specifically. If that wasn't your position, why brought up the "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" observation at all if you didn't think that fact will somehow help your argument that Paszkiewicz didn't violate the First Amendment. I was using the Socratic method to help you figure it out on your own. The going's been tough so far. Why not just say "Paszkiewicz is an individual and I don't believe the First Amendment applies to individuals" which you now claim is your position all along? Because if you figure it out on your own instead of me just telling you, the information sticks so much better. Sometimes there's the added bonus that you'll just go off on illogical conclusions based on the Socratic questioning, however ... Your attempt to explain away your backpaddling is rather specious. I've been quite consistent (no backpedaling), and you've been illogical. And what is even more bizarre is that after I explained to you how your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant at your request (by citing a Supreme Court case that applied First Amendment to a local school board, clearly not the Congress), you accused me of creating a straw man. This post contained the straw man that "In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=600# I directly answered a question you asked me and therefore I created a straw man? You were not answering my question (though it's quite possible you were sincerely trying). I asked what law Pasckiewicz broke. Paszkiewicz is an individual--a government employee and not a government entity (he'll never be named as the defendant in a lawsuit against the government--not as a teacher, anyway). Your answers addressed the strawman identified above, not my question. Do you understand, now? How illogical can you be? I can be very illogical if I try, I suppose. You haven't pinpointed any logical problems in what I have written, however. On the other hand, it is pretty obvious (if you've read the First Amendment) that it was written to apply to Congress. So ... more explanation is needed, right? No. lol Suit yourself. Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the Supreme Court's First Amendment rulings knows that the First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress. Right. But wouldn't you have to visit the Supreme Court's rulings to know that instead of just looking at the First Amendment? Could it be that Court rulings actually constitute the additional explanation about which you were asked????? And could the timing of those rulings be significant????? Paskiewicz is attacking the foundation on which this nation was founded!!!! Right? Or is he? For those people no explanation is needed. Apparent you didn't know that and asked me to explain it to you, which I did. That's a great theory, except you can find me posting about it before we had this conversation. Or maybe I'm just an expert computer hacker and I altered the time-stamps to make it look that way. I'll leave you to come up with your own conclusion. But then you accused me of creating a straw man because I explained the First Amendment to you at your request. What kind of illogic is that? To answer your question, that's your illogic. I identified your straw man (see URL above again) early on. This is also from that post (you speaking): "Many posters have posted links to Supreme Court cases that show clearly how misguided your interpretation of the First Amendment is." You're not just answering the question. You're supposing that my position is that government entities other than Congress are not bound by the First Amendment. That's a straw man. There's nothing you can say, no excuse you can make that will get you off the hook for that. And yet you deny and accuse in an apparent effort to obscure your error. Does [the First Amendment] look even just a little bit to you as though it was written to apply to the congress? So, given that it looks like it was written to apply specifically to Congress (you don't disagree with that, do you?), isn't it reasonable to ask for more explanation (which is what I did)? Strange, but thanks for answering with apparent honesty. You have to make up your mind. There are only 2 possible cases. Either you thought the First Amendment applied only to Congress, or you knew that it doesn't. Here's me, from the same post you've been mining for quotations: "The key mistake in your argument is the bald assertion that Paszkiewicz is an 'authority figure' in the government. This is a fallacy of equivocation, I think. Paszkiewicz probably has zero administrative authority, which is the key to involvement in a case like this. The school board in which Paszkiewicz teaches is the probable responsible entity." And, right near the end, this: "The reality is that First Amendment violations occur through the actions of government entities, not mere government employees." It doesn't sound to you as though my mind had been made up even then? Yet you're asking me to make up my mind? There's illogic for you. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ic=2898&st=600# Post #604, just in case the URL isn't dependable. If you thought the First Amendment applied only to Congress, then you lied when you said "I have never taken that position. Ever." True, but the "if" condition is not met. If you knew that the First Amendment doesn't apply only to Congress, then why brought up the "Paskiewicz isn't Congress" non-issue and asked me to explain? I mean you already knew that was an non-issue right? It's an issue because people are accusing Pasckiewicz of breaking the law. Even you (IIRC) seem to think that Paszkiewicz is likely to be named in a lawsuit over the First Amendment issue. That's not going to happen. Paul LaClair has affirmed it after investigating his legal options. In either case, you are wrong to say that I created a straw man since I addressed the "First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress" issue at your request. No, I'm not. You established the straw man early on and you returned to it periodically during your various screeds. Was this you? "Let me know when they change their mind about the "only apply to Congress" fantasy." It seemed appropriate, since you have steadfastly refused to relinquish it. Even in the current post, you're trying to assert that I probably believed that state and local government entities are not bound by the First Amendment, and you have not ever answered (coherently) the question as to what law keeps Paszkiewicz from speaking whatever he wishes to his class. The truth is it isn't a law. It's employment policy. You're caught dead to rights, with quotations of you presenting what you supposed to be my view (despite my expressions to the contrary) followed by your attempt to attack the position that I do not hold. That's a classic straw man. And that's the fallacy of the false dilemma, FWIW. I'm not wrong to accuse you of constructing a straw man because you constructed a straw man. You falsely presented my views and proceeded to attack your construct. I haven't lied at all, and you are irresponsible to suggest otherwise. Where you stick to why the First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress, you're not constructing a straw man. When you invent a position for me and attack that position (as you seem to have done, based on the evidence), you are constructing a straw man. <cutting out some rehash> Just because no First Amendment cases have dealt with individual so far doesn't mean that First Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. If no First Amendment cases so far have dealt with the Treasury Department does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Treasury Department? Your so called "evidence" is nothing but a confusion of correlation with causation. Using your argument of an evolving constitution, we could say that the First Amendment applies to everything everywhere--it's just waiting on the right combination of Supreme Court justices to declare it so. You've got no law on your side right now. It's useless to appeal to the future where free-form interpretation could make the Constitution literally mean anything. You could be breaking the First Amendment right now, if we used that kind of logic. [W]hen you countered my claim by saying ""Paszkiewicz isn't Congress," any reasonable person can see that in your mind "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" is an important factor in deciding whether he violated the First Amendment (otherwise why use it as your counterpoint?) And the only way you can believe "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" is a factor is if you believe the First Amendment applies to Congress only. 1) I was not countering your claim with that comment. Look at the context. I simply found your explanation wanting (which is why I suggested that more explanation was needed--but you disagreed, apparently having no difficulty believing that the First Amendment means whatever the courts say it means--almost like you're in church!). 2) There's your false dilemma again. I'll humor you and give you a recap: your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant. It's relevant to the coherence of your explanation. The only opinions of the First Amendment that matter is the Supreme Court's, not yours. And with that belief, you make the Supreme Court effectively sovereign over the United States of America. Congress can write their laws, but the SCOTUS can make them mean anything, regardless of what Congress wants. Thanks for protecting the Constitution. And I cited a Supreme Court case to prove to you that according to the Supreme Court, First Amendment does not just apply to Congress only. Hence your "Paszkiewicz isn't Congress" line is irrelevant. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you need pictures? You have pictures? Can you find any example of an individual being sued in parallel to this case? Still not bothered, eh? Again, you're confusing correlation with causation.[/b] No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that you have no legal precedent for your claim--which should concern you if you're depending on the courts' interpretations of the First Amendment. I'll ask you again: if no First Amendment cases so far have dealt with the Treasury Department does that mean the First Amendment doesn't apply to the Treasury Department? Has the Treasury Department ever been named as a responsible government party in a lawsuit? I don't think so, but it has a leadership structure that would be responsible for cases involving constitutionality of action, analogous to a local school board. It's the principle that matters. Any other pathetic arguments you wish to present before you sign off? The Jim Crow laws were nullified by an act of Congress, not by the courts. Wrong again. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's Browder v. Gayle ruling that the Alabama bus segregation statue was unconsitutional. You really need to clear up all your misunderstandings of the laws. Apparently you're unaware that the higher courts laid much of the foundation for Jim Crow laws through the establishment of precedent. Jim Crow laws were far more than busing in Alabama. The so-called Jim Crow segregation laws gained significant impetus from U. S. Supreme Court rulings in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The 1875 law stipulated: "That all persons ... shall be entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement." http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm But it's not even debatable in the Supreme Court, is it? Feh. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the decisive move against Jim Crow laws. I guess everyone in the legal system was pretty much racists in your book? Huh? Why would I think so when I'm the one who pointed out to you that it was the courts that struck down racist segregation laws. When they weren't upholding them, you mean? My opinion is backed up by overwhelming evidence and logic. Whatever you say.

