Please !

[Guest Guest]

The only reason people aren't persuaded to change their religious beliefs is that they close their minds. I was persuaded by others to change my religious beliefs when I was in my early twenties. The process took a few years, but it did happen, and can happen for anyone who is willing to listen, think, learn and grow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are pathetic man! What are you trying to say? Now you are attacking those who believe? It is not our fault that you didn't have a mind of your own and was persuaded by others to change your religious belief. It only tells us that you never realy believed in what you thought you believed. If you did that's great, but don't come here saying that it can happen to anyone who is willing to grow. You are insulting those who belief in something, you are insulting more 80% of the residents in Kearny, you are insulting the mayor of you town(if he is catholic)...You are simply doing to everyone what you did to Mr. P! Each day your motives become even more clear!

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Boringgg. Why don't you try typing something that someone might actually be interested in reading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you try typing something with some actual content for a change, rather than just sniping from the sidelines.

[Guest Paul]

You are pathetic man! What are you trying to say? Now you are attacking those who believe? It is not our fault that you didn't have a mind of your own and was persuaded by others to change your religious belief. It only tells us that you never realy believed in what you thought you believed. If you did that's great, but don't come here saying that it can happen to anyone who is willing to grow. You are insulting those who belief in something, you are insulting more 80% of the residents in Kearny, you are insulting the mayor of you town(if he is catholic)...You are simply doing to everyone what you did to Mr. P! Each day your motives become even more clear!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm making the point that people who never change their minds about anything have probably closed them. No one is right about everything. If you haven't changed your mind about anything important, you probably haven't learned much. That could be said of any subject.

[Guest Loki]

I'm making the point that people who never change their minds about anything have probably closed them. No one is right about everything. If you haven't changed your mind about anything important, you probably haven't learned much. That could be said of any subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sir, you sure make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know. I have changed my mind on important things, just not religion; that, is my choice. To assume that this means "you probably haven't learned much" suggests you have delusions of grandeur.

Yours is the enlightened position. Because YOU changed what you once believed, that makes you better than everyone that didn't. From your statements, I will ASSUME that you haven't the strength of your own convictions. Is that fair ---------certainly not.

You castigate the teacher for preaching, and then do the same here. Yeah, I understand he shouldn't have done this in school, but suggestions by anyone that theirs is the only correct position on issues is simply inane. I have lots of opinions, share them openly, I just don't think that people who don't share them are somehow beneath me.

This will kill you, but tonight I will remember you in my prayers. And, if there is no God, who gets hurt by me praying, only me.

[Guest guest]

I haven't posted here in a while (I got bored debating children) but I'll add my 2 cents to this one. Paul is having the time of his life. He spends hours posting here on a daily basis and has showed no signs of slowing down, he is clearly enjoying all this.  So there will be no "moving on" any time soon, Paul's having too much fun.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

VERY TRUE!!!! PUAL DOESN'T SEEM TO SPEND MUCH TIME AT HIS JOB, BUT INSTEAD SEEMS TO ENJOY HIS CELEBRITY STATUS AND TIME IN THE SPOTLIGHT!

tHE SCHOOLBOARD HAD ALREADY MET WITH THE TEACHER PROBABLY ACCORDING TO THE UNION CONTRCT; LAID OUT THE DO'S AND DON'T AND GOT HIM TO PROMISE THAT IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN ON HIS INITIATION. RATHER, THE STUDENT WOULD HAVE TO BRING UP THE SUBJECT & the teacher MR P would have to ask the whole class's permission if he was free to answer the particular student's question on a religious topic. Mr P SHOULD BRING A TAPE-RECORDER TO CLASS JUST LIKE MATTHEW DID, AND BE ABLE TO PROVE WHETHER HE HAS FOLLOWED THE SCHOOL BOARDS ORDERS REGARDING THE 'PROBLEM' FROM NOT HAPPENING 'again".

ST CLAIR IS NOT GIVING THE SCHOOL BOARD'S ORDERS TO MR P, THE CHANCE OF BEING ENFORCED........HE WANTS IT TO GO ON and ON and ON.......

[Guest Guest]

The only reason people aren't persuaded to change their religious beliefs is that they close their minds. I was persuaded by others to change my religious beliefs when I was in my early twenties. The process took a few years, but it did happen, and can happen for anyone who is willing to listen, think, learn and grow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So for you religion wasn't the answer. But that doesn't mean that people who do believe and who still rely on religion for a basis of their very survival that they do not think or listen or grow. You talk about how this teacher was imposing his ideas on the students but you cannot understand why the people of this town do not want your non-christian ideas imposed on them. Please do not think for one moment that it is also you that needs to think and grow and learn. Somewhere along your path to find what's right you forgot that.

