I've demonstrated below that the charges that it is "religion" to blame for causing all the "violence" and "war" are simply unfounded. I've proven secular causes. Non or irreligious causes. Even atheistic ones. And in the last century, the great wars that have killed untold numbers were fought for secular, irreligious reasons.
Moving on . . .
Another tact taken by those of the New Atheism, like Hitchens, is to point out the child abuse and molestation at the hands of the religious or the religious institution. Below I demonstrated Hitchens's logic would lead to the conclusion that he secretly wants to participate in said abuse. But enough of the logical implications, let's look at some facts.
Let's look at the secular, evolution-teaching, state ran, atheistic public school system. The great hope for children to enter adulthood knowing that when it comes to God, "We have no need of that hypothesis."
****************************
CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS
Sexual Abuse Not Just in Church; School Too
Aired June 15, 2002 - 07:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, the Catholic Church isn't the only place where children have fallen victim of sexual abuse. One researcher says the problem exists in other places where adults and children are brought together; the nation's schools.
Reporter Seema Mathur takes a closer look now at a new area for investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Devastating news at Floren (ph) High...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sexual relationship between this teacher and the student...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The teenager, who had an affair with his sixth grade teacher...
SEEMA MATHUR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The stories crop up from time to time. Teachers accused of sexual misconduct with their students. The cases are often viewed as aberrations. The abuser as sick or criminal.
This teacher was convicted of molesting his 12-year-old student.
UNIDENTIFIED TEACHER: There was an incident where I took her -- I didn't take her home -- we went somewhere else. I molested her there. It was an incident where I was even able to get her parents to believe that I was going to take her to go get something to eat, and I took her somewhere else and molested her there. There was an incident even in the classroom.
DR. CHAROL SHAKESHAFT, AUTHOR: Most teachers do not sexually abuse students.
MATHUR: Dr. Carol Shakeshaft has been studying schools for 25 years. In the early 1990s, she found that very little research had been done on sexual abuse of students by school staff. So, she and a colleague did a four-year study on schools in New York state, and found what they considered startling results.
SHAKESHAFT: A small number of teachers sexually abuse a pretty large number of students. If our figures are right, and we believe they are, 15 percent of the students in schools, some time between kindergarten and twelfth grade, have at least one incident of physical, sexual abuse.
HERBERT GARRETT, EXEC. DIR. SUPERINTENDENT ASSOCIATION: After a 32-year career, and 26 of those being administration -- from my personal experience, that sounds high.
MATHUR: Statistics on sexual abuse by school staff vary widely. Dr. Shakeshaft estimates the number of teachers who sexually abuse students' ranges from less than 1 percent to 5 percent. And, some studies characterize abuse as everything from lewd looks to intercourse.
So, the precise numbers are hard to quantify. But, all agree, any abuse is too much. Meet Brandy.
BRANDY, SEXUAL MOLESTATION VICTIM: He was 28 at the time, and I was 14.
MATHUR: Brandy's perpetrator, a middle school teacher, who lured her in with e-mail.
BRANDY: He asked me if I would ever have sex with him. He told me he loved me. And that he wished that things were different, so that we could be together and things like that.
[SNIP]
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0206/15/smn.13.html
********************************
The New York Post's July 30, 2001 edition is about the secret epidemic of homosexual child abuse cases that go unreported in New York City’s public schools.
See the “Secret Shame Of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse Of Students Runs Rampant,” by Douglas Montero. It is the result of an analysis of 117 cases of sexual abuse between January 1999 and June 2001.
Other reports and studied:
*********************************
The Statistics of Teacher sexual abuse to Students
The best estimate is that 15% of students will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff during their school career.
Though, when the American Association of University Women Foundation surveyed more than 1,600 students in eighth through 11th grade, 25 percent of the girls and 10 percent of the boys who said they had been harassed or abused said the harasser was a school employee.
The number of K-12 public and private school students in 1996 who have been or will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff is nearly 7 million of 51,331,00.
Between 1% and 5% of teachers sexually abuse or harass students.
At least a quarter of all school districts in the United States have dealt with a case of staff sexual abuse in the past ten years.
Most cases of sexual abuse of students by teachers are never reported.
In nearly half of the cases, suspects were accused of abusing more than one student.
Only two cases were cases of false accusations; less than 1 percent of the cases studied.
