Wirehead Studios

Washington Post article, so I'm posting the full text incase they require registration to view it after today.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...av=rss_politics (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics)

Something to keep in mind for any who are in college.  Question what you're taught.[/color]

Question what you're taught?
I don't see how this relates to that. Question everything you are taught, don't question what liberals teach you because they are liberals. Remember, 100% of college professors are human.

BULL!! I call bull on that so bad it's not even funny.
Damn near every single english, government, or other social studies course I've taken has turned out to have very little to do with the subject, and very much to do with liberal politics.

I have been asked to leave an INTRO TO COLLEGE classroom for the following reason:
Teacher poses a hypothetical situation, a CEO position needs to be filled. A man and a woman have applied for the job. A female coworker says the woman should get the job because there need to be more female CEO's. When the teacher asked who should get the job, I raised my hand, waited to be called on, and asked who was more qualified. The teacher said I was being disruptive and asked me to leave.

Multiple english classes have assigned, almost exclusively, contemporary readings that bash religion and conservative values.

I've been in MATH classes where the teacher interrupts their own lecture to talk politics.

I have taken THREE classes that haven't involved anything beyond the subject matter, those teachers were all conservatives, and have been removed from the staff because they got poor reviews from students who wanted their A's for free.

I can understand the need to question what's being taught, but I'm paying these people for an education, not political indoctrination.

Politically-driven diversity is only skin-deep. I've had some fun with that one too.

Hrm.. are we talking public or private schools here? Professors aren't supposed to talk about their personal political views in the classrooms here. I don't think I've been to a class in my life where we've talked politics.. maybe I'm alone on this one? Not that I care about politics in the first place (yes this is very ignorant of me, but I prefer to be numb to it. Too much bullshit for my liking), but the results are distorted. I mean, not every college was given the survey, they aren't including independants/other parties, and for all anyone knows most of the schools could've been in liberal areas of the country. No one can really base judgements on 183 schools out of thousands. Before I get harpooned, yes I do know there is a bias towards one more than the other because most teachers are in professional groups (I can't think of the names off the top of my head right now, but there's a national group and there are local groups as well, somewhat like a national teacher's union).

I can see most of you rolling your eyes right now because I'm not as much into politics as every one else, but I don't think we should be added another stereotype to the list. Some colleges actually do make an effort to allow free thinking, and they do not let the professors' personal opinions cloud/change our beliefs. Professors are only allowed to offer their personal opinions if it is relevant to the class material. It's like teaching religion in public schools. Teachers aren't allowed to focus on their personal beliefs unless is it relevant to what they are teaching. If they celebrate/cover their religion in class they have to also celebrate/cover the religions of the students in the class, which is why religion isn't taught in public schools (also because of the seperation of church and state). Anyway I'm getting off topic. The point is, some colleges have made an effort to limit bias in the classrooms. Just because they are republican or democratic doesn't mean they are teaching it, which brings me to my next point.

What college student doesn't change during their years in college? You can ask anyone that I've had deep discussions with, I have grown up quite a bit (yea I know, sometimes it doesn't seem like it), and have started seeing things in new ways. College *IS* the place to grow and mature into the people are meant to become. Who are we to say it's the college professors' personal opinions changing these students? How much of the change is because they are seeing things from a new perspective? Maybe the students who have "changed" should take a survey? What about surveying the colleges that have put an effort into limiting the personal views of the professor?

Maybe I'm just an ignorant little person that knows nothing of the world around me, but I still don't think we can make judgements based on 183 schools. The correlation is almost nonexistant (almost is the key word). I will admit there are times the professors' biased opinions *could* affect the students views, but I think an effort needs to be made to look into the schoolsthat limit the professor to teaching only material related to the class.

SIDE NOTE: WOW! I never thought my education classes would ever pay off hehe

I couldn't agree more with that. By some bizarre stroke of irony though, that was your 1984'th post :)

I agree, schools in general are pretty liberal. They don't teach in truth, just in their political veiws to influence the new age. Back in high school there was an assistant in a class that did not permit me to talk politics. I asked her and she got mad. My political views are concervative, she doesn't want me to contradict her liberal teachings.

Don't worry Jess, the only way to keep talking sense when it comes to politics, is by not getting involved at any level ;]

Also, little as I may know about the liberal standpoints, the things Angst describes sound more like dumbical, stupidocrate or ignorican behaviour, more than anything else..

I try not to talk about such issues myself, I may go in a spastic rage, but really isn't enforcing your veiws, and eliminating the opposing force a little suspicious?

Of course it relates to it.  How many students go into college with their eyes open to such a heavy bias?  They believe they're going to be taught facts, not be indoctrinated with a socio-political belief system.  They should not have to deal with this, especially since, as Makou points out, this is an education they or their parents are paying for.  The phrase "truth in advertising" comes to mind...  If you go into a church you know what's coming at you.  If you go into a political campaign rally, you know what's coming at you.  In the academic world, you get blindsided by it unless you know about it ahead of time, and a hell of a lot of people don't know.  This is something people really need to know about so that they have a better chance of properly separating facts from rhetoric and politics.  If there were a severe right-wing bias, and said right-wingers were engaging in the exact same kind of indoctrination, then that should be a known issue as well.  I'm just putting this on the table so people who might not otherwise know can be aware of what's going on.

But I that's not what I meant, ofcourse. Like I said, no matter how the system is balanced (or not), the problem lies in the (apparant) fact that professors like to teach their classes something about their beliefs, not about the subjects they're supposed to be teaching. I don't see how it makes any difference whether a liberal, conservative or satan-worshipper (for all I care) teaches you the use of irrational numbers in math, the way the human skin regenerates or the way Napoleon fought his battles.

Now if there'd be some kind of conspiracy to create 'colleges' that are used to usurp the throne and make political drones out of everyone, I'm sure there's some interesting theories about that - I'm saying that's different than complaining about the political preference of teachers in itsself. That does not mean it's unwise to worry about it, or to strive for good balance of preferences, just that there is no intrinsic problem, as long as the actual teaching is done right in the first place.

When it comes to something like philosophy, and taking the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' literally, I'd say if you have to pick a bias, I'd certainly prefer one that encourages change and free thinking. Which brings me to another point - teaching adolescents about this kind of thing seems odd to me, because it's obvious that hardly any mind is ready to work objectively enough to deal with 'The Big Questions'. But that's another story altogether.

Hmm...  and they teach elementary school children how to have sex now in this country.  I know parents who have encountered this first-hand.  If they can (supposedly) handle that sort of thing, then why should politics be such a problem?  Besides, we're talking about colleges and universities, not middle school.  I don't think there are many adolescents in college, at least, not age-wise anyway.

All ranting aside, I would say that the problem is that the teaching is not done right at all.  It's one thing to have a bias, it's another to include the "this is the right way to think" within the curriculum.  When the lecture podium is used as a pulpit to preach their own personal ideals as if they were fact, that's a problem.  Educators should bear the burden of objectivity, not the students.  They should be mature and enlightened enough to know better, or they aren't qualified to teach.

My bad, it seems I still don't entirely grasp the definition 'college' in the states. Sadly, some people can't handle anything, regardless of their age ;]

Entirely agreed on the second paragraph there.
I must say I haven't detected much problems concerning biases, close-mindedness and other forms of subjectiveness in my Dutch highschool. There, the skills of teachers were more lacking in the application of proper methods - we had an awful 'don't ask questions or try to understand, learn _rules_' approach to math, which is unforgiveable IMO.

College (computer science) was worse though. We were taught things like 'show certainty even when you have none', 'makes prices for your work artificially high' and 'try to secure a further project by leaving some flaws in the product'. All informally ofcourse, but it totally appalled me. The use of the Dutch language was equally horrid, but that's a different matter. We had one or two professors who were firmly anti-MS, but they only mentioned this in lectures in a jocular fashion. Besides, anyone learning programming can pick MS's products as a good example of how not to tackle something, so I guess that doesn't count as entirely out of place.. ;)

Liberal vs Conservative
Democrat vs Republican
Blacks vs Whites
etc vs etc

They're all just ways of saying "Hey, let's do X my way, not your way, when we really need to be fixing Y".

I hate politics so much.

Aye.  What I dislike - regardless of any bias - are those individuals and groups who will not be upfront about where they stand and why.  If you can't do that, then you're obviously up to no good, or at least are masking your true beliefs.  It's one thing to have a bias, it's another thing to lie about it or pretend that you don't.  I think the other problem is the human side as Tab pointed out, or rather I should say the egocentric point of view that every living thing has.  By egocentric I mean "originating from the self."  Most people who are biased have a tendency to not see themselves as such.  Introspection and self-examination are the only answer to self-ignorance, and not too many people are willing to do that.  They're afraid of what they'll actually see.

Id submit my 2 cents but given that the colleges around here are U.C davis and U.C berkley my impressions might be shall be way... slanted.

One thing that gets me in schools in general...


They say they are "secular" but not really are. They teach the theory of evolution which has hardly next to nothing in solid evidence other then the human anatomy is slightly similar to that of primates. They teach it as fact. Now you can go the other road and say catholic schools teach their religion as purely fact but there is a difference, first on a personal note, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God, they teach the children to walk by faith and not by sight. They don't really enforce their ideals on them as much as publicly funded facilities do. Another thing they are a private school, parents choose that school because it is be it Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist and so on. Just the word believe in x calls it a religion by definition if you really want to dig deep. There doesn?t have to be gods or religious practices to call it a religion.