Because I was wrapping up a post that deal with Guest's explanation of a law that Paskiewicz broke, in order to refute the notion that Paskiewicz himself was breaking the law. Paskiewicz isn't free to say whatever he wants because his employer can't permit it and stay clear of First Amendment problems, not because Paskiewicz is breaking the law thereby. Do you see the distinction? Of course, but the position that I have not taken is that Paskiewicz is allowed to say anything he wants in class, not that Paskiewicz is himself breaking the law by what he says. "... your complaint about the "fundies" is that they try to say that Paskiewicz can say what he wants to establish religion since the First Amendment is written to apply to Congress." I've been consistent on this. The limitations on Paskiewicz's speech are employee guidelines, not the law (though indirectly since the school board looks to avoid First Amendment lawsuits). Incorrect. He might believe that the government is corporately responsible for breaking the First Amendment but not an individual who is not in a position to determine corporate policy. Your logic broke down when you supposed that Paskiewicz could only not break the law if the First Amendment only applied to Congress. I do. If you claim that I did on the basis of your specious logic, then you are irresponsible.

Hi, Matthew. Thanks for responding to my question--though I can't make much sense of what Bones wrote when I insert your definition into his post where he used "faith." I'm sincerely sorry that you've been threatened, and I have nothing against you whatever. I support your right to complain about Mr. Paskiewicz, but on the other hand I think his actions are defensible (at least what I know of them). I realize it may not be apparent right away how I would defend his actions. There has been plenty of social conditioning that permeates church/state issues in this country. Hopefully the discussion you've helped prompt will advance the issue in a truly helpful way (even if it's not necessarily the way you or I would like to see it turn out). Cheers.

I guess you're resistant to learning the role of parsimony in science. That's too bad. Give me an example where I insulted somebody, then. Since you're implying that it's common, you should have no difficulty providing an unequivocal example. Incorrect (oops--did that insult you?). Graduate students answering questions? Its a bit on the conversational side, such that the student doesn't point out that there is no such thing as a sure scientific proof. No "absolute proof," as you put it. "In addition, the article includes discussion of other incorrect ideas such as the view that evidence leads to sure knowledge, that science and its methods provide absolute proof, and that science is not a creative endeavor." http://amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html This "absolute proof" suffers the same problem. Nice try, though.

You think you have evidence. Fine. Because you're prejudiced? You're abandoning the context. I was responding to something written by "Guest" (I suppose it could be you): Guest: When the so-called teacher preached to a roomful of captive students inside a public school classroom funded by the government during work hours paid for by the government, he violated the First Amendment. Bryan: How, exactly? The First Amendment bars Congress from passing laws that restrict the practice of religion, or from passing laws that would establish a religion. If Paszkiewicz isn't Congress (he isn't, AFAICT), then it seems that your analysis needs a bit of explanation. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but your complaint about the "fundies" is that they try to say that Paskiewicz can say what he wants to establish religion since the First Amendment is written to apply to Congress. Am I right? I have never taken that position. Ever. On the other hand, it is pretty obvious (if you've read the First Amendment) that it was written to apply to Congress. So ... more explanation is needed, right? And that's what I suggested in my post. And there you go leaping to conclusions and inaccurately suggesting that I lied. You've read the First Amendment, right? Here it is (again, if you've seen it before): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Does it look even just a little bit to you as though it was written to apply to the congress? So, given that it looks like it was written to apply specifically to Congress (you don't disagree with that, do you?), isn't it reasonable to ask for more explanation (which is what I did)? Strange, but thanks for answering with apparent honesty. Huh? Read it again. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that you are not completely stupid, thus I asked for the rationale you use to ignore the distinction I mentioned above other than innate stupidity. If you have no reason for ignoring the distinction, of course, there is reason to suspect that you may be stupid. But I don't know that without you providing the information. You're off to a great start, what with the straw man fallacy & all. So, you disagree that the First Amendment was written to apply to Congress? What accounts for the odd sentence construction, then (I made the quotation of the First Amendment really big so that you could easily refer to it)? Not at all--but I don't think that's the criterion that the courts use. They look to the apparatus of the government, so the school board is going to be about the lowest level of organization that will be sued over First Amendment issues. That's why you'll have a tough time finding so much as one example where an individual is sued over a separation clause claim where it's not also a political office. But you'll stick with the view that the really important thing to the law is who makes the decision to do the "preaching"? In spite of the evidence? Since I asked for more explanation for your claim that Paskiewicz (who is not Congress) violated the First Amendment (which is a restriction on Congress) therefore I believe that the First Amendment can only apply to Congress? That's illogical of you, friend. Just because you produced the straw man out of sincere belief that I advocated that view, you are not off the hook for having constructed a straw man. I did. So--where's the explanation I asked of you? If you just assume my beliefs based on my question (combined with the inarguable fact that the First Amendment applies explicitly to Congress), you are committing a logical fallacy (a non sequitur). To the last question: Mu. Paszkiewicz is an authority figure, but he is not an authority figure in terms of setting government policy, even at the local level. He is only responsible for implementing policy. He has no culpability in terms of a separation of state claim. We'll see. Can you find any example of an individual being sued in parallel to this case? Still not bothered, eh? The Jim Crow laws were nullified by an act of Congress, not by the courts. I guess everyone in the legal system was pretty much racists in your book? Okay! Your mind's made up!