No type of school was immune to abuse: public or private, religious or secular, rich or poor, urban or rural.
Responses to Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Students by Staff
38.7% of the teachers resigned, left the district, or retired
17.5% were spoken to informally
15% were terminated or not re-hired
11.3% received a formal verbal or written reprimand
8.1% were suspended and then resumed teaching
7.5% were cases where the superintendent determined that the teacher hadn’t meant to sexually abuse
Of the nearly 54% of abusers who resigned, weren’t rehired, retired, or were terminated, superintendents reported that 16% were teaching in other schools and that they didn’t know what had happened to the other 84%. All but 1% of these teachers retained their teaching license.
Teacher Student Sex Legalities
In 20 states, it is not a crime for school employees—including teachers, administrators, and coaches—to have sex with students aged 16 and over.
In 23 states, it is not a crime for school employees to have sex with students aged 17 and over.
In 45 states, it is not a crime for school employees to have sex with students aged 18 and over.
In 16 states, it is a crime for adults in a position of trust and authority—teachers, administrators, and coaches among them—to have sex with students under the age of 18.
http://www.cpiu.us/?page_id=8
***********************************
And then of course there's this site:
http://www.sesamenet.org/research.html
********************************
Researchers say:
"The best estimate is that 15% of students will be sexually abused by a member of the school staff during their school career." (Shakeshaft, Ph.D., Hofstra University: Testimony, NYS Senate Committee On Children & Families, 2/12/98)
"Criminal convictions of Ontario teachers in 1996-97 involves enough victims to fill an entire classroom." (The Kingston Whig-Standard, Ontario,9/13/97, p.1)
"Survey of high school graduates: 17.7% of males and 82.2% of females reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their school careers. 13.5% of those surveyed said they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher." (Wishnietsky, "Reported and Unreported Teacher-Student Sexual Harassment", Journal of Ed Research, Vol. 3, 1991, pp.164-69)
"Many abusers are in positions of power or trust in relation to their victims, which makes it easier to overcome a child's resistance." (Finkelhor, "Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory & Research", '84)
"When there is denial (including institutional denial), disbelief or placement of blame on the victim, recovery is more difficult." (Ken Singer, LCSW, SESAME Newsletter, Fall, '97, p.5)
see above: sesamenet
**********************************
More:
**********************************
And see here: A Trust Betrayed
"In the groundbreaking 1998 series, "A Trust Betrayed," Education Week examined the widespread effects of sexual misconduct on students, educators, and the community. Articles in this series address issues of concern such as prevention and response to inappropriate behavior, legal history and policy of sexual abuse cases, and student-faculty relationships in higher education."
************************************
This is exactly the same way Hitchens et al. argue (actually, I provided a bit more hard evidence that Hitchens.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Public schools, as atheists are quick to point out, are secular institutions.
Many of these teachers, no doubt, are glad to keep religion out of the classroom. They teach science. Math too. Drive hybrids and “save” the environment. None of them teach courses on "Bible." None of them tell the students that this is “God’s will” for them.
The New Atheist is simply a dishonest hack. At every step I can match his arguments, and go one better.
Those who have lauded their work should be embarrassed.
But, faithful congregants that they are, they will defend their high priests 'til the bitter end.
"The New Atheism?"
Whatta joke.
Paul-
ReplyDeleteGreat post as usaual. I am curious though as to the intent of the post. I think it was mainly aimed at the jackassery of New Atheism in general, but are these facts also convictions you hold when it comes to educating your child? If my question is out-of-bounds for internet chit-chat I'll understand.
Hey BJ,
ReplyDeleteIt had nothing to do with whether Christians should home school.
I think if a Christian uses this argument as a reason not to send your child to public school it could be used as a reason not to send your kid to Sunday school since there have been cases of child abuse in Sunday schools.
I'm also not necessarily anti-public school for Christian children. I don't want to bind people's conscience. In the real world, there's a lot of reasons why some Christian parent(s) can't home school or send their kids to a "Christian" school. I know some who have been improperly judged in this regard.
I also think that a great deal of education can be done at home, so kids don't have to "miss out" on any education.
Public school also proves a good testing ground in many areas. And speaking for myself, I've lived the "other side." I know what the world has to offer. I've been there done that. I also have a certain amount of street smarts that home schooled children may lack.
On the other hand, I understand some parent's reasons for home schooling their children. It may be better, in some, or many cases.