The school teaches it's own spin and ideological religion. Like evolution, how to use contraceptives, and promoting sexual immorality and perversion (say if you desire sex so much to pick up a porn mag to satisfy it so I was "taught") I don't want the school system raising my future child for me, and cramming their pop culture in my future child's vulnerable mind. I would weep if my child came to me and said, "God is evil, your wrong, I can be a homosexual if I want! That's what Ms. Hasben told us." My child telling me I'm wrong and worse God's wrong because the school teacher said. I want my child to develop his/her own beliefs, not what some false teacher says sitting at the podium, handing out worksheets about how we Christians persecute the homosexuals, when all we want to do is eat with them and wash their feet (metaphorically speaking), to help them, just as Jesus did with the tax-collectors. At least when I myself are persecuted, I know I'm doing my duty.


When I talk of stuff like this, I'm not a cruise liner to heaven, I am a battleship at the very gates of hell, and if they are gonna fed this garbage to the next generation, of course I'm gonna stand up to it. When it comes down to it, you really dig deep into these kinds of subjects it's really interesting how fast it comes down to violations against God and the bible, think about the pop culture, how virtually every idea is an atrocity against the bible, that's why I'm a Christian, the prove lies in front of my eyes everywhere I go, all you have to do is listen and belive a little, and you'll see demons everywhere, even if they don't look like they are from Doom 3.

Normally I try to read every post in a discussion, but I'm skipping the former one. Anyone wanting me to put some effort in seeing his/her viewpoint should be prepared to present it in a readable fashion. Paragraphs, structure, legibility. /me skips.

Better?  :smirk: Cleaned it up a bit I was in a ranting ramble session sorry...

Much better.

I do disagree on the theory of evolution though. Yes, it's a theory, but no, it cannot be compared with 'faith'. There is definitely compelling scientific evidence for it, be it in DNA research results, bone structure comparison, fossil reconstruction etc etc. If one is opposed to the teaching of this theory, then one should be equally opposed to the teaching of the uncertainty principle, gravitational pull theory and the like. As we need proper models to explore our abilities in scientific deductive and inductive reasoning, there is certainly no harm in presenting these.

That some people do not make the distinction between fact and theory is wrong ofcourse, but to attack and disregard theories which have not been disproved would be much worse. The difference with faith here is that one has to take it.. on faith.. and thus no scientific reasoning of any kind is (or should be) involved - that, for me, makes it obvious that theories, (but not faith) have a place in educational institutes.
And anyone enjoying education should always be aware that the things they are learning ought to be questioned at every step, and that part of their education is the acceptance of the things they learn to understand and agree on, as opposed to accepting things because 'they are said to be so'.

Your absolutly right, but I think we shouldn't rely to much on science to dictate the universe nor should Christianity. Okay I will put in a scientifical perspective. The scientists admit that they will never find out where the universe came from, so they concluded that the universe came from nothing. That condradicts all laws of science, so it in fact proves that there must be a supernatural force, and I think that it's God, and that's where they turn to as well. Everything that is in this universe can't possibly be a coincidence. Some say that is was an "accident", that is 100% iron-clad bull. 99% of the universe is phyically unstable, and we just happen to be in the "habitable zone" with a perfect life-bearing Earth, and life formed to the point that I'm now sitting in a chair, in a basement on my computer typing this message. If evolution and the rest of the theories that are 90% bull, can be taught as if fact in publically funded schools, then I think the above should be taught.


Now back to the accident theory. How could something like us, being almost a perfect being, be an accidental coincidence? How could one cell, be smart enough to get better (evolve) by itself. Why would it want to do that. But wait! there is no "want" in a single celled organism, it has no coscience, so how does something with out one develop one? So now I'm saying this supernatural force that created all the matter in the universe has a coscience and passed it on to us.

Look at the beauties of this world, seasons, love, literature, exitement, peace. The taste of a freshly char grilled steak right of the grill, the inocence in a puppy, that is all controlled by science? I think there is much more to it then that. It is like taking one-hundred thousand LEGOs and tossing it into the air and it landing into a perfect castle, it's impossible to the laws of science. For there to be a science to begin with there must be an extraordinary event to occur. I think this should be taught if all other theories can be taught. You can use reasoning withing these boundries, just as I am. So what is so bad explaining things like these in science classes and the such. Quite frankly, I would hate it if the universe was controlled by science, but I know science dosen't have full bragging rights.

Well, theologically speaking, God speaks to the creature through creation.  It's normal for a person looking for God to see Him in the best of all things, Washu.  One has to be looking first, however.  That's why a lot of people never see what you're seeing there. :)

In regards to evolution, the problem is that there is mounting scientific evidence for what is called the "intelligent design" theory, which is that some mind (call it God, whatever) engineered the universe, as opposed to it being a random unknown event, with unknown causes (Big Bang).  Don't mistake Intelligent Design with Creationism.  Both involve some higher power doing the initial World Spawn (to use Quake terms), but where they differ is Intelligent Design does not specify what the initial cause is, whereas Creationism specifies the God of Abraham.

The problem I have isn't so much that evolution is being taught, it's that no alternatives are being taught.  I don't have any problem with the basic premise of evolution, which is that creatures adapt and change to survive.  An idiot can see that.  That does not, however, prove how life began, nor does the "Big Bang" answer the question of "what was there before it banged?", and also, "who lit the fuse?"  All that exists there is hypothesis and speculation based on extremely weak circumstantial evidence.  There's other factors that seem to shred current understanding of the universe quite nicely as well, like how it can be expanding at an accelerating rate without violating the second law of thermodynamics since this implies an increasing level of energy within the system originating from an unknown source.  Hehe, Whoops!  Nobody seems to want to talk about that little sticking point.  There's a lot of mystery still out there, which to me is good, since it means the book is still open.  Back on the main topic though, even pointing out that evolution is just a theory and not an absolute truth is unforgivable within the school systems, at least in America.  The prevaling attitude is that you are not to question what you're told in any capacity, and asking for explanation in the form of the most basic question the smallest child asks about everything - "why?" - is expressly forbidden and dealt with harshly.  There's something drastically wrong with this picture.  

Tell me, what is so wrong about saying "This theory states X, while this theory states Y"?  Since when is the exclusion of knowledge considered education?  Why can't you say someone believes or thinks something, even if you personally disagree with it?  That's like me not talking about Muslims because I disagree with what they believe.  No, I can say "Muslims believe X" if I do my research - which may include asking a Muslim what he or she believes, or by opening a Q'uran and reading what it says.  It does not mean I should ignore how they view something just because I don't see it that way.  It does not make them right, or wrong to teach that someone believes or thinks something, it's just being accurate.  I really don't see the problem with saying "group X believes principle Y".  To me that's what education consists of.  That's not indoctrination, that's diversity in presentation.  Indoctrination states "Principle Y is true" when it may not be.  Excluding alternatives to unproven theories and teaching such theories as fact is the very definition of indoctrination.  I see it this way - you can't teach evolution and the Big Bang in most churches, and you can't teach anything except evolution and the Big Bang in state-funded schools.  The blatant exclusion of all beliefs except a single belief, irrespective of the actual facts which may contradict such a belief or at the least cast doubt upon it, sounds an awful lot like a form of fanatacism to me.  Attempting to supplant every other belief system is also a key characteristic of fanaticism.  Intolerance of any other system of belief is yet another.  All the right qualities are there.  When are people going to realize that secular humanism is just a religion with man as its god?

I say open the books, teach it all.  Let people decide on their own what they want to believe.  Godlessness should not be crammed down people's throats anymore than the Gospel should.  They should, however, be available to everyone, and not demonized by the public education system.  Suppression of free thinking is the trademark of a fascist society.

90% bull? I still haven't heard why. All the things you describe are as likely to be injected by an all encompassing entity as they are inherent to a certain level op intelligence. Increasing complexity of the brain and the accompanying leap of development should not be simply explained away by any one theory, and saying this could not have been a logical flow of life in itself sounds akin to saying: 'Computer technology cannot have been slowly evolved on earth, because there's thousands of years without hardly any, then _boom_ within a fraction of that time, there's tons!'. Maybe a real life 'Andrew' will one day teach us that a synthetic brain can one day convince us that intelligence isn't all that it's cracked up to be - or maybe not. I still think it's preposterous to exclude the possibility.

Also, 'accident' is a strange choice of words. It seems to imply something went 'wrong'. This is different than calling it a 'coincidence', which sounds way more plausible than to say something eternal messed up and got a nasty hairless-ape-virus to deal with. Also, without even beginning to realize the apparant immense size of the universe around us, it would only be ODD if the perfect conditions for life didn't show up once or twice. To automatically consider ourselves holy creations simply because we think we're special is quite pompous. Sometimes you can be madly in love with a person that just don't gives a shit about you - the dreams, hopes and fantasies about a shared eternity together are wonderful, but not nescessarily true, just because you feel them to be right, desireable or even likely ;]
I'm not saying I rule out this possibility, but I often wonder why so many people are ready to rule out others without a second thought.

I also agree with Phoenix: Teach it all. Try and chart it out, let people choose objectively and without fascist 'guidance'.

Okay just to clear things up maybe accident is the wrong word to use. I wouldn't know the exact scientifical terminology to use. I meant something like the perfect interlacing of complex physical and chemical events that had to go on to get to where we are today. Example, you are shooting basketball outside at your garage. You shoot and miss (event 1) and the ball is on the roof (event 2). But then it rolls down (event 3), hits the wind shield of a van (event 4), which happens to have reinforced glass (event 5), the ball bounces off with great velocity (event 6), flies in the air (event 7) and into the hoop (event 8). The real only difference, is the universe from start to now, only has about a thousand trillion trillion events to go through and all have to be perfect for our situation now. All events have to transition perfectly between each other. Like how ever the universe started, which contains like a million trillion or more events, to the formation of the galaxy cluster, another million trillion more events, to the formation of the solar system, et cetra. I tried to put all that in one word, which was unwise of me.   :(


Why 90% Bull? Perhaps I exaggerated a little I'm sorry, say 75% are bull. Okay, a good majority of theories are just speculations and thoughts, with little or next to nothing in evidence and they are taught as fact at schools. Agree with you and Pho, I think all speculations and theories, be it scientifical, theological, or philosophical should be taught, but not as fact. It should be clearly stated it is a theory and a theory alone, and to provide evidence that supports it, and evidence that disproves it.

