| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
03 Oct 2006 11:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
The Bible should be taught in every classroom in America. The literary
qualities alone are sufficient enough reason to do so. America can not spend
her energies catering to the crying of the Jews and the Atheists, both of
whom have an aversion to anything Christian. The overwhelming majority of
people embrace the Bible and should have cause to expect it to be taught to
our children.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/32006h.asp
....This academic year, hundreds of public school districts nationwide are
offering elective Bible courses in high schools, which can be legal if it's
done carefully. The Supreme Court, in its 1963 ruling that barred ceremonial
school Bible readings, said the Bible is "worthy of study for its literary
and historic qualities" so long as material is "presented objectively as
part of a secular program of education." Surveys show widespread biblical
illiteracy among young Americans, much to the distress of high school and
college teachers who recognize scripture's central role in culture and
history. Competing curricula are offered by the Bible Literacy Project and
the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
06 Oct 2006 02:57:59 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 5-Oct-2006, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Incest isn't the gist of the story.
Then delete the incest reference from all future printings.
Just because you want to treat the Bible like regular literature
doesn't mean anyone else is necesasarily going to do so.
The incest is actually very important: it shows us what happens
in *any* family if surrounded by evil.
Susan
===>What is so "evil" about incest?
Where do you read that YHWH created another female for
Cain to marry? His sister was good enough for both him
and his "god". -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
06 Oct 2006 04:12:14 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
laviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 5-Oct-2006, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Incest isn't the gist of the story.
Then delete the incest reference from all future printings.
Just because you want to treat the Bible like regular literature
doesn't mean anyone else is necesasarily going to do so.
The incest is actually very important: it shows us what happens
in *any* family if surrounded by evil.
Susan
===>What is so "evil" about incest?
I'd say grow up, but I won't waste my breath.
Where do you read that YHWH created another female for
Cain to marry?
When you read that he has a wife.
His sister was good enough for both him
and his "god". -- L.
And how do you know it was a sister since she wasn't mentioned AT ALL?
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
06 Oct 2006 05:16:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
laviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 5-Oct-2006, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Incest isn't the gist of the story.
Then delete the incest reference from all future printings.
Just because you want to treat the Bible like regular literature
doesn't mean anyone else is necesasarily going to do so.
The incest is actually very important: it shows us what happens
in *any* family if surrounded by evil.
Susan
===>What is so "evil" about incest?
I'd say grow up, but I won't waste my breath.
===>Only a grown up like myself can discern the
implications of the Bible. The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Where do you read that YHWH created another female for
Cain to marry?
When you read that he has a wife.
===>Non responsive.
So, you dod NOT read that YHWH created another female for
Cain to marry.
It does NOT say that at all. Only that he "knew his wife".
(Gen. 4:17) and she had a baby.
But the creation story tells us only about the
ONE PAIR of humans created by YHWH. So, the only
available females were Eve, his mother, and/or any
daughters of Adam and Eve.
His sister was good enough for both him
and his "god". -- L.
And how do you know it was a sister since she wasn't mentioned AT ALL?
===>That's exactly how!
Clearly it was not one of his brothers ;-)
If you continue reading those chapters, you will
find that they all had to marry their own sisters, cousins,
etc., because those were the only humans on earth.
Of course I need to warn you to stop confusing
fiction with reality. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
09 Oct 2006 09:55:35 PM |
|
|
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
flaviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
laviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 5-Oct-2006, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Incest isn't the gist of the story.
Then delete the incest reference from all future printings.
Just because you want to treat the Bible like regular literature
doesn't mean anyone else is necesasarily going to do so.
The incest is actually very important: it shows us what happens
in *any* family if surrounded by evil.
Susan
===>What is so "evil" about incest?
I'd say grow up, but I won't waste my breath.
===>Only a grown up like myself can discern the
implications of the Bible.
Which is not what we were discussing, but thanks for
changing the subject to try to hide your own stupidity.
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
What a maroon.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
10 Oct 2006 11:24:07 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
laviaR@verizon.net wrote:
On 5-Oct-2006, "Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
John D. Wentzky wrote:
Incest isn't the gist of the story.
Then delete the incest reference from all future printings.
Just because you want to treat the Bible like regular literature
doesn't mean anyone else is necesasarily going to do so.
The incest is actually very important: it shows us what happens
in *any* family if surrounded by evil.
Susan
===>What is so "evil" about incest?
I'd say grow up, but I won't waste my breath.
===>Only a grown up like myself can discern the
implications of the Bible.
Which is not what we were discussing, but thanks for
changing the subject to try to hide your own stupidity.
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
What a maroon.
===>The "moron" is YOU, Susie baby.
Read 1 Cor. 4:10. Your crazy founder
Saul/Paul says that you are
one of the MOROI DIA CHRISTON:
i.e. a FOOL (moron) for Christos.
So, just keep silent, as behooves all
his followers. ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
10 Oct 2006 03:52:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
10 Oct 2006 05:38:41 PM |
|
|
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
11 Oct 2006 07:32:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Not at all. /cue children and Santa Claus. Same thing.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
15 Oct 2006 11:48:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:32:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Not at all. /cue children and Santa Claus. Same thing.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
15 Oct 2006 11:24:19 PM |
|
|
On 15-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:32:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Not at all. /cue children and Santa Claus. Same thing.
Yes, same thing: because someone says so.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
17 Oct 2006 07:42:31 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:24:19 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 15-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:32:43 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Not at all. /cue children and Santa Claus. Same thing.
Yes, same thing: because someone says so.
Not at all, but you're welcome to that erroneous view.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
17 Oct 2006 10:46:43 PM |
|
|
On 17-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Not at all. /cue children and Santa Claus. Same thing.
Yes, same thing: because someone says so.
Not at all, but you're welcome to that erroneous view.
It is not erroneous for me to dismiss the empty jibes of someone
who does not and never will know my reasons for believing - one
of the reasons he will not know is that he refuses to listen (which
is why I didn't even bother to discuss it rationally. The other reason
being that it really is immaterial - my reasons for belief are not proof of
anything - except that they are not like a child's irrational fears -
which reminds me to address his previous point: when a child says
there's a monster under his bed., even the child does not believe it;
there are other factors at work.)
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
19 Oct 2006 12:57:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:46:43 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 17-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Not at all. /cue children and Santa Claus. Same thing.
Yes, same thing: because someone says so.
Not at all, but you're welcome to that erroneous view.
It is not erroneous for me to dismiss the empty jibes of someone
who does not and never will know my reasons for believing
I'm sorry, but I saw no 'jibes, much less 'empty jibes' from Al.
What I saw was the equivalence, from the outside, of two different
situations. What I saw was the seeking of information as to how the
situations were not equivalent. A person wouldn't know the child's
reasons for believing there's a 'monster under the bed' or a 'monster in
the closet.' Does that mean the childs reasons render such to be
unchildish? {I'm at a loss as to phrasing. I'm groping here}
- one
of the reasons he will not know is that he refuses to listen (which
is why I didn't even bother to discuss it rationally.
Disagree. Al is a very good listener. He's seeking to learn.
The other reason
being that it really is immaterial - my reasons for belief are not proof of
anything - except that they are not like a child's irrational fears -
So you 'assert'. That's the data which is missing. How are the
situations not parallel?
You, like the child, have your reasons for belief although you flat
state the child's fearful beliefs are 'irrational' while your beliefs
are rational. {Again, I'm struggling here}
which reminds me to address his previous point: when a child says
there's a monster under his bed., even the child does not believe it;
there are other factors at work.)
Again, that's not what my memories tell me. However, you make another
assertion {just as the child does} while indicating the childs'
assertions are irrational and incorrect.
What if the child were to assert his belief about the monster{s} under
the bed and in the closet were rational and those about deity were
irrational. His 'statement' would be just as factual, and for the same
reasons, as yours.
{Now my curiosity is really piqued!}
/aside
I find it somewhat startling how often little things can provide a
learning opportunity.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
10 Oct 2006 07:29:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
A child insists that there's a monster under his bed. Poppa says
there isn't one. The child says, "Because you say so. Right." Poppa
is supposed to respond to that?
Schluff, kind, schluff. The monster won't eat you. I promise.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
10 Oct 2006 10:32:21 PM |
|
|
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
n Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
A child insists that there's a monster under his bed. Poppa says
there isn't one. The child says, "Because you say so. Right." Poppa
is supposed to respond to that?
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
You are pretending that I have no real reason to believe.
Your insistence does not make my reasons unreal.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
11 Oct 2006 07:48:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:32:21 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
n Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
A child insists that there's a monster under his bed. Poppa says
there isn't one. The child says, "Because you say so. Right." Poppa
is supposed to respond to that?
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
Al is correct, I'm sorry to say, Susan.
You are pretending that I have no real reason to believe.
Your insistence does not make my reasons unreal.
Gee, that's what the child who insists there's a monster under the
bed/in the closet said.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
15 Oct 2006 11:47:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:48:35 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:32:21 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
n Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
A child insists that there's a monster under his bed. Poppa says
there isn't one. The child says, "Because you say so. Right." Poppa
is supposed to respond to that?
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
Al is correct, I'm sorry to say, Susan.
You are pretending that I have no real reason to believe.
Your insistence does not make my reasons unreal.
Gee, that's what the child who insists there's a monster under the
bed/in the closet said.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
15 Oct 2006 11:23:50 PM |
|
|
On 15-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:48:35 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:32:21 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
n Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
A child insists that there's a monster under his bed. Poppa says
there isn't one. The child says, "Because you say so. Right." Poppa
is supposed to respond to that?
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
Al is correct, I'm sorry to say, Susan.
No, he is not.
Just because he or anyone else doesn't like my reasons doesn't make them
imaginary or childish.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
17 Oct 2006 07:40:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:23:50 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 15-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:48:35 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in
alt.atheism
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:32:21 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
n Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth>
wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
A child insists that there's a monster under his bed. Poppa says
there isn't one. The child says, "Because you say so. Right." Poppa
is supposed to respond to that?
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
Al is correct, I'm sorry to say, Susan.
No, he is not.
Just because he or anyone else doesn't like my reasons doesn't make them
imaginary or childish.
That's what the child said, too. Same basis and reaction. Please keep
in mind no one suggested you not believe.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
17 Oct 2006 10:49:39 PM |
|
|
On 17-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Just because he or anyone else doesn't like my reasons doesn't make them
imaginary or childish.
That's what the child said, too.
No, it absolutely is not what children say, because it is not the
same situation. As I say in another post, when a child says
there's a monster under his bed, he doesn't really believe there
is one. Other factors are at work.
He does not know my reasons, therefore, his condemnation of
them is prejudice in it's most base form: negative pre-judgement
based on nothing but bias.
Same basis and reaction. Please keep
in mind no one suggested you not believe.
Of course not.
But he made blind insults based on his own prejudices,
if only because he does not know what my reasons are.
Definitely not kosher.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
19 Oct 2006 12:36:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 03:49:39 GMT, wrote in
alt.atheism
On 17-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Just because he or anyone else doesn't like my reasons doesn't make them
imaginary or childish.
That's what the child said, too.
No, it absolutely is not what children say, because it is not the
same situation.
Of course not. One situation is the monster under the bed while the
other concerns deity. However the child can make that same statement;
"Just because he or anyone else doesn't like my reasons doesn't make
them imaginary or childish." That's what was being pointed out.
You don't see it that way, which is fine. How, objectively, does the
child's statement differ? What is Al not seeing?
As I say in another post, when a child says
there's a monster under his bed, he doesn't really believe there
is one. Other factors are at work.
Really? That's not what my memories tell me, but I'm curious as to what
factors you see.
He does not know my reasons, therefore, his condemnation of
them is prejudice in it's most base form: negative pre-judgement
based on nothing but bias.
Not at all, but you're welcome to that view. Condemnation? I saw no
condemnation. All I saw was the indicating of facts as he saw them.
Same basis and reaction. Please keep
in mind no one suggested you not believe.
Of course not.
Sometimes that can be missed and I'd rather clear up any possible
miscommunication ahead of time. You know me.
But he made blind insults based on his own prejudices,
if only because he does not know what my reasons are.
Definitely not kosher.
I disagree about 'blind insults based on his own prejudices.'
Your statement could be utilized towards you with regard to that child's
situation/position. What are the objective differences, other than age
or different people?
I have to admit the interchange has piqued my curiosity. Evidentally,
there's a piece of the 'puzzle' that is being obscure.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
16 Oct 2006 10:42:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:23:50 GMT, wrote:
On 15-Oct-2006, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
Al is correct, I'm sorry to say, Susan.
No, he is not.
Just because he or anyone else doesn't like my reasons doesn't make them
imaginary or childish.
"I believe for some reason I can't show anyone else" is, at best,
irrational.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
11 Oct 2006 07:46:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:32:21 GMT, wrote:
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
You are pretending that I have no real reason to believe.
You have as much real reason to believe in a god as a child has to
believe in a monster - exactly the same reason. Lack of knowledge
that you'll gain when (if) you become an adult.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
12 Oct 2006 03:27:27 PM |
|
|
On 11-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:32:21 GMT, wrote:
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
You are pretending that I have no real reason to believe.
You have as much real reason to believe in a god as a child has to
believe in a monster - exactly the same reason.
Your pretense that you can read my mind is laughabke at best.
Lack of knowledge
that you'll gain when (if) you become an adult.
Spoken like the ranting child you are.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
12 Oct 2006 05:10:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:27:27 GMT, wrote:
On 11-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:32:21 GMT, wrote:
Youre pretense that this is a direct analogy is also childish.
You are pretending that I have no real reason to believe.
You have as much real reason to believe in a god as a child has to
believe in a monster - exactly the same reason.
Your pretense that you can read my mind is laughabke at best.
Keep proving my case. Almost all parents can read their children's
minds.
Lack of knowledge
that you'll gain when (if) you become an adult.
Spoken like the ranting child you are.
You're growing up. Toddlers are afraid of monsters, but they don't
accuse their parents of being children.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
10 Oct 2006 06:51:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
10 Oct 2006 10:30:22 PM |
|
|
On 10-Oct-2006, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:38:41 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:55:35 GMT, wrote:
On 6-Oct-2006, Libertarius <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
The one who is/thinks like
a child is YOU!
Just because you say so.
Religion is, at best, childish. (At worst it's a form of mental
illness.)
Because you say so. Right.
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Which sounds exactly like what he is trying to say about us.
I have my reasons for beliving - and I do not insist that others must
believe, nor do I insist that not believing is childish. Which rather
puts me one up on him. I respect his beliefs - and if he demands
respect for his beliefs, he ought to extend the same courtesy.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
11 Oct 2006 07:42:22 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:30:22 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Which sounds exactly like what he is trying to say about us.
Which IS exactly you.
I have my reasons for beliving
Children have reasons for believing that monsters live under their
beds - that doesn't make the monsters real.
and I do not insist that others must
believe, nor do I insist that not believing is childish.
Which has what to do with which? That you don't insist that my lack
of belief is childish makes your belief not childish? That's
childish.
Which rather
puts me one up on him. I respect his beliefs - and if he demands
respect for his beliefs
Lack of belief isn't a belief.
he ought to extend the same courtesy.
Not all ideas deserve respect. Or courtesy. Hitler had a belief,
didn't he? Did his belief deserve any courtesy?
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president."
- George W. Bush, quoted in George Magazine, September, 2000
"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith,
deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by
God to save Germany."
- Hermann Goering, speaking of Hitler
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pangur Ban" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
11 Oct 2006 08:17:14 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:mdppi2d3q0oae9db30lcvlgjtmsv2smkqj@4ax.com:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:30:22 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Which sounds exactly like what he is trying to say about us.
Which IS exactly you.
I have my reasons for beliving
Children have reasons for believing that monsters live under their
beds - that doesn't make the monsters real.
Just sheer curiosity this AM, what reasons do children have? How many
children do you personally know who believe this? Can you cite a study
of this? I have yet to meet any child or parent who has a child
believing a monster is under the bed.
Pangur - who experiences curiosity at odd moments
and I do not insist that others must
believe, nor do I insist that not believing is childish.
Which has what to do with which? That you don't insist that my lack
of belief is childish makes your belief not childish? That's
childish.
Which rather puts me one up on him. I respect his beliefs - and if he
demands respect for his beliefs
Lack of belief isn't a belief.
he ought to extend the same courtesy.
Not all ideas deserve respect. Or courtesy. Hitler had a belief,
didn't he? Did his belief deserve any courtesy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Bringing the Bible back to the classroom |
11 Oct 2006 01:37:20 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2006 13:17:14 GMT, Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban$@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:mdppi2d3q0oae9db30lcvlgjtmsv2smkqj@4ax.com:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:30:22 GMT, wrote:
On 10-Oct-2006, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
Which sounds exactly like what he is trying to say about us.
Which IS exactly you.
I have my reasons for beliving
Children have reasons for believing that monsters live under their
beds - that doesn't make the monsters real.
Just sheer curiosity this AM, what reasons do children have?
Lack of knowledge.
How many children do you personally know who believe this?
At the present time only about 4 (not too sure yet about the youngest
one, but her sisters have some influence on her). But I've known many
little ones in my many decades who have thought there's a monster
under their bed or in their closet or on the wall when the lights are
out.
Can you cite a study of this?
A study showing that some children believe in monsters? It's posted
right next to the one that shows that the cause of poverty is lack of
money and that women give birth more often than men. Proxmire would
be proud of a study like that.
I have yet to meet any child or parent who has a child
believing a monster is under the bed.
Then you have very limited experience with little children in the US.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