Christian schools can make up for some of that, but then it's not always the environment parents hope. I sold the kids at Christian school drugs. I know many, many kids who went to a local Calvinist Christian school here and have apostatized from the faith.
There may be something to say for a more liberal upbringing. Many time there's no desire to leave the faith. You don't feel "curious."
Christian schooling, home schooling, whatever, not of it can save your kid. That's the Holy Spirit's job.
These were just some muddled thoughts and weren't meant to constitute any serious, sustained argument against any practice.
I think my publik skewl edjukashun is not even worth the $0.02 I'm tossing in here.
ReplyDeleteI learned to read because of my parents.
I learned at least 80% of what I know because I read.
Probably 19% of the remaining 20% is stuff that I figured out on my own using logic and working it out from what I read.
The remaining 1% might be due to publik skewl edjukashun...
There's no doubt problems with the education in many publik skewl. But it's not universal. And, classical academies can be quite good.
ReplyDeleteBut, many Christian schools provide poor education too. This is especially so at the college level. Even more so if the school is half-way orthodox.
And, some home schooling can be bad for intellectual health too.
Much of it is due to the parent. And the parent can make a big difference whether it is home, private, or public school.
But the intellectual level was not so much my subject as those who pull their kids out of public school because of all the ebil and act as if you're not a good Christian if you send you kid to publik skewl.
Oh I agree. :-) Just because I had a bad publik skewl experience doesn't mean I'd have been better off if I had gone to a private school. Actually, in the end I think I turned out pretty well because of the effort my parents put into my (and my sibling's) education. But I give all the credit to them.
ReplyDeleteI went through three different school systems growing up. The first one I don't remember enough of because it was only through second grade. The second school was good academically, but horrible when it came to student discipline. The one I graduated from was the exact opposite.
Surely there are some schools that get it right. But test scores show they're not that common. :-(
In the end, though, it is far too easy to put the blame on publik edjukashun as a whole. Publik edjukashun wouldn't be so bad if we didn't let it be that bad. And I don't mean that just on a societal level.
And I also don't let poor publik skewls stand as an excuse for ignorant people either. In America, we have a treasure of information at our fingertips. We've got the internet with Google (the infinite source of wisdom AND stupid nonsense all wrapped up in one place!), we've got libraries with books on any topic you could imagine, etc. In the end, if anyone wants to learn something, we have the means to learn it.
Oh well. Enough sermonizing from me :-)
Peter,
ReplyDeleteIn defense of publik skewl (though not emphatically), experiences are relative and vary. Personally, my public school upbringing was pretty good. I had good teachers who did what they were supposed to do, and not one tried to have sex with me. I guess people don't get violently ill at the very thought of teacher/student sex anymore.
My parents embodied old-fashioned Asian immigrant values in education, which meant that if academic knowledge didn't come from formal schooling, then it was considered hillbilly folk knowledge, even if it happened to be true. Things that typical Asian immigrants don't discuss with their children: how to drive a car, how to do homework, how to socialize, and gosh no(!) NEVER sex. Heh!
So it was a blessing I went to public school to learn how to read, so I could find out for myself where a baby comes from, 'cause God knows my mom was never gonna tell me. LOL!
The upside for me is I wouldn't have been driven to learn apologetics if it weren't the attempted anti-Christian indoctrination I received in high school (from one particular teacher) and the wide religious diversity I found myself in amongst other students. As far as I can tell, few teens can defend their Christianity in a circle of atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Reformed Jews, and educated mockers of Christian beliefs, especially when my church at the time taught me less than crap on Sundays.
Just goes to show that the grace of God can still be found in publik skewl.
Anyway, this is not to disagree with anything Mr. Manata has blogged. Dude's right on.
Peter,
ReplyDelete"We've got the internet with Google (the infinite source of wisdom AND stupid nonsense all wrapped up in one place!),"
Check out this provactive article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
:-)
BTW, if you want proof, I graduated ranked 12th in my class and in the top 8%, National Honor Society, AP student, academic accolades galore, college scholarship and blah blah blah.
ReplyDeleteNot that any of that really matters...I mention it for the inevitable atheist who will come here and question the intellectual legitimacy of Christians.
Hey there,
ReplyDeleteWow, I wrote something similar to this sometimes back...
http://www.teamtruth.com/articles/art_blackcollarcrimes.htm
Good job Paul Manata!