Now about intelligence, I?m not talking about intelligence, I talk of a conscience. I don?t know if that is what you meant, but anyway. A conscience is different then intelligence. What the idea on a conscience, are things like self-awareness, an introspective personality, ability to better themselves through reasoning. This is indeed a special quality, and what sets us apart from all other living things. You don?t see monkeys thinking about how to better their race; they go off by instinct alone. I guess you can say that is a weakness in humans, because what is the most vulnerable creature in the world? A human baby, they know nothing but to cry to communicate a feeling or a need to their mothers, that is, really, the only instinct we have first hand. We develop our conscience over time, and are taught indirectly by other humans. We develop our speech by listening to other people talk, we walk, by watching other people walk. There are some other minor instincts we develop over the years, but not much. So how did the first human develop these skills? You think about it for a minute.


Pompous is not really the word for what I?m talking about. I speak truth the best I can, though because I?m human, am mostly wrong. I want to know the truth [/u], not some scientifical theory that might we wrong. Our human minds, knowledge base, and wise reasoning, are a tiny little piece of speck matter compared to the universe. We will never understand everything, never understand why we are here, is it because of a random sequence of events that occurred for billions of years (which has hundreds of scientifical theories) even if we were told direct, all the facts, we won?t understand. It is like trying to tell a 1 week old puppy that it is wrong to crap indoors. I think it is pompous to think that we can discover everything, and understand everything as a race. We have this inquisitive nature, which is why we are as advanced as we are today, but there will eventually be this ceiling that we hit, then the struggle begins of who is right and who is wrong, and I think that is already past us. We must discover the truth as one, not trying to find a rational explanation for every little picky thing out there. I think anyone could understand that.
You have some good points though Tab.
 ;)

I agree with Pho. They should present all ideas including the possiblity that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, who has a conscience, but the public school system says it's a religion, well I say evolution is a religion, so why can they teach that?

No matter how complex the series of events leading up to something, if you think about the possibility of the universe being infinite, not even a trillion events in succession is a significantly large number to rule out coincidence. Let's say, for the sake of argument, 1. that the universe is indeed infinite and 2. that we are the only planet sporting life of any kind out there. In that case, I'd be willing to seriously consider the possibility of ruling out coincidence in occurance of events leading up to all this.

Usage of percentages in the discussion of such theories is kind of odd, since there's no statistical approach to be used in any way, so I'll refrain from commenting on the amounts presented. However, I did mention inductive evidence in my previous post. Besides that, there's simply the logic of the thing. Give something millions of years, and (as can be observed in nature nowadays) the weak and sickly die off, while the stronger prosper. I see absolutely no reason to doubt the logic of this, and it fits perfectly in the balanced system of nature. If something is found that utterly disproves any such possibility, again, I'd be interested to hear about that, but so far I've not seen anyhing other than words on paper, written by humans. Testimony which I consider to be more likely to contain fallacy than actual observable nature surrounding us.
Ofcourse it's a theory, but I won't repeat myself on specifics, so are other theories. It is to this  day only in theory true that we actually exist, and aren't a figment of our own imagination, so to speak - yet it is highly inproductive to keep reminding ourselves of that, while there is work to be done.

-

I'm not about to go on faith fairly quickly, as you may have noticed. I'm agnostic and when someone is simply stating that intelligence (on a certain level) does not automatically lead to conscience and self-awareness, this does not compell me to accept it out of the blue. What proof is there? How can one be so sure about such matters? Again, it seems somewhat arrogant to assume our feelings are divine and that other intelligent beings now, and in the future, are incapable of having any.

Consider this bit of reasoning:

If a being is intelligent enough to wonder about , contemplate and overrule instincts (such as the preservation of a child), is it not less likely that instincts alone can compell the mother to protect the child?
If complex thought patterns can overtake the mother in times when her child is in danger, forcing her to weigh possible outcomes, the danger to herself, other options etc etc - it only follows that more time passes before the mother takes action, endangering the child.
What could solve this problem? 'Instinct' on a different level, perhaps. If the mother has some kind of impulse that overrules any such delay of action in times of need, it can be the key to decisive action, while, under other circumstances, allowing the mother to think things through. Love would do the trick, I think.

Ofcourse, the above is just a simple practical theory, but it serves as an example - it (and such explanations of other emotions and thoughts) can be discussed, but it cannot be winked away just like that - by saying conscience is a gift of a being that can only be understood through faith, and not ever by reasoning. I find it more likely that a divine spark brought the entire universe into life as a magnificent puzzle building onto itself, than that a divine being simply created some dead environment and smacked some unexplainable gifts into the mix here and there.

On a side note: I always think about things. The time it takes to proceed the argument is not always under a minute, but I'll do my best to set that limit, if you so desire. j/k :]
-

Everyone is after truth - my point is that many people are so eager to find it, that they are content in finding truths that cannot be proven, explained or discussed, rather than finding stepping stones leading to truths that can be. Again a certainty in your message that I cannot understand: How can you be so certain that we will never understand everything, or why we are here? What brings you to that conclusion? Sure, if ever, it won't be tomorrow. But that's how far I'm willing to go in the ways of certainty. These scientific (and any other viable) theories are, like I said, stepping stones. They are to be tested, built upon, attacked and defended for as long as is nescessary. Some have been disproven already, or been replaced by better ones. Some have been forgotten. Others are still going strong, just like some religious principles are.
I simply prefer theories that are open for discussion, and actually asking to be disproved, instead of theories that claim to be certainties (and in some countries, arguing them can get you killed).

To get that nice word back into the fray: I also find it pompous when one claims we will, with certainty, find out everything there is to know, eventually. I find it equally questionable when one states this cannot be so, with equal certainty. And that's the word I'm talking about; certainty.
When one claims certainty of any sort, when considering The Big Questions, one is being pompous, IMO.

-

Djeez, you make me type my keyboard in two :]

-

Edit: The theory of evolution is not (part of) a religion. It is not to be taken on faith. It is a scientific theory. Scientific theories have a definite place in schools.

Some good points there.
But (yes that evil word  :smirk:  ) I have one question. Does science dictate EVERY little pheasable thing out there and in here? You can't prove or disprove everything. If a friend tells you something, does he have to prove it to you everytime? If you get a chance read the book Childhood's End it a great one, even if it supports evolution, but it has good philosophical and theological points in it. No one is perfect, and when no one is perfect then humans as a race are not perfect and never will be. We have always made a misteak in most our calculations, theories, and the such, we improved upon them, but there are still flaws. I'm not saying we are stupid, we may know alot in the future, but I think not everything. Saying we know everything is saying we are god.


The universe is described as a design, for there to be a design there must be a designer.  Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

Religion is belief in and reverence for a power regarded as creator and governor of the universe. I think that the human concept of science can emulate it.

You can get failed for expressing conservative beliefs in some colleges, so don't question out loud. Professors jealously guard their values, ideologies, and institutions no matter how batshit insane they are.

Pure science does not omit any empiracle data, regardless of whether it agrees with a theory or not.  Too often I see unpure science, where concerns of maintaining grant money and politics interferes with the real discovery of knowledge.  Science has certain areas it does not like to deal with, especially in realms where the unexplained is concerned.  How much serious scientific investigation goes on in regards to the paranormal, UFO's, and accounts of the miraculous?  How many scientists are afraid of being ridiculed or scoffed at by their intellectual peers because of the pompous arrogance that exists within the community?  You see, objectivity has its limits within the scientific realm.  The problem is that people tend to turn a blind eye to this.  I would prefer complete objectivity, but how do you separate human nature, politics, and economics from the scientific process? In the end it falls upon the individual to seek the truth as best as they can, and (unfortunately) dig through all the bovine excrement along the way.

To me, the universe is like a finely cut gem, with all of us living creatures yet another facet in the same stone.  We are more than the sum of our parts, we are more than just flesh and blood, feather and bone, skin and hair.  We think, we feel, we wonder, we care.  There is one truth that cannot be denied by anyone, and that is the fact that life exists with inherent intent.  Call it instinct, explain it however you will, but life moves with purpose.  Living things all work in concert to perpetuate life.  This is not, to me, some random dance, some dramatic contest for survival.  Those who view nature as such need to get out of the laboratories and libraries and actually experience what nature is.  We animals are more complex and deep than everyone gives us credit for.  Those humans who are around us most know this most.  Those who are around us least know this least.  Science and religion both have a bad tendency to cast us in a subordinate light in relation to mankind.  To the scientist, I say this:  You say man evolved from us, therefore you are us.  Abandon your egocentric pride, and instead respect and cherish us, for we are all brothers.  To the religious, I say this:  God created you along with us, but he also created us before he created you.  God created you to care for, and watch over us, not to exploit and subordinate us.  We are a part of the same creation, therefore love and cherish us, as God loves and cherishes you.  We are not so different from each other as you think, and how you treat us reflects on your attitude toward God's creation, and to your fellow man as well.

The biggest question mankind always asks regards the meaning of life.  Tabun said something rather profound that I'd like to quote:

You see, that matches my understanding of the universe.  A very common mistake among both Christians and non-Christians is assuming the biblical account of the creation process ended on the 7th day.  That was only the end of the beginning.  Creation is an ongoing process which we are actively participating in as we speak.  If you adopt this point of view, then the meaning of life becomes clear:  Our purpose is an active partipation in this creation process.  Just our very living, down to the mundane day-to-day routines of our lives, contribute to this.  Consider your heart, does it not do the same thing, day after day, year after year, never changing in its task?  Yet consider the results should it fail for even a few moments.  This point of view gives the existence of everything - from the brightest star to the smallest spec of dust, from the greatest leader to the lowliest peasant - intrinsic meaning.  This view of life is one of purpose for all things, so there is no such thing as a meaningless and wasted life.

