Constant Attacks on Education


Sometimes the research I have to do is nothing short of disheartening.  This weekend that that included Mark Chancey’s report on problematic religious studies in Texas public schools.

http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/TFNEF_ReadingWritingReligionII.pdf?docID=3481

As if that weren’t already bad enough, some Texans also want to blindly follow Louisiana’s misdirection in their attempts to undermine public education, by adopting the Religious Right’s voucher program.

“>

If you take the time to watch the video above, imagine how deeply deceived you would be if you were raised with the type of education these people provide.  They lie almost constantly and control the opinion of the reader continuously.  It is insidious.  Even with all that brainwashing, I am still personally mystified at how so many people can back such blatant propaganda, and why anyone would advocate an factually erroneous education based on prejudice by deliberately deceptive sources funded by hate groups.  This is why I became an activist in the first place, but the situation only seems to be getting worse.  Any suggestions?

Comments

  1. Thorne says

    Any suggestions?

    Get the hell out of Texas?

    Seriously, though, these kinds of reports scare the hell out of me. Makes me fear for the future of my grandchildren. All I can think of is how I’m going to be able to overcome the stupidity they’ll be fed in school and replace it with reality and critical thinking. Being in South Carolina is almost as bad as being in Texas.

  2. Entrak Entshuldiga says

    Sue them.

    Sue them for deliberately and actively trying to scam people with false lore and stories, with the intent to cause terror and fear. You have some nifty laws there now to prevent “jihadism”. :)

  3. Michael says

    I’m curious about how they would respond if you could talk privately with the person/people responsible for the misleading information, and how they would justify it.

    Are they deluded or ignorant themselves, thus just propogating what they think is true?

    Just doing a job they were paid to do for political reasons? Have a power-hungry agenda which involves keeping the public misinformed and distracted? Doing what they think is right for political/religious/idealogical reasons?

    Or some twisted form of tit for tat? (I understand one person knowingly presented fossils of footprints of dinosaurs and humans together as real to make up for the ‘fact’ that “scientists lie all the time”)

    Are they knowingly and deliberately misleading people, and if so, for what reason?

  4. Douglas1102 says

    Support or emulate those that seem to be gaining ground, Zack Kopplin seems to be doing a good job.

  5. says

    Funny how I never see Aronra discussing ‘other’ problems in the education program that have little or nothing to do with religion.

    My question here: Are you aware of these ‘other’ problems happening in public schools or do you just want to constantly complain at issues only if ‘religion’ is involved?

    “When asked to estimate how many were involved, these teens reported that about 17 percent of students — roughly 2.8 million — are abusing drugs during the school day, according to the survey.”

    http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/08/22/many-teens-drinking-taking-drugs-during-school-survey

    ^Teen and Druge use in school, going up^

    “Nearly a third of students aged 12 to 17 in public schools say their schools are “infected” with both gangs and drugs, according to a survey by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA).

    According to the report, 66 percent of high school students said their schools were drug-infected, a steep increase from last year when 51 percent said their schools had drugs. In the newest survey, one in three middle-schoolers say drugs are used, kept, or sold at their school. Last year, 23 percent of children in middle school said they had drugs in their school.”

    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/19/survey-gang-presence-increasing-in-public-schools/

    ^Gangs on the rise^

    I’m pretty sure these 2 important issues have an impact on education, yes?

    So does Aronra ever raise awareness on this factors? I would think that if he is ‘genuinely’ concerned with education he should bring this up a bit more, yes?

    Oh and that Bus strike that’s going on is just embarassing as well.

    My local news speaks on this here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/nyregion/school-bus-strike-poses-challenge-for-special-needs-students.html?_r=0

    • says

      I’m trying to counter a deliberate attempt to undermine education from the administrative level, and that is wholly driven by religious factions.

      • says

        And that’s totally fine, as I argue against YEC’s as well, but I’m just concerned on whether or not you notice the ‘other’ problems that are also undermining education. As far as ‘Theism’ goes I believe that topic belongs in a philosophy classroom (ie: electives in public schools) as it has been a HUGE topic throughout the ages. Most if not virtually all atheists I encounter don’t have a problem with this.

        Now, if gangs and drug use continue to rise in public schools, this would result in being a negative factor regarding education, yes? So, wouldn’t you want to deal with this?

        • Karlheinzofwpg says

          Cornelll, you haven’t mentioned anything about the educational plight of girls in Afghanistan. Do you not consider this an issue? Wouldn’t you want to deal with it? I would think that if you’re ‘genuinely’ concerned with education you would have brought that up by now. No? Since you haven’t mentioned anything about that real issue, or indeed any of the other 1000’s and 1000’s of real issues surrounding education I feel I must consider you completely apathetic on the topic and all the others. Not only have you chosen to very narrowly restrict your focus, you haven’t even given example of actually doing anything about the topics you copy/pasted into this comment thread. I must say, you seem very unfeeling. Why is that Cornelll? But then you will have to be excused. It IS a lot of work for one person to advocate (by that I mean actually doing something) on every topic surrounding education. Perhaps it would be a good idea if we divvy up the work. No? Let’s have Aronra focus on something he knows about, something he can actually make a difference on. Let’s ask him to tackle that issue in his free time, at largely his own expense – both financially as well as emotionally – while you go ahead and do the same thing with, say…. drugs in schools. A worthy challenge! I commend you in advance sir. Looking forward to your ideas on the topic, your videos on youtube, your debates at conferences and radio programs. I wish you luck, it will be no small task. But after you’ve been working away the years, at first in complete obscurity, and then later in the largely thankless and critical public eye, after all that, please don’t feel offended if some douchbag on the internet asks you why they fuck you aren’t doing anything about the educational plight of girls in Afghanistan.

          • says

            @Karlhein

            This response of your is what is known in logic/argumenation as a red herring.

            “A red herring fallacy is a purposeful change in topic to distract from the original topic. So if we have two people debating a particular statement one might change the topic seemingly to promote discussion but in fact it is a ploy to change the topic.”

            http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/red-herring-fallacy/

            The TOPIC is concerned with the US, notice how my links deal with (gosh golly) the US.

            We aren’t talking about Afganistan, we are talking about our country.

            Your red herring is a poor excuse that only evades the issue at hand. If AronRa spoke of education in the world, I would have mentioned other parts of the world, though he wasn’t speaking about that now was he?

            So nice try, but I’m not falling for it. Perhaps you can learn something from this!

            Now you also say

            “Let’s have Aronra focus on something he knows about, something he can actually make a difference on.”

            I’m pretty sure Aronra is capable of coming to some conclusions that involve the ‘other’ problems I’ve listed, whether they are plausible or implausible is a different story. In fact your response here can be taken as an insult towards him as you are giving off the impression that Aronra can’t focus on this, because it is something ‘he doesn’t know about’. Well if you have an issue with with Aronra’s capabilities that’s your problem.

            Anyways I see that sinned34 did something that you were INCAPABLE of doing, and that was ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, so now there are two things you can learn from this.

            ty

          • Karlheinzofwpg says

            @ cornelll

            “The TOPIC is concerned with the US, notice how my links deal with (gosh golly) the US”

            You mean you get to define the TOPIC and then ignore anything outside that boundary? I guess that’s what we’d all call focusing in on specifics. Gosh golly. Yet you don’t extend Aronra the same courtesy? hmmmm. Double standard much? :) Think about it for awhile before answering, you may learn something.

            K.

            ps – I still want to know why you aren’t concerned with the plight of girls in Afghanistan. I know you’re comments haven’t been focused on that. You see THAT is my complaint. I don’t want you to focus solely on the United States. I want you to focus on the larger topic of global education. I insist that you do that. I believe I have every right to define for you what you should spend your time on and where you’re focus must be. I’m sure you’d agree. In fact, you’d have to in order to be consistent. Now don’t go answering something like “that’s not what I’m talking about – I’m talking about the U.S.A.”. Remember, using your logic, it’s not up to you to decide on what you’re going to talk about.

            Ciao

        • says

          Cornell,

          Drugs and gangs are definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the YECs think the best way to fix those issues is to get Jesus back into the classroom. Stopping the religiously motivated loonies from dragging education back two hundred years would free up resources to deal with these real-life issues in a rational manner that might have some actual results.

          • says

            @sinned34

            I’m glad you agree with me on the fact that Drugs and gangs are a problem in which needs attention.

            Secondly, I’ve already stated that I argue against YEC’s and I’ll even add to this point the fact that I don’t think they should push for YEC in public schools.

            Lastly, You speak of results, but what about the kids who don’t really care too much about science? Ie: they care more about who is having one night stands with who, drinking, partying, drug use, fights, sports, bullying others, class pranks, video games, shopping at the mall, Jersey shore and other teen tv drama, *Twilight, etc.

            What should we do about those teens? Even if you got your way with science, I don’t think every child is going to magically become interested in it. In fact I think a good portion of them don’t really care, and will never care. (which I personally think is sad) Do you agree?

            I believe THIS picture from this link says it all…

            https://plus.google.com/109229333624640995186/posts/78r4psr9Ryq#109229333624640995186/posts/78r4psr9Ryq

          • sinned34 says

            Cornell,

            Excellent, then we’re in agreement that YEC beliefs do not belong in public schools. Perhaps if we ask them nicely to stop because we secularists are too busy trying to stop drugs and gangs from otherwise distracting kids, they’ll put their plans on hold and wait until all the other problems have gone away before they return to attempting to destroy science education.

            However, I’ll wager the actual response would be, “Drugs and gangs are there because we kicked god out of schools. We need to stop teaching these kids that evolution is correct and they are just animals, and start making them read the Bible in school again.” We’re not going to stop them from legislating their religion into schools by not resisting them.

            As for the kids who aren’t interested in science, does that mean they don’t deserve to have a real science education? Those same kids probably aren’t interested in conjugating vowels in English class or learning algebra in math, so I guess it’d be okay to let some anti-intellectual idiot tell them that Z is also a vowel, or tell them that pi equals exactly three?

            Teenagers are interested in teenage pop culture? Wow, what a shock. Not all kids are interested in science? Again, not really a surprise. What should we do about that? I don’t know. I’m not particularly interested in that right now. I’m more worried about the kids that DO want a good science education. Every where I look in the media, somebody is screaming about the plague of drugs or gang violence affecting kids, but almost nobody talks about YECs sneaking creationist bullshit into schools.

            Maybe it’s because I had my love of science sabotaged by creationist idiots when I was in school, but I figure enough people are worried about helping kids keep away from drugs and violence. I feel not enough people are protecting them from religious idiots trying to ruin kids’ education. You don’t have to agree with my priorities, but it’s impolite to try to force everyone here to talk about what YOU want to talk about. I’m sure there’s lots of blogs to discuss what to do about bored, high, sex-crazed students besides this place.

            Thanks, Aron, for shedding as much light as possible on this subject. Keep up the good work.

          • says

            @Karlhein

            you say “You mean you get to define the TOPIC and then ignore anything outside that boundary? I guess that’s what we’d all call focusing in on specifics. Gosh golly. Yet you don’t extend Aronra the same courtesy? hmmmm. Double standard much? :) Think about it for awhile before answering, you may learn something”

            You are clearly lost here, if you notice the OP said NOTHING about any other countries so it appears that your claim of my ‘intent’ entails going outside the boundary is easily dismissed. If you were trying to make an analogy it failed, you need to be careful with analogies as David Hume warned layman a long time ago. Analogies need to be analogous for potency, you could have did better, but yet you didn’t. I don’t see no double standard, because I don’t see how your analogy is valid.

            Aronra said “If you take the time to watch the video above, imagine how deeply deceived you would be if you were raised with the type of education these people provide. They lie almost constantly and control the opinion of the reader continuously. It is insidious”

            Hence one can say the same about being raised by or influenced by a gang, do you agree or disagree?

            If you actually look at what I wrote, you’d easily notice that my comment DOES NOT go outside the boundary here, as it is relevant to the topic at hand.

            Aronra then asked for suggestions, and I gave him some, therefore there is no double standard done on my part. So all your accusations fall short

            you say “ps – I still want to know why you aren’t concerned with the plight of girls in Afghanistan. I know you’re comments haven’t been focused on that. You see THAT is my complaint. I don’t want you to focus solely on the United States. I want you to focus on the larger topic of global education.”

            When Aronra brings it up, I will do so as well.

          • says

            @sinned34

            Thank you for your courteous response

            “Excellent, then we’re in agreement that YEC beliefs do not belong in public schools. Perhaps if we ask them nicely to stop because we secularists are too busy trying to stop drugs and gangs from otherwise distracting kids, they’ll put their plans on hold and wait until all the other problems have gone away before they return to attempting to destroy science education.”

            YEC’s should be contributing to solving this problem of gangs and drugs as well, if they are not then they are indeed just looking worse than ever. Though we must keep in mind that (all YEC’s are not the same) There could be good YEC’s, bad YEC’s etc. This basically occurs in every worldview pertaining to the nature of reality so I’m pretty sure you know what I mean.

            Why not just get on them about this problem and ask for a lending hand? Do you think that every YEC is going to say ‘no I don’t care about the drug/alcohol/gang problem?

            you say “However, I’ll wager the actual response would be, “Drugs and gangs are there because we kicked god out of schools. We need to stop teaching these kids that evolution is correct and they are just animals, and start making them read the Bible in school again.” We’re not going to stop them from legislating their religion into schools by not resisting them.”

            How do you know every YEC will say this? If you think that the YEC’s will dismiss you outright, Would you like us Non-YEC’s to step in and give them some lessons in theology, Biblical scholarship, and historical Christianity?

            “As for the kids who aren’t interested in science, does that mean they don’t deserve to have a real science education? Those same kids probably aren’t interested in conjugating vowels in English class or learning algebra in math, so I guess it’d be okay to let some anti-intellectual idiot tell them that Z is also a vowel, or tell them that pi equals exactly three?”

            Since when did I say that I’m for not teaching a real science education, just because we have many kids that aren’t interested in science? Also you say ‘anti-intellectual’ idiot in an analogy as an example with someone who isn’t knowledgeable in science. This is odd, though I don’t know how strong of a claim you are making with this, so I would like it if you clarified this a bit more.

            Are you are saying that one can only be an intellectual if and only if it is the case that they are knowledgeable in science?

            I would think that authors, artists, musicians, doctors, philosophers are intelligent (or at least have the potential to be), yes? I would say J.S Bach and Mozart were two highly intelligent people.

            “Teenagers are interested in teenage pop culture? Wow, what a shock. Not all kids are interested in science? Again, not really a surprise. What should we do about that? I don’t know. I’m not particularly interested in that right now. I’m more worried about the kids that DO want a good science education. Every where I look in the media, somebody is screaming about the plague of drugs or gang violence affecting kids, but almost nobody talks about YECs sneaking creationist bullshit into schools.”

            Wait a minute, if science is so important wouldn’t we WANT teenagers to take it with more consideration as maybe they find it boring only, because their peers find it boring? I don’t agree with you here, in fact I think this is our first MAJOR disagreement.

            “Maybe it’s because I had my love of science sabotaged by creationist idiots when I was in school, but I figure enough people are worried about helping kids keep away from drugs and violence. I feel not enough people are protecting them from religious idiots trying to ruin kids’ education. You don’t have to agree with my priorities, but it’s impolite to try to force everyone here to talk about what YOU want to talk about. I’m sure there’s lots of blogs to discuss what to do about bored, high, sex-crazed students besides this place.”

            I don’t think enough people are worried about helping kids keep away from drugs, as the studies show an increase in drug use, though if it IS the case that people are helping these kids they aren’t doing a good job at it, both seem like serious problems to me.

            Suppose you want someone close to you experience the same ‘love’ you have for science, but yet it gets sabotaged because the person turns into a junkie or joins a gang, isn’t the conclusion still the same? Creationists (I’m guessing you are defining it in the traditional sense) are wrong here, but they aren’t the only one’s that can spoil your plan.

          • Karlheinzofwpg says

            @cornelll

            “You are clearly lost here, if you notice the OP said NOTHING about any other countries…..”

            Just as Aronra’s posts have said nothing about drugs or gangs. Therefore the analog is accurate. Keep thinking about it. I sense you already accept what I’m saying but aren’t the type to admit when he is caught acting the hypocrite. You see Cornelll, it’s funny how I never see you discussing ‘other’ problems in the education program that have little or nothing to do with the United States. My question here is: Are you aware of these ‘other’ problems happening around the world or do you just want to constantly complain at issues only if ‘The United States’ is involved? Because I’m pretty sure that 1000’s of issues outside of your borders have an impact on education, yes?

            So do you, Cornelll, ever raise awareness on this factors? I would think that if you were ‘genuinely’ concerned with education you should bring this up a bit more, yes?

          • cornell says

            @Karl

            “Just as Aronra’s posts have said nothing about drugs or gangs. Therefore the analog is accurate.”

            Though it does talk about offering suggestions on how to make ‘education’ better….in the US

            So your analogy fails, and my topic is valid to this discussion.

            “Keep thinking about it. I sense you already accept what I’m saying but aren’t the type to admit when he is caught acting the hypocrite. You see Cornelll, it’s funny how I never see you discussing ‘other’ problems in the education program that have little or nothing to do with the United States.”

            The only ‘thinking’ I’d like to see here is your attempt to clear up this obvious fallacy that you have committed:

            Taken from onegoodmove.org

            “In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P”

            There is an obvious similarity in my statement as it pertains to education in the US, it also provides an answer to a question in which was asked:

            Any suggestions

            The topic of the thread was:

            Constant attacks on Education

            US + Constant attacks on education = my solution to the constant attacks on education in the US

            Therefore your argument fails

            “My question here is: Are you aware of these ‘other’ problems happening around the world or do you just want to constantly complain at issues only if ‘The United States’ is involved? Because I’m pretty sure that 1000′s of issues outside of your borders have an impact on education, yes?”

            My answer, I believe we need to place more focus on the US education as more of a priority, before helping others with their education.

            South Korea and Finland however are in a much better position to help other countries regarding this issue, because they have the stats to back them up. If you want to dig deeper in this issue, there are plently of articles online that show Finland and South Korea being ahead of us.

            So the US can still help other nations, but I believe it needs to fix it’s own mess first as once this is solved it will be more effective.

            It’s kind of like choosing between taking advice on X, between person A who is ranked 17th and Person B who is ranked 1st, who would you go with? A or B?

            There is my answer, now what is your answer?

            “So do you, Cornelll, ever raise awareness on this factors? I would think that if you were ‘genuinely’ concerned with education you should bring this up a bit more, yes?”

            Of course, I frequently speak to people in other countries online. I suggest to them articles that can help in their needs. I am part of a few FB groups in which I encounter Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu’s, agnnostics, atheists, Eastern world etc.

            See all you had to do was ask, I’m glad you asked.

        • davidhart says

          It kind of does have something to do with religion. The major obstacle to dealing with problematic drug use is the fact that so many Western governments insist on treating it is a criminal matter rather than a medical one – indeed, insist on treat all drug use (apart from alcohol and tobacco) as a criminal matter, whether that drug use is problematic or not.
          If we had a tightly regulated market in recreational drugs, with age controls, we could
          a) make it harder for kids to buy drugs, because the legal dealers (who would be closely watched to make sure they weren’t selling to minors*) could sell cheaply enough to adults to undercut the bulk of the illegal marketplace, thus leaving the black market dealers only able to sell to children, and
          b) focus all of the police resources that are currently spent on aresting and prosecuting adult drug users and sellers on the illegal dealers who do remain in the illegal market in order to sell to children, thus making it much more dangerous and much less profitable to be an illegal dealer
          c) reduce gang violence because gangs tend to form in response to the need to protect one’s interest in an illegal marketplace where you can’t rely on the police and the courts to protect your interests… and when the market in drugs for adults is in the control of legally regulated businesses, and the police attention is focussed like a laser on those who are selling to children, the profitability of selling drugs in the illegal marketplace will be so much reduced that the need to form gangs is significantly lessened – and of course, the police, now freed from the need to arrest adult drug users and the now-legal businesses selling to adults, will also have more resources to focus on gangs in schools
          d) Spend much more of the public budget on decent education anyway, since drug ‘crimes’ currently constitute such a huge fraction of police, court and prison budgets – the money currently spent on policing, trying and incarcerating otherwise-law-abiding adult drug users, even if we set some of it aside for greater police scrutiny of dealers-to-minors, will leave a lot more to spend on schools.

          *When more minors say it’s easy to buy cannabis than say it’s easy to buy beer you know you’ve got a very weak case for prohibition, and a strong case for legal regulation with appropriate age controls

          And of course, while children using drugs is not, on balance, agood thing, remember that a teenager having a few spliffs over the course of the week is still much more likely to do well in school than one who is smoking crack or drinking whisky every day – some drugs mess up your education much more than others, and some quantities of drug use are low enough to not make much difference – and we can focus medical attention on the few who really need have problems – and either way, a child who is a moderate drug user in an excellent school with a proper science program is still likely to come out better educated than a totally straightedge child in a crappy, underfunded school that teaches myths instead of science.

          And this is before you even get started on the fact that a conviction for simple drug possession while in school can massively hinder one’s future education prospects – a truly ludicrous response to a genuine problem. Whatever measure we make to help children who have a drug problem, blocking off federal funding to go to university, and giving them a criminal record which makes it much harder to get a good job once they leave education, cannot be part of any rational response.

          And what are the major obstacles to sensible, evidence-based drug regulation? Annoyingly, my google-fu lets me down right now, but get back to me if you don’t believe me and I’ll dig stuff up when I have more time, but ask yourself: who is currently more likely to support the criminalisation of drug use and sale (other than alcohol or tobacco) in Texas? Is it the atheists? Or is it the religious people? I’m pretty sure you’ll find it’s the religious who are more likely to support a policy which makes what would be a moderate-sized health problem into a massive criminal problem, simply because they cannot tolerate the thought of other people doing something risky but pleasurable. Of course, the correllation isn’t overwhelming, but if you could take religion out of the equation, we would still be in a better position to look at what will actually help reduce drug-related harms, rather than obsessively focussing on stamping on drug use regardless of whether that policy causes more harm than it prevents.

          • davidhart says

            That sounds a little deraily, since it doesn’t attempt to rebut any of my points, and yet swerves away from conceding them. And you know full well that the word ‘religion’ gets a little fuzzy round the edges. But I operate on a practical working definition of:
            Religion: the belief that the number of gods is greater than zero.
            And if you then need me to define ‘gods’, how about this:
            Gods: self-aware supernatural entities, which it is a worthwhile project for humans to attempt to pray to, propitiate or otherwise communicate with.
            And if you then need ‘supernatural’ defined, then I must direct you to Richard Carrier’s definition, which is the most carefully teased-apart definition I’ve yet come across.

            (TL;DR: the supernatural involves ontologically basic mental elements, but you should really read his whole spiel).

            So are we done? Or are you going to try to refute my original point that the forces of religion not only directly make the project of educating children harder by obstructing the teaching of science, but also indirectly by adding weight to the lobby that makes drugs and gang problems worse by refusing to take a humane, evidence-based approach that doesn’t presuppose the validity of a policy of prohibition?

          • cornell says

            @David

            This makes no sense

            On the one hand you say:

            “That sounds a little deraily, since it doesn’t attempt to rebut any of my points, and yet swerves away from conceding them.”

            But then you concede to this point

            “And you know full well that the word ‘religion’ gets a little fuzzy round the edges.”

            Obviously that’s not a swerve, philosophers take much importance in ‘definitions’. Please see: Ramsey/Lewis Method of Defining Terms for one method. This is philosophy 101

            Starting one’s post with an evaluative statement about defining or asking for definitions of terms, is crucial as it helps to avoid equivication fallacies. You can even request clarifications as well.

            So anyways you define religion in a very layman sense of the term

            “Religion: the belief that the number of gods is greater than zero.
            And if you then need me to define ‘gods’, how about this:
            Gods: self-aware supernatural entities, which it is a worthwhile project for humans to attempt to pray to, propitiate or otherwise communicate with.
            And if you then need ‘supernatural’ defined, then I must direct you to Richard Carrier’s definition, which is the most carefully teased-apart definition I’ve yet come across.”

            I don’t agree with this definition and I don’t see why one should use Richard Carrier as a source.

            He takes an actual scholarly source and tweeks it up a bit, even before the tweeking the scholarly source doesn’t match up well with the poor authority you’ve used here in Richard carrier who is just a historian and writer.

            “A better definition is:
            •Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
            •A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
            •Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
            •A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
            •Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual.
            •Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
            •A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
            •A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
            •A social group bound together by the above.”

            Austin Cline’s definition is much more precise and it relates better with academia. Cline is also a better authority if you check his CV.

            In fact his tweeking, came directly from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy

            Carrier IMO is a poor authority so I reject this outright

            “So are we done? Or are you going to try to refute my original point that the forces of religion not only directly make the project of educating children harder by obstructing the teaching of science, but also indirectly by adding weight to the lobby that makes drugs and gang problems worse by refusing to take a humane, evidence-based approach that doesn’t presuppose the validity of a policy of prohibition?”

            No, because you are defining religion in a very layman sense of the word. It’s something this simple that is also very vital to everything you said, only because it GROUNDS your argument.

            So we really can’t go any further until you keep up date with academia. Thank you

          • davidhart says

            Really? You’re the one who’s already successfully derailed the conversation from the subject of the religiously-inspired pushing of scientific ignorance in schools to the subject of drug use and gangs in schools, and you’re now going to insist on derailing your own derail until we have a perfectly watertight definition of religion?

            I’m sorry, but that won’t wash. My simple definition takes in the vast majority of people who call themselves religious, and excludes the vast majority of people who call themselves not religious, certainly in Texas, and you know it. If you genuinely believe that we can’t discuss religion as it applies to most people until we have a perfect sifting algorithm for the most finely borderline cases, then I don’t know what your interest is in interacting with people who care about what is true most of the time in the real world.

            Now are you going to address the question of religion as the word ‘religion’ is understood by most people, most of the time having a negative impact on our ability to enact rational drug policies or not?

          • says

            @David

            “My simple definition takes in the vast majority of people who call themselves religious, and excludes the vast majority of people who call themselves not religious, certainly in Texas, and you know it. If you genuinely believe that we can’t discuss religion as it applies to most people until we have a perfect sifting algorithm for the most finely borderline cases, then I don’t know what your interest is in interacting with people who care about what is true most of the time in the real world”

            You can stick with laymen and fundies who probably have never opened up a beginners book in philosophy, I’ll stick with academia.

            Thanks for the discussion

          • davidhart says

            We do not need an absolutely watertight definition of ‘music’ in order to discuss the relative merits or the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Most people can sort most things into ‘music’ and ‘not music’, although there are a few areas where consensus is hard to reach – see, for instance, some of the more out-there experiments of John Cage.

            We don’t need an absolutely watertight definition of ‘wood’ in order to be able to say whether ash would be better than maple for a particular job, even if we are unable to reach agreement on whether bamboo ‘counts’.

            Heck, we don’t even need to have an absolutely watertight definition of ‘human’ in order to have a workable concept of human rights.

            In all these cases we can get by on a good working definition, and can make much more progress if we avoid getting de-railed by those who insist on splitting hairs before we can even begin to address the big picture.

            So let me reframe my position: religion as the word ‘religion’ is understood by most people in Texas is both a direct obstacle to education in Texas (by hindering the teaching of science) and an indirect obstacle (by innuring people against the sort of evidence-based policies that would reduce drug-related harms and the economic and social incentives to join gangs).

            If you’re genuinely so snobbish that you will only talk to philosophers, what on earth are you doing on this blog which is not a specialist publication for philosophers?

            If, on the other hand, your insistence on ‘stick[ing] to academia’ is just bluster, then I trust you will address the question.

        • manhattanmc says

          “….Now where exactly did you demonstrate that I’m an idiot? Is it because you said so? Well I’m sorry, but that type of emotional reasoning doesn’t hold well with me.”

          No point in arguing with feigned ignorance.

          Done.

      • says

        @Manhattanmc

        “This is starting to look like a vendetta, Cornie.”

        So let me get this straight

        By your assumption here, in which you supported with 0 evidence I can only ask this:

        Are you saying Disagreement = automatic vendetta?

        • manhattanmc says

          I’m saying you might as well have accused Aron of slacking off on finding that cure for cancer along with all your other arbitrary whining. Following your vigorous campaign to paint him as ‘picking on fundies’ I would say the evidence suggests you’ve got major butt hurt.

          At this point I feel only pity for you since you are so far from what you imagine yourself to be and so obviously consumed by hatred.

          • says

            @mahhattanmc

            I don’t get how you can make the correlation from what I’ve been stating about ‘other’ problems in education to “herp derp you should scorn him for not coming up with a cure for cancer’.

            That is a terrible accusation on your part that looks more like meaningless banter.

            Also I don’t know why I’d be butt hurt if it is the case that I argue against ‘fundies’ myself, I mean if you just took the time to read what I actually wrote you might have picked that up.

            So that’s two terrible unsubstantiated claims against me on your part

            Lastly I don’t see how Disagreement = hatred, you might want to try giving some ‘evidence’ for your bare assertion here, unless you happen to be one of those people who constantly argues with ‘emotion’.

            *Manhattanmc says so, therefore it must be true* doesn’t really work for me, I need something more!

            Try harder bud, perhapsI can offer you some beginner books in logic/argumentation if you need some help?

            Would you like me to recommend to you a scholarly introduction book regarding logic?

        • manhattanmc says

          “I don’t get how you can make the correlation from what I’ve been stating about ‘other’ problems in education to “herp derp you should scorn him for not coming up with a cure for cancer’.”

          All your concerns are completely legitimate but completely off topic and designed to denigrate Ra. You aren’t this stupid-don’t pretend otherwise.

          “That is a terrible accusation on your part that looks more like meaningless banter.”

          You are undeniably on some kind of mission here and thrashing wildly for some kind of a foothold.

          “Also I don’t know why I’d be butt hurt if it is the case that I argue against ‘fundies’ myself, I mean if you just took the time to read what I actually wrote you might have picked that up.”

          Your writing mostly bores me. You’ve been whining regularly that Ra ‘picks on fundies and YECs’. Don’t try to deny it-I will just cut and paste and post links.

          “So that’s two terrible unsubstantiated claims against me on your part.”

          Derp derp derpity derp. Re-read my post and yours and think really really hard. It might come to you.

          “Lastly I don’t see how Disagreement = hatred, you might want to try giving some ‘evidence’ for your bare assertion here, unless you happen to be one of those people who constantly argues with ‘emotion’.”

          Excoriating someone for honest efforts to improve the world by bringing up other concerns is hardly ‘disagreement’, fool. And the hatred is manifest in your very presence here as you try to fluff up controversy in your inimitable and inept manner.

          “*Manhattanmc says so, therefore it must be true* doesn’t really work for me, I need something more!”

          You confuse my statements with your own. Remember when you tried to prove ‘god’ exists by defining ‘god’ as “necessary” I do.

          “Try harder bud, perhapsI can offer you some beginner books in logic/argumentation if you need some help?”

          Hahahahaha-riiiight. Did you plug ‘swahili speaking frogs, arboreal octopi or bigfoot’ into your ‘deductive proof’ in place of ‘necessary being’ yet? Hint: it won’t change a thing.

          “Would you like me to recommend to you a scholarly introduction book regarding logic?”

          You are pretty much the last person I would ask for advice on that topic.

          Now, back to your butt hurt caterwauling, Mr. Derp.

          • says

            @manhattan

            “All your concerns are completely legitimate but completely off topic and designed to denigrate Ra. You aren’t this stupid-don’t pretend otherwise.”

            I believe the major problem here is your a presuppositions about me regarding my ‘intent’

            “You are undeniably on some kind of mission here and thrashing wildly for some kind of a foothold. ”

            Wrong, and this is a case in point. My only mission here is ‘rational discourse’,. you’ll notice that I’ve been respectable to those who actually engage in my questions.

            “Your writing mostly bores me. You’ve been whining regularly that Ra ‘picks on fundies and YECs’. Don’t try to deny it-I will just cut and paste and post links.”

            I respect Aronra and consider him to be a smart man, though my claim against him stands, so if you wish to make an objection to my statement, please do so, but don’t caricature my arguments only because of your unsupported presuppositions.

            “Derp derp derpity derp. Re-read my post and yours and think really really hard. It might come to you.”

            translation: You’re right cornell, I couldn’t counter this so I’m just going to use an evasion

            Next time you can save yourself sometime and just say ‘NOU’

            “Excoriating someone for honest efforts to improve the world by bringing up other concerns is hardly ‘disagreement’, fool. And the hatred is manifest in your very presence here as you try to fluff up controversy in your inimitable and inept manner.”

            It’s ok if people disagree with your views manhattan, but calling hatred is just plain silly. There is no reason for me to stir up controversy so again your presuppositions are your worst enemy. Perhaps this ‘hatred’ you speak of exposes a guilty conscience on your part, who knows?

            “You confuse my statements with your own. Remember when you tried to prove ‘god’ exists by defining ‘god’ as “necessary” I do.”

            And the problem with that was….what exactly? Complaints don’t equal arguments my friend

            “Hahahahaha-riiiight. Did you plug ‘swahili speaking frogs, arboreal octopi or bigfoot’ into your ‘deductive proof’ in place of ‘necessary being’ yet? Hint: it won’t change a thing.”

            Ah I see, actually it does, now can you please list the properties of ‘bigfoot’ (let’s use him first) This silly objection usually exposes the fact that the interlocutor doesn’t understand my argument. So we can go over it, piece by piece on why this analogy FAILS as it is not analogous to a maximally great being, now please list big foot’s properties, ty

            “You are pretty much the last person I would ask for advice on that topic”

            Well as long you are OK with me fixing your future mistakes, (no offense) as I have a feeling you will be making plenty of those, unless however you pick up the slack and read an introduction book to logic.

        • manhattanmc says

          {““All your concerns are completely legitimate but completely off topic and designed to denigrate Ra. You aren’t this stupid-don’t pretend otherwise.”

          “I believe the major problem here is your a presuppositions about me regarding my ‘intent’”

          Fool, you have called Ra a fraud, claiming he pretends to be a philosopher and a Luther scholar. Your intent here is clear to everyone except you.

          {“You are undeniably on some kind of mission here and thrashing wildly for some kind of a foothold. ”}

          “Wrong, and this is a case in point. My only mission here is ‘rational discourse’,. you’ll notice that I’ve been respectable to those who actually engage in my questions.”

          You have been taken to task, politely, by everyone else you have conversed with on this board. And they have said essentially the same thing I said. They simply have more patience than I or have not dealt with you previously.

          {“Your writing mostly bores me. You’ve been whining regularly that Ra ‘picks on fundies and YECs’. Don’t try to deny it-I will just cut and paste and post links.”}

          “I respect Aronra and consider him to be a smart man, though my claim against him stands, so if you wish to make an objection to my statement, please do so, but don’t caricature my arguments only because of your unsupported presuppositions.”

          Sorry, that is a pile of dog piss and you know it.
          After calling Ra a fraud who pretends to be a Luther scholar but isn’t and practicing philosophy (by rejecting it-hilarious) you brought up completely tangential concerns and whined about him not addressing them.
          Quite the expressions of respect there, fool.

          {“Derp derp derpity derp. Re-read my post and yours and think really really hard. It might come to you.”}

          “translation: You’re right cornell, I couldn’t counter this so I’m just going to use an evasion”

          Well certainly, if by ‘translation’ you actually mean ‘constructing a strawman with no resemblance to the facts at hand’.
          Congratulations on being so transparently disingenuous.

          “Next time you can save yourself sometime and just say ‘NOU’”

          Next time you can take your ‘derps’ and shove them where the sun don’t shine.
          My meaning was clear and I’m not the only one here who sees it so.

          {“Excoriating someone for honest efforts to improve the world by bringing up other concerns is hardly ‘disagreement’, fool. And the hatred is manifest in your very presence here as you try to fluff up controversy in your inimitable and inept manner.”}

          “It’s ok if people disagree with your views manhattan, but calling hatred is just plain silly. There is no reason for me to stir up controversy so again your presuppositions are your worst enemy. Perhaps this ‘hatred’ you speak of exposes a guilty conscience on your part, who knows?”

          And now you’re an amateur shrink as well? I’m splitting my sides here, son.
          Your aim was not discourse. It was denigration and your track record here supports that conclusion. You are obviously PO’d at Ra. whether it’s because he kicked your butt or the butt of someone you respect in debate or just because he makes it difficult for you to continue to buy religious horse pucky I can’t say.

          {“You confuse my statements with your own. Remember when you tried to prove ‘god’ exists by defining ‘god’ as “necessary” I do.””

          “And the problem with that was….what exactly? Complaints don’t equal arguments my friend”

          Hahahahaha-what is the problem with defining ‘god’ as necessary? Seriously? You’re killing me here, clown.
          And I’m not your friend.

          {“Hahahahaha-riiiight. Did you plug ‘swahili speaking frogs, arboreal octopi or bigfoot’ into your ‘deductive proof’ in place of ‘necessary being’ yet? Hint: it won’t change a thing.”}

          “Ah I see, actually it does…”

          Nope. You could plug any proposition into your ‘deductive proof’ and it would just as valid. ‘Proving’ everything, it proves nothing.

          “….. now can you please list the properties of ‘bigfoot’ (let’s use him first)…”

          You didn’t list any properties for your ‘god’ in your proof, fool, and you don’t get to move the goal posts now.

          “This silly objection usually exposes the fact that the interlocutor doesn’t understand my argument.”

          Sorry-this silly assertion just exposes the fact that the sophist doesn’t understand the argument that he copied and pasted.

          “So we can go over it, piece by piece on why this analogy FAILS as it is not analogous to a maximally great being, now please list big foot’s properties, ty”

          Hahahaha-show me where in your ‘proof’ the term ‘maximally great’ was used, moron.
          Then plug in ‘swahili speaking frogs’ where you used ‘necessary being’ and explain to me why the proof isn’t still valid.

          {“You are pretty much the last person I would ask for advice on that topic.”}

          “Well as long you are OK with me fixing your future mistakes, (no offense) as I have a feeling you will be making plenty of those, unless however you pick up the slack and read an introduction book to logic.”

          You haven’t corrected a single mistake from me, fool, while I have corrected several of yours.
          You didn’t even understand the difference between argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam for crap’s sake.
          I can connect you with a remedial tutor in logic if you really want to get on the playing field.

          And only a religious freak would offer a ‘feeling’ as if it meant squat.
          Derpa derpity derp, Mr. Derp.

          • says

            @manhattan

            “Fool, you have called Ra a fraud, claiming he pretends to be a philosopher and a Luther scholar. Your intent here is clear to everyone except you.”

            Obviously I know Aronra is not a Lutheran scholar, but he sure tries to be one during his lectures.
            I don’t think he is a fraud I just think he is ignorant, so he can’t help it. He constantly addresses YEC’s and other fundies, but never takes part of writings from Theists in academia.

            “You have been taken to task, politely, by everyone else you have conversed with on this board. And they have said essentially the same thing I said. They simply have more patience than I or have not dealt with you previously.”

            This is nonsense, you’ve been on my case since my first response and you have shown NO respect towards me. So your definition of ‘polite’ is far different than mine.

            “Sorry, that is a pile of dog piss and you know it.
            After calling Ra a fraud who pretends to be a Luther scholar but isn’t and practicing philosophy (by rejecting it-hilarious) you brought up completely tangential concerns and whined about him not addressing them.
            Quite the expressions of respect there, fool.”

            No I don’t know it, but what I do know is the fact that you love making assertions with no evidence other than ‘emotion’. I don’t see how bringing up concerns of not addressing non-fundies is whining. I believe any disagreement I have towards your closed-minded thinking would be entailed as whining, so I’m damned if I say something, and damned if I don’t. Oh well

            “Well certainly, if by ‘translation’ you actually mean ‘constructing a strawman with no resemblance to the facts at hand’.
            Congratulations on being so transparently disingenuous”

            I can’t help the fact that you are an abject layman who has never bothered to crack open a book on philosophy, and that you don’t understand what you’re stating, but instead you use your googling skills to links on an ontological argument that I’m not even arguing for. Anyways it’s actually better when you DEMONSTRATE the strawman instead just assert it. That’s a strawman, I’m not arguing for Plantinga’s OA, hence you are attacking something I’m not defending. Please L2notstrawman

            “Next time you can take your ‘derps’ and shove them where the sun don’t shine.
            My meaning was clear and I’m not the only one here who sees it so.”

            Translation: I hate you, because we disagree

            Oh and you’re not the only one here who sees it, wow and there is nothing biased at all using a bunch of atheists whilst making a point against a Theist. This is terrible reasoning on your part.
            I would NEVER use this pathetic excuse on a Theist blog either, so don’t get any ideas, I’ve seen enough bare assertions from you.

            “Hahahahaha-what is the problem with defining ‘god’ as necessary? Seriously? You’re killing me here, clown.
            And I’m not your friend.”

            If you have a problem with the LOGIC, please address the problem, laughing about it doesn’t make the argument invalid.

            1. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that it is not possible for there to be a Necessary Being.

            2. Let ‘Something Uncausable’ stand for the statement, ‘if there are contingent situations that obtain, then at least one of them is impossible to cause’.
            3. It is not necessary that Something Uncausable is true.
            4. Therefore, it is possible that Something Uncausable is not true.
            5. Necessarily, if Something Uncausable is not true, then no contingent situation (that obtains) is uncausable. (by definition of ‘Something Uncausable’)
            6. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a situation W in which every contingent situation (that obtains there) is causable (possibly has a cause). (by 4 & 5)
            7. Let ‘C’ stand for the situation of there being (and having ever been) exactly whatever contingent things exist (or existed) in W. [note]
            8. W includes C. (by definition of ‘C’)
            9. If W is possible and W includes C, then C is possible. (by definition of ‘includes’)
            10. Therefore, C is possible. (by 6-9)
            11. C is not necessary.

            Proof. Suppose C is necessary. Then either the contingent things it includes are necessary (by definition of ‘includes’), which is contradictory, or else C does not include contingent things. If C does not include contingent things, then it is necessary that there are no contingent things (assuming C is necessary). If it is necessary that there are no contingent things, then since it is possible for there to be something that has a cause, it follows that it is possible for there to be a cause that is not contingent. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a Necessary Being (by definition of ‘Necessary Being’), which contradicts 1.
            Therefore, the supposition that C is necessary is not true (on the assumptiont that it is not possible for there to be a Necessary Being).

            12. Therefore, C is a contingent situation. (by definition of ‘contingent situation’)
            13. Therefore, C is causable. (because every contingent situation in W is causable, by definition of ‘W’).
            14. It is not possible for a contingent thing to be prior to the situation of there being (and having ever been) exactly whatever contingent things exist (or existed) in W. (by definition of ‘prior to’ and ‘exactly’)
            15. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause C. (by 14 & definition of ’cause’)
            16. Therefore, it is possible for something that is not contingent to cause C. (by 13 & 15)
            17. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a Necessary Being. (by definition of ‘Necessary Being’ & 16)

            [note] For example, suppose W includes just 4 contingent things. Then if C obtains, those 4 contingent things exist and no other contingent things exist (or have ever existed).

            So which premise do you deny?

            Part 1

        • manhattanmc says

          “…..Are you mad, because I’m not a fundy and you want ‘easier’ arguments to knock down so you can feel smart?”

          Why would you assume I’m feeling any emotion at all?
          And have you really not noticed that I’ve knocked down every single argument you’ve presented?
          Wow-such world class perspicacity.

          “BTW, long islander here, so I know how ‘liberal’ NYC is, and I know how anti-religious it can get. I bump into people like yourself all the time.”

          Hahahahaha-
          Yup, goober, all New Yorkers are the same, we’re all anti-religious and I’m a type not an individual.

          You better retake that introduction to informal logic course, fool. It didn’t help you at all last time.

          • says

            @manhattan

            “You haven’t corrected a single mistake from me, fool, while I have corrected several of yours.
            You didn’t even understand the difference between argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam for crap’s sake.”

            Where did I use an ad-populum, please demonstrate this?

            “Why would you assume I’m feeling any emotion at all?”

            Oh gee, I don’t know the constant insults that show your obsession with me. It’s noticable that you’ve lost, one notices this type of attitude all the time. Next time don’t insult it makes it look even more obvious

            “And have you really not noticed that I’ve knocked down every single argument you’ve presented?”

            Really? Where? The insults? Only in your mind, saying ‘naturedidit’ doesn’t entail that you’ve knocked down my arguments. in fact I’ve completely dissected everything you’ve stated and exposed your ignorance.

            “Yup, goober, all New Yorkers are the same, we’re all anti-religious and I’m a type not an individual.”

            Basic lesson in logic:

            IF all new yorkers are the same, and they are all anti-religious then it makes no sense on the fact that I am a new yorker and I am not anti-religious, so your argument fails. Do you follow?

            You make it so easy, and I’m going to enjoy tearing apart every nonsensical claim you throw at me

            Have a nice day!

        • manhattanmc says

          {“You haven’t corrected a single mistake from me, fool, while I have corrected several of yours.
          You didn’t even understand the difference between argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam for crap’s sake.””

          “Where did I use an ad-populum, please demonstrate this?”

          It’s official. You are an idiot.
          You characterized my assertion that you and Dutko should discuss cosmology with cosmologists, philosophy with and biology with biologists as ‘argumentum ad populum, fool.
          You don’t even know how to ask the right question or you’ve forgotten our previous conversations.
          Either way-you’re to stupid to breathe.

          {“Why would you assume I’m feeling any emotion at all?”}

          “Oh gee, I don’t know the constant insults that show your obsession with me. It’s noticable that you’ve lost, one notices this type of attitude all the time. Next time don’t insult it makes it look even more obvious.”

          Hahahaha-demonstrating an idiot is an idiot doesn’t take emotion or even much effort.

          {“And have you really not noticed that I’ve knocked down every single argument you’ve presented?”}

          “Really? Where? The insults? Only in your mind, saying ‘naturedidit’ doesn’t entail that you’ve knocked down my arguments. in fact I’ve completely dissected everything you’ve stated and exposed your ignorance.”

          Everywhere-read any exchange we’ve had.
          You have dissected nothing, fool. in fact you have understood almost nothing and exposed your own ignorance again and again.
          You didn’t even recognize one the earliest refutations of the ontological argument. Funny stuff.

          {“Yup, goober, all New Yorkers are the same, we’re all anti-religious and I’m a type not an individual.”}

          “Basic lesson in logic…”

          What’s needed here isn’t a lesson in logic-it’s a lesson in recognizing sarcasm and a warning against quote mining.

          “IF all new yorkers are the same, and they are all anti-religious then it makes no sense on the fact that I am a new yorker and I am not anti-religious, so your argument fails. Do you follow?”

          You ridiculous dumb fuck. I was mocking your own assertion posted above for everyone to read:

          “BTW, long islander here, so I know how ‘liberal’ NYC is, and I know how anti-religious it can get. I bump into people like yourself all the time.” cornie the 3rd on this board

          Your thought processes are so garbled. you can’t even keep track of whether you’re talking about NYC or NY state.
          And it is just priceless that you didn’t recognize that i was mocking you. Bonus!

          “You make it so easy, and I’m going to enjoy tearing apart every nonsensical claim you throw at me”

          Well-you certainly showed me brainiac. Except that you…..just…..demonstrated…..that….. you….are an……idiot once again-by your own words. And i note you use the future tense-you may start at any time.
          ROTFLMAO

          “Have a nice day!”

          FOAD, troll.

          • says

            @manhattan

            “It’s official. You are an idiot.
            You characterized my assertion that you and Dutko should discuss cosmology with cosmologists, philosophy with and biology with biologists as ‘argumentum ad populum, fool.
            You don’t even know how to ask the right question or you’ve forgotten our previous conversations.
            Either way-you’re to stupid to breathe”

            First off, I believe you should check out the moderators thread that speaks about ‘ad-hominems’ and ‘insults’. Since you are incapable of showing maturity, I will do my best to answer everything here with courtesy.

            Ok, I don’t recall ANYTHING in which I was talking specifically about Dutko, so this is a strawman. I don’t even know whether or not he is a YEC, OEC, or a TE.

            And that’s not even an ad-populum as it doesn’t say anything about whether or not X is true, so you clearly building a strawman here, whilst misunderstanding what an ad-populum actually is.

            “Hahahaha-demonstrating an idiot is an idiot doesn’t take emotion or even much effort.”

            oook…So are you saying it takes one to know one? This is what it looks, and I’m not being a wiseguy here as you are setting yourself up. Again, insults =/= arguments

            “Everywhere-read any exchange we’ve had.
            You have dissected nothing, fool. in fact you have understood almost nothing and exposed your own ignorance again and again.
            You didn’t even recognize one the earliest refutations of the ontological argument. Funny stuff.”

            You mean the ontological argument that I wasn’t making? Oh yes the ‘bigfoot’ claim, well that fails, here is why:

            maximally great being (MGB) is ja stipulative definition where we define the word God as ‘that than which nothing can be thought to be greater’. You can call this bigfoot, or whatever you please, but in the end you are just calling ‘bigfoot’…..God

            And I don’t even see how that parody even applies anyways as you didn’t make any objections to a premise. I was basically just arguing for a ‘necessary being’. You jumped the gun and though I was using Plantinga’s version when indeed this was not the case.

            Necessary being defined as: A Necessary Being is anything that necessarily exists and that can cause something else to exist (or occur).

            This is what Plantinga’s argument looks like by the way, when it is all said and done:

            Let
            Ax =df x is maximally great
            Bx =df x is maximally excellent
            W(Y) =df Y is a universal property
            Ox =df x is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect
            Deduction

            1 ◊(∃x)Ax pr
            2 (x)(Ax ≡ Bx) pr
            3 (x)(Bx ⊃ Ox) pr
            4 (Y)[W(Y) ≡ ((∃x)Yx ∨ (~(∃x)Yx)] pr
            5 (Y)[(∃Z)(x)(Yx ≡ Zx) ⊃ W(Y)] pr
            6 (∃Z)(x)(Ax ≡ Zx) 2, EG
            7 [(∃Z)(x)(Ax ≡ Zx) ⊃ W(A)] 5, UI
            8 W(A) ≡ ((∃x)Ax ∨ (~(∃x)Ax) 4, UI
            9 W(A) 6, 7 MP
            10 W(A) ⊃ ((∃x)Ax ∨ (~(∃x)Ax) 8, Equiv, Simp
            11 (∃x)Ax (~(∃x)Ax) 9, 10 MP
            12 ~◊~~(∃x)Ax ∨ ((∃x)Ax) 11, Com, ME
            13 ◊(∃x)Ax ⊃ (∃x)Ax DN, Impl
            14 (∃x)Ax 1, 13 MP
            15 (x)(Ax ≡ Bx) ⊃ ((∃x)Ax ⊃ (∃x)Bx) theorem
            16 (∃x)Bx 14, 15 MP (twice)
            17 (x)(Bx ⊃ Ox) ⊃ ((∃x)Bx ⊃ (∃x)Ox) theorem
            18 (∃x)Ox 16, 17 MP (twice)
            19 (∃x)Ox 18, NE

            Or the shorter version:

            Premise 1: It is possible that a Maximally Great Being (MGB) exists
            Premise 2: If it is possible that a MGB exists, then a MGB exists in some possible world
            Premise 3: If a MGB exists in some possible world, then a MGB exists in all possible worlds
            Premise 4: If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, then a MGB exists in the actual world
            Premise 5: If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists
            Conclusion: A MGB exists.

            This is good for you to know for next time. Oh and my argument still goes through as your objection doesn’t work

            “What’s needed here isn’t a lesson in logic-it’s a lesson in recognizing sarcasm and a warning against quote mining.”

            “You ridiculous dumb fuck. I was mocking your own assertion posted above for everyone to read:”

            Very strange way of doing it, and why are you so mad considering that you were indeed mocking me? This DEFENSIVENESS speaks volumes my friend. hmmm

            Anyways, please read Aronra’s thread pertaining to ‘insults’ and I think it would be good for you to look up the principle of charity.

            “Your thought processes are so garbled. you can’t even keep track of whether you’re talking about NYC or NY state.
            And it is just priceless that you didn’t recognize that i was mocking you. Bonus!”

            Since when is NYC not a part of NY state?

            “Well-you certainly showed me brainiac. Except that you…..just…..demonstrated…..that….. you….are an……idiot once again-by your own words. And i note you use the future tense-you may start at any time.
            ROTFLMAO”

            Ah, ‘ROTFLMAO’ I used to type this statement out to other people when I was younger as it made me feel superior to all those n00bs I just pwned in Everquest, but then I kinda grew out of it. So I guess that this means that you automatically know what you’re talking about?

            Now where exactly did you demonstrate that I’m an idiot? Is it because you said so? Well I’m sorry, but that type of emotional reasoning doesn’t hold well with me.

            “FOAD, troll”

            Takes one to know one, eh?

          • says

            @manhattan

            “Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
            Of course you know he isn’t a lutheran scholar and I don’t think you can show me where he has claimed to be.”

            I appreciate the fact that you and I agree on something! I also notice that at times you use my fancy slogans on me, after I’ve used them against either you or Aronra. This time you stole the cute little ‘reading comprehension’ quip from me. Maybe it’s time to come up with your material!

            “The rest of that is your opinion and who cares what you think?”

            Obviously you cared enough to reply, even after the fact that you labelled me as a troll, but yet you are still talking to me, which entails that you enjoy being trolled. Well luckily for you, I’m not a troll!

            “Need I say more?”

            Since when does calling someone ignorant on X, considered to be bad?

            Here is another lesson for you:

            I am not a Greek historian, therefore I am ignorant in Greek history, though I see no reason why I should take this as an insult. So if a Greek historian called me ignorant in Greek history, I wouldn’t cry foul as you are doing here.

            Also I still consider Aronra to be smart, one can still be smart and ignorant about X (X being any subject) at the same time.

            “Do you see why I don’t take you seriously? We’ve already discussed this at length and here you are repeating the same clap trap.”

            Was that before or after the numerous insults you’ve thrown at me? We haven’t really discussed much, in fact I’ve been trying to have a rational discussion with you for quite some time now, but you can’t get too far past the name calling. (maybe a few points here and there) That’s not my problem.

            “Let the biologists discuss biology and the academics debate the philosopher’s many ‘possible gods’.

            Well see that’s nice and all, but that’s not how it works here in modern times. Richard Dawkins is a prime example, just look at chapter 4 in the God delusion where he becomes a philosopher of religion. I can post many more examples if you wish?

            “Sigh. Your abysmal reading comprehension leads me to believe you lied about that BA.
            Where did I say I had been polite? Show me. You can’t do it, fool.
            And this board is not where our conversation began.”

            Yes, I lied about my BA, when I could have just made my image even better and state “I have an MA in X”. Yes I went out of my way just to lie about my BA, because having a BA automatically makes right about everything, no matter what the subject is. /sarcasm off

            You can believe whatever you wish, as it doesn’t magically take away my degree.

            “You have been disrespectful and insolent in every post from the first that I read.
            Why would you expect respect?”

            Ah so the old two wrongs make a right ordeal, (even though I haven’t done anything wrong, it’s not my fault you can’t handle disagreement) well first off I don’t take moral advice from people who obsessively insulting others they disagree with, so I’m sorry if I’m not persuaded by your moral philosophy. Bertrand Russell was right and when I pointed out his quote regarding ‘insults’ you blew up, this is an obvious indication that I’ve gotten the better of you, and you used name-calling as a last ditch effort. You need to learn how to argue with LESS emotion IMO.. especially on the internet

            “WTF, moron. Do I really have to cut and paste your direct quotes again?
            And you did bring up tangential concerns and you undeniably whined about Ra not addressing them-as several posters here have noted. And enough of the claims of seeing ‘emotion’-you shown that you don’t recognize it.”

            Ah look, what do we have here, another insult, how classy of you. To answer your question, YES BRING UP MY QUOTES AS I AM NOT A MIND READER, I debate many people on different forums so I can’t sit there and go through every comment. It makes things alot easier to SEE the quote, as we can go over it’s CONTEXT in which you might have missed. I’m doing the same with you right now.

            ” I don’t see how bringing up concerns of not addressing non-fundies is whining.”

            “Why aren’t you addressing biology and evolution? (Yes-I know you claim to accept evolution-spare me the irrelevant points.) You harp on philosophy because you mistakenly think it’s your strong point. Ra actually is very strong on biology and evolution. If you want to see the standard creationist arguments against evolution demolished, he’s your man.”

            Well since AronRa and I agree with alot of aspects of evolution, what exactly would you like me to talk about? Also, I don’t know if you noticed this, but a good number of threads from Aronra have little or nothing to do with biology and/or evolution. In fact he does make some moral complaints from time to time and posts about RELIGION.

            “Complaining that he doesn’t address the courtier’s reply piffle of christian academics is like faulting Tiger Woods for his baking skills.”

            Bad analogy, first off Tiger woods doesn’t complain about baking, (or at least he isn’t that vocal about it). It isn’t just Christian academics that disagrees with him either, I’ve listed some ATHEIST EXISTENTIALISTS that don’t follow his views as well. I can list Deists, Theists, agnostistics that disagree with his views and would argue against some of his positions if you like? I saw the video on Aronra last year at the reason rally and his arguments were absolutely terrible and the people he engaged with were nothing more than fundies? Eric Hovind? Wow….taking on the big guns, eh? Then we have some kid who actually argued “if humans came from monkey’s why are there still monkeys”? Thunderf00t came in an gave the fundy a lesson, but the point is, BEFORE that Aronra was making claims about History. He then tells me in another thread that many historians back him up on this, though he didn’t list any. I just want to know why he believes what he believes, and I’d like to hear some ‘reasoning’ on why he thinks his position makes the most sense of the nature of reality.

            “The closed-mindedness is yours, fool. If you really don’t see the difference between honest disagreement and faulting someone for not doing something you basically rectally extracted there’s no real point in talking to you.”

            Oh is that so, and that’s why I have books from Atheists, and Theists alike, right? This is why I’ve read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, Sagan, Krauss, and R. Carrier? Perhaps this closeminded thinking is a big reason on why I have David Hume, Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre, and Fredrick Neitzsche on my bookshelf right now? Or look at works from the atheists I respect the most in Thomas Nagel, Graham Oppy, J.L Mackie, William Rowe and Michael Tooley. If that’s closed minded, then please back up your claim with some ‘reasoning’ on what I would have to do to fulfil this ridiculous criteria of yours in order for me to be open-minded?

            “I’ve got a news flash for you, chump. A handful of college courses, in a subject in which you didn’t even get a degree, don’t make you a professional philosopher nor do they even guarantee that you will have a clue as to what you cut and paste might mean.”

            So where am I cutting an pasting this from? You seem to say things, but you never back them up with any credible evidence? Also where did I say I was a professional philosopher? This appears to be ANOTHER strawman on your part. Though since you are not a logician, you are forgiven.

            “Assumption”

            Good observation, considering I feel like my job is being your tutor regarding this subject.

            “You’ve yet to prove that.”

            I can’t help the fact that you dismiss everything I say, only because of disagreement, when you stop putting your fingers in yours ears yelling ‘la la la la, you’re a Theist so you’re automatically wrong’ then we might be able to go places. If you want to see patience, take a breather for awhile, come back to this thread and look at the way I’ve dealt with your vitriolic behavior towards me.

            “Sorry-I read that argument against Plantinga’s crack pot version of the ontological version when it was first posted. It was not the result of a google search.”

            And I wasn’t using Plantinga’s version, this is the 3rd time now I’ve stated this.

            “And I already explained why I selected Plantinga. It had nothing to do with your cut and paste logic and I never made that connection-you just assumed I did. Moron that you are.”

            Cut and paste logic? Makes no sense, I never said that this was MY argument, though it is amusing how you are now backpedaling from your links that criticized Platinga. You know the articles from chris hallquist, and John Loftus…..that specifically addressed Plantinga’s OA.

            “Bullshit. You put him on your list of ‘sophistemicated christian academics’ Ra should engage.
            Or do you want to give us a list of only the sound arguments Plantinga makes?”

            Yes, I did put him on my list, but that doesn’t mean I’m using his argument right this second. In fact I haven’t arguments for many of those Theists yet, so you make absolutely no sense.

            There are Theists on that list who don’t even like the OA, in fact most Theists don’t even pay it much attention. In conclusion your statement makes no sense, who cares if Plantinga was on that list, so were alot of other philosophers, though only a few of those philosophers actually hold to that necessary being argument.

            “Hilarious coming from you after all the straw men you have erected here.”

            Yet, no examples from you on where I actually did this.

            “Nope-for the reading comprehension impaired the translation is:
            “I hate you because you’re a disrespectful, shit stirring troll with no clue about how deluded he is about his own abilities”

            And you’re perfect? And you’re respectful? Look at what you’re saying to me here, how exactly is this an act of taking the moral high ground?

            “If we were talking about reason you might have a point-grow a little hair, wear a hat and maybe no one will notice. But we’re talking about your trolling and just about everyone you’ve conversed with here has remarked on it in so many words.”

            If trolling = disagreement, then by your definition I am trolling, but luckily academia doesn’t agree with you. Debates have been a part of philosophy for a very long time, and with this argumentation comes about. You also try to make a point in which atheists from the atheist community are agreeing with you, well this isn’t persuasive for the same reason theists from the theist community would be agreeing with me, if we were on a Theist blog. Though I’d never try and gloat about that anyways.

            “WUT? There is no sense in arguing with reality-even if you imagine yourself to be a philosophical adept LOL You are essentially claiming that everyone here is accusing you of attempting to derailing the conversation because you’re a theist and are thus biased against you rather than accepting the reality that you are indeed attempting to derail the conversation.
            Pathetic.”

            This is a complete distortion of what I meant, read my last comment. I’m not impressed with ‘bias’

            “Like all forms of the contingency/cosmological arguments-from Plato to William lane Craig-the rub is that leap from ’cause’ to ‘being’. Unwarranted.
            And 17 steps to get to the ‘possibility’ of a philosopher’s god’……..

            Really quite pathetic.”

            Wow first off, no objection to ANY premise, just a bunch of rambling, and secondly this has NOTHING to do with Plato as he didn’t even use the OA, in fact it was Anselm of canterbury who lived about a thousand years later that came up with it. Contigency, yes, but I’d like for you to look at the jargon I’ve listed below this paragraph so you can have a better understanding of this argument. WLC? What are you talking about, WLC has never used this argument that I’m using. He barely uses the Modal OA, but this isn’t the modal OA. You are now shooting blanks and running out of ammo here, as you were WAY OFF on that one. Keep in mind, I’m going to keep calling you out on every mistake that you make, so if you aren’ t sure about something, DON’T ARGUE FOR IT, because I’m only going to point out your ignorance.

            Anyways here is some jargon for you, since you asked for definitions:

            A Necessary Being is anything that necessarily exists and that can cause something else to exist (or occur).

            Property – a term, concept, or abstract entity that characterizes whatever has it.

            Cause – A prior condition capable of explaining, or partly explaining, an event (or change)

            Event – a change from one state of affairs to another (the states of affairs being essential to the identity of the event.)

            Begins to be exemplified – A property begins to be exemplified if there begins (for the first time) to be one or more things that have it (are characterized by it).

            EX: ‘Redness’ is a property that began to be exemplified. And it can have instances that have a cause (because there can be red things that have been caused to exist). So, an event that causes the first red thing(s) would thereby cause ‘redness’ to begin to be exemplified.
            Instance – An instance of a property is something that has (is characterized by) that property.
            Causing – being a prior condition capable of explaining, or partly explaining an event, an even
            t (or change).

            Contingent – Something that does not, by nature, have to exist.

            Possible – not contradicting anything that’s necessary

            Impossible – contradict something that’s necessary

            Concrete – something that can be caused or uncaused
            Infinite chain – is one that lacks a first member

            Ungrounded chain – a chain in ungrounded if none of it’s members, even in part, by anything outside that chain.

            Definition of ‘N’ – A necessary being is something, such that were it to exist, it would be necessary that it would exist.

            Necessary being – Something that (i) can cause something, and that (ii) must, by nature, exist.

            Now since I’ve put up with all the insults, and responded to you like you were a human being, I’m hoping for the same respect via your response to me.

            ty

        • manhattanmc says

          {““Fool, you have called Ra a fraud, claiming he pretends to be a philosopher and a Luther scholar. Your intent here is clear to everyone except you.”}

          “Obviously I know Aronra is not a Lutheran scholar, but he sure tries to be one during his lectures.”

          Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
          Of course you know he isn’t a lutheran scholar and I don’t think you can show me where he has claimed to be.
          The rest of that is your opinion and who cares what you think?

          “I don’t think he is a fraud I just think he is ignorant, so he can’t help it. ” cornie the 3rd

          “I respect Aronra and consider him to be a smart man..” also cornie the 3rd

          Need I say more?

          “He constantly addresses YEC’s and other fundies, but never takes part of writings from Theists in academia.”

          Do you see why I don’t take you seriously? We’ve already discussed this at length and here you are repeating the same clap trap.
          Let the biologists discuss biology and the academics debate the philosopher’s many ‘possible gods’.

          {“You have been taken to task, politely, by everyone else you have conversed with on this board. And they have said essentially the same thing I said. They simply have more patience than I or have not dealt with you previously.”}

          “This is nonsense, you’ve been on my case since my first response and you have shown NO respect towards me. So your definition of ‘polite’ is far different than mine.”

          Sigh. Your abysmal reading comprehension leads me to believe you lied about that BA.
          Where did I say I had been polite? Show me. You can’t do it, fool.
          And this board is not where our conversation began.
          You have been disrespectful and insolent in every post from the first that I read.
          Why would you expect respect?

          {“Sorry, that is a pile of dog piss and you know it.
          After calling Ra a fraud who pretends to be a Luther scholar but isn’t and practicing philosophy (by rejecting it-hilarious) you brought up completely tangential concerns and whined about him not addressing them.
          Quite the expressions of respect there, fool.”}

          “No I don’t know it, but what I do know is the fact that you love making assertions with no evidence other than ‘emotion’.”

          WTF, moron. Do I really have to cut and paste your direct quotes again?
          And you did bring up tangential concerns and you undeniably whined about Ra not addressing them-as several posters here have noted. And enough of the claims of seeing ‘emotion’-you shown that you don’t recognize it.

          ” I don’t see how bringing up concerns of not addressing non-fundies is whining.”

          Why aren’t you addressing biology and evolution? (Yes-I know you claim to accept evolution-spare me the irrelevant points.) You harp on philosophy because you mistakenly think it’s your strong point. Ra actually is very strong on biology and evolution. If you want to see the standard creationist arguments against evolution demolished, he’s your man.
          Complaining that he doesn’t address the courtier’s reply piffle of christian academics is like faulting Tiger Woods for his baking skills.

          “I believe any disagreement I have towards your closed-minded thinking would be entailed as whining, so I’m damned if I say something, and damned if I don’t. Oh well”

          The closed-mindedness is yours, fool. If you really don’t see the difference between honest disagreement and faulting someone for not doing something you basically rectally extracted there’s no real point in talking to you.

          {“Well certainly, if by ‘translation’ you actually mean ‘constructing a strawman with no resemblance to the facts at hand’.
          Congratulations on being so transparently disingenuous”}

          “I can’t help the fact that you are an abject layman….”

          I’ve got a news flash for you, chump. A handful of college courses, in a subject in which you didn’t even get a degree, don’t make you a professional philosopher nor do they even guarantee that you will have a clue as to what you cut and paste might mean.

          “…..who has never bothered to crack open a book on philosophy….”

          Assumption.

          “…..and that you don’t understand what you’re stating…”

          You’ve yet to prove that.

          “….but instead you use your googling skills to links on an ontological argument that I’m not even arguing for.”

          Sorry-I read that argument against Plantinga’s crack pot version of the ontological version when it was first posted. It was not the result of a google search.
          And I already explained why I selected Plantinga. It had nothing to do with your cut and paste logic and I never made that connection-you just assumed I did. Moron that you are.

          “Anyways it’s actually better when you DEMONSTRATE the strawman instead just assert it. That’s a strawman, I’m not arguing for Plantinga’s OA….”

          Bullshit. You put him on your list of ‘sophistemicated christian academics’ Ra should engage.
          Or do you want to give us a list of only the sound arguments Plantinga makes?

          “….hence you are attacking something I’m not defending. Please L2notstrawman”

          Hilarious coming from you after all the straw men you have erected here.

          {“Next time you can take your ‘derps’ and shove them where the sun don’t shine.
          My meaning was clear and I’m not the only one here who sees it so.”}

          “Translation: I hate you, because we disagree”

          Nope-for the reading comprehension impaired the translation is:
          “I hate you because you’re a disrespectful, shit stirring troll with no clue about how deluded he is about his own abilities”

          “Oh and you’re not the only one here who sees it, wow and there is nothing biased at all using a bunch of atheists whilst making a point against a Theist. This is terrible reasoning on your part.”

          If we were talking about reason you might have a point-grow a little hair, wear a hat and maybe no one will notice. But we’re talking about your trolling and just about everyone you’ve conversed with here has remarked on it in so many words.

          “I would NEVER use this pathetic excuse on a Theist blog either, so don’t get any ideas, I’ve seen enough bare assertions from you.”

          WUT? There is no sense in arguing with reality-even if you imagine yourself to be a philosophical adept LOL You are essentially claiming that everyone here is accusing you of attempting to derailing the conversation because you’re a theist and are thus biased against you rather than accepting the reality that you are indeed attempting to derail the conversation.
          Pathetic.

          {“Hahahahaha-what is the problem with defining ‘god’ as necessary? Seriously? You’re killing me here, clown.
          And I’m not your friend.”}

          “If you have a problem with the LOGIC, please address the problem, laughing about it doesn’t make the argument invalid.”

          “1. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that it is not possible for there to be a Necessary Being.

          Note that your cut and paste starts with a ‘being’.
          then we get no mention of ‘beings’-only situations and things:

          “2. Let ‘Something Uncausable’ stand for the statement, ‘if there are contingent situations that obtain, then at least one of them is impossible to cause’.
          3. It is not necessary that Something Uncausable is true.
          4. Therefore, it is possible that Something Uncausable is not true.
          5. Necessarily, if Something Uncausable is not true, then no contingent situation (that obtains) is uncausable. (by definition of ‘Something Uncausable’)
          6. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a situation W in which every contingent situation (that obtains there) is causable (possibly has a cause). (by 4 & 5)
          7. Let ‘C’ stand for the situation of there being (and having ever been) exactly whatever contingent things exist (or existed) in W. [note]
          8. W includes C. (by definition of ‘C’)
          9. If W is possible and W includes C, then C is possible. (by definition of ‘includes’)
          10. Therefore, C is possible. (by 6-9)
          11. C is not necessary.

          Proof. Suppose C is necessary. Then either the contingent things it includes are necessary (by definition of ‘includes’), which is contradictory, or else C does not include contingent things. If C does not include contingent things, then it is necessary that there are no contingent things (assuming C is necessary). If it is necessary that there are no contingent things, then since it is possible for there to be something that has a cause, it follows that it is possible for there to be a cause that is not contingent. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a Necessary Being (by definition of ‘Necessary Being’), which contradicts 1.
          Therefore, the supposition that C is necessary is not true (on the assumptiont that it is not possible for there to be a Necessary Being).

          12. Therefore, C is a contingent situation. (by definition of ‘contingent situation’)
          13. Therefore, C is causable. (because every contingent situation in W is causable, by definition of ‘W’).
          14. It is not possible for a contingent thing to be prior to the situation of there being (and having ever been) exactly whatever contingent things exist (or existed) in W. (by definition of ‘prior to’ and ‘exactly’)
          15. Therefore, it is not possible for a contingent thing to cause C. (by 14 & definition of ’cause’)
          16. Therefore, it is possible for something that is not contingent to cause C. (by 13 & 15)”

          Until right here, nit wit.

          “17. Therefore, it is possible for there to be a Necessary Being. (by definition of ‘Necessary Being’ & 16)”

          …….and suddenly we’re talking about a ‘being’ again.

          Like all forms of the contingency/cosmological arguments-from Plato to William lane Craig-the rub is that leap from ’cause’ to ‘being’. Unwarranted.
          And 17 steps to get to the ‘possibility’ of a philosopher’s god’……..

          Really quite pathetic.

          • says

            @manhattan

            “Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
            Of course you know he isn’t a lutheran scholar and I don’t think you can show me where he has claimed to be.”

            I appreciate the fact that you and I agree on something! I also notice that at times you use my fancy slogans on me, after I’ve used them against either you or Aronra. This time you stole the cute little ‘reading comprehension’ quip from me. Maybe it’s time to come up with your material!

            “The rest of that is your opinion and who cares what you think?”

            Obviously you cared enough to reply, even after the fact that you labelled me as a troll, but yet you are still talking to me, which entails that you enjoy being trolled. Well luckily for you, I’m not a troll!

            “Need I say more?”

            Since when does calling someone ignorant on X, considered to be bad?

            Here is another lesson for you:

            I am not a Greek historian, therefore I am ignorant in Greek history, though I see no reason why I should take this as an insult. So if a Greek historian called me ignorant in Greek history, I wouldn’t cry foul as you are doing here.

            Also I still consider Aronra to be smart, one can still be smart and ignorant about X (X being any subject) at the same time.

            “Do you see why I don’t take you seriously? We’ve already discussed this at length and here you are repeating the same clap trap.”

            Was that before or after the numerous insults you’ve thrown at me? We haven’t really discussed much, in fact I’ve been trying to have a rational discussion with you for quite some time now, but you can’t get too far past the name calling. (maybe a few points here and there) That’s not my problem.

            “Let the biologists discuss biology and the academics debate the philosopher’s many ‘possible gods’.

            Well see that’s nice and all, but that’s not how it works here in modern times. Richard Dawkins is a prime example, just look at chapter 4 in the God delusion where he becomes a philosopher of religion. I can post many more examples if you wish?

            “Sigh. Your abysmal reading comprehension leads me to believe you lied about that BA.
            Where did I say I had been polite? Show me. You can’t do it, fool.
            And this board is not where our conversation began.”

            Yes, I lied about my BA, when I could have just made my image even better and state “I have an MA in X”. Yes I went out of my way just to lie about my BA, because having a BA automatically makes right about everything, no matter what the subject is. /sarcasm off

            You can believe whatever you wish, as it doesn’t magically take away my degree.

            “You have been disrespectful and insolent in every post from the first that I read.
            Why would you expect respect?”

            Ah so the old two wrongs make a right ordeal, (even though I haven’t done anything wrong, it’s not my fault you can’t handle disagreement) well first off I don’t take moral advice from people who obsessively insulting others they disagree with, so I’m sorry if I’m not persuaded by your moral philosophy. Bertrand Russell was right and when I pointed out his quote regarding ‘insults’ you blew up, this is an obvious indication that I’ve gotten the better of you, and you used name-calling as a last ditch effort. You need to learn how to argue with LESS emotion IMO.. especially on the internet

            “WTF, moron. Do I really have to cut and paste your direct quotes again?
            And you did bring up tangential concerns and you undeniably whined about Ra not addressing them-as several posters here have noted. And enough of the claims of seeing ‘emotion’-you shown that you don’t recognize it.”

            Ah look, what do we have here, another insult, how classy of you. To answer your question, YES BRING UP MY QUOTES AS I AM NOT A MIND READER, I debate many people on different forums so I can’t sit there and go through every comment. It makes things alot easier to SEE the quote, as we can go over it’s CONTEXT in which you might have missed. I’m doing the same with you right now.

            ” I don’t see how bringing up concerns of not addressing non-fundies is whining.”

            “Why aren’t you addressing biology and evolution? (Yes-I know you claim to accept evolution-spare me the irrelevant points.) You harp on philosophy because you mistakenly think it’s your strong point. Ra actually is very strong on biology and evolution. If you want to see the standard creationist arguments against evolution demolished, he’s your man.”

            Well since AronRa and I agree with alot of aspects of evolution, what exactly would you like me to talk about? Also, I don’t know if you noticed this, but a good number of threads from Aronra have little or nothing to do with biology and/or evolution. In fact he does make some moral complaints from time to time and posts about RELIGION.

            “Complaining that he doesn’t address the courtier’s reply piffle of christian academics is like faulting Tiger Woods for his baking skills.”

            Bad analogy, first off Tiger woods doesn’t complain about baking, (or at least he isn’t that vocal about it). It isn’t just Christian academics that disagrees with him either, I’ve listed some ATHEIST EXISTENTIALISTS that don’t follow his views as well. I can list Deists, Theists, agnostistics that disagree with his views and would argue against some of his positions if you like? I saw the video on Aronra last year at the reason rally and his arguments were absolutely terrible and the people he engaged with were nothing more than fundies? Eric Hovind? Wow….taking on the big guns, eh? Then we have some kid who actually argued “if humans came from monkey’s why are there still monkeys”? Thunderf00t came in an gave the fundy a lesson, but the point is, BEFORE that Aronra was making claims about History. He then tells me in another thread that many historians back him up on this, though he didn’t list any. I just want to know why he believes what he believes, and I’d like to hear some ‘reasoning’ on why he thinks his position makes the most sense of the nature of reality.

            “The closed-mindedness is yours, fool. If you really don’t see the difference between honest disagreement and faulting someone for not doing something you basically rectally extracted there’s no real point in talking to you.”

            Oh is that so, and that’s why I have books from Atheists, and Theists alike, right? This is why I’ve read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, Sagan, Krauss, and R. Carrier? Perhaps this closeminded thinking is a big reason on why I have David Hume, Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre, and Fredrick Neitzsche on my bookshelf right now? Or look at works from the atheists I respect the most in Thomas Nagel, Graham Oppy, J.L Mackie, William Rowe and Michael Tooley. If that’s closed minded, then please back up your claim with some ‘reasoning’ on what I would have to do to fulfil this ridiculous criteria of yours in order for me to be open-minded?

            “I’ve got a news flash for you, chump. A handful of college courses, in a subject in which you didn’t even get a degree, don’t make you a professional philosopher nor do they even guarantee that you will have a clue as to what you cut and paste might mean.”

            So where am I cutting an pasting this from? You seem to say things, but you never back them up with any credible evidence? Also where did I say I was a professional philosopher? This appears to be ANOTHER strawman on your part. Though since you are not a logician, you are forgiven.

            “Assumption”

            Good observation, considering I feel like my job is being your tutor regarding this subject.

            “You’ve yet to prove that.”

            I can’t help the fact that you dismiss everything I say, only because of disagreement, when you stop putting your fingers in yours ears yelling ‘la la la la, you’re a Theist so you’re automatically wrong’ then we might be able to go places. If you want to see patience, take a breather for awhile, come back to this thread and look at the way I’ve dealt with your vitriolic behavior towards me.

            “Sorry-I read that argument against Plantinga’s crack pot version of the ontological version when it was first posted. It was not the result of a google search.”

            And I wasn’t using Plantinga’s version, this is the 3rd time now I’ve stated this.

            “And I already explained why I selected Plantinga. It had nothing to do with your cut and paste logic and I never made that connection-you just assumed I did. Moron that you are.”

            Cut and paste logic? Makes no sense, I never said that this was MY argument, though it is amusing how you are now backpedaling from your links that criticized Platinga. You know the articles from chris hallquist, and John Loftus…..that specifically addressed Plantinga’s OA.

            “Bullshit. You put him on your list of ‘sophistemicated christian academics’ Ra should engage.
            Or do you want to give us a list of only the sound arguments Plantinga makes?”

            Yes, I did put him on my list, but that doesn’t mean I’m using his argument right this second. In fact I haven’t arguments for many of those Theists yet, so you make absolutely no sense.

            There are Theists on that list who don’t even like the OA, in fact most Theists don’t even pay it much attention. In conclusion your statement makes no sense, who cares if Plantinga was on that list, so were alot of other philosophers, though only a few of those philosophers actually hold to that necessary being argument.

            “Hilarious coming from you after all the straw men you have erected here.”

            Yet, no examples from you on where I actually did this.

            “Nope-for the reading comprehension impaired the translation is:
            “I hate you because you’re a disrespectful, shit stirring troll with no clue about how deluded he is about his own abilities”

            And you’re perfect? And you’re respectful? Look at what you’re saying to me here, how exactly is this an act of taking the moral high ground?

            “If we were talking about reason you might have a point-grow a little hair, wear a hat and maybe no one will notice. But we’re talking about your trolling and just about everyone you’ve conversed with here has remarked on it in so many words.”

            If trolling = disagreement, then by your definition I am trolling, but luckily academia doesn’t agree with you. Debates have been a part of philosophy for a very long time, and with this argumentation comes about. You also try to make a point in which atheists from the atheist community are agreeing with you, well this isn’t persuasive for the same reason theists from the theist community would be agreeing with me, if we were on a Theist blog. Though I’d never try and gloat about that anyways.

            “WUT? There is no sense in arguing with reality-even if you imagine yourself to be a philosophical adept LOL You are essentially claiming that everyone here is accusing you of attempting to derailing the conversation because you’re a theist and are thus biased against you rather than accepting the reality that you are indeed attempting to derail the conversation.
            Pathetic.”

            This is a complete distortion of what I meant, read my last comment. I’m not impressed with ‘bias’

            “Like all forms of the contingency/cosmological arguments-from Plato to William lane Craig-the rub is that leap from ’cause’ to ‘being’. Unwarranted.
            And 17 steps to get to the ‘possibility’ of a philosopher’s god’……..

            Really quite pathetic.”

            Wow first off, no objection to ANY premise, just a bunch of rambling, and secondly this has NOTHING to do with Plato as he didn’t even use the OA, in fact it was Anselm of canterbury who lived about a thousand years later that came up with it. Contigency, yes, but I’d like for you to look at the jargon I’ve listed below this paragraph so you can have a better understanding of this argument. WLC? What are you talking about, WLC has never used this argument that I’m using. He barely uses the Modal OA, but this isn’t the modal OA. You are now shooting blanks and running out of ammo here, as you were WAY OFF on that one. Keep in mind, I’m going to keep calling you out on every mistake that you make, so if you aren’ t sure about something, DON’T ARGUE FOR IT, because I’m only going to point out your ignorance.

            Anyways here is some jargon for you, since you asked for definitions:

            A Necessary Being is anything that necessarily exists and that can cause something else to exist (or occur).

            Property – a term, concept, or abstract entity that characterizes whatever has it.

            Cause – A prior condition capable of explaining, or partly explaining, an event (or change)

            Event – a change from one state of affairs to another (the states of affairs being essential to the identity of the event.)

            Begins to be exemplified – A property begins to be exemplified if there begins (for the first time) to be one or more things that have it (are characterized by it).

            EX: ‘Redness’ is a property that began to be exemplified. And it can have instances that have a cause (because there can be red things that have been caused to exist). So, an event that causes the first red thing(s) would thereby cause ‘redness’ to begin to be exemplified.
            Instance – An instance of a property is something that has (is characterized by) that property.
            Causing – being a prior condition capable of explaining, or partly explaining an event, an even
            t (or change).

            Contingent – Something that does not, by nature, have to exist.

            Possible – not contradicting anything that’s necessary

            Impossible – contradict something that’s necessary

            Concrete – something that can be caused or uncaused
            Infinite chain – is one that lacks a first member

            Ungrounded chain – a chain in ungrounded if none of it’s members, even in part, by anything outside that chain.

            Definition of ‘N’ – A necessary being is something, such that were it to exist, it would be necessary that it would exist.

            Necessary being – Something that (i) can cause something, and that (ii) must, by nature, exist.

            Now since I’ve put up with all the insults, and responded to you like you were a human being, I’m hoping for the same respect via your response to me.

            ty

        • manhattanmc says

          “….blah blah blah ignoring all points made….blah blah….Now since I’ve put up with all the insults, and responded to you like you were a human being, I’m hoping for the same respect via your response to me. ”

          We are finished, troll, when you claim not to remember our previous conversations there is no point in discussing anything further with you.

    • JCarr says

      @Cornelll

      I think it is fair to say that those are indeed legitimate concerns in American schools. However, that isn’t the concern that Aron was discussing in this particular blog. You’ve gone off on a tangent, diverting away from the main point, and it appears to be simply argumentative for the sake of argument. If you devoted a post, complete with information and links, describing the rising issue of cyberbullying among teens, and some commentator came in with “yeah, but what about the increase in poor science scores?! Why won’t you talk about that??”….well, obviously such a response is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, even though it might be a valid concern.

      Let’s put these three issues in persective, too. Drug use among teens does indeed seem to be on the rise, with a weird variant in abuse of bath salts. It should be noted, though, that the biggest problem, by far, is still alcohol, and that these numbers routinely fluctuate over the years, spiking and dropping.

      Statisticaly speaking, substance abuse still only affects a small percentage of our school’s populations nationally. Same goes for gang activity. The numbers might seem intimidating, but the simple fact remains that most teens are relatively unaffected by these concerns. Bear in mind, there’s a huge difference between drug use and drug abuse. For example, something around 65% of Americans (teens included) drink alcohol regularly (more than 12 drinks a year) or occasionally (less than 12 a year), but less than 15% are considered alcoholics.

      By contrast, warping or perverting curriculum to placate religious sensibilities or make the material more palatable to religious theology has an effect on ALL the students in the school. It also produces young Americans with an inadequate education, at a disadvantage in areas of history and science, and with a diminished capacity for critical thinking.

      When we modify education to fit a political or religious agenda, we jeopardize our society’s future, pure and simple.

      • says

        Jcarr most of what you say was very informative and important to the topic.

        Though I see no ‘tangent’ here, as all I’m doing is asking a simple question on whether or not Aronra holds to a sort of ‘tunnel vision’.

        Nothing more, nothing less, I believe you are oversimplifying things here with regards to my ‘intent’.

      • says

        @Jcarr

        A few questions

        You say “The numbers might seem intimidating, but the simple fact remains that most teens are relatively unaffected by these concerns. Bear in mind, there’s a huge difference between drug use and drug abuse. For example, something around 65% of Americans (teens included) drink alcohol regularly (more than 12 drinks a year) or occasionally (less than 12 a year), but less than 15% are considered alcoholics.”

        Isn’t this is a bit of ‘sugarcoating’? Are you stating that even if a teen drinks or takes a drug here or there it is permitted and ok?

        And what about gangs? You didn’t say anythingabout that

        Also don’t you agree that this whole ‘bus strike’ scenario that’s happening in public schools is a bit embarassing?

        • yngveb says

          @cornelli

          This looks more and more like an attempt to derail the discussion. If the religious right succeed in expunging proper science from the curriculum in American schools, it won’t matter one bit if gangs take over the schools in parallel. This is because the schools will fail in their prime task, which is to educate, either way. Of course it is a problem when students are using drugs in such a way that it interferes with their education, but that is no reason for AronRa not to focus on the malicious influence of the religious right. We all have our own pet peeves. Let AronRa focus on his on his blog, and you can focus on yours on your blog.

          The point several people have made here, and that I agree with, is that what you are basically saying is that: “As long as my issue is not addressed, there is no reason to focus on your issue.” By taking this stance you are laying yourself open to the charge that e.g. hunger in the third world is more important than drug use in the US, therefore we should focus on the former and postpone focusing on the latter.

          • Cornell says

            @yngveb

            The religious right couldn’t even get Obama out of the White house nor get a Christian to run for president, I believe you are giving them too much credit here.

            Secondly if gangs become more of a problem, good education becomes a threat. You can’t ignore this, this is something that is happening in schools, why don’t we see some suggestions here from the secularists? Or would they only say something if it was the case that all these gangs held to YEC?

            “The point several people have made here, and that I agree with, is that what you are basically saying is that: “As long as my issue is not addressed, there is no reason to focus on your issue.” By taking this stance you are laying yourself open to the charge that e.g. hunger in the third world is more important than drug use in the US, therefore we should focus on the former and postpone focusing on the latter.”

            And my point is simple, religion isn’t the cause of every problem that occurs in education, I’d like it if some secularists start owning up to the fact that religion isn’t the root of all problems that are occuring in the education field. I’d like it if this ‘secular country’ actually takes some responsibility for it’s problems that have absolutely nothing or little to do with religion, and puts at least SOME blame on themselves, but I don’t see this happening too much, because of this constant tunnel vision towards YEC’s. That’s all I ask, just admit that you are part of the blame. Take ownership of some of the mistakes. Man-up IMO

            As far as ‘religion’ goes, my views don’t go against yours regarding this scenario, so you should also make mention of those religious people who side with the secularists here, I don’t see much of that, so this is why I bring these issues up. Now you know my ‘intention’

        • JCarr says

          @Cornelll

          No sugarcoating, just hard numbers. These are issues that need resolution, certainly, especially for individual families or communities that are unfortunately dealing with these issues, but my point was to demonstrate that these issues aren’t as widespread or socially urgent an issue as people might like to think. They are indeed serious, but they are far too often exaggerated into epidemics by popular media. For the record, I am a clinical psychologist, and most of my work is with adolescents, young families, and in foster care, as well as facilitating parenting and substance abuse groups, and consulting at local schools. I AM rather familiar with the issues you feel need to be addressed.

          Why you are asking me if I think it’s okay for a teen to use a drug is beyond me. It is a completely irrelevant question, since I didn’t come down on one side or the other, just showed the numbers.

          In any event, as I noted, a serious issue that affects 100% of kids in schools is a much greater issue to address than an issue that affects 15% of the kids in schools. That doesn’t diminish the severity of drug abuse, bullying, sexting, gang activity, or the like, so please don’t suggest that I’m saying that, it’s just a question of putting the issues in proper overall perspective.

          You believe Aron has tunnel vision. You’re entitled to that opinion, of course. I don’t see it that way. It seems to me that he has started conversations on a very serious issue that needs to be resolved, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that he is ambivalent or dismissive of other issues, and completely shifting the focus away from the intended discussion to address what YOU consider more serious issues is counter-productive.

          Should we infer from your posts that you don’t feel perverting school curriculum to fit a religious theology or placate religious sensibilities is a serious issue?

          • says

            @Jcarr

            You say “No sugarcoating, just hard numbers. These are issues that need resolution, certainly, especially for individual families or communities that are unfortunately dealing with these issues, but my point was to demonstrate that these issues aren’t as widespread or socially urgent an issue as people might like to think.”

            I disagree, do you realize the initiationprocess that some of these gangs make people go through? I also posted a link below from 2011 that states the fact that there is 33,000 gangs in America right now.

            “Initiation

            Gang members and investigators have reported the following acts as a part of gang initiation;
            •Fighting another gang member, usually until the last man is standing
            •Killing an animal, often times someone’s beloved pet
            •Theft ranging from petty theft to car theft and even muggings with a weapon
            •Drive-by shootings
            •Gang rape
            •Murder
            •For female gang members; degrading sexual acts with groups of men and women”

            Source:

            http://www.nssc1.org/gang-initiation-stories.html

            Perhaps you’d think differently if it happened to you

            This is indeed a very serious issue that should be addressed, (you agree with me that it is serious) though if secularists are going to focus so much on YEC’s and YEC’s so much on getting their psuedo-science in schools then it will only get worse. But please carry on, I mean the studies only show the problem getting worse. I think this is dangerous and you are letting an evil grow without hardly ANY resistance. I say the same thing to fundies, religious right, or whatever you want to label them as.

            “Why you are asking me if I think it’s okay for a teen to use a drug is beyond me. It is a completely irrelevant question, since I didn’t come down on one side or the other, just showed the numbers.”

            Easy it’s called ‘slippery slope’ letting kids think it’s ok to drink and use drugs in small amounts doesn’t always end up well, and even social drinking is risky:

            //Many people who see themselves as “social drinkers” are at risk of developing long-term health conditions because of the amount they regularly drink.

            Most drinkers are unaware that regularly drinking more than the limits advised by the NHS can lead to a wide range of long-term health problems, including cancers, strokes and heart attacks.

            More than 55% of people questioned in a YouGov poll thought that alcohol only damages your health if you regularly get drunk or binge drink.

            The 2010 survey of 2,000 adults also found that 83% believed that regularly drinking more than the recommended daily limits didn’t put their long-term health at risk.

            The survey suggests that 7.5 million people might be unaware of the damage their drinking could be causing.//

            Source: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/alcohol/Pages/Socialdrinking.aspx

            So I don’t find this question of mine to be irrelevant at all. If you are one of those people who just ‘looks the other way’ to this situation, then so be it.

            ‘In any event, as I noted, a serious issue that affects 100% of kids in schools is a much greater issue to address than an issue that affects 15% of the kids in schools. That doesn’t diminish the severity of drug abuse, bullying, sexting, gang activity, or the like, so please don’t suggest that I’m saying that, it’s just a question of putting the issues in proper overall perspective.”

            I don’t even agree that it affects 15% of kids in the schools, first off we don’t know what happens in the long term to those 85% who would have been in contact with the 15%.

            Perhaps those kids who saw the other 15% might think they are ‘missing’ out and that they made a mistake, this probably leads to more drinking in the future, especially in colleges.

            Though to be fair, and I didn’t have to link this, at least ‘binge drinking’ in on a decline, though 38.4% is still high IMO.

            “Among young adults aged 18 to 22, the rate of binge drinking appears to be declining somewhat. In 2002, the binge drinking rate within this age group was 41.0 percent compared with the current 38.4 percent. Among full-time college students, the rate went from 44.4 to 42.2 percent, but the change was not significant. Among part-time college students and others not in college, the rate decreased from 38.9 to 35.6 percent during the same time period. ”

            http://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/2k10nsduh/2k10results.htm#Fig3-2

            As far as gangs go, I think this is a bigger problem and I’m not sure if you’ll FULLY understand why unless you’ve encountered them. Though I did show you some of the initiation processes which IMO should make you a little concerned.

            “You believe Aron has tunnel vision. You’re entitled to that opinion, of course. I don’t see it that way. It seems to me that he has started conversations on a very serious issue that needs to be resolved, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that he is ambivalent or dismissive of other issues, and completely shifting the focus away from the intended discussion to address what YOU consider more serious issues is counter-productive.”

            Not just Aronra, but many secularists who have an axe to grind with religion. I’d like to see him set an example towards others and address ‘other’ issues regarding education, because it could just be someone’s child from this blog who gets gang raped by one of the 1.4 million gang members that are currently in the USA.

            “A new FBI assessment has found there are now an estimated 1.4 million gang members in the United States with gangs expanding even infiltrating the U.S. military.”

            Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/fbi-finds-gangs-expanding-even-to-u-s-military/

            Aronra is an influence to many, me and him live in the same country, both of us want a better education system for our country. So I don’t see what’s the problem here, as I’m trying to raise awareness and get some secularists or someone, heck anyone to fend off a problem that could be very crucial to the future of this country regarding our youths. I’ll say the same thing to YEC’s as well.

            Now I think I’ve said my piece on this thread, if I raised some awareness to some people who are honest enough to admit that religious fundies aren’t the only people attacking education, then I did my job. Even if I swayed ONE person into digging deeper here, I feel like I’ve done my job. The blame goes everywhere IMO…

            I thank all those for taking the time to chat, take care!

            ty

          • says

            @manhattan

            While my comment is in moderation, I have a simple question

            Are you mad, because I’m not a fundy and you want ‘easier’ arguments to knock down so you can feel smart?

            BTW, long islander here, so I know how ‘liberal’ NYC is, and I know how anti-religious it can get. I bump into people like yourself all the time.

          • JCarr says

            @Cornelll

            “So I don’t find this question of mine to be irrelevant at all. If you are one of those people who just ‘looks the other way’ to this situation, then so be it.”

            I never said, hinted, or insinuated anything of the sort. I said the question was irrelevant because I didn’t reveal anything about how I feel about it personally. You are making an assumption that is completely unfounded.

            In fact, your posts are chock-full of assumptions all the way around, with some cut-n-paste information that you think supports your assertions.

            And, ironically, you just spent your last post lecturing a clinical psychologist who works with adolescents, substance abuse groups, and schools (as I mentioned to you) about issues that he deals with on a weekly basis, in lower income areas (hint: lots of drugs and gangs in those areas).

            There isn’t any point in talking with you. You aren’t listening. You’re so convinced that you are right that you even tell the experts that they are wrong.

            Drugs and gangs in schools do NOT adversely affect 100% of the teens in schools. I don’t need to do a google-search and find websites that support that view, and then come back here and triumphantly cry, “SEE!?” This is my work. I KNOW it. I’ve read and conducted research on it. If you want support for your assertions, try searching PsycINFO or EBSCO for legitimate research, or perhaps the American Psychological Association or American Psychiatric Association databases. Even the American Medical Association. You won’t find it.

            You CAN, however, find research that clearly shows the results of modifying education to fit a political or religious agenda. Science and math scores drop, in many cases significantly, and accurate historical knowledge and critical thinking skills suffer. That’s a school-wide effect.

            I’ll continue my work assisting these kids cope with substance dependence, families struggling with alcoholism, and consulting with schools on the latest research and methods to deal with bullying, gang activity, and the like….while you continue to roam the internet looking for “secularists” to fight and threads to derail toward your own pet topics.

            I rarely comment on these blogs, but you have been making assertions in my area of expertise that are….just, plain, wrong, regardless of the combined misinformation and selective information gathering you try to throw at it to hype it up.

            Drugs, gangs, bullying, sexting, risky sexual behavior,…these are all serious issues that may or may not be affecting the average American teen. Perverting a school’s curriculum to fit a theological agenda affects every single teen in that school. I’m sorry you just refuse to see the truth for what it is.

        • manhattanmc says

          “The religious right couldn’t even get Obama out of the White house nor get a Christian to run for president, I believe you are giving them too much credit here.”

          And yet they’ve succeeded in smuggling creationism into the classrooms of Texas and Louisiana and have exerted control over the contents of biology textbooks nation wide by getting frauds like McLeroy on the Texas State Board of Education.

          “Secondly if gangs become more of a problem, good education becomes a threat. You can’t ignore this, this is something that is happening in schools, why don’t we see some suggestions here from the secularists? Or would they only say something if it was the case that all these gangs held to YEC?”

          Sigh. Again with the moronic strawmen and caricatures.
          You’re off topic and you’re a shit stirring troll. end of discussion.

          {“The point several people have made here, and that I agree with, is that what you are basically saying is that: “As long as my issue is not addressed, there is no reason to focus on your issue.” By taking this stance you are laying yourself open to the charge that e.g. hunger in the third world is more important than drug use in the US, therefore we should focus on the former and postpone focusing on the latter.”}

          “And my point is simple, religion isn’t the cause of every problem that occurs in education….”

          Holy christ on a bouncing pogo stick. Did anyone here say it was? And no, that wasn’t your point, you prevaricating, dissembling piss ant.

          ” I’d like it if some secularists start owning up to the fact that religion isn’t the root of all problems that are occuring in the education field.”

          Done, moron. Happy? I didn’t think you would be. Vilifying teacher’s unions, unequal allocation of resources, failing to address poverty, forcing tests on the system and serving students fast food in the cafeteria get nods as well.

          ” I’d like it if this ‘secular country’ actually takes some responsibility for it’s problems that have absolutely nothing or little to do with religion, and puts at least SOME blame on themselves, but I don’t see this happening too much, because of this constant tunnel vision towards YEC’s. That’s all I ask, just admit that you are part of the blame. Take ownership of some of the mistakes. Man-up IMO”‘

          You want the country to blame itself? For…..what? Electing an arrogant spoiled rich boy who lied us into two wars and used religious dog whistles to do it? Electing repug imbeciles to congress who have defunded education, cut taxes for the 1% and raised them on everyone else, obliterated environmental regulations in the name of corporate profit, racism, xenophobia and sexism? Much of that can indeed be traced back to religion.

          “As far as ‘religion’ goes, my views don’t go against yours regarding this scenario, so you should also make mention of those religious people who side with the secularists here, I don’t see much of that, so this is why I bring these issues up. Now you know my ‘intention’”

          Your intention is to troll, nothing more, nothing less.

          • says

            @manhattan

            My fellow NYer

            “And yet they’ve succeeded in smuggling creationism into the classrooms of Texas and Louisiana and have exerted control over the contents of biology textbooks nation wide by getting frauds like McLeroy on the Texas State Board of Education.”

            OMG does that mean our nations debt is going to surpass 16 trillion? Does that mean the economy is going to get much worse than it already is? Are gas prices going to go up more? How about food prices? Are houses going to be tougher to buy than they already are? Are more people going to get shot in public schools and movie theaters? Are country is just doing so well, and now it’s going to go down the drain, right? Dude it’s not the end of the world, this is just so silly. I’m giving you problems that are much, much worse than this.

            “Sigh. Again with the moronic strawmen and caricatures.
            You’re off topic and you’re a shit stirring troll. end of discussion”

            Ah so now the insults come into play here, well this is an obvious sign of defeat. I have a quote from you from an atheist philospher in who I respect dearly that might teach you something.

            “A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when character, rather than content, is attacked. An ad-hominem seems to be a last ditch defense of the losing side.”

            – Bertrand Russell

            “Holy christ on a bouncing pogo stick. Did anyone here say it was? And no, that wasn’t your point, you prevaricating, dissembling piss ant.”

            Yes, actually the constant evading I see speaks volumes, oh and lookie here more insults, the *SUBSTANCE* of your argument

            Well here is another lesson:

            Even a freshman who has only taken Logic 101 knows that there are only two ways to refute an argument:

            A. Show the facts are wrong and/or

            B. Show the logic is invalid

            …There are no other ways to refute an argument. In fact, all you have done is made an Ad hominem FALLACY! Rather than refuting my argument you have called me a piss ant . So what if I am troll? Even if I was piss ant you still have not refuted my argument. Even a piss ant could state and subsequently prove that “the square root of 4 is plus and minus 2″ and have presented a valid argument.

            Are you mad MC? Maybe I can take the train out there and buy you a big soda before it gets banned, gotta love our liberal state, eh?

            “Done, moron. Happy? I didn’t think you would be. Vilifying teacher’s unions, unequal allocation of resources, failing to address poverty, forcing tests on the system and serving students fast food in the cafeteria get nods as well.”

            No I’m very happy, you’ve managed to make such a convincing statement pertaining to this concession of yours. By the way did you realize that people with PhD’s are having a tough time getting jobs right now, way to go secular education!!!!

            “Obama has made science education a priority, launching a White House science fair to get young people interested in the field.

            But it’s questionable whether those youths will be able to find work when they get a PhD. Although jobs in some high-tech areas, especially computer and petroleum engineering, seem to be booming, the market is much tighter for lab-bound scientists — those seeking new discoveries in biology, chemistry and medicine.”

            http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-07/national/35486154_1_research-jobs-life-sciences-scientists

            What’s the matter, you can’t take the heat? If religious people are going to get the blame here then I see no reasons on why the secularists get a free pass, if you are going to dish it out learn how to take it. If you are afraid of criticism, then maybe you shouldn’t be on here.

            By the way about the people with Ph’D’s who can’t get jobs, don’t you think this makes our country look foolish?

            http://www.postgraduateforum.com/thread-17887

            Just look at this absolute disaster that this country is in right now, and all I hear is complaining about religion, because people can ‘man-up’ and bite the bullet.

            The blame goes everywhere manhattan, for every problem you list pertaining to ‘religion’ regarding education, I can list a problem that has little or nothing to do with religion.

            “You want the country to blame itself? For…..what? Electing an arrogant spoiled rich boy who lied us into two wars and used religious dog whistles to do it? Electing repug imbeciles to congress who have defunded education, cut taxes for the 1% and raised them on everyone else, obliterated environmental regulations in the name of corporate profit, racism, xenophobia and sexism? Much of that can indeed be traced back to religion.”

            Oh yes and Obama has been so great, he has come through with his promise of cutting the deficit in half…and…oh wait…he didn’t do that. Again the blame goes everywhere, if you are seriously going to give a freepass and not give any mention of blame to the democrats then you are indeed someone with a fundy close minded attitude. Also I can’t stand Bush, and I’m not even a republican, so please stop with the bare assertions that have no support. You argue too much with emotion, and it’s very unpersuasive.

            You obviously ‘hate’ religion, therefore it has gotten you to the point where a ‘religous’ person such as myself comes in and disagrees with a few of your views and yet I called names constantly.

            If this is your idea of class then please by all means, keep spouting your anti-religious nonsense which is really just a conglomeration of purposeless matter shifting in the way of A rather than B.

            Maybe the unconscious, purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe will put me in time-out.

            “Your intention is to troll, nothing more, nothing less.”

            Ah another claim made with the support of ‘emotion’ along with No evidence to back up.

            This seems to be your MO.

            Let me give one final lesson here:

            The point is that if one is going to critique another person’s view they have an intellectual duty [if they wish to be taken seriously – and it’s quite possible you do not want to be taken seriously] to get their view correct in their representation of it.

            You actually remind me of a Bible-Belt Fundy playing devil’s advocate, it’s the SAME MENTALITY.

            ty

        • manhattanmc says

          “…….if I raised some awareness to some people who are honest enough to admit that religious fundies aren’t the only people attacking education, then I did my job”

          No one here ever said that.

          “Even if I swayed ONE person into digging deeper here, I feel like I’ve done my job”

          You didn’t-trust me on that.

          ” The blame goes everywhere IMO…”

          You were only trying to deflect blame from the fundies with your completely obvious red herring stank and you know it.

          “I thank all those for taking the time to chat, take care!”

          FOAD. troll.

        • manhattanmc says

          {“And yet they’ve succeeded in smuggling creationism into the classrooms of Texas and Louisiana and have exerted control over the contents of biology textbooks nation wide by getting frauds like McLeroy on the Texas State Board of Education.”}

          “OMG does that mean our nations debt is going to surpass 16 trillion? Does that mean the economy is going to get much worse than it already is? Are gas prices going to go up more? How about food prices? Are houses going to be tougher to buy than they already are? Are more people going to get shot in public schools and movie theaters? Are country is just doing so well, and now it’s going to go down the drain, right? Dude it’s not the end of the world, this is just so silly. I’m giving you problems that are much, much worse than this.”

          I have to hand it to you, bozo boy, you are indeed the king of the red herring fallacy and a champion of strawman construction.
          Of course there are problems worse than creationism in public school science classes. Does that mean we have to ignore creeping theism in this country.
          you suck at logic and at life, troll.

          {“Sigh. Again with the moronic strawmen and caricatures.
          You’re off topic and you’re a shit stirring troll. end of discussion”}

          “Ah so now the insults come into play here, well this is an obvious sign of defeat. I have a quote from you from an atheist philospher in who I respect dearly that might teach you something.”

          You can’t even spell ‘philosopher’ correctly, fool. Are you getting emotional again? LOL

          {“A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when character, rather than content, is attacked. An ad-hominem seems to be a last ditch defense of the losing side.”
          – Bertrand Russell}

          Again you embarrass yourself.
          An ad hominem is an insult in place of an argument not a gratuitous insult.
          You’re really not very good at this.

          {“Holy christ on a bouncing pogo stick. Did anyone here say it was? And no, that wasn’t your point, you prevaricating, dissembling piss ant.”}

          “Yes, actually the constant evading I see speaks volumes, oh and lookie here more insults, the *SUBSTANCE* of your argument”

          You lied, chump. No one here said what you clearly claimed they did. What you think you see in these unspecified ‘evasions’ doesn’t really matter since it’s just your imagination once again.
          You really don’t know the difference between making an argument and calling out a troll, do you fool.

          “Well here is another lesson…”

          We’ve already established who is in need of lessons, son, and it’s not me.

          “Even a freshman who has only taken Logic 101 knows that there are only two ways to refute an argument:
          A. Show the facts are wrong and/or
          B. Show the logic is invalid”

          A-you didn’t present any facts.
          B-I did point out your logic is invalid. Please pay attention or this isn’t any fun for me.

          “…There are no other ways to refute an argument. In fact, all you have done is made an Ad hominem FALLACY! Rather than refuting my argument you have called me a piss ant.”

          Yup, goober, the entire exchange started with my last post. Not.

          “So what if I am troll?”

          Then you deserve the disgust of everyone on the board. Simple question-simple answer.
          And you left out my adjective-‘shit stirring’.

          “Even if I was piss ant you still have not refuted my argument.”

          You didn’t make an argument. you cut and pasted an argument you didn’t even understand.

          ” Even a piss ant could state and subsequently prove that “the square root of 4 is plus and minus 2″ and have presented a valid argument.”

          An argument can be logically valid and still false. See your A-assertion above.

          “Are you mad MC?”

          Nope. Barely amused.

          “Maybe I can take the train out there and buy you a big soda before it gets banned, gotta love our liberal state, eh?”

          Yea, one soda per day raises your likelihood of getting prostate cancer by 40%.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2239110/Just-soft-drink-day-raises-mens-risk-aggressive-prostate-cancer-40-cent.html

          Poison yourself if it will take your mind off getting trounced by everyone here but leave me out of your sorrows.

          {“Done, moron. Happy? I didn’t think you would be. Vilifying teacher’s unions, unequal allocation of resources, failing to address poverty, forcing tests on the system and serving students fast food in the cafeteria get nods as well.”}

          “No I’m very happy, you’ve managed to make such a convincing statement pertaining to this concession of yours. By the way did you realize that people with PhD’s are having a tough time getting jobs right now, way to go secular education!!!!”

          How can I make a concession when I never endorsed your straw man, fool.
          You really suck at logic-and at trolling.

          “Obama has made science education a priority, launching a White House science fair to get young people interested in the field.
          But it’s questionable whether those youths will be able to find work when they get a PhD. Although jobs in some high-tech areas, especially computer and petroleum engineering, seem to be booming, the market is much tighter for lab-bound scientists — those seeking new discoveries in biology, chemistry and medicine.”

          Blah blah blah. You never tire of introducing red herring irrelevancies it would seem.
          The main problem, fool, is that there is a guy with three PhDs and a modem in India willing to do your job for $300 a month. Tough break, son, but that’s the reality of the global economy.

          “What’s the matter, you can’t take the heat? If religious people are going to get the blame here then I see no reasons on why the secularists get a free pass, if you are going to dish it out learn how to take it. If you are afraid of criticism, then maybe you shouldn’t be on here.”

          If you don’t understand that allowing creationism-and revisionist neo-confederate history as well-into our public education system is going to make american graduates less competitive there’s not much hope for you.

          “By the way about the people with Ph’D’s who can’t get jobs, don’t you think this makes our country look foolish?”

          More red herrin-FOAD.

          “Just look at this absolute disaster that this country is in right now, and all I hear is complaining about religion, because people can ‘man-up’ and bite the bullet.”

          If that’s all you hear you better ‘man up’ have your ears checked, son. You’re simply not paying attention.

          “The blame goes everywhere manhattan, for every problem you list pertaining to ‘religion’ regarding education, I can list a problem that has little or nothing to do with religion.”

          So? Religion is still a major contributor to our failures. 50% by your own blathering claim.

          {“You want the country to blame itself? For…..what? Electing an arrogant spoiled rich boy who lied us into two wars and used religious dog whistles to do it? Electing repug imbeciles to congress who have defunded education, cut taxes for the 1% and raised them on everyone else, obliterated environmental regulations in the name of corporate profit, racism, xenophobia and sexism? Much of that can indeed be traced back to religion.”}

          “Oh yes and Obama has been so great….”

          He’s gotten us out of the spoiled rich boys wars of choice. Even if he’s a war criminal-and I think he is for continuing Bush the less smart’s extra-judicial assassination-credit where credit is due.

          “…he has come through with his promise of cutting the deficit in half…and…oh wait…he didn’t do that.”

          All politicians lie, son. This is where your sad attempts at philosophy fail-interfacing with reality. think about it.

          “Again the blame goes everywhere….”

          You are clueless-who cares about your assessment?
          A large part of the blame goes to religion-whether you like it or not.

          “…..if you are seriously going to give a freepass and not give any mention of blame to the democrats….”

          Show me where I did so-quote me verbatim if you can, dumb sh$t.

          “….. then you are indeed someone with a fundy close minded attitude.”

          And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. Next red herring please.

          ” Also I can’t stand Bush, and I’m not even a republican, so please stop with the bare assertions that have no support.”

          Irrelevant. The point was Bush’s religious motivations which are beyond dispute.
          It was never about your own political preferences. Get over yourself.

          “You argue too much with emotion, and it’s very unpersuasive.”

          You have already demonstrated you are incapable of seeing emotion from comment board posts. give it up.

          “You obviously ‘hate’ religion, therefore it has gotten you to the point where a ‘religous’ person such as myself comes in and disagrees with a few of your views and yet I called names constantly.”

          You get called a troll because you are a troll. You have an obvious hatred for our host, Ra.
          You pile up red herrings and straw men along with one insult after another and then whine when you get called on it. Classic troll behavior.
          And yes-I hate religion. I look at it as a contagious disease that infects my species.
          what’s not to hate?

          “If this is your idea of class then please by all means, keep spouting your anti-religious nonsense which is really just a conglomeration of purposeless matter shifting in the way of A rather than B.”

          Who cares about ‘class’? More red herring blather from you.

          “Maybe the unconscious, purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe will put me in time-out.”

          Maybe your evolved consciousness and morals will make you re-evalute your vendetta. I’m not holding my breath.

          {“Your intention is to troll, nothing more, nothing less.”}

          “Ah another claim made with the support of ‘emotion’ along with No evidence to back up.”

          {“In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”} wiki

          {“One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument”} Urban dictionary

          If the shoe fits…….

          “This seems to be your MO.”

          You ignore all evidence and arguments-the time for them in our conversations has past.
          I no longer take you seriously and neither does anyone else here.

          “Let me give one final lesson here…”

          There you go again-imagining you are capable of things you are not and have never been.

          “The point is that if one is going to critique another person’s view they have an intellectual duty [if they wish to be taken seriously – and it’s quite possible you do not want to be taken seriously] to get their view correct in their representation of it.”

          Oh boy, here we go again with the ‘charity’ principle-which we’ve already discussed at length. Your views aren’t a mystery, son, to anyone but you.

          “You actually remind me of a Bible-Belt Fundy playing devil’s advocate, it’s the SAME MENTALITY. ”

          Like I care? You remind me of a retarded cousin of mine who likes to play with bright shiny objects. See how easy that is and how stupid you sound.

          FOAD

  6. redpanda says

    I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, and we have a history of institutionalized creationism that goes back a century and a half, long before Whitcomb and Morris.

    The reality is that we’re taught to prioritize theological concerns first, so evolution is almost always approached from the “that’s incompatible with a loving God” or “that’s incompatible with the Sabbath” angles first. Almost every time I bring up evolution with an otherwise open-minded and intelligent Adventist, their first response is almost always something about how it can’t be right because of something about God.

    It has nothing to do with the evidence, so all it takes is a little doubt sprinkled here and there to get them to dismiss the whole thing.

    I’ve had far more success introducing otherwise thinking SDAs to people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller who attempt to make theological arguments for evolution than I am by giving them books like Why Evolution is True that attempt to make a case directly from the evidence. By and large, until you address their theological concerns most of them aren’t willing to even consider the evidence.

  7. redpanda says

    Sorry, that last paragraph got mangled and might be hard to understand. I meant to say that I have had much greater success in getting creationists to be objective about the evidence for evolution by trying to show how it might be made compatible with religion. If I merely present evidence for evolution without first addressing their theological problems with it, they tend to just parse my presentation for things they think they can disagree with rather than honestly considering whether or not it has any merit.

    Hope that makes sense.

    I’m sure there are some professional creationists who do actually understand how bankrupt their ideas are, but by and large my experience has been that they’re simply not approaching the evidence in anything resembling the way you or I do. They attack evolution not because they think the evidence for creationism is overwhelming and that evolution doesn’t make sense, they attack it because they think that it’s a satanic attack on Christianity itself. I do like that your very first FFoC video attempts to address this.

  8. douglas1102 says

    @ Redpanda

    By and large, until you address their theological concerns most of them aren’t willing to even consider the evidence.

    That’s excellent advice.

    Keeping creationism out of schools should be a priority over “us vs. them”. Atheists should give support to like-minded Christians

  9. Karlheinzofwpg says

    Recruit more scientist to speak out publicly in order to debunk creationist propaganda. The cure for ignorance is information and it’s the experts who hold the keys to that. If you make the counter-arguments freely available in this information age then young people will seek it out, for the most part, eventually.

    I’m being liberal with the phrase “counter-arguments” because creationists don’t actually make them, all they have are assertions. But anyway, more experts and less laymen arguing the case is the good idea.

    Then there is the other side of the coin. Most believers cling to their religion because it’s the house of their community. No matter how you argue the facts they will not accept them. It’s not about facts for these folks. What they want\need is the religious outlook, the meta-physical, the spiritual. Rational thinkers shouldn’t attempt to burn down all these refuges with aggressive confrontational atheism. Challenge their assertions but leave them room to adapt their view to the reality science reveals. I’m thinking of the people who would consider evolution a wonderful example of god’s genius. As an atheist I have no problem with that. Let them think that if they prefer.

    Indeed for many of these people – reasoning from their own perspective – is the only approach that stands a chance. Recruit ministers to make the case. Desertphile has unearthed very interesting book (link below and on his website) which does this very thing.

    DP’s introduction…

    “The Religion of Evolution
    Minot Judson Savage (1841-1918)
    Published in the year +1,876 Gregorian Calendar, this book was one of the first written by a Christian minister regarding evolution and evolutionary theory. As the writer stated in his book:

    “One of the results of evolution cannot possibly contradict evolution itself. I am none the less a Christian, then, because I am an evolutionist. I will even say I am a Christian because I am an evolutionist. To justify this position, to trace the progress of religion until it culminates in Christianity, and to show the relation it sustains to those religions that have preceded it, – this is my present purpose.”
    Savage’s wrote that since evolution is an observed fact that cannot be refuted, and since evolutionary theory successfully and brilliantly defines and describes the fact of evolution, it is both absurd and injurious to the Body of Christ to not acknowledge the factuality of evolution and the correctness of evolutionary theory. The author acknowledged the fact that Christianity itself has evolved from earlier religions, as have ethics and morals and laws.
    This book contains both science and theology from the perspective of a Christian minister. His science was cutting-edge and up-to-date for his time, as was his knowledge of history. Therefore his pro-Christianity bias and his pro-culture bias are products of his time and place in the world, and he should not in my opinion be faulted for those biases.

    It is interesting to note that Rev. Savage had, 130 years ago, refuted and answered most of the assertions and claims we still see Creationists make. This book proves once again that there is nothing new to Creationism that has not already been refuted.”

    http://desertphile.org/evolution/the-religion-of-evolution.pdf

  10. k_machine says

    I agree with the lawsuit idea. It seems to me that you could make a pretty clear legal case that you’ve been harmed if you got taught creationism etc. in high school. This hampers the students performance in college and lowers their chances of succeeding in say med school. The same goes for bogus sex ed, I think it can be shown that people have gotten STDs from being taught wrong things about contraception. The way I would lay it up would be not to sue for a lot of money (because tort-reformers give the impression that people only sue for money), just make it a symbolic amount, one dollar or something, make it a case about the future of the children. It seems to me that you could define this case within the free market ideology: schools provide a service that people pay for (with taxes) and the product should be genuine (an education based on fact, that actually helps the student in life). If I go down to a car dealership and pay for a car but receive a cardboard box full of rotting bananas instead, I wouldn’t even have to sue to get my money back.

    Now, I’m not a lawyer, so there might be some legal reason that it’s not possible to sue the public school system. I guess there might be pragmatic reasons for not suing, it might create precedent with people counter-suing the schools to force them to have everything revolve around Jesus.

    • Michael Zeora says

      Well, the court costs and cost of lawyer is what I’d consider the bottom line. Anything after that you can just call the news up and have a press after the verdict and say the rest is going to a education charity. This way not only is a horrible law overturned but you give some good press to a charity and Atheists in General. IANAL, but I don’t think you can sue the public school system – you’d have to sue the government which might take it right into Federal Court OR at least a high-level state court.

      Past that I think it’d be more likely to add pressure via the politics of the matter sure this is Texas and the South does love it’s religion, but the major cities are pretty liberal (DFW, Austin, Houston, San Antonio) If you can put the pressure on you can maybe get it repealed or at least modified to where there has to be a state mandiated floor of education subjects covered (i.e. Evidence Based Science) after that I’m sure you’ll have the religious schools fold and that’ll take care of that.

      There are people working on getting rid of the Louisiana Vouchers too. So, if they can figure out how to get rid of it there we might not even have to deal with it in Texas. (Houston native here)

  11. agnossi says

    ‘ey Ace
    Suggestions?
    Take heart man…these people are FANATICS, and they will never stop – ever.
    I suggest that you get inspiration from the likes of Eugenie C. Scott – director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), founded in 1981. She has been fighting these monsters for thirty two fucking years!!
    She is a personal Heroine of mine because of her years and years and years of hard work – and she has made a difference.
    You’re fighting the good fight man. Never give up – you know that the religious fanatics are a danger to us all and they will never stop – they can only be reduced to a state of powerless insignificance.

  12. Thorne says

    And so Cornell has achieved his purpose: instead of discussing ways and means of keeping the YEC’s out of schools, we are wasting our efforts in telling Cornell how wrong he is. He has successfully diverted the topic from the OP. It’s all about him, now. Congratulations, Cornell.

    How’s about we just ignore the fools and discuss the issue?

  13. says

    Thanks for this wonderful article. Yet another thing to mention is that almost all digital cameras can come equipped with the zoom lens that allows more or less of a scene to generally be included by way of ‘zooming’ in and out. These changes in focusing length will be reflected while in the viewfinder and on massive display screen right at the back of the exact camera.

  14. says

    It’s hard to find knowledgeable people on this topic, but you sound like you know what you’re talking about!

  15. says

    Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!

  16. says

    I am just writing to make you know what a beneficial encounter my wife’s child went through visiting your web page. She mastered many things, which included what it is like to have an incredible helping mood to let other folks with no trouble grasp certain tricky subject areas. You truly exceeded my expectations. Thank you for delivering such good, dependable, informative not to mention cool tips about that topic to Emily.

  17. says

    Thank you for all your valuable efforts on this web page. My niece really likes getting into research and it is easy to see why. Many of us hear all relating to the dynamic tactic you make both interesting and useful tips and tricks through your web blog and attract response from visitors on that point so my child is without a doubt being taught so much. Enjoy the remaining portion of the new year. You are carrying out a first class job.

  18. says

    Thank you for all your valuable efforts on this web page. My niece really likes getting into research and it is easy to see why. Many of us hear all relating to the dynamic tactic you make both interesting and useful tips and tricks through your web blog and attract response from visitors on that point so my child is without a doubt being taught so much. Enjoy the remaining portion of the new year. You are carrying out a first class job.

  19. says

    The closed-mindedness is yours, fool. If you really don’t see the difference between honest disagreement and faulting someone for not doing something you basically rectally extracted there’s no real point in talking to you.

  20. says

    The video on me looks broken sad to say it,i feel interested about this issue which reminds me of some newsletters that i read in Finland country where their is also a article with a lot of news and stuff which always make me amaze.

  21. says

    If you are using not Betfair or another betting exchange, and you should be unless you enjoy throwing money away, as long term you can make over 10% more than using a traditional bookmaker. Check out the Latest Winners comparison below.

Trackbacks