I went to religious schools and public schools growing up. At my religious school, I knew of a teacher who had sex with a student (things like that do not excusively occur in public schools). Also at this religious school, I had a religious teacher who assigned us to read articles in ICR and AiG and report on them to the class (and that is how I began my deconversion to atheism, incidentally).
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, you cannot just talk about "public schools" as if they are one monolithic entity. There are good public schools and bad ones. After my family moved when I was seven, I had to teach myself to read and write the English language before entering the second grade b/c I didn't want to be left behind a grade and there were few programs in my locality to deal with students who only knew Spanish. Once I got the hang of English, public school seemed really easy, but I found that the quality of education at religious schools was often the same, and sometimes worse.
Lyosha,
ReplyDeleteI did not say (or even imply) that "this sort of thing" happens only in public schools. But, many do (as my evidence suggests). And so I just evened the playing field. If the critiques of The Hitch and The Dawk land, mine *must be* counted the exact same way against the "secular."
Furthermore, I pointed out above that some PS are better than others. And, the reports in my post say the reports vary, so the evidence didn't treat PS as a "monolithic entity."
And, thanks for sharing your "testimony" with us. What a tear jerker. I'm gonna "come on down the aisle" and "give my heart" to Mammy Nature.
It was the AiG that did it.
ReplyDeleteThe apostasy runs rampant!!!!!!
Lyosha07,
ReplyDeleteYOur comment seem to betray that you did not even read the entry throughly or accurately. Perhaps you need to work on your english some more?
What was the point of bringing up religious schools? Did Paul did not account for it?
Tell you what, you tell me what paragraph is the following sentence found in the entry:
"No type of school was immune to abuse: public or private, religious or secular, rich or poor, urban or rural."
Fundamentalist Atheist never seem to put things in context
"Lyosha07,
ReplyDeleteYOur comment seem to betray that you did not even read the entry throughly or accurately"
Welcome to the world of Lyosha07 posting.
To emphasize a point is not to say that it hasn't already ben said. The "sins" of the religious deserve extra attention, considering the sanctimony of many of the adherents of Biblical faith and the claim that religious faith makes a person behave better and is necessary to the health of society.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what does the term "fundamentalist atheist" even mean? A person who takes their atheism seriously?
Lyosha,
ReplyDeleteYou "explain away" your mistakes just how you say Christians always "explain away" "errors" in their Bible.
"The "sins" of the religious deserve extra attention, considering the sanctimony of many of the adherents of Biblical faith and the claim that religious faith makes a person behave better and is necessary to the health of society."
More atheist revisionist history.
Did you miss the part in the Bible that speaks to our sin? Paul said he was the "cheif" of sinners. Civic goodness can be had by atheists.
At any rate, theists have explicitly stated that they are not saying one cannot be moral unless they believe in God. One such example can be found in W.L. Craig's debate with W. Sinnott-Armstrong. In clarifying his moral argument he tells us what is not being claimed:
"The question here is not: 'Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?' I am not claiming that we must" (p.18).
Here's another:
"I am not arguing that you have to be religious to be moral, or that religious people are more moral than non-religious people." - Keith Ward, Is Religion Dangerous, p.128
Brush up on your theistic literature, Lyosha. Or is lying about what theists say the best you can do?
"By the way, what does the term "fundamentalist atheist" even mean? A person who takes their atheism seriously?
Almost the same as what you mean by fundy Christian. Reads the Bible literally no matter what, and then tries to pin *that reading* on the Christian. Is ignorant of much science and philosophy. Loud, abrassive, rude, and arrogant. Uses old, outdated, reheated arguments. Thinks mocking Christians substitute arguing with them. Uses scare tactics not unlike "turn or burn, baby." That kind of stuff. Bascially, you.
Lyosha07,
ReplyDelete1.) "The "sins" of the religious deserve extra attention, considering the sanctimony of many of the adherents of Biblical faith and the claim that religious faith makes a person behave better and is necessary to the health of society."
My dear fundie atheist, if we consider your reason of why the 'sins' of the religious deserves extra attention (your own words), if we must indeed as you say bring down extra scrutiny upon those who claim that their ideology "makes a person behave better and is necessary to the health of society", it also cut both ways and ought to be applied to those dogmatic Secular Humanist fundie Atheists (think of the Brights) who believe their cause will result in a better world.
