Religious teaching in Education

[ErasOmnius]

Ok eras, you had your chance. Well done, by the way, on wasting the first and only opportunity I ever gave you to prove yourself to be more than the stupidest manchild on the planet.

Something tells me we'll be having this discussion on 03-01-12.

I mean I've met some dumb bastards in my time, but you have to be the first one who's put so much effort into remaining that way.

Sticks and stones...

You've failed at everything. Seriously.

Only you, with someone of your worldview, would feel that way.

You fail at biology, you fail at history, you fail at philosophy, you fail at theology, you fail at English...

Why, because I won't drink the kool-aid water of Evolution. History? How can someone who lectures up at the College on History be a simultaneous failure at it? Theology? I have written Bible lessons and aides for people. English? I write in a syllabic manner, so that people of other languages have an easier time reading what I write.

...you fail at responding to argument, you fail at structuring your own, you fail at paying attention to basically anything..

Blah dee-dee, blah dee-dah.

...you fail at every goddamned thing under the sun and when we call you out on it you just keep on failing.

I've always wondered why atheists like to use that word

You don't even read the replies we give you (either that or you fail to comprehend them, which I suppose is just as likely), everything you say is a non-sequiter. You know why Fenceposts was so successful? Because you give us so much material.

Who are you kidding? Fenceposts is so successful because it's still there, and I can't even address it. That I'm banned even though you and your 'friend' got to write the following, "...I can only focus on gay men. They occupy my thoughts all the time. They come in my mou-HOMELESS SHELTER..."

You're so easy to mock because you're a joke already. It's as if you're completely incapable of rational thought, let alone speech. Even the people who defend you think you're an idiot, which is pretty sad.

What people who agree with me think is sad, is that I still dialog with you. But I have told them that no matter where I go and post (Duniverse, General, PRP); you are there, posting almost immediately after me -- just a few hours later.

And I tried, for mysterious reasons that remain unknown to me I actually tried to engage you in rational debate, and all it required from you was to prove that you could actually comprehend. They weren't complicated questions, you didn't even need to believe the answers, all you had to do was prove that you possess the mental capacity to understand them.

I disagree. You know that I have a vast mental capability. You're just trying to prove that we can't get along. You said my Gaia answer was too short. I asked for what amounts to clarification on the philosophy questions, and you're going ballistic. I can debate Hobbes, Locke, what ever you'd like. Trust me, I am more than able to handle this type of discussion.

But not only did you fail at that, you failed to even react to the opportunity. All we got we more guff about the shelter...

The Shelter is where the rubber hits the road...The Last Stop for those who have whole-heartedly embraced the philosophies of the misguided West. I have dedicated my life to helping people who have embraced these misguided belief systems. It also vindicates me, and shows me to be correct.

...more self-loving egoism, the same tired old "oh please can't we all get along?"

I do want to get along.

No, you cretinous, unschooled, imbecilic clod, we cannot and we will never get along. Not as long as you continue to be this obtuse, this wretchedly mindless, this frankly pathetic excuse for a man. Making peace with you would require a degree of masochism and intellectual corruption on my part that I simply do not possess. You are just wrong in every single possible conceivable tiny way, your sheer stupidity makes me feel unclean by association, your rank, foul, miserable excuse for a world view is anathema to intelligent life everywhere and if I can't educate you as I foolishly tried to do then by Einstein's pickled brain I will make damned sure that I don't let the rot spread. I don't mind keeping peaceful relations with people I disagree with, but what we have isn't just disagreement, it's a fundamental inability for you to comprehend anything more complicated than a spoon, plus: you are a deeply unpleasant person.

I am going to let all of this part slide for now, in hopes of a better future.

Now...

Let me state this simply, and devoid of vitriol, so that the point is clear: I am prepared to offer one more olive branch, one more opportunity to gain at least the appearence of civility. If you truly desire peaceful coexistence then do not question, do not distract, do not launch into an anecdote, do nothing save this: answer me one question. It is your route to salvation, the path by which we can begin to find common ground. If you do not know the answer then look it up, do some research, take your time. You might think it arbitrary, you might think it pointless, it doesn't matter, if you want us to talk like adults then you will answer it. The question is this:

> How does evolution by natural selection work?

I encourage you to put some thought into your answer. I strongly encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity instead of dismissing or ignoring it as you did the previous. Am I testing you? Yes, I am. In time, you will have the opportunity to counter with questions of your own. But first, you do this one thing, this one simple thing for me. You have so much to gain from this opportunity, likely more than you can imagine. Do not squander it.

Wow, with an offer like this, how can I say 'no'?

[Dante]

Something tells me we'll be having this discussion on 03-01-12.

I certainly suspect that you won't have learned anything by then.

Only you, with someone of your worldview, would feel that way.

Mm, no, I believe I have several less vocal supporters in the crowd.

Why, because I won't drink the kool-aid water of Evolution. History? How can someone who lectures up at the College on History be a simultaneous failure at it? Theology? I have written Bible lessons and aides for people. English? I write in a syllabic manner, so that people of other languages have an easier time reading what I write.

> We can deal with your feeble anti-evolution sentiment later, but essentially, yes. Biology, as a school of science, ceases to make sense without the context of evolution. You might as well remove relativity from Einstein's theory of relativity. That you don't realise this only adds to the evidence that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

> I dread to think what you might be teaching people, given your obvious inability to learn from history.

> You can't even correctly interpret your own holy book, let alone transcribe it for others.

> Languages have rules. You break them. Ergo you write poorly.

Blah dee-dee, blah dee-dah.

I... I honestly can't say anything that proves my point more than this. You do realise what just happened here, right? I said that you can neither interpret my arguments nor structure your own, and you replied with... that. Here, let me summarise what just happened:

Me: You argue poorly.

You: Blah!

I mean, did that make sense in your head? Did it seem like a good idea at the time? You know responding to an accusation by doing exactly what I accuse you of doing is considered to be somewhat akin to shooting yourself in the foot?

I've always wondered why atheists like to use that word

And I wonder why you didn't use a full stop. Does that help people understand you better too?

It's a good word. Rolls off the tongue easily. I think it's the 'mn' syllable, it sounds nice when prefaced by something. "Thrice damned" is good for a similar reason.

Who are you kidding? Fenceposts is so successful because it's still there, and I can't even address it. That I'm banned even though you and your 'friend' got to write the following, "...I can only focus on gay men. They occupy my thoughts all the time. They come in my mou-HOMELESS SHELTER..."

Heh, yeah, that was a good line. One of Dragoon's, in case you're curious. I'm glad you appear to have a copy of it saved. Do make sure to read it regularly.

What people who agree with me think is sad, is that I still dialog with you. But I have told them that no matter where I go and post (Duniverse, General, PRP); you are there, posting almost immediately after me -- just a few hours later.

What can I say? Our schedules overlap somewhat. Also Fed2k is my homepage, so whenever idiocy levels are higher than normal I usually notice quite quickly. And like I said, you are wrong about everything, so there's always something that needs to be corrected. Still, don't go upsetting your (equally stupid? I suppose anything's possible) supposed friends on my account. Feel free to leave at any time.

I disagree. You know that I have a vast mental capability. You're just trying to prove that we can't get along. You said my Gaia answer was too short. I asked for what amounts to clarification on the philosophy questions, and you're going ballistic. I can debate Hobbes, Locke, what ever you'd like. Trust me, I am more than able to handle this type of discussion.

Good grief. There is so much wrong here, I hardly know where to start.

> No, I don't just call you stupid to insult you. You really are brainless to a truly awe inspiring degree. This covers both ignorance (not knowing things) and stupidity (inability to reason or comprehend). Your unintelligence is LEGENDARY in scale.

> No, if I wanted to prove that we can't get along then I'd be trying to talk about something that isn't well-established scientific fact. That's the nice thing about facts, they're relatively neutral.

> It was too short. Seriously, you think you can adequately describe something like that in less than a hundred words? Get a grip.

> No clarification was needed, it doesn't get any more simple than that. I could ask Dragoon or Edric exactly the same question and they could answer it without even having to leave this site.

In fact, I'll prove it. Dragoon, would you kindly describe the central tenets of any three systems of morality apart from divine command theory?

> If you can handle any thought more complicated than beans then you have yet to prove it.

The Shelter is where the rubber hits the road...The Last Stop for those who have whole-heartedly embraced the philosophies of the misguided West. I have dedicated my life to helping people who have embraced these misguided belief systems. It also vindicates me, and shows me to be correct.

No... it really doesn't do either of those things. I count five unjustified (and mistaken) beliefs in that quote there, you're going to need to justify yourself properly if you want to have any hope of coming across as more than a sad little engine who thought he could.

Also, did you not listen to Dragoon? Nobody cares. You think that shelter acts as some sort of justification for your entire fractal wrongness, but seriously, stop talking about it. Nobody cares. You know those parents who never, ever shut up about their children and how X child is doing this and Y child is studying that and Z child is just learning to walk...? Yeah, that's what you're like. I say again, nobody cares.

I do want to get along.

That remains to be seen.

Wow, with an offer like this, how can I say 'no'?

You'd better get started then. We're waiting.

[Dragoon Knight]

Dragoon, would you kindly describe the central tenets of any three systems of morality apart from divine command theory?

[colour=#005FFF]No, let's talk about DUNE instead. :D

Utilitarianism - A system of morality which categorises an act as being morally "right" if it provides the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. It examines consequences of actions to determine their moral worth, in effect. This principle - known as the "Principle of Utility" - also comprises of a belief in hedonism (the only thing tha is basically good is pleasure; pain is the only thing that is basically bad) and equality (each person's pleasure is "worth" the same as everyone else's).

Emotivism - A system of morality where sentiment determines what is right and wrong. Subscribers to this belief argue that a statement must either be synthetically or analytically true, or have no meaning. Moral statements are neither, and thus have no universal application. Sometimes known as the "hurrah / boo" theory, it argues that morality is nothing more than a series of expressions of personal feeling. Moral judgements must appeal to reason, not just emotion. Since emotions are subjective, so too are "moral" statements.

Prescriptivism - A system of morality where moral judgements are entirely subjective, but apply universally. To put it one way, if you feel that act A is wrong, then similar acts B and C will also be wrong. It is a strongly logical belief system, which can encompass both utilitarian and emotive reasoning, but emphasises the reliance on a defined structure. Statements become imperatives; a code to live by.

Forgive me if I'm a little rusty, I've not studied Philosophy properly since my academy days.

And yes, Eras; I wait with baited breath for your answer to Dante's question.[/colour]

[Lord J]

Here's all you need to know about the word "goddamnit".

Thanks Ath, hopefully the "Wisconsin Solution" doesn't continue to replicate. It's really disgusting.

In regards to Dante's challenge: this should be interesting. It won't be. But it should. It's amazing to me how, when I finally understood natural selection, it all just sort of "clicked". You can say "blah, blah, blah, the environment selects traits for survival, blah, blah," all you want, but until you really understand it and know what it means, it's pretty alien. The problem is that so many people know natural selection, but they don't really get it. It almost becomes a question of belief, or faith, except that it's based on the real world, from real observations.

Of course, natural selection underlies my area of psychology. The only difference is that the expression of a behavior is based upon selection by the environment: ontogeny instead of phylogeny. Using natural selection in this way allows me (and other scientists in my field) to assert meaningful interventions that change "x" behavior, because all behavior occurs within the context of a history of contact with the environment. This simply means that, to change a behavior you simply must change the environment.

What disgusts me most about Eras's perspective is that he endorses behavior modification of homosexuality without a simple understanding of the underlying philosophy on which behavior modification is based. Actually, that's not what disgusts me the most. But it's up there.

[ErasOmnius]

What disgusts me most about Eras's perspective is that he endorses behavior modification of homosexuality without a simple understanding of the underlying philosophy on which behavior modification is based. Actually, that's not what disgusts me the most. But it's up there.

Go ahead, explain it to me. Honestly, do so.

Are the males evolving towards being nurturers? Is the 'Earth' creating them that way to reduce over-population? Are the females evolving towards being 'whatever'? Try NOT to use the Linguistics professor's 'research' from British Columbia as proof.

[athanasios]

--- DELETED. My error. Not going to start again about homosexuality on this thread.

-

Please MODs:

If tomorrow Dante continues in the same (lengthy) tone split from this thread or lock till spirits cool down. The Dante-ErasOmnius debate even though adds a lot of pepper and spice in our currently dull forums is completely derailing this thread.

[Lord J]

Eras: I am paid about $500 a semester hour to teach behavior analysis to undergrads. Are you willing to pay that for my lecture? Better yet, just come out to the meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis in Denver in May.

But ok, I'll give it some thought and maybe open a new thread, since Ath is (rightfully so) tired of it in his thread.

EDIT: Ahh, just found a little reading for the day or so before I write down a perspective. It will be illuminative to see what he has to say.

[ErasOmnius]

You know, ath is right. This started off about Education, and it really should stay that way. I don't want threads to get too far off course, since none of us is going to change our minds on the issue.

So having said that, I am sad that Dante and I got started off last Spring on the wrong foot. So I apologize for making this somewhat too personal for him -- which was wrong. We all have our beliefs, and we are most likely not going to change.

[Dante]

Is that your way of saying that you're too frightened of the truth to listen to opinions other than your own? Because that's what I'm hearing. And it's not personal, you berk, it's just that you're wrong about everything. Feel free to answer the question I posed in a new topic if that will assuage your guilt, personally I find's ath's topics as boring as they are repetitive, so taking them away from their intended path can only be a good thing.

[ErasOmnius]

Is that your way of saying that you're too frightened of the truth to listen to opinions other than your own? Because that's what I'm hearing. And it's not personal, you berk, it's just that you're wrong about everything. Feel free to answer the question I posed in a new topic if that will assuage your guilt, personally I find's ath's topics as boring as they are repetitive, so taking them away from their intended path can only be a good thing.

A. No, it's not that I am frightened of the truth. I am afraid of what the world is becoming. I will gladly answer your questions that you sent me, but I am reading more fully on them right now.

B. But I am truly sorry for making this too personal 'on you'. Having said that, I shall move on from apologizing, stay on topic, no matter what occurs.

C. I like a lot of what ath posts. Since my dad's family is from just across the Ionian from Greece, and my mother's from Lebanon, I feel like he is giving us the eastern Meditteranean Report on a daily basis.

[athanasios]

Honduras plunges into the Dark Ages:

The end of secular publich education. Education to pass in the hands of local religious leaders.

A protesting teacher was murdered by the local dictatorship.

http://www.vimeo.com/21181376

[ErasOmnius]

Creepy.