Even if I did not know what I know in regards to the universe, I would still find this point of view much preferable to the atheist perspective that everything is chance, nothing in the end has meaning, and death is the end of one's being.  That, to me, is an empty, hollow existence, devoid of meaning.  It also contradicts thousands of years of human nature of seeking after the devine.  I suppose the real choice, and question, for everyone who gives it thought is how do they prefer to see things?  Which is more appealing to them?  Perhaps this is why religion and spirituality is still going strong today, despite the atheistic claims that it would die off in favor of "reason".  Perhaps that was merely an error in their assuming that reason was something that belonged to them exclusively.  That seems to be a common human failing.[/color]

Pho: (strong) Atheism is a senseless concept anyway. It means to take on faith that no god exists - that's like having a grudge against a concept, and discarding it simply because of that.
Aside from that, although it would obviously be very nice to know that life is indeed not meaningless (by the definition of divinity etc), I would not take that as a reason to make certain assumptions.


'Science' does not dictate anything. It is a means to try and understand things. And yes, possibly everything. If a friend tells me something that does not fit into the current collection of models representing the world we live in, then there is reason to both question the comment aswell as the model(s).

Who says we are not meant to develop ourselves in a way that makes us a 'god' one day? Maybe our task is to understand everything, and eventually, perpetuate existence by setting a new (better?) universe in motion, which would, by some people's definition, make us God. It seems no less likely to me than that we are doomed to lead a neverending struggle.

Again this unceremonious certainty - 'we will never be perfect', 'we will never know everything'. This is a belief you have, and no matter how often you will repeat it, does not automatically make it true. It's fine if you choose to believe it - but do not make it part of a serious discussion or argumentation - unless you're ready to argue it like any other theory or concept.
Which brings me to my point: Where does this connect to whether or not theories should be taught in schools? Is the use of intellectual contemplation under attack? Should schools stop trying to make people question things or philosophize about such matters? I'd rather have a million people in doubt, questioning and striving for understanding, than a million person claiming to know the truth because he or she believes it to be so. (the question is, where would I keep them all?)


Ehr, now you're preaching the existence of a Creator to me - if thousands of years of human civilization didn't come up with something to convince me outright, you can be sure you won't succeed converting me with a few posts on a messageboard :]

Again, many assumptions without grounds: 'a design exists' even 'obviously', 'there must be a designer', 'the principle of causality is unshakeable'. All interesting concepts, sure enough - but none relate directly to the question(s) at hand, and all are derived from certain beliefs. There is no reason to exclude the possibility that life is meaningless, without 'design' (that is: without it being planned ahead). People (and yes, scientists are simply that; people) are eager to believe and accept otherwise, and that is fine, up to a point.

When Galilei discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and that the Sun did not circle the Earth, but that it was the other way around, it was considered preposterous: how could it be that there would be such a distance between man and god? How could it be that there was so much emptiness out there, that we were just vulnerable specks on a 'random' planet? If I recall, people didn't embrace this theory at the time, the church ofcourse claiming it to be nonsense. However, it was true.

Therefore, I do not find it likely that even if we find compelling evidence for the complete randomness of life and the universe, people will simply not accept it. If there is a Creator and it is watching over us, I would find it logical that it would feel disappointment when it would find we wouldn't try to understand it's creation as it is.

I'm ready for anything, or at least I'm trying to be.

P.S. I still don't see how this last bit connects to the subjects taught in schools, but I guess that's the design of this thread? :}

And yet ironically, from a spiritual sense, the Earth is the center of creation.  The Earth, biblically speaking is the site of both the entrance to the Abyss (Revelation Chapter 9) as well as the future home to God's throne (Revelation 21).  Earth is quite literally the nexus between this universe, heaven, and hell.  So you could say that yes, the Earth is the center of the universe, if viewed from that perspective, regardless of the physical arrangement of planets and stars.

One could also argue against being random "specs" and being so "small".  Jesus said in the gospels that not a single sparrow falls from the sky without the Lord knowing, and that even the hairs on your head are numbered.  That should give people understanding that God is not just a God of vast cosmic things, but also small and innumerable things, again showing the believer that nothing is outside of his knowledge nor his power.  Though the Psalmist declared "What is man, that thou art even mindful of him?" the Christian view of God is one of personal concern, and love for each individual.  To the Christian, the cross wasn't for billions of people, but for one individual billions of times over.  

Remember as well that at the time of Gallileo, Copernicus, etc, Europe was in the Dark Ages and the inquisition was going on.  Knowledge and understanding were very limited at the time.  The gulf that exists between man and God is well known of today because of the understanding that man's imperfection is infinitely far removed from God's perfection.  This is just something that is understood now when so many can read, interpret, and discuss the bible's theology openly, whereas during the Dark Ages, only a few could read or discuss the bible, and so many were left in the dark because they could not, hence the name of the time.  Something also to remember is that how we see things and assign importance as mortal creatures is not how God assigns importance.  Some things we all view as significant, to God, may be trivial, and vice versa.

I know how easily this thread could turn into a religious discussion, which was not my intent.  I understand the passionate feelings that Washu has, and I also understand the more reserved logic that Tabun has.  I am just glad we are able to discuss such things in this manner, in this medium.  Consider this, how various minds, transcending distance, culture, beliefs, and even species (in my case) can converge to openly contemplate and debate such things.  There are so many places in the world where such discussion would result in prison, torture, and executions for the concerned parties.  It is this repression, this attitude that "we won't let you discuss it because we don't like it", that must be changed.  That's the original intent of my quoting this article was to promote awareness.  When dissent of ideas is forbidden, oppression usually follows.  Look at every oppressive regime around the world, and you will find this in common.  Ideas can be very dangerous things to those who desire power and dominance.  This is precisely why they need to be freely expressed and openly taught.

That this was stated as such makes sense to me - at the time people wrote it down, there was no other viable 'center of creation' than the Earth. Or maybe I'm typing that because I just don't like discussing things in the context of bible translations and the like. It's like watching a Hieronymus Bosch painting; beautiful concepts and displays, but I wouldn't enjoy discussing the portrayed scenes as a reality, for I cannot realistically see them as such.
It would also be more enjoyable if I could find a version of the bible that I would trust enough to actually read in its entirety - perhaps the literary version that was recently released in the Netherlands..


The same goes for the above; no offense, but what Jesus said (or is thought to have said)  what he meant by it and if it goes for the entire universe, and not just the bit we inhabit is not fact to me. 'Revelations' may say so, but I fear that doesn't do the trick for me :]
If one considers a Gaya theory, we could represent little 'cells' of a huge 'organism', thus fulfilling a role - in that sense, everyone and everything is important in a way, but still small and possibly random. The same could be said of very interesting and equally likely Asian religions. Just like the things you mention, accepting such a ideas requires faith.



As far as I'm concerned, we still do not nescessarily possess significantly more knowledge than in the dark ages. It is much safer to discuss and argue these matters today, but still stupidity reigns supreme (judging by the things people commonly bash eachother's skulls over, for example ;]). Unless there exists a good idea of the upper limit (if any) of human knowledge, it seems odd to me to consider ourselves particularly knowledgeable at this point.
Additionally, more people studying ancient texts also means more interpretations, variations and an ever growing vagueness of the contents, combined. Also, to this day, people exist that take practically everything in the bible literally - I'm inclined to believe those people should refrain from reading, if at all possible.


I fear it is too late, this is now a religious debate ;]
After this post, I will not address religious topics, for I prefer to discuss those reclining on a comfortable pluche sofa, sipping a fine whiskey and without keyboard interfacing. Endless and unresolvable discussions are not for The Uncomfortable.


The summary of my comments on the actual (ehr, the actual second) main subject of this thread:

- My definition of material that should, exclusively, be taught in public education institutions is as follows:
Anything and everything that 1) may be openly and freely contemplated, discussed and criticized, 2) is not considered controversial in its own nature by common opinion* 3) is purposeful for the pupils, either as tool to exercize and increase mental abilities, or as a collection of relevant and applicable information.

Wherein 1) and 3) should hold in universal or global context, and 2) in the appropriate neighbourhood of the institution.

* distinction to make here: I'm saying that the facts about the death penalty (history, anatomy of a trial, related laws) should be taught, but not 'facts' about whether or not it is morally right, whether or not gods have a say in it, etc.. - Because there is no general controversy about
the former, only about the latter.


Thus, my standpoint on the discussed topics & education:
- Since issues political in nature are (generally) controversial, they should (in general) not be taught in schools.
- Since religious beliefs are (generally) controversial, they should (in general)  not be taught in schools. Note that this does not include the historical facts about religious practices and the like.
- Since the theory of evolution is not generally considered controversial (and, as discussed, conforms perfectly to 1) and 3) in my definition), it should be taught in any institution that is not located in an area inhabited mostly by fanatical creationists (for instance).

Whether or not the implied nescessity of relocation for people in some cases is a good thing or not, is obviously a brow-raiser - I wouldn't like to get into that here, but that would be a seriously heated debate, I'm sure :]

Apparantly, I'm in disagreement with Little Washu over either 1), 2) and 3) or all of them. :]



Add: 'presented without bias, open for discussion and criticism' to that last line, and I utterly agree.

---

P.S. As a mindgame, assume the following hypotheses:
0. God exists.
1. The spiritual center of the universe is the planet Earth.
2. Our sun dies, consuming our planet (and practically our entire solar system).
3. The human race manages to colonize other solar systems or even galaxies.