Therefore, if we accept your reasoning, both religious theists and 'evangelistic' atheists positions such as that of the New Atheists, ought to be equally scrutinized.
Please drop the double standard, and embrace freethought instead of fundie atheism yeah?
2.) "By the way, what does the term "fundamentalist atheist" even mean? A person who takes their atheism seriously?"
You ask a question but didn't answer mines, so for reminder:
"Tell you what, you tell me what paragraph is the following sentence found in the entry:
'No type of school was immune to abuse: public or private, religious or secular, rich or poor, urban or rural.'"
Paul has a good point that we must also tackle the child abuse in a school system and there should be more outrage about it when it happen there (or anywhere).
ReplyDeleteBut you can not really compare public schools to the Catholic church. Catholic Church as secret edict how to deal with peadophiles without contacting the police, they have secret rehab country club for peadophiles, they use diplomatic post to make sure police can not intercept peadophile related material, they have ask immunity from the US law for the Pope and Catholic Church harbours fugative US peadophiles in Vatican refusing to hand them over to the authorities. I haven't seen public school system providing world wide safety net / protection / support system for peadophiles. BTW most of the teachers are Christians.
Anglican Church is also famous for protecting peadophiles. They just move them around and even convicted peadophiles can return to their parish after prison sentence they can keep their position and keep on singing with the young choir boys. This is not the case in public schools.
BTW public school system works reasonably well in the scandinavia, Singapore and Hong Kong.
Hopefully Paul brings better arguments to the Narrow Mind show. These kind of comparisons (pointing other's issues and ignoring your own greater issues) makes his case look really weak. surely you can find better arguments against Hitchins?? Morals perhaps?
Peter,
ReplyDeleteIt seem to me that many have missed the point of Paul's entry.
I think what fundie atheists do alot is try to show the immorality of religious groups, then dismiss them because of their failure. Of course, this entry have shown how foolish that is by reducing it to absurdity when applied in the specifically to a secular institution of the public school.
I found it interesting that you also invoke secular public schools in other countries as exceptions to the argument. The same line of reasoning and objection could also be brought upon the fundie atheists too with their argument of how religion poison everything.
Much to say, but I'm at work right now...
Peter,
ReplyDeleteAlways at the defense of your high priests, I see. One thing we can be asured, the more people say that their human systems can never be convicted of wrong doing, the more we can be sure that those systems are wrong.
"Catholic Church as secret edict how to deal with peadophiles without contacting the police,"
So secret you know about it.
"they have secret rehab country club for peadophiles,"
So secret you know about it. And, prove it.
"they use diplomatic post to make sure police can not intercept peadophile related material,"
Prove it.
"I haven't seen public school system providing world wide safety net / protection / support system for peadophiles."
The point of the post was to point out what is going on in "secular" institutions.
"BTW most of the teachers are Christians."
(a) Prove it.
(b) I already debunked this with Hitchens saying that he lied about his profession, and MANY people do the same. Maybe these were atheisdt who lied about being Christian so as to operate under better cover.
(c) You're too funny. You new atheist guys are a joke. Every single cotton picking person who has ever done anything wrong has to be "religious."
(d) Poitning out sin is empirical confirmation of our worldview.
"They just move them around and even convicted peadophiles can return to their parish after prison sentence they can keep their position and keep on singing with the young choir boys. This is not the case in public schools."
Even if you're right. So what? And, the reports above did show, time and time again, that the schools and the system have their own "protection" systems in place. Read the whole post.
"Hopefully Paul brings better arguments to the Narrow Mind show."
Oh, I have a lot more to say, but given the level of your responses, I could just stick with these since you've been unable to undermine them. But, maybe you'll call in?
"These kind of comparisons (pointing other's issues and ignoring your own greater issues) makes his case look really weak."
I can easily deal with all my issues.
Then, I can easily out-argue you as to how you can even begin to non-arbitraily condemn these actions.
Since my position is not represented at all in Hitchens's book, I have nothing to defend against.
I am employing the same argument he uses. What must be concluded is: If he refuses to say "irreleigion" or "secularism" poisons everything, then he can't turn around and say "religion" poisons everything. Well, he can, but he's just a dishonest liar hack.
"surely you can find better arguments against Hitchins?? Morals perhaps?"
And surely you must know that you haven't even refuted the ones I've put up.
Why should I bother to pull out the stonger stuff when you can't even hold the neer beer?