A. V. Blom, on Dec 27 2006, 08:23 PM, wrote: Without the use of anything even resembling reading comprehension. And you can do more than baldly assert it? Because it is. You're familiar with the fallacy of circular reasoning, other than via the exercise of same? Something painfully obvious to anyone not either a ) a complete moron or b ) you And you can do more than baldly assert it? Am I supposed to take you seriously if you never argue for your assertions? Do you figure that if the majority of readers agree with your position already that you can just get away with firing off insults instead of dealing with the issues reasonably? Actually, I do. It's just that those arguments don't manage to penetrate the thick skull that seems to shelter your pea-sized brain. Again, substituting insult for dealing with the issues (still no argument). Boring. Mainly because, under most circumstances, atheists do not need to bear a burden of proof...a fact religious nutcases such as yourself seem profoundly unable to grasp. What would you write if you didn't have insults to lean on? There wouldn't be much left. Atheists make plenty of claims that require support, even if I were to allow that they don't need to do so "under most circumstances." Which I could take to mean that atheists spend less than half their time expressing themselves, I suppose. Apparently without reading it at all. And you base your assessment on what evidence? None? Nothing you're able to express in print, anyway? Your insults will henceforth be clipped (unless you come up with something creative, which I would preserve out of respect) since they do not contribute anything significant to the discussion. His faith, as he clearly stated at the beginning of the text you quoted. His faith-based assumption, in that case, was that something tends to come from something. You don't subscribe to that faith? Furthermore, he links this gross strawman to the existence of a deity, which is clearly proselytizing. If he uses the example of God to illustrate something coming from something rather than something coming from nothing in the context of cosmology, therefore he is trying to get others to accept his religious faith? That simply doesn't follow. There's no apparent logical connection. If such was not scientifically established, and then used as an argument to follow a certain religion over others rather than preserving religious neutrality, yes. Keep to the parallel. It would read like this: Teacher: I never said that my assumption isn't based on faith. Remember I confessed that at the beginning. My point is it takes more faith that something came from something, than a vacuum fluctuation created something out of nothing. You understand? Moreover, what you completely ignore is that Paskiewicz DOES here attempt to make others believe in his religious beliefs. Is it a religious belief to suppose that the universe was created out of nothing by a vacuum fluctuation? Why or why not? Cosmology is a relevant classroom topic. There are only a handful of basic models, including varieties of steady-state hypothesis, spontaneous generation from nothing, or generation from a timeless something (either intelligent or unintelligent). My point here is that any discussion of cosmological models where one model is favored by the instructor amounts to proselytizing if you stretch the idea of religion that far. Religious beliefs are taught ubiquitously at that level, and applying church/state separation at that level is an inappropriate gag on discussion and inquiry. In other words, he DOES induce them to follow his religion. This is a practice properly termed...*cue drumroll* proselytizing! Let's suppose that I teach that the big bang theory rests on creating the universe from Nothing, and that this flavor of the theory is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe. Am I proselytizing? Why or why not? While the Big Bang is a non-repeatable event, astronomical observation is not, and as such it can be considered an impromptu 'experiment' upon which to test the Big Bang theory. Big Bang theory DOES follow Popperian criteria. How about before Planck time? "In this case, I'd say that Paszkiewicz is being a bit dogmatic (were I in his shoes I'd frame the comparison in terms of probability rather than as an absolute it can't happen without intelligence. And you would only have showcased your lack of knowledge. Please do try, though...I feel needful of a laugh. By taking the argument that lack of intelligence is no bar to ornate complexity, I should be able to provide a stunningly elegant proof even if I were completely lacking in intelligence. Your response makes no sense at all. Yes, proselytization. It is the attempt to elevate at least certain types of religion over nonreligion, How do you define "religion" such that there is a thing called "nonreligion"? (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) Does teaching science in class predispose students to having certain beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe? and as such is the attempt to induce one to faith. Faith requires a definition for purposes of this discussion. I'll let you recommend one. I[f] one wants to engage in sophistry, one could argue that it is not his OWN faith specifically, but that can be argued from the rest of its context, such as the 'dinosaurs on Noah's Ark' bit. You mean where a student asked Paskiewicz if there were dinosaurs on the ark? Go ahead and try to argue from the rest of the context. It'd be nice to see you go beyond merely asserting things again. I should note that you're engaging in the fallacy of poisoning the well, rather than arguing the issue on its merits. In a philosophy class, maybe, if the context were proper and understood. Stating a religious belief as a fact anywhere else does fall under the definition of proselytizing. Your statement requires a definition of "religious belief" to rescue it from useless ambiguity. Interesting that you'd allow proselytizing in philosophy class, if I can take your statement at its apparent face value. It would still be proselytizing of theism/deism above nonreligion. So does reading the Declaration of Independence, what with the concept of unalienable rights relating directly to a purpose for the universe. Stop moving the goalposts. You wanted to know whether or not it was 'proselytizing'. You don't want the goalposts closer, eh? Suit yourself. Your sophist tactics are starting to get annoying. Your annoyance seems to stem from projection. If that has no science to back it up, and is as such, religion: yes. It would be the establishment of atheistic/agnostic thought above those of the religious. Why would having science to back it up make a difference? Science itself rests on faith-based presuppositions. Have you just created a loophole for a science-based religion? It's really past time for your definition of religion. You seem to define it (following your statement above) as beliefs that have no scientific backing. What's the source for that definition? Did you make it up? It seems to be an entirely accurate statement. lol Based on what evidence? You don't know anybody who expects something to come from something who doesn't rely on the Bible for the idea? And how, exactly, does that preclude proselytizing? I didn't stop there. And is the point the advancement of a religion? On the contrary, the argument is that evolution, as a proposition invoking unintelligent origins (which isn't necessarily the way responsible scientists or teachers teach it, but it gets presented that way frequently) is a faith-based proposition. Dragging down science in the process, and grossly misrepresenting evolution. How is science dragged down in the process? Do you deny, for example, the broad uniformitarian assumptions of science? As for evolution, it has many meanings in popular language. So long as Paszkiewicz uses the term consistently in accord with an understood meaning, there is no misrepresentation by his appropriation of that meaning. Except that he explicitly states that Judeo-Christian faith apparently is 'true'. Where? Faith-based presuppositions? Now that's an amusing claim. I would love to see you back that up. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248...B2-B&size=LARGE http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/phil2/node3.html http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~ssimon/documents/Paradigms.pdf Because, given the evidence, it's the only definition that makes any sense. Science deals with the observable world. Anything unobservable -such as, say, God- is out of its scope entirely. It looks like you just argued in a vicious circle. The evidence forces us to use a metaphysically naturalistic epistemology? How did we ever discover a metaphysically naturalistic epistemology minus the the epistemology itself? See the third of the links not far above. No, it's an establishment of science. We'll come back to that one after you've defined "religion." Both are present, but unlike you, most people can actually read and understand what they're reading. You're a bit...handicapped, shall we say, in the latter. I know I said I'd delete your insults except where they seemed creative (and I'll keep the bar pretty low, granting you the benefit of the doubt), but this one is worth keeping since it illustrates the tendency to answer an issue with insult instead of content. And copying it was too difficult for you. Visiting the linked material was too difficult for you? Otherwise, why complain? The point YOU are missing is that Paskiewicz is still attempting to justify and promote a faith. Is that the definition of "proselytize" you used earlier? It seems to have morphed. LaClair broached the problem of evil. Why is it proselytizing to relate the broad Christian understanding of the problem of evil? Has Christian doctrine suddenly disappeared from history? Whether or not this is 'in a theological framework' is irrelevant. Is that your way of saying that you don't care about the context because your mind is already made up? It seems obvious. He is responding to what LeClaire said...that does not preclude him from proselytizing at the same time. And if we have no proof that he is not proselytizing we must conclude that he is proselytizing? Note that instead of arguing (a real argument, not just assertion) that Paskiewicz is proselytizing, you seem to be arguing that it has not been proven that he was not proselytizing. I guess since you're an atheist, you (usually) don't need to shoulder any burden of proof. Look out if you're a defendant facing an atheist D.A.. And he is AGAIN representing his faith as fact ('reading history' rather than 'reading the Bible'). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "That was pretty accurate, when you read history, the flesh being beaten off of his back." It seems to me that he's just saying that the Gibson movie provides a historically accurate account of a crucifixion. You are aware that Jesus was not the only person crucified, right? There are ancient (historical) documents that refer to the methods of crucifixion, and it is extraordinarily likely that Paskiewicz was referring to those with his comment about history. http://www.cuadp.org/news/KRTWire02-23-2004.htm Review the comments you made, Blum. In each case where the issue of proselytization comes up, you assert that it is proselytization without argument except in a couple of instances where you simply flub up the argument (as with the "history" comment here at the end).