What then, has happened to the center of the universe? Does it continue to exist within the supernova, or at the previous coordinates of the Earth? Is the actual position still relevant? Or, could it simply disappear?  Could it be automatically transferred to the new center of human civilization (if any)? Or would it not be possible for humans to escape, and would the death of the sun (or something else, like the moon crashing down) be the famous Apocalypse?

Double posting to bring you this humorous interlude:

(http://i.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/03-11-05-comics/FuegoFish.jpg)

Very intesting arguements by all.

As to the topic:

I'll be off to collage in two years or so, so I can't really comment on any sort of bias there, however on the high school front -

My school seems to be alot more balanced due to the area I'm in; a rural town with a university, so there is a mix of conservative and liberal teachers, as well as a mixed student body, slightly conservative-leaning. However one thing that I find really great about my school and its teachers, is that no matter the political leaning, 9/10 will accept arguement and debate, in or out of class depending on whether it's appropriate. My liberal civics teacher presents both sides of politics, and picks articles from both liberal and conservative sources to hand out. My conservative science teacher spends a day at the beginning of each semester making sure that people realize that religion and theories of evolution etc.. should taken as such, as theories, and his place is simply to present the evidence on the scientific side of things. ( he did, however mildly gloat when bush won.... yuck! :P)

For the most part, it really depends on the student as to whether he or she is influenced by the teacher's political leanings; I for one tend to discredit biased things my teachers might say until I've heard more from others.

And, yes, if someone is kicked out of a class for dissenting ideas,  then there is something severely wrong...

 :)~

Why the dislike?  I was merely offering clarification for a point of view that may seem illogical from your current perspective, and how to others it may make absolute sense.  I thought you were always open-minded toward fresh perspectives, hmm?


That's the cynic in you talking.  The problem is, when can you ever be satisfied or content?  There is more information and knowledge in the universe than can be imagined at this point.  Speaking from the perspective of physics only, it is doubtful that the human brain (or any brain for that matter) could ever contain all of it, which means it is equally doubtful that absolute knowledge could ever be attained.  Just because current knowledge is as far removed from absolute knowledge as knowledge was 10,000 years ago does not make it any less significant in the current context.  Knowledge of how to split the atom, for instance, has great significance compared to making a simple bow and arrow.  To me, access to knowledge - not knowledge itself - is the important thing.  That was my emphasis in my previous post.


The problem with discussing biblical interpretation, or rather how should the bible be interpreted, is that there are two distinct perspectives involved - that of the believer, and that of the unbeliever.  The believer's perspective is dependent upon the written text itself.  It is the duty of the believer to abide by how the bible says it should be interpreted, for the believer is bound to obey God (according to their belief).  The unbeliever will always have a perspective that is not in accord with this view because the sense of duty is not present.  I point this out only to illustrate the vast difference in perspective.  The believer accepts that God's original intent will transcend any interference by mankind.  The unbeliever does not have this acceptance because, quite obviously, they do not believe this nor have faith that it can be thus.  Therefore, to the unbeliever, any degree of translational accuracy is a stumbling block to validity, whereas to the believer, such stumbling blocks can be overcome by Divine Intent.

It is no surprise to me that you would think additional discussion would lead only to confusion, however, what you fail to account for in the equation is the will of the believer to seek out the intent of God, not the intent of man.  That is a uniting - not a dividing - factor, and any translational discussion will always be kept within that context when it is discussed among believers.  The only realm where this disparity will be as severe as you indicate is among secular scholars studying religion.  As an agnostic, you accept this premise by default because it is pre-existant within your mindset.  To truly understand how things could work against your expectation among Christians, you have to be able and willing to shift your perspective and see things from the other side.  The problem is that while it's easy for a believer to see how an unbeliever may see things, the opposite is not true.  It's not impossible, but it's not easy.  That's the problem with placing expectations upon behavior.  Usually it involves a degree of projection, which leads to erroneous results and unforseen outcomes.  I screw up like this myself at times, and I'm self-aware in regards to this tendency so imagine how much people do it who are unaware of it.

Also, you're talking to one of those people who takes the bible literally, or at least where it should be taken literally.  Be careful about casting judgement, my friend, or you fall into a rather ugly trap, and become guilty of the prejudice that individuals like myself are often accused of having.  ;)


I would tend to disagree.  This is a discussion that includes religious elements.  This is Controversy Corner, after all, and so far this hasn't turned into a Devlar or dev/null-style back-and-forth attack/counterattack rantfest, so I see no problem with open discussion at this point so long as we don't stray too far off the original topic.


Do I detect a cop-out?  Oh come on, you're up to the challenge.  Let's get those thoughts on the table!  You can't go moping around life hiding from the Big Issues forever.  Just ask Oobey.


Ok, this right here I have to call BS on.  First of all, Common Opinion is a "majority rule" situation.  What you're talking about is exclusion of ideas, not inclusion.  That's exactly what we need to get away from.  I'm not saying schools should teach people how to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, only that they should teach that certain people believe certain things, that they hold this important to them, and they should all be respected regardless of their beliefs instead of trashing their beliefs and teaching people that they're a bunch of backwards, closed-minded fanatics who should be scoffed at for their simple-mindedness.  The same holds for scientific theory.  If a theory is not necessarily widely accepted, but is somewhat common knowledge or has some degree of factual basis, it should not be excluded just because it's not the most popular.  Also, if people are likely to encounter something, they should be educated about it to some degree so they know what they're in for.  That was very the purpose of founding the public education system, was it not?  I'm tired of true diversity being sacrificed in the name of "tolerance".  The result is a boring, homogeonized Borg collective of a society that has no spark, no vibrance, and no beauty, only dullness and mundanity.

The theory of evolution is most certainly controversial.  It has been controversial since it's inception.  It is only recently (as in, last few decades) that in most areas of academia that it has become the accepted norm.  This also I will disagree that it should not be taught where the area is inhabited by "fanatical creationists" as you so lovingly put it.  The public education system should teach facts relevent to both sides.  I think controversial issues need to be brought forth.  Young minds will be exposed to controversy all throughout their lives, including their formative years, and unless they get some real education they're going to get one side or the other, but never both.  Depending on who your parents and friends are, and how involved they are in your life, if you are a young person in this day you're going to get radically different views on any controversial subject.  Now take that young person and toss them into a public setting with others who have been educated differently from them, and you're going to get a clash of ideals.  For example, a pro-life person thrust into a largely pro-abortion setting is going to get mobbed.  The same goes for the other side of the spectrum.  The same goes for evolution vs creationism.  I've seen the same fanaticism on both sides of the argument.

This translates across any issue where strong opinions are involved.  When someone gets mobbed like this, one of two outcomes result - either ther person knuckles under and follows the mob mindset, or they entrench and become fanatical in diametric opposition to the mob.  The idea is that if people are educated about such issues factually, and not with opinions and rhetoric, then open discussion as opposed to social lynchings can be the norm.  Dissent is often met with violence, either in words or in deeds.  History provides far too many examples of this for me to need to elaborate further.  Either way, that needs to change if humanity is ever going to get out of this constant cycle its been repeating since I can remember.  The worse outcome is that people get so turned off to the back-and-forth that they become completely apathetic and lose interest entirely.  Then the issue gets decided for them, without their consent or involvement.  I have no sympathy for people who take this route when life comes back to bite them in the ass later because they asked for it by not acting when they had the opportunity to do so.  Chosing to not decide is still a choice, and has its own consequences.


Well, the problem with that is who isn't biased to some degree or another?  I'd say "presented without unreasonable personal bias" would be more appropriate, but I get your gist and agree entirely. ;)


Now you know such hypothetical games are a no-no, and you know I don't play them, especially when blanket assumptions are involved.  From my perspective, this is just an attempt at an end-run around what you saw as preaching, when all I was doing was showing you how perspectives can differ, and why something that may not make any logical sense to one person may make perfect sense to another.  It tells me that you missed my original point entirely, either that or this is your twisted sense of humor in action.  Either way, splitting hairs over needless things is a trademark of the skeptical mind, which is why I avoid such hypothetical discussions.  They exist only to shift the subject away from what the skeptic finds uncomfortable contemplating.  To me, discussion of hypothetical situations is purposeful only if they have some degree of direct applicability.  Then they become parable, and can be related to.  Otherwise one can "what if" forever and accomplish nothing.  Speculation without decision is wasted time and accomplishes nothing.

Also, noting the ridicule inherent within that comic, to me, only illustrates the intolerence inherent within the anti-religious community.  You see, to me there's absolutely no difference between those who ridicule Evolution and those who ridicule Creationism.  Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of the source.[/color]

Don't get me wrong, I'm still open to the possibility that biblical explanation(s) are right - I just do not have the knowledge required to discuss them (and I have indeed that 'problem' of having to find a version that is least likely to have been tainted by human politics - again, not ruling out the divine hand in getting the message across, but at this point I find it easier to accept that the message (if it exists) is within us, not within books).

I am also equally open-minded (or try to be, I am already tainted by life, as everyone is :)) to Shinto (and ancient Japanese thoughts on karma), Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, (weak) Atheism, Pantheism, ancient Egyptian beliefs etc etc. I make some exceptions (like with strong Atheism, as discussed earlier) and I tend to shy away from intolerance and fanatics.

The downside of all that is that it requires an enormously broad collection of knowledge, and I do not like to delve too deeply into any single direction. I'd need to justify such a specific route to myself.
That's why (weak) Agnosticism suits me perfectly right now - I feel confused; am in doubt. I have feelings I cannot explain, but I also have a feeling my brain is the key to my own development, and that it is exactly that development which is the proper path to follow. I understand and actually feel the importance of a moral balance in life, but I am confused at the way zealots slaughter eachother over beliefs that preach in the very core a calm, peaceful, balanced life where one should have compassion and understanding for his fellow humans (and birds, I guess).