[Guest Supporter]

You are pathetic man!

I have yet to see Paul do anything that should be considered pathetic. Please keep name calling out of this blog.

What are you trying to say? Now you are attacking those who believe? It is not our fault that you didn't have a mind of your own and was persuaded by others to change your religious belief. It only tells us that you never realy believed in what you thought you believed.

Ah, now you are accusing a so called 'non-believer' of having a weak mind by becoming so. You are also implying that it is wrong to be persuaded by others to change your views. What, may I ask, are you trying to accomplish by praying for the soul of someone who does not believe in God? Religious people regularly do this. I have had people come to me, some that I have only spoken to once or twice, and tell me that they are praying for me becuase I have not accepted the word of an almighty God. What do they hope to achieve?

There are limited answers. One reason is that they/you are trying to turn God's attention to the fact that I do not believe in him, and by doing so causing God to intervene and make me to believe. But wait, I thought that God knew all and saw all, so he wouldn't need your prayers to alert him to the fact that I am a non-believer, would he? Or does he need a popular vote to persuade him that a situation is serious enough to be dealt with? And besides, wouldn't that undermine my free will? I thought that God gave us 'choice,' as demenstrated when Eve took a bite out of a piece of fruit (we're not sure what kind, even though most assume it was an apple) at the word of a talking snake in a garden that most likely never existed. Oh darn, I'm ranting.

Next reason. You may be hoping that I will be influenced by the fact that you are preying for me, perhaps by taking it as a sign that such a firm act of belief must mean that God does truely exist. But based upon what you just said, that would imply that I have a weak mind. If I believe something, I should stick to it, right? So that argument is down the drain...unless you come up with some loopwhole, as you Christians normally do.

Next; as has haltingly and incompletely been explained to me, your prayers may be directed at others down the road of life who will be influenced by them (this in itself is an exceedingly arrogant idea, seeing as if you hadn't intervened, then that never could happen) and attempt to persuade me to believe in God. But again, that would be exactly what you just said shouldn't be done. Gosh, it's kinda hard to think of a good reason...

And so I ask you, what do you think your prayers are actually achieving? What good can they possibly do if God already knows and sees, as is stated in the bible, the very quandry or mishap that you are praying to be answered or fixed? The only answer is good to yourself, good in the fealing that you tried to do something, while in reality you actually did nothing more than kneel in front of your bed (or wherever you may be) and murmur a few useless words. Action is never taken by these people. They expect a higher being to do it for them. There is only one word for this attitude; arrogance.

I would like to leave you a scenario; two men lie dying in a hospital, both having led equally respectable lives, each with a firm belief that an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-merciful God resides above them, each with the same disease, a disease that would be perfectly curable if this same God would only allow stem cell research to progress and develop a cure. Both of these men's families surround them, praying silently to their God to do something to help their relative, again illustrating that God can be persuaded by a popular vote. One man dies, and the other miraculously lives. Now, do you really think that that is the work of God, as many will most certainly attribute it to? Seems kinda fishy to me, but then, I've always been the rational type. Or do you think, as is much more likely, that it was merely the luck of the draw? What do you think of the family of the surviving man, who cries and thanks God for a miracle, while the family of the more unlucky man seems to accept that it was 'his time,' and places no blame whatsoever on God for deserting them. Very inconsistent.

If anyone would like to respond and tell me the purpose of prayer, feel free. Just do not expect me to accept them as rational or logical. When it all comes down to it, prayer serves one purpose; your own. It makes you feel good inside, makes you feel like you have done your part. And in this act of supposed selflessness, you show just how incredibly selfish you really are.

I read a quote on this blog the other day as I was skimming through it. I'm not sure who it was from, although I think it was oneellama. It said, in so many words, "Do not pray for me. Instead, take action." Well, I have something to say. Do not pray for me. Instead, take action. And in doing so, stop to think a little. Your brain really is a marvelous thing. Use it.

If you did that's great, but don't come here saying that it can happen to anyone who is willing to grow.

And you're implying that you wouldn't consider a non-believer converting to Christianity as growth? Give me a break.

You are insulting those who belief in something, you are insulting more 80% of the residents in Kearny, you are insulting the mayor of you town(if he is catholic)...You are simply doing to everyone what you did to Mr. P!

He is not insulting me. I believe in rational and evidence, which happen to be two things you could use. I believe that the true insult comes from the fact that 80% of Kearny, including the Mayor, are so blinded by their beliefs that they would threaten the lives of a young boy and his family-and yes, Mathew has recieved death threats a'plenty-for complaing that one of his teachers told a young girl that she would burn forever in hell and then lie about it to the principle(and I am not implying that the Mayor threatened this boys' life, I am merely repeating what you said). And Paul did nothing to Mr. P that was unreasonable. He has made no threats, apart from the right to file suit. He has not even said that he wants Mr. P fired, something that many in his position would demand. On the whole, I would say he has been a wonderul role model.