I've already demonstrated that Hitchens "wants to participate" in numerous illicit activities.
And, get this: if religion really is as evil as he says, why doesn't he want to prohibit it?
To not want to prohibit a source of evil and abuse is evil itself.
So, Hitchens is evil.
But, if he does want to prohibit it, and since he says religion is "optional", then he must secretly want to participate in relion.
So, which is it: Is Hitchens evil or does he want to participate in evil?
That you support and defend Hitchens in all of this tells me just how serious to take you. I stand hand in hand with many atheists who mock and scoff at Hitchens. They want him and his ilk to shut up. Why?
"At any rate, theists have explicitly stated that they are not saying one cannot be moral unless they believe in God."
ReplyDelete1) You are using "theists" as a catch-all term. Many theists do, as a simple mattter of fact, make that claim (not all of them do).
2) Be precise with your words. I did not say that "theists say that one cannot be moral unless they believe in God." I said that many theists believe that belief in God makes one a better person than one would otherwise be and that it improves the health of society. This distortion of words, which is common at Triablogue, is an example of why this is not a site were much rational discussion takes place (at least if you disagree with the prevailing dogmas).
"One such example can be found in W.L. Craig's debate with W. Sinnott-Armstrong. In clarifying his moral argument he tells us what is not being claimed:
"The question here is not: 'Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?' I am not claiming that we must" (p.18)."
This is irrelevant, because it argues against a claim that I did not make, as I already said.
"Here's another:
"I am not arguing that you have to be religious to be moral, or that religious people are more moral than non-religious people." - Keith Ward, Is Religion Dangerous, p.128"
Many religious people simply do, as a matter of fact, make the assertion that religious people are more moral than non-religious people. Many claim that unbelief leads to nihilism (including a staff member of this blog).
"Brush up on your theistic literature, Lyosha. Or is lying about what theists say the best you can do?"
So you showed me two quotes. One of them contradicted a point that I did not make. One of them made a claim that many theists would disagree with ("religious people are more moral than non-religious people"). That hardly qualifies me as ignorant of "theistic literature." I would argue that you need to brush up on common sense.
This brings me back to a comment you made near the beginning of your post:
"Did you miss the part in the Bible that speaks to our sin? Paul said he was the "cheif" of sinners. Civic goodness can be had by atheists. "
As has now been demonstrated, you are arguing against a straw man. This has nothing to do with my claim at all. The New Testament, according to your interpretation, teach that the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of believers. More generally, theists often claim that religion makes a person behave better. This has nothing to do with what I said.
"Almost the same as what you mean by fundy Christian. Reads the Bible literally no matter what, and then tries to pin *that reading* on the Christian. Is ignorant of much science and philosophy. Loud, abrassive, rude, and arrogant. Uses old, outdated, reheated arguments. Thinks mocking Christians substitute arguing with them. Uses scare tactics not unlike "turn or burn, baby." That kind of stuff. Bascially, you."
Try to put this in perspective to yourself. You believe, presumably, that the world is less than 10,000 years old. This is flatly contradicted by all the evidence we have about how the universe formed and developed. Even the morons who push for Intelligent Design, are not that crazy:
"The IDers intend to outflank Darwin by accepting his vision in key respects, thereby lending weight to their one key reservation. Yes, most of them concede, our planet has been in orbit for billions of years. No, Earth's ten million species probably weren't crammed into Eden together. And yes, the extinction of some 99 percent of those species through eons preceding our own tardy appearance is an undeniable fact. Even the development, through natural selection, of adaptive variation within a given species is a sacrificed pawn. The new creationists draw the line only at the descent of whole species from one another. If those major transitions can be made to look implausible as natural outcomes, they can be credited to the Judeo-Christian God, making it a little more thinkable that he could also, if he chose, fulfill prophecies, answer prayers, and raise the dead." (source: http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2712,Saving-Us-from-Darwin,Frederick-C-Crews)
Your beliefs appear to be, quite simply, crazier than the man who claims that he is Napoleon. If you are going to try and present your reasons for believing, then please do it in a humble manner and don't attack your opponent for not buying into your worldview. Most of your assertions are untrue and could be said with even more validity of yourself.