Point taken, and agreed upon.
It was not intended to be very cynical though - I have no 'bad vibe' about our level of knowledge, rather a good one about our seemingly endless possibilities and our room for growth. Let me put it like this - I have the inclination to believe that we will be way cooler on every level than Star Trek tries to show us :]


This is what I was talking to you about in the IRC channel - there is no way for us to settle a dispute about this, and I see no point in shifting this into a discussion of whether or not there can be only one correct perspective and which one of those is correct if there can't be - to put this into another context: I'm at this point sooner inclined to find divinity in math (in the beauty and the apparent flawlessness of it), and accept that as the language of God, than the Bible. There are two perspectives on the former, and the truth is a yes/no discussion, like the one about biblical truths, but it would be more in harmony with my views so far.

For instance, (since I do not believe in the impossibility of corruption and falsehood in texts and the understanding of them) religious texts may well have been distorted and adjusted for political gain, for power and control over 'the unknowing' - whereas math had less chance of that. Ofcourse, to undermine my whole reasoning here, math does not apparantly say anything to us about the way we should live (which obviously makes it less of a candidate for that) and that makes it a less functional writ for religious purposes ;]

Again, I do not rule out the possibility of a divine, uncorruptable message, and its connectedness with the Bible, I just do not see it as a certainty, and haven't tools to prove or disprove it - yes/no-ing on it does not have my fancy :]


Also addressed in IRC ;]
I always feel up to the challenge to share and discuss viewpoints - I do not feel up to the challenge of attacking/defending beliefs - especially not the kind where in some way things reek like 'unbelievers are unworthy, cannot see the true light of God, REPENT SINNER'. Now now, I know you don't bend that way, but there is not enough room to share 'the footing of agreement' when discussing perspectives of believers vs. unbelievers, and creating an unleapable gap between them.


BS is a bit strong :P
But I do agree - to entirely exclude controversies is perhaps not the answer. I do think parents are responsible for addressing these issues, since they hold the main chunk of responsibility for their offspring - the problem is that capable parents are for some odd reason getting rare indeed.
I do agree with you, however, that the messages of (at the very least) the main religions should be taught to everyone. I sort of chalked up the message and facts about what a religion dictates to be non-controversial in itself - to me, it is statements about it's truth or falsehood that are a constant controversy.
Teaching someone that they are backwards for holding a belief is clearly wrong - but that would be addressing a controversy: opinions about the truth in beliefs. By my definition, this should not be happening in educational institutes :]



That would be most undesireable - but I think the responsibility for preventing that lies not with (obligatory) education, but in life outside of it (and preferrably, after education took place). In school: the 'facts' - outside of it: the application of the facts on controversy.


True, but perhaps you misunderstand me about the scale on which I would have this happen - I would want everything to be taught in schools, excepting those things which are controversial in their own nature, to be taken on belief and directing the Choice of the pupil.
For example, I would have taught at institutions the contents of the bible (the ten commandments, the teachings of Jesus and his followers, etc), along with the teachings of other world religions, but not statements about the whether or not following those teachings is right or wrong. yes to completeness of options, no to the direction of choice.
On second thought, perhaps the wording of 2) should indeed be changed, it is too vague, in any case, and:
I agree that the majority rule aspect is problematical. I made the mistake of combining feasibility with a perfect-world solution. In the perfect world, people can come to agreement on where to make the division between fact, theory and belief - in real life, this is obviously not the case (judging by, for example, this thread :]).
So, in a perfect-world situation, there would be a universal selection of teaching material. In practice, I'm not sure what would work, however.


Maybe I based the conclusion that it isn't too much on the general opinion in the Netherlands alone. The theory of evolution is accepted here (and can be discussed without mishap) with practically everyone, excepting a handful of creationists, huddling together in small towns here and there - not to disregard them, it is only to indicate that there is a clear minority. I don't regularly visit the States, so I'll make no assumptions about its inhabitants here :]


This is basically the crux of my reasoning: If they're not taught both sides in their formal education, will they ever get that knowledge, and with it, the choice?

In my perfect world, people are given all the knowledge, but are free to make decisions about beliefs themselves - thus, they would know all about the inner workings of all world religions, but are free to choose which, if any, they will follow.
The problem is ofcourse, that this is not a perfect world, not all the facts can be presented and often the choices are made for people when they are too young to question them.

Even so, if all the options are presented correctly, anyone should be able to make the right choice for themselves - whether or not they'd enter the learning process with a bias, prejudice, or a pre-made choice would be up to parents and the like. Knowing that there's still parents out there teaching their 3 yr. olds that 'Niggers are worthless', I realize there's little hope for some, in this respect.

Fixing this by letting government (or indeed 'majority rule') have a say in fighting these biases would be problematic too. If 'objective' institutions get a say in what's right and wrong   on that level, would make for an extremely dangerous political tool (I will refrain from making comparisons with Third Reich 'education' here (oops, too late)), as you point out. I guess I prefer leaving that open, and not placing that directive in the hands of educational institutes.



Agreed. I have a feeling we're dancing around the same idea, using different wording to confuse eachother of the meaning ;]


Aye - although I would make the distinction of choosing to be ignorant and choosing not to decide. Where the latter beats the former in some ways :]



If only it wasn't so.. :)

---

Actually, I didn't know. I enjoy that kind of thing myself. It allows me to contemplate and explore things without having to accept beliefs (other than for the sake of argument) or 'be converted' so to speak. I had no idea you disliked it yourself.


Neither is the case: I did not include it to disprove or attack anything. It is hair-splitting, yes, and it was not intended to reach any conclusive resolution. Note the three dashes separating it from the body of my post. If it gave you the impression that I wasn't taking your perspective seriously, or that I was attacking it - regard it as non-existent, this was not my intention. I just enjoy speculation of that sort, regardless of relevance or outcome - it's part of the 'practical philosopher' in me.

Likewise for the comic parody: it was not to be taken seriously. I enjoy the joke, but ofcourse I don't agree with the violence, intolerance and bigotry. Again, if it offends you, disregard it or know that I too consider it to be bollocks.

I like interluding serious discussion with mindgames and crude jokes, to serve as an intermezzo, which relaxes my 'thinking-muscles' :]

I see we're more in line with our opinions on this matter than one would think at the outset.  Regarding the hypothetical mind game, I think perhaps you've missed some of the more spectacular rant-offs I've had with people in the past where hypothetical situations were posed as a way to undermine an argument or position (usually mine).  That's why I tend to not engage in them.  Hypotheticals can be used for exploration, however in debate tactics they're often used to obfuscate and derail, and generally draw the discussion away from the facts, hence my avoidance of them.  I realize you're not an adversary in this conversation, and I certainly have no problem with mental excercises.  I don't like to engage in those that require a core expectation I have to be assumed in the negative, and the thought of humans colonizing the universe fills me with a soft of dread panic that most citizens get when someone announces plans to expand the public landfill.

I understand the comic was posted in jest.  My reaction to the comic is for the benefit of the broader audience to illustrate that "the door swings both ways", so to speak.

A(nother) reason why it seemed there was more disagreement is perhaps that I tend to be the 'Devil's Advocate' when it is clear that one side in some specific argument is well spoken for already - which can be somewhat misleading, since most agreements end up only being detectable 'between the lines'

Yes, I think I've missed quite a few heated confrontations - It's not very often that I find CC threads interesting enough to follow through entirely, especially not when they become fights for some stupid reason. Discussion does not work when any or all parties act like battering rams - we all know how annoying it is to talk to someone that uses your speaking time to think over what he/she has to say, instead of listening.

And lastly; even if that colonization will ever become reality, at least it's rather a long way off, and a lot of (good?) things can happen still :]

Hey look! It?s Captain Creationism! My hero! :p j/k


Just a small thing on this quote that confuses me, questioning the ten commandments on weather they are right or wrong disturbs me, as most of these commands are enforced, such commandments as, ?You shall not murder.? ?You shall not commit adultery? ?You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.? (Lying to people) ?Honor your father and mother.? (Exceptions on dead beats) I mean really, there must be a point were a line must be drawn on ?Free Thinking? For example, ?I?m sorry that I killed your son Mister and Mrs. Henderson, but my belief is that if you can make money being a hit man, that, it?s okay.? Should he be free to go because he believes that he should be able to set up any kind of business he wants even if it violates basic morals? Anther example, radical free speech believers that believe that you should be able to lie under oath or shout curse words in churches, ?because they can?. What I am saying, for everything, that there must be a decent balance. What happens when you don?t have balance, well, one side usually wins over another, and that kind of stuff, could cause bad stuff to happen, conflict.
One other interesting point with the free speech thing that I think is fascist.

Taken from Fox News website:

This is an injustice done. Not because they are Christians, but because of the persecution, done in the U.S. the supposedly un-fascist country of ?free thinking?. Apparently the information on this and many other acts of injustice presented due to ?Free Thinking? is taking the opposite of what is right and enforcing it. That is sad, and fulfilling the prophecies and, even more proving the truth of the bible:
?In the end, good shall become evil and evil shall become good.?
Along with many other prophecies such as nuclear war, bombs and black hawk helicopters.
Take this quote from revelation for example:

(Rev 6:14 KJV) And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Some mountains are going to fall down. One of the reasons for that could have to do with the fact that a lot of military installations are hidden under mountains to protect them. As a result there are nuclear missiles created to drive down into that mountain and destroy that installation. That could take care of some of those mountains all by itself, but there is another interesting prospect. Isaiah says the world is turned upside down and empties out the population. The Prophet Amos tells of an event that happens on a clear day, the sun goes down at noon, and the only way for the sun to go down at noon would be for the earth to move. It must turn upside down.