No, he's not; or at least he's in good company. "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born." http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IU...ang_Primer.html They probably don't know what they're talking about at Berkeley, though. Notice how you've got no evidence supporting you position again, Paul? Pff. You're taking his statement out of context again, if you're referring to Sept. 14. Might be wrong about what? About how Christianity in general explains the problem of evil?

Great idea, Paul. Skip right over the dispute in favor of the personal attack. "Guest" doesn't understand science, which is borne out by the fact that he thinks that an experiment can "absolutely prove" something (such as an objective reference point). That's not how science works So, let me get this straight. Scientists all over the world are applying evolutionary theory in medicine and other fields with practical results in everyday life, therefore an objective reference point exists? If that's not the logic, then it looks like you've produced a whopper of a red herring. I'm the one producing the arguments and the evidential support. You and "Guest" have stood pat with bald assertions.

I read it more thoroughly than you did, since I knew what was on page 7 while you did not. That should be obvious to anybody. And how did I find the relevant information on page 7? Maybe I should start insulting you. That seems to be the mode of communication you favor. And you're still without evidence beyond your assertions (unless we count the insults). I never took your arguments to be directed at Paul, and what I wrote above gives no indication that your arguments were directed at Paul. So, what's wrong with your reading comprehension, that you thought otherwise? And this was you? "And as long as we're talking about whether the sun is revolving around the earth or not, we are talking about non-uniform motion since acceleration is involved. In this case, science can (and has) absolutely prove by experiments that the earth is moving and is not stationary." So, cite the experiment already. And who told you that scientific experiments can "absolutely prove" something? Huh. I thought I quoted more than that. What happened to the "all reference frames are equivalent" part? So cite the experiment already, then. And it would be impossible to do? Or was it falsified? You're way too smart to do that. So cite the experiment that objectively establishes the movement of the Earth regardless the validity of any reference point according the general relativity. I was showing how Occam's razor served to distinguish between the geocentric view and the heliocentric view. Remember? You alluded to the fact yourself, I think, by noting that the geocentric system (as it was) was not elaborated to account for some observations. That touches on parsimony.

Just one question. How do you define "faith"? Okay, one more question. Is "blind faith" a redundancy, IYO?

Did I maintain at any point that since Paskiewicz did not commit any crime that therefore no breach of the Constitution had occurred? Of course not. I treat them as separate issues. Those who say that Paskiewicz broke the law and should be punished for it are simply wrong, so I'm trying to correct their error. I doubt there's anything actionable (other than a strained tort) unless the school officials (other than Paszkiewicz) somehow endorse the supposedly unconstitutional behavior. That said, I think your side tends to take Paskiewicz's comments out of context (the New York Times did a nice job of that, also). It occurs to me that Paskiewicz does have the potential for a libel suit against those who have declared him guilty in advance of his trial (the trial that won't take place over a law he didn't break!)... False and malicious speech isn't protected, is it?

Calybos, on Dec 27 2006, 09:11 PM, wrote: Bryan, you're really getting desperate now. You must be desperate if you're calling me desperate. There's no doubt that what the teacher did was unconstitutional, so now you're claiming that this is not "technically" breaking the law... because he hasn't been charged or arrested? He never will be charged, arrested, or named as a defendant as regards the charge of unconstitutionality. That's some weak stuff, there; it's like quibbling over "whether I specifically said the word 'imminent' when I was lying to the public." Well, at least it's way stronger than your argument so far. Review what you wrote if you don't believe me (called me "desperate", asserted again that the actions were unconstitutional, reflected a muddled understanding of my argument, then called my argument weak). The Lemon test, as I've already referred you to, is regularly cited and referenced in school/religion cases. Is that supposed to be news to me? In addition, there's Edwards v. Aguillard, which set the precedent specifically about denying science in favor of promoting religious views in public schools, and Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, which examined the improper religious proselytizing of a single, individual teacher during class time. The Kitzmiller case dealt with a school district policy mandating the availability of Intelligent Design curricula ("Of Pandas and People"). It's not impossible that a teacher took the stand so that the lawyers could try to establish a pattern of religious purpose in the policy, but there's no way the teacher was a defendant in the case. Nice try, no cigar. Then there's last year's William Lee v. York County School Board (Virginia), in which the solitary actions of an individual teacher were censured for violating the required religious-neutrality position of government... in other words, exactly what we're talking about here. The teacher was the plaintiff in that case. Has Paskiewicz sued anyone? I think you mean the teacher was censored (not censured) by having some posters removed from his workspace. There is no serious comparison, here. That case reaffirmed the employer's right to protect itself from establishment clause problems. The teacher would never have been the defendant in a First Amendment case. The judge pointed out, for about the thousandth time, that as government employees and "agents of government," public schoolteachers do NOT have unbridled free-speech rights during the school day. I've never made that argument, so why would you bother making that statement? (Read about it at http://blog.au.org/2006/03/misguided_missi.html) "Because the pictures were obviously used for teaching, they could be ultimately controlled by high school administrators, Smith ruled in Lee v. York County School Division Smith cited a 4th Circuit decision that concluded the school, 'not the teacher,' has the right to "fix the curriculum." Not very similar to the present case at all, is it? From the Department of Education: I think you're mistaken about the source of that document. It appears to have been privately developed and signed by a variety of not-for-profit organizations. Really, what's left for you to argue? Same thing as before: People who say that Paszkiewicz broke the law and should therefore pay the consequences are presenting the situation inaccurately. I suppose they think it sounds more sensational to put it that way. Paszkiewicz broke no law, however. He cannot be guilty of violating the First Amendment. Only the administrators over him can be guilty of that (corporately), depending on their actions in overseeing the staff. A teacher IS an agent of government and IS required to abide by the restrictions on governmental speech and action spelled out in the First Amendment. Right, but the requirements for teachers are not a legal requirement. They are employment guidelines designed to keep corporate entities compliant with the Constitution. If there were a FA law that applied to teachers directly then you would see teachers standing trial for their misdeeds. That doesn't happen. The only defense you've offered is a smokescreen, claiming that violating the constitution is somehow not "lawbreaking per se" simply because the clear wrongdoing of the teacher hasn't resulted in charges and jail time. It never results in charges or jail time (under U.S. law, anyway). Not even a citation. You call that a smokescreen? Which doesn't change the fact that he's clearly in the wrong and has clearly violated the Constitution. Whether he actually gets sued, or even charged in court, is irrelevant. That's a separate argument, indeed. I guarantee he won't be charged, however. Any suit brought by the LaClairs (or anyone else in this case) will name the school board as the defendant.

Glen Tarr, on Dec 27 2006, 02:05 PM, wrote: Setting aside for the moment the broad assumption that the Bible was devinely inspired and inerrant, don’t you think the assumption that a given tract was meant to be taken literally is a fairly broad one? That's a safely non-specific question. I don't know. I primarily see it from seriously fundamentalist Christians and the least sophisticated skeptics. I'm not sure how each stacks up compared to the population in general. You asked a question (Is it science to prefer the simpler explanation) preceded by a premise (Copernicus’ idea is unfalsifiable). Neither Paul nor I agreed with your premise (though for different reasons), so we each addressed that first. I failed to detect either answer to the question regarding Ockham's razor as science. You answered a different question, AFAICT. That’s not being evasive, that’s just taking first things first. Since you asked again though, I do think it’s scientific to prefer the simpler of two sufficient and falsifiable explanations. I don’t consider “God did it” to be either sufficient (*How* did He do it?), or falsifiable. I'd still say you're fudging, since the more complex explanation hasn't been falsified. The principle of parsimony certainly has utility within the scientific method, but that's not the question. The question is whether is it science per se. As I said, demonstrating it depends on how it’s defined. I’d define it as the ability to construct and manipulate mental models for problem-solving. Since we can’t see inside another’s mental processes, we can’t conclusively demonstrate that anything in particular is intelligent, but based on behavior and known underlying mechanisms for that behavior we can often demonstrate it pretty clearly. (The Turing test, in effect--Is it science?) If something is demonstrating flexible and complex strategies to achieve a goal, and if it has a brain at least superficially similar to our own, chances are it’s demonstrating intelligence. There's no way to calculate those odds. The epistemic difficulty of determining self-awareness in others is a very tall order for science. It comes down to conferring the benefit of the doubt when a machine mimics human behavior, and for humans it's essentially an argument from analogy (He/she is like me in terms of X, therefore he/she is probably self-aware like me). I meant that religion can’t as yet explain how intelligence is produced, particularly in human brains. If you’d like to prove me wrong you have only to offer a (sufficient and falsifiable) explanation based on religion. In my experience, skeptics have only naturalistic explanations in mind when they ask for explanations. Are you different? “Should have” is a legal term meaning that a reasonable person in the same situation (same but for the differences between the reasonable person’s thought processes and Paszkeiwicz’s) would have known. The legal system presumes personal responsibility, otherwise there's little sense in offering punishment. That brings up the issue of personal responsibility given determinism. I see the compatibilist argument as very difficult to make. I've mentioned Clarence Darrow. Darrow made much of his fame by defending accused murderers. He defended them by claiming that they were causally determined to act as they did under the circumstances--and he established a remarkable record of success with that tactic (and he was quite proud of himself, allegedly, which seems a trifle odd if he was causally determined to use that defense). The 8th and 14th amendments restrict application of the death penalty to the most serious of criminal offences. This doesn’t qualify. Was your point about causal determinism that no one can be blamed for their actions since those actions could not have been otherwise? If so, my response is that often those actions could not have been otherwise because they were based on presumptions regarding consequences. The imposition of reasonable punishments can prevent such presumptions from developing in the future. Was that discovered through experimentation? How was the key variable isolated? If you listen to Dennett (as Paul recommended), wouldn't he tell you that the brain determines the thoughts in advance of the thinking? Doesn't that suggest to you the irrelevancy of conscious thought in determining action (consciousness just along for the ride!)? Is it right to punish somebody for what he cannot help doing just so that somebody else won't do the same thing in the future? Let's say that we've got a child in school with Tourette's syndrome. Every time he lets out a curse word, the teacher raps him on the knuckles with a ruler so that the other kids will see that cursing is not a rewarded behavior. Under the assumption that the punishment is reasonable (for the sake of argument), is this an acceptable paradigm? As for your question regarding metaphysics in science class: as far as I can tell there should be none. I strongly disagree with you. You can't have science at all without its metaphysical foundation, and students should be well aware of the metaphysical model that modern science insists upon in relation to competing models. To proceed otherwise is to indoctrinate students in metaphysical naturalism by default. This shouldn't be a controversial point, by the way. Philosophy of Science is a huge field ever since Karl Popper. PoS's muddle about in the metaphysics routinely. Science should not be exempt from having its presuppositions examined. Science class is for science. Metaphysics is beyond science – by definition. Metaphysics is also the foundation for science, by definition. To quickly illustrate: Science cannot confirm intelligence, but the goal of science is to increase knowledge. Science can't confirm the legitimacy of its own goals. It needs a metaphysical foundation. Teaching metaphysical naturalism is as out of place as teaching any other faith-based idea, and I don’t agree that it is typically done. It certainly wasn’t in my high school science classes. I mean to say that it is common; not necessarily most of the time. Teaching methodological naturalism without any teaching about metaphysics in general is a de facto indoctrination in metaphysical naturalism. I asked you to support your claim that high school classes teach metaphysical rather than methodological naturalism. Are you now admitting that it doesn’t, but claiming instead that methodological naturalism “indoctrinates” students in metaphysical naturalism? Glen, you're a decent debater, but don't put claims into my mouth for me. I'm way too experienced to fall for that garbage. I'd like to hope you did so accidentally. Here's what I said originally: "In practice the metaphysics get discussed in science class, but to the exclusion of everything that does not contribute to science (that is, metaphysical naturalism). Is that a proper education?" And you replied (bold emphasis added): "Metaphysical naturalism is the idea that everything is governed by natural laws and nothing can be beyond such laws. Methodological naturalism is the idea that science should proceed in its methods by assuming a phenomenon is produced by natural laws, unless there is evidence to the contrary. What makes you think high school science classes teach the former rather than the latter?" In short, I never made the claim you're ascribing to me. You employed the fallacy of the complex question (question containing dubious assumption that is affirmed by any direct answer). I suppose I should have called you on it from the first, but I thought I'd simply clarify (under the assumption that you weren't trying to be deliberately tricky). They teach the former by teaching the latter in an effective vacuum. If so how is this indoctrination accomplished specifically? See above. And if metaphysical naturalism is the underlying assumption of science, why are quantum events considered by mainstream scientists to have no natural causes? That's a great question. I often use (random) quantum particle formation as an example of the supernatural in my discussions with skeptics. It tends to make their eyes cross. The usual response is to claim that science simply hasn't found the answer yet. I wouldn't be at all surprise if a guest contributed such a comment to this thread. I think most likely scientists who are not directly involved in quantum physics and the like don't trouble themselves over the fly in the ointment represented by quantum particle formation. Some of the folks I've debated, IIRC, claim to be scientists, and they resist the idea that quantum particles form randomly without cause. 1) Someone might adopt the Golden Rule for either religious or philosophical reasons. Is there an important difference between philosophy and religion in terms of the establishment clause? Could we indoctrinate children into Stoicism in government schools? 2) I mentioned the Golden Rule because that seems to be the ethical system held (at least to some extent) by most Americans, so for those people the idea of equality under the law would have added importance. For the others, there is still the Constitution to consider. Also, I don’t think you can credibly argue that we are privileging certain people by treating everyone equally. Those who believe that everyone should not be treated equally are obviously under pressure to conform. Take a Hindu, for example. There's this Untouchable class, and this "treating everyone equally" stuff very obviously militates against his religious beliefs. Is that credible? The Golden Rule is a philosophical position that can be reached through either religious or philosophical precepts. See above. I doubt that philosophical positions are any less exempt from the establishment clause than religious ones. I think it does tend to underlie and inform many Amercan’s basic sense of right and wrong, but I also think it is summarized too inconsistently, and in it’s most common forms is not comprehensive enough, to serve as the government’s sole standard of justice. Also, laws may have to apply to situations that aren’t unethical under the Rule, such as when someone is fined for running a red light when there were no other cars on the road. Well, I was trying to drive at the notion that ethical systems are inherently religious (based on some type of faith commitment or metaphysical alignment), but you're not going there so far. Thanks, Glen--I enjoy debating a good opponent. Knock off the straw man stuff and you'll be a friend with whom I disagree.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=40035&st=600 Guest, on Dec 27 2006, 11:59 AM--and using some downright weird formatting--wrote: If you define "demanding appropriate punishment for a law breaker" as "attacks," then sure, the "attacks" on Paszkiewicz are okay. Just like "attacks" (using your definition) on a government employee caught taking bribes are ok. Huh. You're another one that thinks that an individual can violate the First Amendment. There's no statute against religious speech in class. Paszkiewicz cannot be sued except for a tort claim. He can only be punished for violating the conditions of his employment. No explanation is needed if you were more knowledegable about the law. You're sure about that? Christofundies love to fixate on the wording "Congress". In their fantasy world any non-Congress governmental entity can do whatever they want regarding religions as long as they're not passing laws. Well, if you knew me better (such as by reading some of my other posts), you'd realize that isn't what I believe (it might involve ignoring Strife's inaccurate posts as to that). We now continue with the regularly scheduled straw man/digression (whichever it turns out to be) ... What they fail to realize is that we live in reality and in the real world it's not up to them to decide what the First Amendment mean. It's the court's job. And the court has spoken loud and clear here. Well, they might change their mind, since it's their job to determine the meaning. And they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Right? They can even make it mean exactly what I want them to make it mean, potentially. Just let me know if my analysis doesn't accord with your take on "reality." Many posters have posted links to Supreme Court cases that show clearly how misguided your interpretation of the First Amendment is. It is, IYO, irrelevant that the cases uniformly deal with governments instead of individuals? Why would you fail to take note of that distinction, other than utter stupidity? Oh, that's right--you're working under the false impression that I believe that government below the federal level is tied under the First Amendment owing to the court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. My understanding of the First Amendment, FWIW, is that individuals cannot be legally culpable for breaking it. My argument in the context of this thread was in response to the assertion that Paskiewicz had obviously violated a specific law, that being the First Amendment. There is not violation of the First Amendment other than touching the actions of the government. It'd be nice if you'd actually spent the time to make sure you know what you're talking about. But I'll humor you again: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 It'd be even nicer if you were dealing with my argument instead of a straw man. Should I point out that the religious teachers who visited the the public schools to teach religion were not named as defendants in the suit? For some reason, McCollum sued the school board (the government entity). Go figure. I only mention that because it has to do with my actual argument rather than your lovely little straw man. The Supreme Court found that "a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups and to spread the faith" violated First Amendment's Establishment Clause. See, no Congress is needed to cause a violation of the First Amendment. I guess that means the straw man is now flat on the ground. Are you going to jump up and down on him, now? If the school authorities use tax-established and tax-supported public school system to spread the faith, it's a violation of the law. Is Paszkiewicz a school authority figure? Yes. No, he's not. He'd never be named in suit, as was the Champaign County Board of Education. Did he use tax-established and tax-supported public school system to try to spread his faith? Yes. It looks that way if you take his statements out of context. Otherwise, it's debatable (though skeptics aren't much for affirmative argumentation, so it doesn't get argued from that side very often). Then he broke the law. Plain and simple. No more "but he isn't the Congress" nonsense. The key mistake in your argument is the bald assertion that Paszkiewicz is an "authority figure" in the government. This is a fallacy of equivocation, I think. Paszkiewicz probably has zero administrative authority, which is the key to involvement in a case like this. The school board in which Paszkiewicz teaches is the probable responsible entity. Is that explanation simple enough for you? Your argument was delightfully simple and fatally flawed. I hope my explanation is clear enough for you to readily agree. It is an "alleged" lawbreaking in the sense that it hasn't been formally argued and proven in Court. Just like Jim Crow laws were "allegedly" unconstitutional before that was decided by the Supreme Court. But it is obvious to any reasonal persons (that means no christofundies or racists) that Paszkiewicz's behavior was unconstituional just like Jim Crow laws were. There's that favorite skeptical tactic, again. No argument needed, since it's "obvious." Huh? Don't we jail lawbreakers? Or at least fine them? Probation? Something? Soecifically, the law that Paskiewicz broke is the First Amendment. People have answered you many many times. But if you insist on living in the christofundie fantasy world and refuse to join reality, nobody can help you. In truth, wouldn't I actually have to join your fantasy world in which Paszkiewicz is the type of government authority who might be a defendant in a First Amendment lawsuit? The reality is that First Amendment violations occur through the actions of government entities, not mere government employees. Your own citation of the McCollum case helps illustrate that point.

Again, the preview gives me little hope that the quotation tags are working properly. Apologies in advance if the appearance is bedraggled. And you judge people. He wasn't revered. The comment was sarcastic, intended to highlight the fact that his assertions had no evidential support. Are you a priest of His order, then? Okay, at least you're consistent (or trying to appear to be). I don't expect a teacher to completely remove his deeply-help opinions in check where they touch on the curriculum. Not even in the case of a philosophy professor whose favorite subject is to argue against the existence of god with students. Let's mark that down: Students shall be in school roughly seven hours out of the day, during which time they are not to have informed discussion of highly controversial religious ideas. Religious ideas can still be treated on Saturday or Sunday, assuming that the student has finished his secular homework. Religion must not be important if it's off-limits so much of the time. You agree? I have yet to see the evidence in support of the claim that evidence is a word rarely seen in religion. It's not your religion, is it? He only asked one question, AFAICT. If you're talking about my responses in general, the first two were entirely non-sarcastic. Try to be more accurate, please. I do so regularly. Where an argument is made, however, it can be enough to point out the flaws in the other person's argument without bothering to advance a contrary conclusion. An atheist, for example, could criticize an argument against the existence of god. I've already noted how skeptics tend to abhor bearing the burden of proof, however. I'll count you among those. This article? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion...i=5070&emc=eta1 I've already read that one. I've looked at the reporting that's been done on the story. You have no room to criticize me, there. Newspapers are not that reliable, for what it's worth. Quotations are commonly taken out of context, and arithmetic is routinely botched. Correct. You get a gold star for paying attention. You would not be charged with breaking the First Amendment if you did that. You'd be charged with assault with a deadly weapon or the like. The First Amendment would have no bearing on your trial. The First Amendment, you mean? Are you suggesting that I committed a logical fallacy? Which one (and where)? Or are you demanding that I stop identifying the logical fallacies of others? If the latter, why should I? Why not? Because you say so? It must be your religion, since you so hate to give evidence in support. Because we need a skeptical pantheon instead of just the other guy declaring the conclusion true by divine fiat? He said "no matter how ugly and eroded the bricks become" I reasoned that total erosion could take place, and following his logic the wall would still stand after it had completely eroded. Still, I didn't assume that I knew what he meant, so I phrased it as a question so that he could affirm or deny. Really? Explain how. We could use you as a case in point, under the assumption that your total lack of evidence means that you're religious.

Quote tags are looking dicey again ... apologies in advance if it looks like the preview after it's posted. Science is completely unable to address the supernatural (not that I think you could define "supernatural" coherently in the first place), so in what sense could it be valid if spoken from a scientific standpoint? Let's start with you giving me an example of a scientific treatment of the supernatural. That will get us to the nub of the problem sooner, I think. Some traditional religions have conceptions of the afterlife not unlike that of atheists. Would it be okay for the religions to teach their view of the afterlife if it was like that of an atheist? One tends to automatically wonder what evidence the atheist has for his assurance. It can't all be argumentum ad ignorantiam, can it? Let's say that a science teacher states that evolution has proceeded unintelligently to produce all life on the planet. It's in the context of teaching about evolution. Is that enough for you to go on? So, you can break the law even if there's no law to break? That seems a bit odd. You will explain? Incorrect. At worst, Paskiewicz's acts will make the government that hired him responsible depending on the way they handle the matter. Let's say they fired him after he (for the sake of argument) delivered a hellfire-and-brimstone sermon lifted from Jimmy Swaggart. What law was broken? Is there any government liability for a tort claim? It's true on days ending in "y". I'm completely serious. You can't just declare the teacher's actions unconstitutional by fiat. Assuming a lawsuit is filed, the courts will apply precedent to this case. Probably the Lemon test would be applied. It's not at all cut and dried that Paskiewicz ran afoul of the Lemon test. While you may have made up your mind already, the court will consider the context. Your analysis (such as it is) seems to take Paskiewicz's words out of context. I don't simply claim that he wasn't talking about a student or a group of students. I examine the evidence and use the context to determine the meaning of what was said. I've written down an analysis on this message board. From you, we're still hearing the rhetorical equivalent of "It's obvious!" Quite. Is that your counterargument? To ask me if I'm serious? From the context, he was obviously talking about cosmology broadly. IOW, he used "evolution" in referring to the whole ball of wax. Couldn't government atheists talk to one anther about dinosaurs on a boat without it counting as proselytizing? Absolutely, any of those things can be mentioned in school without proselytization taking place. Apparently your argument against amounts to the skeptical favorite. The appeal to incredulity (you can't believe the claim, therefore it isn't true). I'd have a great case (given the facts as I understand them), but the courts aren't exactly predictable. U.S. history is littered with a good many odd decisions. Sorry, I didn't realize you were so sensitive about being called "hypersensitive." True. Do you know what that reason is? It looks like you don't know the reason for church/state separation, judging from that comment.

I appreciate that in you, for what it's worth (whoever you are)! You can fall me a fundy if you like, and I think I'm addressing the issues. If you disagree, please point me to the issues you think remain unaddressed (PM recommended). Well, I think he's wise to caution you about drawing a conclusion from what you see as silence from your opposition on these discussion boards. I stumbled onto this issue as I visited an atheist website. I haven't seen any publicity for it at all from the Christian perspective (doesn't mean there isn't any, of course). Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Where's the strawman? Where's your best presentation of your argument, IYO (I'd like to have a look-see)? Hmmm. I didn't take it that he was necessarily linking the two in terms of explanatory causation. Clearly, it is possible that your arguments would not interest someone capable of answering them, isn't it? In short, since he didn't present it as the explanation for the apparently lack of response (but simply at potential explanation for the lack of response), you seem guilty of constructing a straw man version of his argument. Shall I go on from here to talk about how this proves that skeptics perpetually ... ? We can just argue instead of attacking one anther's group identification, if you like. I'm up for it. Well, you used a straw man argument against him. You want me to dwell on your tactics to attack you personally, or would you appreciate it if I'd just stay on the key points of the debate? Come to think of it, why aren't you sticking to the key points of the debate?

Bryan, you really seem stuck on this point, so here's some helpful info for you. Ah, more examples of the government being the culpable party rather than the individual. That really misses the point of what I wrote. Thanks! You're begging the question. What law does he break? He doesn't break any law, in fact. The government can fire him for not living up to his job responsibilities, but he'll never have a criminal record. He'll never have a criminal record because he didn't break any law. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' I guess if you redefine "lawbreaking" then you're exactly right. Congratulations. I might point out that judge will never be charged with any sort of crime for gender bias, and neither will the DMV worker be charged with any crime. Of course, I'm working with the old-fashioned regular definitions instead of the one you just got finished minting. You tell 'em, Humpty. You're right. It probably has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that no individual has ever been charged with the crime of breaking the First Amendment. Not so much as ticketed. lol It's not against the law to flunk all of your Muslim or black students, either. The students could sue for injury (tort) and they'd almost assuredly win, but the teacher broke no law. Not that somebody couldn't write a law like that, but I'd be willing to bet there's nothing on the books that would find a teacher guilty of wronging society in general (a crime) for flunking a certain class of students.

Props to you for showing a willingness to modify your view according to what the evidence shows.

You're precisely right? Like you're "right" about creationism and god? Proclamations of rightness without any evidence. Why am I not surprised? Did you miss the offer of evidence ("I could draw on plenty more")? Yet you ignored it. Why am I not surprised? I know what I'm talking about, which is going to S**K for you and your reputation on this board (heh--"Guest"). Absolutely. They agree with me. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem where you fail to realize that Paul is the one arguing against relativity of motion. He says that acceleration can allow science to fix an objective (absolute) point of reference. You stopped reading too quickly: "After defining his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein realized that forces felt by objects undergoing constant acceleration are indistinguishable from those in a gravitational field, and thus defined general relativity that also explained how gravity's effects could be limited by the speed of light. If you accelerate away from your friend, you could say (given your frame of reference) that it is your friend who is accelerating away from you, although only you feel any force. This is also the basis for the popular Twin paradox, which asks why only one twin ages when moving away from his sibling at near light-speed and then returning, since the aging twin can say that it is the other twin that was moving. General relativity solved the "why does only one object feel accelerated?" problem which had plagued philosophers and scientists since Newton's time (and caused Newton to endorse absolute space). In special relativity, only inertial frames of reference (non-accelerated frames) can be used and are equivalent; general relativity considers all frames, even accelerated ones, to be equivalent. With changing velocity, accelerated objects exist in warped space (as do those that reside in a gravitational field). Therefore, frames of reference must include a description of their local spacetime curvature to qualify as complete." You lose, and Paul loses. But you're anonymous, which is still wise of you. You wouldn't want this flub up associated with your real name, I'm sure. Yes. Did you? I did recommend the wrong page number, since Adobe has a page number indicator that sometimes misleads. I should have said see page 7. Apparently you didn't read it. Yes, I know what plate tectonics is. Why do you ask? The paper is not only about plate tectonics. Just look at the URL. It's about Occam's razor. I was showing how Occam's razor served to distinguish between the geocentric view and the heliocentric view. Uh, yeah. Get back to me after you've read page 7.

Huh? Strife tried providing some, but three out of four (iirc) dealt with legislation, not the actions of government employees. The other involved a city's practice of displaying a creche at Christmastime that included an explicitly Christian message. That, rather than constituting speech by government employees, was a form of speech reasonably attributed to the actions of that local government in general. Leave aside the fact that courts may be fallible, and your side has provided only one example that remotely resembles the present case. I'm going to pray now that you (or somebody) will provide at least one example where the courts struck down the endorsement of religion by an individual (employed by the government), in support of your claim that there are many. When there's a call for evidence, folks like Calybos get right on it. Right?