CORRECTION: The sentence, "One of them made a claim that many theists would disagree with ("religious people are more moral than non-religious people"). ",
ReplyDeleteshould read,
"One of them merely says that he "does not argue" against a point that many theists would agree with ("religious people are more moral than non-religious people"). "
"As has now been demonstrated, you are arguing against a straw man. This has nothing to do with my claim at all. The New Testament, according to your interpretation, teach that the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of believers. More generally, theists often claim that religion makes a person behave better. This has nothing to do with what I said. "
ReplyDeleteI explained the sense which we can be "better." But you deny those categories.
So, as I demonstrated, the sense which is relevent *for you* the one *you mean* is *not* what we are claiming. In *your sense of the term* we do not say we are "better." Some are some arent. Try reading my post better.
And, the Bible never teaches perfection in this life. It teaches remaininga nd indwelling sin. "He who says he is without sin is a liar."
"Try to put this in perspective to yourself. You believe, presumably, that the world is less than 10,000 years old. This is flatly contradicted by all the evidence we have about how the universe formed and developed. Even the morons who push for Intelligent Design, are not that crazy:"
SO Kurt Wise, educated at Harvard, under Gould, is "crazy?"
And, you deny contradictory evidence. What your net can't catch aint fish.
I also take thew word of God as good evidence.
Try putting it in perspective:
Say you believe that X revealed information that COULD NOT be wrong. That is, it was INFALLIBLE.
Now, say that Y was a fallible process. Had been wrong numerous times. Was not necessarily correct, etc.
Say that X said P and Y said not-P.
What is the more rational thing *given those beliefs* to believe, P or not-P?
So you can see we're not "crazy' at all, in fact, given our beliefs, a yoiung earther can be (not always are) totally internally rational.
Externally is another matter. But that takes us to the de facto debate.
So, you, like always, confuse the de jure criticism with the de facto one.
Your argument *assumes* that God's infallible word is not "evidence."
"Your beliefs appear to be, quite simply, crazier than the man who claims that he is Napoleon."
Exposed for the B.S. it is.
In fact, you would have to admit that my beliefs are eminantly rational. So you can try to disprove God, but that might be a bit hard, what, considering all the people who have failed, as Oppy points out.
" If you are going to try and present your reasons for believing, then please do it in a humble manner and don't attack your opponent for not buying into your worldview."
Maybe you better check yourself and look at how you have interacted with me. You have constanty been rude and arrogant. Making sarcastic responses in my comments section. Don't expect the red carpet treatment. Furthermore, don't act like a fundy atheist and you won't get treated like one.
Paul Manata said...
ReplyDelete"Always at the defense of your high priests"
No, He is the real living G_d, not the high priest. You just don't know your theology. Once you accept Christ(opher) as your personal saviour you will understand his perfect wisdom.
Paul Manata said...
"prove it..prove it..prove it.."
Please get a hold of BBC documentary "Deliver Us from Evil" and Panorama documentary "Sex Crimes and the Vatican" (Available on CD). BBC got hold of court records, leaked documents and tracked down and interviewed people. I guess their former secrets are not secrets any more.
Paul Manata said...
"I have a lot more to say, but given the level of your responses, I could just stick with these since you've been unable to undermine them"
Nice to see you still have you rose pick Christian glasses on. You did not address my issues but nice try. I guess with your skills you can defeat atheists by just thinking about it. Is this one of those Paul moments when he claim that the opponent "failed to exhibit elementary reading skills" where in fact Paul was the one with reading difficulties (see previous Hitchins thread)?
pulpitpastor said...
ReplyDelete"I think what fundie atheists do alot is try to show the immorality of religious groups, then dismiss them because of their failure."
You should actually talk to atheist rather than speculate. Most atheist I know cite completely different reasons.
pulpitpastor said...
"I found it interesting that you also invoke secular public schools in other countries as exceptions to the argument."
I was referring to the educational side of public school system
So your case boils down to:
ReplyDelete1) Sarcasm.
2) Unsupported accusations. (Oh, btw, the BBC has the doccuments on every single ccase of child abuse in the schools and they can show that the "majority" have been Christian teachers? Wow!)
3) Unargued assertions.
And, yes, please see the Hitchens thread. While you're worried about a sentence, everyone is laughing at your for defending a thesis that leads to secretly wanting to participate in all sorts of criminal and immoral activities.
But it's so easy to be slippery when you're online. Why not call into the show? I know it will be hard being unable to google all your answers. I know it will be hard to give actual substantive answers.
"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…" [Jeff Dahmer, in An interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994]."
ReplyDeleteIrreligion poisons everything.
Just taking pages out of the New Atheism handbook.
Sunday Morning Slasher, Coaral Watts:
ReplyDelete"She later recounted how Coral had suddenly decided to become an atheist and threw a fit when she purchased a Christmas tree."
http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/CoralWatts.htm
Peter,
ReplyDelete1.) "You should actually talk to atheist rather than speculate. Most atheist I know cite completely different reasons."
This is in response to my comment, "I think what fundie atheists do alot is try to show the immorality of religious groups, then dismiss them because of their failure."
You are asserting things without really demonstrating it. Most atheists I talk to tend to employ an argument of immoral hypocrisy against the faith. See the link I've given, as I quote from an atheist publication.
You assume without any basis I do not talk to atheists. Stop speculating things you do not know.
Don't respond with more assertions, demonstrate to me first that many atheists using situation of immorality of religious folks NOT to dismiss them and their faith, but for other reasons contrary to that.
2.) "I was referring to the educational side of public school system"
This was your response to my comment, "I found it interesting that you also invoke secular public schools in other countries as exceptions to the argument."
The thrust of this entry was about the immorality in public schools, and you also talked about the immorality of religious institutions as well, why do you now suddenly talk about educational side of schools? What an obvious fallacy of red herring.
Ted Bundy:
ReplyDelete""Then I learned that all moral judgments are 'value judgments,' that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either 'right' or 'wrong.' I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself--what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself--that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any 'reason' to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring--the strength of character--to throw off its shackles...I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable 'value judgment' that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these 'others?' Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as 'moral' or 'good' and others as 'immoral' or 'bad'? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me--after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and inhibited self."--Ted Bundy, Quoted from Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 5th edition, p.30"
Irreligion poisons everything.
Finland School Shooter:
ReplyDelete"I am a cynical existentialist, antihuman humanist, antisocial socialdarwinist, realistic idealist and godlike atheist.
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM! JUSTITIA SUUM CUIQUE DISTRIBUIT! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!
I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection.
You might ask yourselves, why did I do this and what do I want. Well, most of you are too arrogant and closed-minded to understand... You will proprably say me that I am"insane", "crazy", "psychopath", "criminal" or crap like that. No, the truth is that I am just an animl, a human, an individual, a dissident.
I have had enough. I don't want to be part of this f*** up society. Like some other wise people have said in the past, human race is not worth fighting for or saving... only worth killing. But... When my enemies will run and hide in fear when mentioning my name... When the gangsters of the corrupted governments have been shot in the streets... When the rule of idioracy and the democratic system has been replaced with justice... When intelligent people are finally free and rule the society instead of the idiocratic rule of majority... In that great day of deliverance, you will know what I want.
Long live the revolution... revolution against the system, which enslaves not only the majority of weak-minded masses but also the small minority of strong-minded and intelligent individuals! If we want to live in a different world, we must act. We must rise against the enslaving, corrupted and totalitarian regimes and overthrow the tyrants, gangsters and the rule of idiocracy. I can't alone change much but hopefully my actions will inspire all the intelligent people of the world and start some sort of revolution against the current systems. The system discriminating naturality and justice, is my enemy. The people living in the world of delusion and supporting this system are my enemies.
I am ready to die for a cause I know is right, just and true... even if I would lose or the battle would be only remembered as evil... I will rather fight and die than live a long and unhappy life.
And remember that this is my war, my ideas and my plans. Don't blame anyone else for my actions than myself. Don't blame my parents or my friends. I told nobody about my plans and I always kept them inside my mind only. Don't blame the movies I see, the music I hear, the games I play or the books I read. No, they had nothing to do with this. This is my war: one man war against humanity, governments and weak-minded masses of the world! No mercy for the scum of the earth! HUMANITY IS OVERRATED! It's time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!"
Irreligion poisons everything.
Think maybe it's time to stop this game? Or should I force New Atheists to believe that irreligion, atheism, evolution, etc., "poison everything." "Force them" because I am useing the same *form* of argumentation that they are. Thus if their conclusions were *valid,* then mine would be also, of necessity.
"Think maybe it's time to stop this game? Or should I force New Atheists to believe that irreligion, atheism, evolution, etc., "poison everything." "Force them" because I am useing the same *form* of argumentation that they are. Thus if their conclusions were *valid,* then mine would be also, of necessity."
ReplyDeleteWell stated.