Einstein had an interesting theory, actually it was more of a fear then a theory. He suggested that one nuclear bomb aimed at the right trajectory could cause the earth to reverse its poles. Stop and think about it, you have the earth just hanging on nothing, no hoops, no magic tricks, no wires, God just set it there in a delicate orbital balance. When the space shuttle is in outer space, it just sits there in its orbit. In order for the ship to move, it has to fire its thrusters. It doesn?t have to keep them firing, just fire them sufficiently to give you the speed and course desired, when the thrusters are shut down the vehicle continues to move in that course and speed. What if you had all of those nuclear bombs, understanding that most of those missiles are going to strike the Northern hemisphere, since all the combatants are in the Northern hemisphere, placing this lopsided thrusting on the earth, couldn?t that cause the world to turn upside down? It could hit the earth with such an angle of impact that it could reverse its axis and turn the world upside down. The scripture does say every island and mountains are moved out of its place, and it says the world is turned upside down. It does say the earth is burned and few men are left. Jeremiah says in a single day the slain of the earth will be from one end of the earth to the other. He also ties it with a great evil going from land to land, and great whirlwinds shall rise up on the coast of the earth (Jer. 25:31-33).
Just a little prove of fact from the very pages of the Bible.


Maybe I?m wrong, perhaps we will be perfect intellectually, we are ingenious. However brains will never outwit wisdom. Which not a lot of people have. We defiantly don?t have indefinite wisdom which is good for developing intelligence.

What you describe here is why we have laws. Laws should IMO be taught in schools, for they are fact. The ten commandments are factual in that they are noted and stored at some point in history. They can be read, they can be presented, they cannot be proven to be right. To say there is no doubt at all that the commandments are in any way the exact prescription of The Good Life, is akin to saying God exists. It is absolutely fine if that is your belief, but it is unreasonable to press them upon others solely for it being anyone's conviction.
Ethics are part of any decent education, because the topic is part of philosophy, law practice and even communicative subjects, besides, it is the accepted norm in our society that stealing and killing are bad. This has not always and everywhere been the case, as history tells us.
Ofcourse we should be taught at schools that killing is not desirable conduct  - but this does not warrant a claim that the ten commandments are either a factual divine message, or even that they are in some unshakeable universal way morally right.

It would be nonsense to assume that running a red light could somehow be justified by a firm belief that red lights are meaningless.

The point is not that one should be free to act upon his beliefs, and to be able to justify anything on basis of those beliefs - (I have no idea where you got the idea that this is the view I have, or that is somehow implied here :]) - the point is that one should be free to choose for him/herself what to believe and what is right.

---

Well, you've virtually lost me from there on. Soon I might prevent annoyance for either or both of us by withdrawing from the discussion (ofcourse, still considering it an interesting one so far). I respect your beliefs, I just don't see any purpose in either discussing something from a narrow perspective, straying even further from the actual topic or getting all hot and bothered about an endless and timeless argument.


To exemplify:


I shall disregard my personal opinion on fearfulness for gay-pride, intolerance, street evangelism and judgementalism; there simply are laws to regard here.
To oil the cogs of society, rules must be made (the alternative would be Anarchy). These rules are not spiritual or universal or whatnot, these are simply agreements that make life bearable for a people. One such rule is the right to free thinking and free speech. '1984' is not a widely desired or accepted way to go.

If one is unable to make the distinction between universal truth and practical rule, discussion on either subject becomes very tough-going indeed. It's one of those things where I draw the line, and withdraw myself.


Your quote from Revelations is interesting, and food for one of my 'hypothetical mind-games'. As I said, I don't know the Bible back to front, so I will not get into an argument over specific quotes (unless it states something along the lines of 'And on april the fourth of the year two-thousand and five, Tabun will getst a headache like none before, and maketh no mistake!' ;) j/k)
It is not, however, proof. Not to be harsh, but taking such a text and claiming it to describe and predict an exact happening or development is akin to taking a horoscope and claiming it to predict your day/month/life. Again, there is no problem with a firm belief in something like that, there is no hard evidence against it, but it has no place as proof in a discussion that has not even showed signs of agreement over the existance of divine influence.
One might aswell present ancient writings on the Bushido, and claim specific verses to be proof of the universal right to kill off entire villages.


Another good example of where you have lost me.. we're having a discussion about whether or not an intelligence might eventually know all, and now you're simply stating that it cannot? When were the limitations of the human brain throughout a possible eternity determined? And even if the biological frame is the end of the line for us, how can we be sure that the soul (if it exists) is equally limited? How can one 'outwit' a concept like knowledge or wisdom in the first place?

Maybe we're unclear on the definition of wisdom. My dictionary states:
1. the state of being wise.
2. an understanding of that which is true or good, together with sound judgment.
3. scholarly learning

Obviously, 1 and 3 represent practical usage of the word, and are too vague to apply here. The second meaning indicates that wisdom is all about knowing truth, having sound judgement and thus, in relation to the topic, knowing all truth there is to know. Or in short, knowing everything.
Which leaves me to wonder what you are then talking about. We have partial 'wisdom', and no way of knowing if we'll ever reach perfect 'wisdom' or not. That's exactly the question at hand :]

I've been thinking about other definitions of wisdom that would represent something that for some reason do not fall under 'knowing everything', but I'm afraid you'll have to help me out here..

I like this discussion alot, it doen't annoy me at all.  :smirk:

Okay to clear things up about the article that I quoted, I want to know, is that justice? Is that right? Are we really a "Free Thinking Society"? Or are we fascist against ethics that were taught many a year ago? What I ment is being Chisrtian, is contraversal., tell me why was it not fifty years ago? Why the debate over prove over every thing when the evidence is in ink in the Bible. One other interesting thing I might add, is the Bible says that we [Chistrians] are abolished "to give prove". The problem being is that people want direct proof in the palm of their hands. They need to open their eyes more and think wisely.

And about my usage of wise. To understand and apply the truth to themselves and others.
Example: there are 2 students. One has an IQ of 80 one has an IQ of 140. Now there is a big final coming up in history class. The smarter person decides not to study, take notes, and thinks that he can get by with brains alone. Now the not so smart person knows this final is huge for their grade, so he takes notes, listens to the teacher, studies instead of going to that party. My guess is the person with the IQ of 80 is going to get a better grade then the person who has an IQ of 140. The difference is, that the less intelligent person has more wisdom then the smarter person, so tell me, who is really smarter?

This only goes to show that IQ is not a good way to measure intelligence by. Someone of high intelligence (for purposes of this discussion) should be able to contemplate broadly, ponder deeply and understand the nescessity of study. An IQ of 140 makes you intelligent like a penis of 10" makes you a good lover. The one who realizes this, is smarter than both of the persons you mention.

Your definition of wisdom changes nothing to the discussion, and proves that the statements in your previous post do nothing to propagate the argument.


These comments only go to show you are either purposefully or unwittingly refusing to see things from any other perspective than a rigidly convinced Christian one. You regard beliefs as proof and consider unbelievers to be unwise and closeminded.

I do not consider believers (of any religion) to be unwise at all, but sometimes it's hard not to consider some things as a sign of closemindedness.

I'm not even going to go near the 'why not 50 years ago?' question, aside from naming Socrates, Democritus and wondering if the inquisition was perhaps also a good thing, because it was popular in the past?

That you are not annoyed makes sense to me too - by ruling out the possibility of being wrong, one can never be in a state of doubt over something or feel unable to get a message across. Why would you need to worry about that, when the message is so clear and obvious, that 'you just need to open your eyes, think wisely' and see it?

Maybe I'm getting most annoyed, above all, by the utter inanity of the apparant idea that considering all the available options and possibilities with honesty, open mindedness and free from judgement is somehow fascist compared to the holding on to a specifc and traditional belief system with the utmost certainty, preferring to strangle all the natural processes of human thought and contemplation - perhaps even forcing it upon others through public and obligatory education.

So, I'm getting off the bus here, I see no further use in this discussion - your standpoint in this is clear to me, as is mine. I fear it is getting rather one-sided in a few ways. I refuse to let any more of my comments in this thread get bludgeoned by the blunt sword of "Something somethingness 12:34-proof". My horoscope was right about that headache, too.

I like this discussion alot, it doen't annoy me at all. and you make great arguements :smirk:
I have gained some truth from your arguments, so I would gladly like to proceed.  :)

Okay to clear things up about the article that I quoted, I want to know, is that justice? Is that right? Are we really a "Free Thinking Society"? Or are we fascist against ethics that were taught many a year ago? What I ment is being Chisrtian, is contraversal., tell me why was it not fifty years ago? Why the debate over prove over every thing when the evidence is in ink in the Bible. One other interesting thing I might add, is the Bible says that we [Chistrians] are abolished "to give prove". The problem being is that people want direct proof in the palm of their hands. They need to open their eyes more and think wisely.

And about my usage of wise. To understand and apply the truth to themselves and others.
Example: there are 2 students. One has an IQ of 80 one has an IQ of 140. Now there is a big final coming up in history class. The smarter person decides not to study, take notes, and thinks that he can get by with brains alone. Now the not so smart person knows this final is huge for their grade, so he takes notes, listens to the teacher, studies instead of going to that party. My guess is the person with the IQ of 80 is going to get a better grade then the person who has an IQ of 140. The difference is, that the less intelligent person has more wisdom then the smarter person, so tell me, who is really smarter? The message; intelect is the fool's gold, wisdom is priceless. Intelect is important, yes, but is not everything.


Of course they can be proven right. Does there need to be proof that cheating on your spouse is wrong, how can I possibly prove that "You shall not commit adulty" is a factual and just? Prove to me that saying "please" and "thank you" is polite. Of course I could write a hundred page thesis paper analiyzing every pheasable concept and phycological theory, but it is pointless and blunt. Proving that stealing is not right, shouldn't even be asked for proof, it should be just accepted, If one has any wisdom and/or intelect, they would know why. Now I can understand that a couple commandments should be reguarded as such by an indevidual choice.


I was being a bit extreme, but proves my point just as effective. I don't think that is your view, but the way you said it, made me give that example.