Each day your motives become even more clear!

And let us hope this continues, and these motives are the driving force behind justice, not to sound melodramatic.

[Guest Guest]

I have yet to see Paul do anything that should be considered pathetic.  Please keep name calling out of this blog.

Ah, now you are accusing a so called 'non-believer' of having a weak mind by becoming so.  You are also implying that it is wrong to be persuaded by others to change your views.  What, may I ask, are you trying to accomplish by praying for the soul of someone who does not believe in God?  Religious people regularly do this.  I have had people come to me, some that I have only spoken to once or twice, and tell me that they are praying for me becuase I have not accepted the word of an almighty God.  What do they hope to achieve?

There are limited answers.  One reason is that they/you are trying to turn God's attention to the fact that I do not believe in him, and by doing so causing God to intervene and make me to believe.  But wait, I thought that God knew all and saw all, so he wouldn't need your prayers to alert him to the fact that I am a non-believer, would he?  Or does he need a popular vote to persuade him that a situation is serious enough to be dealt with?  And besides, wouldn't that undermine my free will?  I thought that God gave us 'choice,' as demenstrated when Eve took a bite out of a piece of fruit (we're not sure what kind, even though most assume it was an apple) at the word of a talking snake in a garden that most likely never existed.  Oh darn, I'm ranting.

Next reason.  You may be hoping that I will be influenced by the fact that you are preying for me, perhaps by taking it as a sign that such a firm act of belief must mean that God does truely exist.  But based upon what you just said, that would imply that I have a weak mind.  If I believe something, I should stick to it, right?  So that argument is down the drain...unless you come up with some loopwhole, as you Christians normally do.

Next; as has haltingly and incompletely been explained to me, your prayers may be directed at others down the road of life who will be influenced by them (this in itself is an exceedingly arrogant idea, seeing as if you hadn't intervened, then that never could happen) and attempt to persuade me to believe in God.  But again, that would be exactly what you just said shouldn't be done.  Gosh, it's kinda hard to think of a good reason...

And so I ask you, what do you think your prayers are actually achieving?  What good can they possibly do if God already knows and sees, as is stated in the bible, the very quandry or mishap that you are praying to be answered or fixed?  The only answer is good to yourself, good in the fealing that you tried to do something, while in reality you actually did nothing more than kneel in front of your bed (or wherever you may be) and murmur a few useless words.  Action is never taken by these people.  They expect a higher being to do it for them.  There is only one word for this attitude; arrogance.

I would like to leave you a scenario; two men lie dying in a hospital, both having led equally respectable lives, each with a firm belief that an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-merciful God resides above them, each with the same disease, a disease that would be perfectly curable if this same God would only allow stem cell research to progress and develop a cure.  Both of these men's families surround them, praying silently to their God to do something to help their relative, again illustrating that God can be persuaded by a popular vote.  One man dies, and the other miraculously lives.  Now, do you really think that that is the work of God, as many will most certainly attribute it to?  Seems kinda fishy to me, but then, I've always been the rational type.  Or do you think, as is much more likely, that it was merely the luck of the draw?  What do you think of the family of the surviving man, who cries and thanks God for a miracle, while the family of the more unlucky man seems to accept that it was 'his time,' and places no blame whatsoever on God for deserting them.  Very inconsistent.

If anyone would like to respond and tell me the purpose of prayer, feel free.  Just do not expect me to accept them as rational or logical.  When it all comes down to it, prayer serves one purpose; your own.  It makes you feel good inside, makes you feel like you have done your part.  And in this act of supposed selflessness, you show just how incredibly selfish you really are.

I read a quote on this blog the other day as I was skimming through it.  I'm not sure who it was from, although I think it was oneellama.  It said, in so many words, "Do not pray for me.  Instead, take action."  Well, I have something to say.  Do not pray for me.  Instead, take action.  And in doing so, stop to think a little.  Your brain really is a marvelous thing.  Use it. 

And you're implying that you wouldn't consider a non-believer converting to Christianity as growth?  Give me a break. 

He is not insulting me.  I believe in rational and evidence, which happen to be two things you could use.  I believe that the true insult comes from the fact that 80% of Kearny, including the Mayor, are so blinded by their beliefs that they would threaten the lives of a young boy and his family-and yes, Mathew has recieved death threats a'plenty-for complaing that one of his teachers told a young girl that she would burn forever in hell and then lie about it to the principle(and I am not implying that the Mayor threatened this boys' life, I am merely repeating what you said).  And Paul did nothing to Mr. P that was unreasonable.  He has made no threats, apart from the right to file suit.  He has not even said that he wants Mr. P fired, something that many in his position would demand.  On the whole, I would say he has been a wonderul role model.

And let us hope this continues, and these motives are the driving force behind justice, not to sound melodramatic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Done correctly, meditation centers people. It helps them calm down, focus, or whatever they may need to do to live peacefully and productively.

Prayer can have some of the same effects, but insofar as it is directed to a god outside the self, it's just a way the prayerful have of trying to comfort themselves. As Supporter correctly points out, nothing about prayer to an all-powerful and all-knowing god makes any sense for what it is. If people take it too literally, it is counterproductive and harmful.

[Strife767]

VERY TRUE!!!!

Let me start by reminding you that writing in all caps doesn't make your arguments better or your statements truer. Secondly, I will laugh at you for writing most of your post in all caps, yet you put your name as "guest" in all lowercase. You're weird.

PUAL DOESN'T SEEM TO SPEND MUCH TIME AT HIS JOB,

As if you'd know.

BUT INSTEAD SEEMS TO ENJOY HIS CELEBRITY STATUS AND TIME IN THE SPOTLIGHT!

When's the last time this issue was on the news? I can't find it anywhere anymore.

tHE SCHOOLBOARD HAD ALREADY MET WITH THE TEACHER PROBABLY ACCORDING TO THE UNION CONTRCT; LAID OUT THE DO'S AND DON'T AND GOT HIM TO PROMISE THAT IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN AGAIN ON HIS INITIATION.

This isn't enough. A mere slap on the wrist and "don't do it again," especially considering the growing amount of evidence that this was no fluke nor first instance of Paszkiewicz's behavior, would set a very bad precedent. Face it--this issue is not just going to magically go away, despite all your wishing that it would.

RATHER, THE STUDENT WOULD HAVE TO BRING UP THE SUBJECT & the teacher MR P would have to ask the whole class's permission if he was free to answer the particular student's question on a religious topic.

1. If the discussion of religion is in a proper context, the teacher has no need to ask for student permission.

2. If the discussion of religion is not in a proper context, the teacher has no RIGHT to ask for student permission.

Read up on your case law and legal precedents.

Mr P SHOULD BRING A TAPE-RECORDER TO CLASS JUST LIKE MATTHEW DID, AND BE ABLE TO PROVE WHETHER HE HAS FOLLOWED THE SCHOOL BOARDS ORDERS REGARDING THE 'PROBLEM' FROM NOT HAPPENING 'again".

That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether or not he 'does it again' has no bearing on the fact that there need to be consequences for this kind of behavior, ESPECIALLY lying about it. If Paszkiewicz had done his preaching but then admitted to it and apologized right away, the issue would have been pretty much done right there, just as soon as the false statements about science were corrected.

ST CLAIR IS NOT GIVING THE SCHOOL BOARD'S ORDERS TO MR P, THE CHANCE OF BEING ENFORCED........HE WANTS IT TO GO ON and ON and ON.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's said several times he wants the Board and Mr. P. to do the right things so that he doesn't have to sue to get justice. Every day this issue continues unresolved, it continues unresolved because of them, not Paul.

[Strife767]

So for you religion wasn't the answer. But that doesn't mean that people who do believe and who still rely on religion for a basis of their very survival

Call me crazy, but I think going so far as to rely on religion (or anything abstract like that) 'for the basis of one's very survival' is mentally unhealthy. I mean, come on: only someone who's been heavily indoctrinated to the point where they have that stereotypically cult-like dependency on a religion would say that they literally need religion to "survive."

that they do not think or listen or grow.

I dare say that anyone who belongs to any mainstream/organized religion could do more thinking/listening/growing. Faith is SUPPOSED to be a personal issue, isn't it? Why then are there so few main ones, all trying to convert the others and increase their numbers? The idea of "mainstream" religion/faith is a mockery of faith, if you ask me. It's not supposed to be "mainstream." It all reflects an unwillingness to do exactly the things Paul was talking about--thinking for oneself, thinking 'outside the box,' etc.

Just think about that for a moment before your knees start jerking from what I just said, theists. Why do you not adhere to a belief/faith system of your own invention, using your own ideas? Why instead do you simply align yourself with a mainstream religion, despite the fact that many people do not agree with 100% of the ideas/concepts inherent to their self-identified religion?

You talk about how this teacher was imposing his ideas on the students but you cannot understand why the people of this town do not want your non-christian ideas imposed on them.

When has Paul ever done any imposing of his beliefs? In fact, do you even KNOW what his beliefs are? 'Cause if you don't, it's pretty hard to argue he's imposing something you can't even explicitly identify.

Please do not think for one moment that it is also you that needs to think and grow and learn.

Uh, care to rephrase that?

Somewhere along your path to find what's right you forgot that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who says that Paul has stopped expanding his horizons? What has led you to believe this? Be specific.

[Strife767]

(double-post edited out)

[Guest Paul]

Sir, you sure make a lot of assumptions about people you don't know.  I have changed my mind on important things, just not religion; that, is my choice.  To assume that this means "you probably haven't learned much" suggests you have delusions of grandeur.

Yours is the enlightened position.  Because YOU changed what you once believed, that makes you better than everyone that didn't.  From your statements, I will ASSUME that you haven't the strength of your own convictions.  Is that fair ---------certainly not.

You castigate the teacher for preaching, and then do the same here.  Yeah, I understand he shouldn't have done this in school, but suggestions by anyone that theirs is the only correct position on issues is simply inane.  I have lots of opinions, share them openly, I just don't think that people who don't share them are somehow beneath me.

This will kill you, but tonight I will remember you in my prayers.  And, if there is no God, who gets hurt  by me praying, only me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Loki, I'm not merely assuming, it's how human beings are. We are not born knowing all things. We learn a tiny fraction of what there is to be learned in a lifetime, a miniscule portion of it in comparison to all things. We're not born knowing, and if we're not changing our views as we grow older, then we're not learning. This could be said as much of the atheist as of the theist. It's revealing that you take my comment in this regard so personally, and react to it so defensively.

That said, the theist is saddled with the inherent drawback of claiming to know what no one knows. Now you can criticize me for that comment if you like, but I believe it to be a true statement about the extent and limitations of human knowledge. Faith-based theism (faith being defined as a belief without evidence adequate to support the belief on its own terms) is inherently suppressive of the learning process, which is why theistic religions have historically impeded and opposed science. That doesn't mean that some of our most brilliant and most creative minds haven't been theists; they have been and are. However, sometimes I imagine what the world might look like if those great minds had approached the world without theism. For me and many others, John Lennon's song "Imagine" says a lot. Personally, I think this would be a better world, and that if there is/was a god, he/she/it would approve.

It is, of course, your choice whether to change your opinion. That, however, implies that your opinion is a matter of choice. For me, it's more a matter of following the evidence wherever it leads, so that my opinions become less a matter of my personal choices and more a matter of the conclusions reasonably to be drawn from the available evidence. Of course, none of us is perfect, so our biases will influence us, and no one is immune from that. However, even the idea that we choose what to believe is open to a fascinating discussion and debate.

As for preaching, I'm stating my views. You can say a great many things about me, but I doubt that many people would seriously claim that I don't have strong opinions on certain subjects, or that I don't stand up for them. The difference between what I'm doing here versus what Mr. Paszkiewicz did in class is that I am not a paid public employee speaking to a captive audience of teenagers. So whatever you call what I write here, I have the right to do it; Mr. Paszkiewicz did not.

As you can see, your prayers did not kill me. Did you ever consider this: If you're praying to a god who would torment even one person forever, what's the point?

So you raise about half a dozen fascinating topics. I'm not a bad guy if you give me a chance. Let's have a productive dialogue on one or more of these subjects. That is one way I learn, and I'm trying to learn more. Or you could just file my comments away to consider later, or not. As you pointed out, it's your choice.

[Guest Paul]

So for you religion wasn't the answer. But that doesn't mean that people who do believe and who still rely on religion for a basis of their very survival that they do not think or listen or grow.  You talk about how this teacher was imposing his ideas on the students but you cannot understand why the people of this town do not want your non-christian ideas imposed on them.  Please do not think for one moment that it is also you that needs to think and grow and learn. Somewhere along your path to find what's right you forgot that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't forget that at all, but you're not teaching me (or anyone else anything) by making wild accusations. Address the content of what I wrote, not a distortion of what I wrote.

I don't believe anyone relies on what you're calling religion (I read this to mean belief in a supreme being) for their very survival. Some people may think they do, but if they would try another approach, they might find it works just as well or better. That's how I see things. It's revealing that I can't even express my opinion on this subject without your accusing me of "imposing" my views on everyone. I'm only stating my opinion. But it is my opinion, and I'll be happy to give you my reasons for believing it if you'll promise to read with an open mind and heart. You're betraying yourself (and proving my point) by reacting as you do.

[Guest Guest]

Loki, I'm not merely assuming, it's how human beings are. We are not born knowing all things. We learn a tiny fraction of what there is to be learned in a lifetime, a miniscule portion of it in comparison to all things. We're not born knowing, and if we're not changing our views as we grow older, then we're not learning. This could be said as much of the atheist as of the theist. It's revealing that you take my comment in this regard so personally, and react to it so defensively.

That said, the theist is saddled with the inherent drawback of claiming to know what no one knows. Now you can criticize me for that comment if you like, but I believe it to be a true statement about the extent and limitations of human knowledge. Faith-based theism (faith being defined as a belief without evidence adequate to support the belief on its own terms) is inherently suppressive of the learning process, which is why theistic religions have historically impeded and opposed science. That doesn't mean that some of our most brilliant and most creative minds haven't been theists; they have been and are. However, sometimes I imagine what the world might look like if those great minds had approached the world without theism. For me and many others, John Lennon's song "Imagine" says a lot. Personally, I think this would be a better world, and that if there is/was a god, he/she/it would approve.

It is, of course, your choice whether to change your opinion. That, however, implies that your opinion is a matter of choice. For me, it's more a matter of following the evidence wherever it leads, so that my opinions become less a matter of my personal choices and more a matter of the conclusions reasonably to be drawn from the available evidence. Of course, none of us is perfect, so our biases will influence us, and no one is immune from that. However, even the idea that we choose what to believe is open to a fascinating discussion and debate.

As for preaching, I'm stating my views. You can say a great many things about me, but I doubt that many people would seriously claim that I don't have strong opinions on certain subjects, or that I don't stand up for them. The difference between what I'm doing here versus what Mr. Paszkiewicz did in class is that I am not a paid public employee speaking to a captive audience of teenagers. So whatever you call what I write here, I have the right to do it; Mr. Paszkiewicz did not.

As you can see, your prayers did not kill me. Did you ever consider this: If you're praying to a god who would torment even one person forever, what's the point?

So you raise about half a dozen fascinating topics. I'm not a bad guy if you give me a chance. Let's have a productive dialogue on one or more of these subjects. That is one way I learn, and I'm trying to learn more. Or you could just file my comments away to consider later, or not. As you pointed out, it's your choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now Paul's bringing John lennon into this. Great, a guy that talked about love and hated everyone.

[Strife767]

Now Paul's bringing John lennon into this.  Great, a guy that talked about love and hated everyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He mentioned a song. Get over it.

[Guest Paul]

Now Paul's bringing John lennon into this.  Great, a guy that talked about love and hated everyone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a post that I would leave alone, except to point out the fallacy that keeps popping up. John Lennon is dead. Who cares whether he hated people or loved them, except maybe his family, and on what basis does this "Guest" claim to know? If "Guest's" standard is a good one, what about the absence of any indication of Love in his/her post? As is often the case, people who write like this are often best advised to view their comments with a mirror.

What matters about John Lennon to us, the public in 2007, is what John Lennon left behind. One of his gifts was the song "Imagine," which is an anthem for millions of us.

No intelligent conversation is possible if people insist on ignoring distinctions like this, focusing instead on inane trivialities that have nothing to do with the things that matter in our lives today or will matter in the lives of people in the future; or to paraphrase the words of another great song, pretending that they just don't see what is real.

[Bryan]

That said, the theist is saddled with the inherent drawback of claiming to know what no one knows.

How did Paul come to know that no one knows that God exists (unless he happens to also know what no one knows)?

Now you can criticize me for that comment if you like, but I believe it to be a true statement about the extent and limitations of human knowledge.

True based on what?

Faith-based theism (faith being defined as a belief without evidence adequate to support the belief on its own terms) is inherently suppressive of the learning process, which is why theistic religions have historically impeded and opposed science.

Christianity and theism have done a great deal to bolster science. A theistic expectation of order in the universe leads reasonably to physical science.

French physicist Pierre Duhem showed that Christian theology had a major influence on the birth of modern science. Contrary to general belief during his time, Duhem proved that there was great intellectual activity during the Middle Ages, led by noted scholars such as Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme. Although many of Duhem's works, particularly his thesis on thermodynamic potential, were rejected either because they contradicted Christian beliefs or ran counter to greater authority, he was nevertheless respected for his teaching skills and his mastery of his subjects.

IT is still possible to find histories of science that describe the achievements of the ancient Greeks and then pass immediately to the Renaissance, with perhaps a brief remark about the absence of any developments worth mentioning in the intervening period. That such slighting of the contributions of the medieval philosophers is no longer acceptable in any work with pretensions to scholarship is mainly due to the work of one man, the French physicist Pierre Duhem.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15353157.html

That doesn't mean that some of our most brilliant and most creative minds haven't been theists; they have been and are. However, sometimes I imagine what the world might look like if those great minds had approached the world without theism.

On what would they have based their expectation of order and rationality?

I'm not a bad guy if you give me a chance. Let's have a productive dialogue on one or more of these subjects.

You seem to avoid productive dialogue, IMHO.

That is one way I learn, and I'm trying to learn more.

We'll see.

[Guest Paul]

How did Paul come to know that no one knows that God exists (unless he happens to also know what no one knows)?

True based on what?

Christianity and theism have done a great deal to bolster science.  A theistic expectation of order in the universe leads reasonably to physical science.

French physicist Pierre Duhem showed that Christian theology had a major influence on the birth of modern science. Contrary to general belief during his time, Duhem proved that there was great intellectual activity during the Middle Ages, led by noted scholars such as Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme. Although many of Duhem's works, particularly his thesis on thermodynamic potential, were rejected either because they contradicted Christian beliefs or ran counter to greater authority, he was nevertheless respected for his teaching skills and his mastery of his subjects.

IT is still possible to find histories of science that describe the achievements of the ancient Greeks and then pass immediately to the Renaissance, with perhaps a brief remark about the absence of any developments worth mentioning in the intervening period. That such slighting of the contributions of the medieval philosophers is no longer acceptable in any work with pretensions to scholarship is mainly due to the work of one man, the French physicist Pierre Duhem.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-15353157.html

On what would they have based their expectation of order and rationality?

You seem to avoid productive dialogue, IMHO.

We'll see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, I can understand why you think I avoid productive dialogue. The problem is, as much as you may think what you're posting is productive, it isn't. It's just a lot of rationalizing for what you've already decided to believe. So I usually respond to you, when I do at all, by making a general observation that pretty much handles what you've said.

In this instance, the naturalistic worldview has a far better history of advancing science that the supernaturalistic worldview. You can cut tiny distinctions all you like, but when a supernaturalist is telling a group of high school students that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark --- and a significant percentage of the American public agrees with him --- that is very troubling.

I said it to you months ago, Bryan, and it's still true. You try to look at things under a microscope. There would be a value in that if you did it across the board, but you don't. You're entirely selective, which is why I really don't think you offer very much here. You look at what you don't agree with under a microscope, but you don't apply any scrutiny at all to the things you've just decided you want to believe. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how I see it.

The shame of it is, you're a bright guy. I can also see that. But you're burying it under dogmatic stubbornness.

[Guest Guest]

This is a post that I would leave alone, except to point out the fallacy that keeps popping up. John Lennon is dead. Who cares whether he hated people or loved them, except maybe his family, and on what basis does this "Guest" claim to know? If "Guest's" standard is a good one, what about the absence of any indication of Love in his/her post? As is often the case, people who write like this are often best advised to view their comments with a mirror.

What matters about John Lennon to us, the public in 2007, is what John Lennon left behind. One of his gifts was the song "Imagine," which is an anthem for millions of us.

No intelligent conversation is possible if people insist on ignoring distinctions like this, focusing instead on inane trivialities that have nothing to do with the things that matter in our lives today or will matter in the lives of people in the future; or to paraphrase the words of another great song, pretending that they just don't see what is real.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John Lennon's work lacks meaning because his statements and actions are always at odds with what he wrote to make money. If you're going to talk the talk, then you have to walk the walk.

You're right about one thing Paul, none of this matters now or will matter in the lives of people, either today or in the future.

[Guest Guest]

Call me crazy, but I think going so far as to rely on religion (or anything abstract like that) 'for the basis of one's very survival' is mentally unhealthy. I mean, come on: only someone who's been heavily indoctrinated to the point where they have that stereotypically cult-like dependency on a religion would say that they literally need religion to "survive."

I dare say that anyone who belongs to any mainstream/organized religion could do more thinking/listening/growing. Faith is SUPPOSED to be a personal issue, isn't it? Why then are there so few main ones, all trying to convert the others and increase their numbers? The idea of "mainstream" religion/faith is a mockery of faith, if you ask me. It's not supposed to be "mainstream." It all reflects an unwillingness to do exactly the things Paul was talking about--thinking for oneself, thinking 'outside the box,' etc.

Just think about that for a moment before your knees start jerking from what I just said, theists. Why do you not adhere to a belief/faith system of your own invention, using your own ideas? Why instead do you simply align yourself with a mainstream religion, despite the fact that many people do not agree with 100% of the ideas/concepts inherent to their self-identified religion?

When has Paul ever done any imposing of his beliefs? In fact, do you even KNOW what his beliefs are? 'Cause if you don't, it's pretty hard to argue he's imposing something you can't even explicitly identify.

Uh, care to rephrase that?

Who says that Paul has stopped expanding his horizons? What has led you to believe this? Be specific.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So young, so naive.

You just haven't seen enough darkness yet.

[Guest Guest]

John Lennon's work lacks meaning because his statements and actions are always at odds with what he wrote to make money.  If you're going to talk the talk, then you have to walk the walk.

You're right about one thing Paul, none of this matters now or will matter in the lives of people, either today or in the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I take it you did not vote into the White House those so closely tied to the oil and defense industries.

They certainly walk the walk.

[Bryan]

Bryan, I can understand why you think I avoid productive dialogue. The problem is, as much as you may think what you're posting is productive, it isn't. It's just a lot of rationalizing for what you've already decided to believe.

And that's not your own rationalization for what you already believe?

Seriously, why should my motivations matter? Suppose I *was* offering rationalizations for what I believe, just as you seem to be doing now. Why isn't that worth a reply?

So I usually respond to you, when I do at all, by making a general observation that pretty much handles what you've said.

And when you do that, you're most certainly not rationalizing what you already believe.

Right?

Many of your replies are of the character of this would-be reply to you, Paul:

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's glib, cowardly, and empty.

In this instance, the naturalistic worldview has a far better history of advancing science that the supernaturalistic worldview.

Thus you hope to sidestep the problem of beginning a naturalistic inquiry in the first place? Almost like you're rationalizing what you already believe?

You can cut tiny distinctions all you like,

Since when is the essential foundation for an epistemic approach a "tiny distinction"?

It almost sounds like you're rationalizing what you already believe, Paul.

but when a supernaturalist is telling a group of high school students that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark --- and a significant percentage of the American public agrees with him --- that is very troubling.

So you want to repeal free speech or what? Jail time for the "significant percentage" you think? Or do they need shock treatment as mandated by the federal government (maybe you can convince the SCOTUS to find that as a government responsibility in light of the elastic clause combined with "promote the general welfare")

I said it to you months ago, Bryan, and it's still true. You try to look at things under a microscope. There would be a value in that if you did it across the board, but you don't. You're entirely selective, which is why I really don't think you offer very much here. You look at what you don't agree with under a microscope, but you don't apply any scrutiny at all to the things you've just decided you want to believe. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how I see it.

Well, Paul, all you seem to be doing is providing a rationalization for what you already believe. You couldn't name anything that I've "just decided to believe," period. And it's no coincidence that you do not.

The shame of it is, you're a bright guy. I can also see that. But you're burying it under dogmatic stubbornness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For example?

I've caught you and your chums in fallacious reasoning rather often, now. I've yet to notice any acknowledgment of error (other than by certain individuals on your side who are willing to throw in the towel on behalf of their comrades), however.

Are logical fallacies a microscopic issue? If I'm overlooking my own fallacies, perhaps you'll be good enough to offer one example (not to limit you from providing more than one).

[Strife767]

So young, so naive.

Please, o condescending one. Explain to me the error in the post you responded to! I dare you.

You just haven't seen enough darkness yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How arrogant can you be?

[Guest Paul]

John Lennon's work lacks meaning because his statements and actions are always at odds with what he wrote to make money.  If you're going to talk the talk, then you have to walk the walk.

You're right about one thing Paul, none of this matters now or will matter in the lives of people, either today or in the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nonsense. Art is valuable on its own terms. The Mona Lisa is exactly what it is, no matter how the artist treated his children, or for that matter whether he had any. (Did he?)

Walking the talk means something while the person is alive, but after the artist is dead, it's a dead issue, pardon the expression. The art lives on regardless.

[Guest Paul]

If I'm overlooking my own fallacies, perhaps you'll be good enough to offer one example (not to limit you from providing more than one).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, Bryan, but only one and only because I'm a really nice guy. Frankly, it's just not interesting.

I wrote this: "when a supernaturalist is telling a group of high school students that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark --- and a significant percentage of the American public agrees with him --- that is very troubling."

Your response was: "So you want to repeal free speech or what? Jail time for the "significant percentage" you think? Or do they need shock treatment as mandated by the federal government . . ."

Fallacy # 1: False assumption, the straw man, in at least two particulars: (a) No one is suggesting that citizens can't say any idiotic thing they like on their own time. ( No one is suggesting jail time or shock treatment for being scientifically illiterate.

Fallacy # 2: Equating high school curricula with a citizen's rights outside school. In school, if students are tested on whether dinosaurs and humans co-existed, they should be expected to know that they did not. The public school curriculum has a content. The educational system does not employ radical and absolute relativism in the quality of ideas. Ordinary citizens are not tested on such matters.

Fallacy # 3: Shifting the issue. The speech at issue is the teacher's, not that of students or non-student citizens. A public school teacher is not free to say anything he pleases. He has a responsibility to teach and stick to the curriculum. Placing reasonable restrictions what teachers say in class is not the same thing as repealing free speech.

So you committed at least three fallacies in just a few words. Did you really think I would have any trouble pointing it out? Ho-hum.