THE WORLD IS FLAT
CLASS OF 1491

Carry on.

Please, stop. In your eagerness to skip through my text, ignore core issues in my posts, yet again push your certainties upon my 'blunt' reasoning, you begin to literally repeat yourself and make the gravest of typing, spelling and grammatical errors, adding to my annoyance on an entirely new level.
Whereas I'm defending uncertainty, you feel I should give you proof, while at the same time you are defending certainty, claiming not to have to give any. Turning the world upside-down can be highly enjoyable, but to me this is not the right topic for it.

Hold that thought, reign the horses back in. I'm happy to know you have thoroughly enjoyed it - so have I, up until 3 or 4 posts ago. I'm not the person you seek for this kind of 'discussion', if you'd like, I could direct some acquaintances who are more into it to the thread, but like I said - I'm out, my purpose for posting in here has ended.

I'm sorry. That depresses the life out of me. My aragonce has betrayed me. I have violated you and pick at you unknowingly. I wasn't trying to annoy you. I did not call your reasoning blunt. I described the idea as so. I didn't skip over key points in your post, I wanted to understand it. I'm a sensitive person, and now I am sadend, and it's my fault. I will stop. I don't want to be enemies. And I did say that I might be wrong, many a time. I feel like crap now, not your fault but, mine. I feel like I have unknowingly directed a malice twords annoying you, but I never indended so. I want to make it right. Please forgive me.

Whoah - no need for that.
You may have, to my opinion, violated my arguments, but not my person! Becoming enemies over a disagreement or even an incompatibility on an internet forum is not the kind of thing I'd like to do, and by no means were my posts intended - or yours understood - as such.

Yes, I do consider some of your statements to be arrogant (as you do mine, considering your fervor :]), but that does not make me feel or detect hostility. The same goes for my feelings in regards to a sloppy post - it induces annoyance, not personal dislike.

If you really feel saddened because of this, then I return the favor: I'm sorry for making it appear as though your messages somehow offended or hurt me personally. Your apology is accepted in regards to the combined bluntness of your previous message, but for nothing else, since no apologies are in order. I'm particularly touched by your brief and straightforward visit in #wirehead.

And, if you really feel you need to make something right for some reason, just correct as many spelling/typing errors from any future posts as possible, before clicking 'add reply'  - and be sure to let me know when I let slip too many for comfort. :)

The end of (someone participating in) a forum thread is not the end of the world!
Soon, Phoenix will post a newsflash of two teenage hermaphrodite midgets assaulting a scantily clad German amazoness-impersonator with knitting needles, and we'll have some fresh material to argue over :]

If only the news were so interesting.  Right now all they're covering is the passing of John Paul II.  Not that it is an unimportant event, I feel the loss as greatly as anyone, however there are still other events in the world that are of significance that should not be allowed to fly under the radar as a result.

Washu:  I understand what you feel, and I can relate to your zeal in "getting out the message".  However, you must understand that what you know and understand intrinsically is not translatable to someone else.  The person must come to this understanding through their own efforts and merits.  You need to slow down a bit, take a step back, and understand that not everyone has studied the bible and especially biblical prophecy in-depth.  They hardly teach prophetic subjects within churches filled with believers as it is, so can you expect the whole wide world to know what you're talking about point-for-point, item-for-item, right out the door?  Those kinds of discussions are much more meaningful in a live, personal setting like a private chat in IRC (so the whole channel doesn't go nuts), telephone call, or the like.  It also requires a firm and devoted interest among all parties concerned.  With no disrespect intented to Tabun, there's an expression that sums this up quite nicely.  "Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig."  You can't instruct someone who is not interested in that form of instruction.  I have faith that Tab will make up his own mind at the appropriate time in regards to such things.

It's also because of this fact that I tend to not engage in preaching on the forums.  It's not that I believe less, or that I'm personally uninterested in spreading the gospel or understanding of prophecy.  Anyone who asks me or is interested in the subject I will certainly answer truthfully with whatever knowledge I may have.  It's just too difficult to really discuss in this setting, and it tends to draw away from the topic at hand.  To be fair on this, I routinely chastise people like dev/null for turning every topic that has religious elements included within the discussion into an anti-Christian attack platform.  I have to do the same in this case, to ask you in a friendly manner not to turn every discussion that includes religious elements into an opportunity to preach or argue in defense of the validity of Christianity when no attack on that validity has been presented.  I offer the emphasis to clarify this.  By all means, if someone comes out bashing Christianity, I'll be the first to flock to the defense rigth there along side you.  Tabun here does not go out of his way to attack anything.  Don't mistake his unique approach to things for hostility.  Remember, he's Dutch, hostility isn't generally in their nature. ;)

Let me explain an observation of mine of this situation.  Forgive me while I speak about both of you in the third person for a moment:

Washu is zealous and excited about his faith, and loves his God, Christianity, and the gospel very much.  Therefore, he has a desire to share his understanding with others, and unfortunately has a tendency to get ahead of himself, putting the cart before the horse as it were.  He's outgoing and likes to speak exhuberantly about what he loves.  Washu is certain of what he believes and feels and is comfortable with that certainty.

Tabun is laid back, reserved, and extremely analytical.  He has a cool head, never rushes to judgement, and is very difficult to pursuade in any manner.  He loves to challenge anyone's deeply held convictions as part of his method of exploring and seeking understanding of things.  He never takes anything at face value.  Tabun has not finished his "gathering of data", so to speak, and is not ready nor willing to be absolutely convinced of anyone's system of beliefs.  Perhaps one day he will, but right now you could say he's in a constant state of flux, and is comfortable with that uncertainty.

From this perspective, a back-and-forth discussion like this can ensue, with Washu firmly stating what he thinks and feels based upon his beliefs.  Tabun questions everything owing to his nature.  From Washu's perspective this might seem like Tabun "isn't getting it", when in fact Tabun is just being Tabun.  Nobody is being intentionally disrespectful of each other, but there's a clash of philosophies present - that of the convinced believer with firm convictions, and that of the perpetual doubter and skeptic.  In other terms, it is the "irresistable force meeting the unmovable object."  Perhaps this helps to shed some light on things a bit better.  Trust me, Tabun is a bit of an enigma.  I've known an worked with him for 4 years on Generations, and I think he knows more about me than I do about him, and that's saying a lot coming from me.  ;)

Well, if we had such a thing, that one would have just won the post-of-the-thread award.

No offense, but I am actually surprised at the accuracy with which you describe me. It does not often happen that someone gives me their opinion of certain aspects of my character without me feeling the need to set something right. I think this is one of those few times. One or two points in the last paragraph half raises a brow, but those thingslead up to me being a bit of a puzzle - which precisely describes my wonder at things in general, not in the least at my own person.

For one thing, I am equally surprised at my questioning nature as I am of the absense of doubt and question in some others - part of why one won't 'pin me down' on something in a hurry is because I refuse to assume one of those attitudes to be the single correct approach.

Added to that, while indeed trying to be critical and analytical in everything, I too make many choices in life on gut-feelings (or instinct, if you will) alone. To sum it up, I feel that I have to think, while thinking about my feelings. And yes, I am comfortable with the unavoidable confusion - it helps me to think as open-mindedly as possible, something that I feel I must do :]
One of the things that makes me increasingly more comfortable with it, is that I gradually feel less and less of an urge to be judgemental of others, when it is inappropriate or unwarranted - something people around me do in everyday life, and which I dislike.

I very much share your views on our 'clash'.

Throughout the years I have also detected that I tend to get offended by very few things, but typically by those things that are addressed here; I have met with a few convinced believers that clearly belittled me in infuriating ways, of which I am reminded whenever someone makes statements indicating that I 'simply don't see it', 'need to see the light', 'am overly skeptical' and the like. While I understand that most people say that to be nice, and wish me to share in the doubtless bliss they live in, the 'holier and wiser than thou' implications more than cancel it out for me.
If love is the driving force in that approach, then it might be interesting to note that I too feel a love of that sort, but exactly for the ability and act to marvel at and ponder about things in ways that others find unnescessary, frightening or misguided.

P.S. As much as I may know about you, Phoenix, I still haven't a clue what you actually look like ;]

I was a little too in the extreme side and exaggerative in my views which I don?t really view as that harsh,  I couldn?t clarify myself, which is why I seemed to repeat myself over and over. As for spelling errors, it doesn?t really bother me unless it is too much to where you can?t understand what someone is trying to say, but I do a spell check whenever it is at hand. The worst thing I hate to do however is drive people to annoyance, but I?m glad is not that way. I?m glad everything is cleared up.

Now I?m not exactly a Bible thumper, but I have studied Revelations in great depth, which in my opinion, is a very important piece. It is very interesting, and still holds many secrets waiting to be discovered. About my faith, I was not always Christian; I was a kind of person that always required proof for religious topics like this. I was warped by the school system. They literally told me not to believe in something that bears no concrete, physical proof, and that includes God, and that is a primitive life style and yadda yadda. I don?t want to go into details yet on my past life, but I will tell you it was a hard one. I?ll tell you something, ever since I became Christian, by life soared a thousand times better. I feel alive, and have compassion for people. I help them, even if they mock Jesus. I volunteer in feeding the homeless, which really is what being a Christian all is about. However some times, I get way to critical about discussions like this. That is why I get so spastic about topics on the creditability of schools. ;^)
I understand Tabun's point of view as well. I respect that he does not let anyone just convince him to change a whole lifestyle with a few words, I hardly call that arrogant.
And I too wish to know what you look like Pho.  :surprise:

Which ties directly into this topic, and brings us full circle again.
(See Tab?  I told you this wouldn't decay into the absurd level of off-topicness you were afraid it would.)  :smirk:
Some wishes are never granted.  Let's just say my plumage is predominantly red and gold, and leave it at that.[/color]  :doomed: