A question for the religious

[Neoteny]

I did, in my state of minor irritation, overstate how many people were of that opinion. A recent poll I saw was something like the high thirties for it.

Exactly, look you're an intelligent guy with strong convictions. Nothing wrong with that a bit. I kinda figured you were getting carried away; that's why I asked the question in the first place.

Additionally, it's the dominant opinion of people I've met in my life that I'm going to hell for my atheism, so I'll give you that it's anecdotal to that extent. However, that opinion is also due to my own reading of the bible, and it seems to be a reasonable interpretation of it.

Yeah, I imagine that's the case. I still don't see how it applies here though. I've heard very few people tell anyone that they are going to Hell, and I've been a regular in this forum for more than a year. In the JF forum Hell is rarely, if ever, mentioned it just isn't something we dwell on. My understanding of Hell has always been that it's reaching a point of selfishness that you cannot love. Basically choosing to separate yourself from God the way that a depressed person will choose to separate themselves from activities they enjoy and people they love (only to an extreme). C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters" takes an interesting tack on this if you haven't read it and have any interest.

So... you think I'm going to hell, right? It's a bit much to call it selfishness when I'm removing myself from something that doesn't exist, and giving it to people I can see. I haven't read much Lewis, but I do plan on getting around to it eventually. What I've seen hasn't been too impressive.

Geez, what's the point of calling yourself a Christian if it doesn't help your cause for anything.

Good question. Altruism. Whether you believe that God exists, or not, Christ was on earth, lived his life, preached his message, and died his death with no reward. If God doesn't exist then he died, but two thousand years later we're still talking about him and his message. A carpenter from Nazareth, how many others do you know of much less have read anything about? If God exists, He was God what could he gain by coming here? What possible benefit to himself? It was all for us and our benefit. The example and the commandment is there to love others as he loved us. The pesky Christian that you think looks down on you probably actually thinks you are incredibly special and is talking to you out of concern. Anybody who is trying to threaten you should be avoided you're right, but it might help to think critically about what is being said and whether it's a threat or it's just poorly worded.

Altruism? Really? I get along fine altruistically without Christ. I recommend The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.

It comes across as a rather weak evidence for the veracity of the tenets. "Eh, you can get away with other things if you want."

Perhaps, but I think Tenets that have come from different cultures and times independently are more likely to be true not less likely.

Meh, I disagree. We've probably been over it at some point.

Whatever, man, that's all you. If you're going to claim the religion, claim it all and lump yourself in with the fundamentalists. If you're going to try to be reasonable about it, be reasonable about all of it.

The crux, however, is this why would you want me to fit your stereotype? I would be alot easier to argue against granted, but what's the fun in that? It isn't as if there are only two options.

According to your above statement, do you not fit that type?

As for the schooling, I'll say that depends on a lot of factors. I was ahead of my peers through grade 7, when i moved to Hawaii (which has a notoriously bad school system, for good reason). I was ahead of all my Hawaiian peers as well, but when I moved back to the mainland and attended a liberal arts magnet school, I had a bit of catching up to do. There are good teachers and poor teachers in both systems, just as there are good students and poor students. However, I will surely take the chances with my children in the hands of accredited, state-trained individuals. It seems that your odds of getting a teacher deficient in any one field increase with home-schooling. I, for example, would be a terrible history teacher, but my kids would probably be a bit more advanced in their science education. I don't think that's fair at all to them, so I'd prefer they were at a school where they can get more of everything and just complement that education with my own input.

I am one of those state trained and accredited individuals. That means exactly nothing as far as this post goes though. The point was merely this. I agree wholeheartedly with you and Player. There are good and bad teachers in every system, school (public or private) and there are good and bad homeschoolers I'm sure. Joe's statement implied that homeschooling for religious purposes was unbalanced and (I'm assuming) neglectful in some way. I merely pointed out the success stories and people began saying how there are good and bad in all systems and approaches. I agree with this and it was what I wanted to bring the conversation around to anyway.

I imagine they do tend to be neglectful in at least one way, just because it is difficult to give a full spectrum education as just one person. I imagine there are many who are capable, but what are the odds?

[CrazyAnglican]

I did, in my state of minor irritation, overstate how many people were of that opinion. A recent poll I saw was something like the high thirties for it.

Exactly, look you're an intelligent guy with strong convictions. Nothing wrong with that a bit. I kinda figured you were getting carried away; that's why I asked the question in the first place.

Additionally, it's the dominant opinion of people I've met in my life that I'm going to hell for my atheism, so I'll give you that it's anecdotal to that extent. However, that opinion is also due to my own reading of the bible, and it seems to be a reasonable interpretation of it.

Yeah, I imagine that's the case. I still don't see how it applies here though. I've heard very few people tell anyone that they are going to Hell, and I've been a regular in this forum for more than a year. In the JF forum Hell is rarely, if ever, mentioned it just isn't something we dwell on. My understanding of Hell has always been that it's reaching a point of selfishness that you cannot love. Basically choosing to separate yourself from God the way that a depressed person will choose to separate themselves from activities they enjoy and people they love (only to an extreme). C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters" takes an interesting tack on this if you haven't read it and have any interest.

So... you think I'm going to hell, right? It's a bit much to call it selfishness when I'm removing myself from something that doesn't exist, and giving it to people I can see. I haven't read much Lewis, but I do plan on getting around to it eventually. What I've seen hasn't been too impressive.

Huh? I thought I made it clear that I don't think that? Oh! (sorry for being vague) I'm sure it's the case that you have met a good many people that have said or seem to believe that. I certainly don't think you're going to Hell. I'm not even trying to convert ya'. By the example of the poll you quoted somewhere around two in three Christians don't hold closely to that idea anyway. That leaves a good many (more than a billion?) that aren't so pessimistic about your future. So, in light of that I wasn't saying you in particular were selfish either (I don't really even know ya'), I was merely clarifying my own concept of the state.

I would certainly counter that Christians are all about community and the people around them that they can see. Isn't the chief complaint that they won't leave you alone?

Geez, what's the point of calling yourself a Christian if it doesn't help your cause for anything.

Good question. Altruism. Whether you believe that God exists, or not, Christ was on earth, lived his life, preached his message, and died his death with no reward. If God doesn't exist then he died, but two thousand years later we're still talking about him and his message. A carpenter from Nazareth, how many others do you know of much less have read anything about? If God exists, He was God what could he gain by coming here? What possible benefit to himself? It was all for us and our benefit. The example and the commandment is there to love others as he loved us. The pesky Christian that you think looks down on you probably actually thinks you are incredibly special and is talking to you out of concern. Anybody who is trying to threaten you should be avoided you're right, but it might help to think critically about what is being said and whether it's a threat or it's just poorly worded.

Altruism? Really? I get along fine altruistically without Christ. I recommend The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.

Have to confess, I don't see your point on this one. You can certainly be altruistic without being Christian (if that's where you were heading), but we have had the whole Christian charity conversation before. Haven't heard about the book what's the premise?

It comes across as a rather weak evidence for the veracity of the tenets. "Eh, you can get away with other things if you want."

Perhaps, but I think Tenets that have come from different cultures and times independently are more likely to be true not less likely.

Meh, I disagree. We've probably been over it at some point.

Fair enough

Whatever, man, that's all you. If you're going to claim the religion, claim it all and lump yourself in with the fundamentalists. If you're going to try to be reasonable about it, be reasonable about all of it.

The crux, however, is this why would you want me to fit your stereotype? I would be alot easier to argue against granted, but what's the fun in that? It isn't as if there are only two options.

According to your above statement, do you not fit that type?

No, but I see the confusion and it was my fault for being vague. It just never occurred to me that you would take that statement that way. Like I said not threatening just poorly worded.

As for the schooling, I'll say that depends on a lot of factors. I was ahead of my peers through grade 7, when i moved to Hawaii (which has a notoriously bad school system, for good reason). I was ahead of all my Hawaiian peers as well, but when I moved back to the mainland and attended a liberal arts magnet school, I had a bit of catching up to do. There are good teachers and poor teachers in both systems, just as there are good students and poor students. However, I will surely take the chances with my children in the hands of accredited, state-trained individuals. It seems that your odds of getting a teacher deficient in any one field increase with home-schooling. I, for example, would be a terrible history teacher, but my kids would probably be a bit more advanced in their science education. I don't think that's fair at all to them, so I'd prefer they were at a school where they can get more of everything and just complement that education with my own input.

I am one of those state trained and accredited individuals. That means exactly nothing as far as this post goes though. The point was merely this. I agree wholeheartedly with you and Player. There are good and bad teachers in every system, school (public or private) and there are good and bad homeschoolers I'm sure. Joe's statement implied that homeschooling for religious purposes was unbalanced and (I'm assuming) neglectful in some way. I merely pointed out the success stories and people began saying how there are good and bad in all systems and approaches. I agree with this and it was what I wanted to bring the conversation around to anyway.

I imagine they do tend to be neglectful in at least one way, just because it is difficult to give a full spectrum education as just one person. I imagine there are many who are capable, but what are the odds?

Yeah I kinda saw where you were going a bit late and edited. I'm still not sure where you get the assumption that homeschooling means only one teacher. Friends, Family, and other members in a homeschool assoc. can be of great service to alleviate that particular drawback.

[joecoolfrog]

Sorry I was rather vague,I was talking specifically about the evangelical homeschool movement rather than tuition at home generally. This to me seems driven not so much by the desire to give ones children the best education but rather to limit the scope of that education based on the parents beliefs. At best this may lead to an unbalanced viewpoint,at worst to downright brainwashing, when the process becomes sophisticated as at Patrick Henry College then the implications begin to look fairly sinister. I watched a documentary on this establishment a couple of years ago and found it quite frightening, it is quite clear about its intention which is to get its graduates to infiltrate key governmental departments with a view to pushing a singular agenda. Personally I would not relish future state departments staffed to a large degree by people with a desire to limit scientific progress and whose decisions were driven by religious dogma with a very narrow interpretation of what is good for the population as a whole - we have already seen signs of this from the current Bush administration and its not a good development.
www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg ... -well.html

[Neoteny]

Huh? I thought I made it clear that I don't think that? Oh! (sorry for being vague) I'm sure it's the case that you have met a good many people that have said or seem to believe that. I certainly don't think you're going to Hell. I'm not even trying to convert ya'. By the example of the poll you quoted somewhere around two in three Christians don't hold closely to that idea anyway. That leaves a good many (more than a billion?) that aren't so pessimistic about your future. So, in light of that I wasn't saying you in particular were selfish either (I don't really even know ya'), I was merely clarifying my own concept of the state.

I would certainly counter that Christians are all about community and the people around them that they can see. Isn't the chief complaint that they won't leave you alone?

Eh, not really. Just the overall perspective. So what would I have to do to get to hell, if rejecting god's existence isn't enough? Isn't that kind of a big deal? Like a commandment (at least I'm cutting out the idolatry, right)? Not that I'm aiming to go. I'm just trying to fully understand where you are coming from.

Geez, what's the point of calling yourself a Christian if it doesn't help your cause for anything.

Good question. Altruism. Whether you believe that God exists, or not, Christ was on earth, lived his life, preached his message, and died his death with no reward. If God doesn't exist then he died, but two thousand years later we're still talking about him and his message. A carpenter from Nazareth, how many others do you know of much less have read anything about? If God exists, He was God what could he gain by coming here? What possible benefit to himself? It was all for us and our benefit. The example and the commandment is there to love others as he loved us. The pesky Christian that you think looks down on you probably actually thinks you are incredibly special and is talking to you out of concern. Anybody who is trying to threaten you should be avoided you're right, but it might help to think critically about what is being said and whether it's a threat or it's just poorly worded.

Altruism? Really? I get along fine altruistically without Christ. I recommend The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.

Have to confess, I don't see your point on this one. You can certainly be altruistic without being Christian (if that's where you were heading), but we have had the whole Christian charity conversation before. Haven't heard about the book what's the premise?

I guess I had trouble deciding where you were coming from here too. All I could think of was termites. In the book, he discusses his hypothesis for the evolution of altruism sans population-centrism. Dawkins' books on biology are where he really shines. I've reread your paragraph and all I keep thinking about are those stupid termites. I can understand emulating Christ, for the sake of the world, but you're also subscribing to all the heavenly glory that comes with it, right?

It comes across as a rather weak evidence for the veracity of the tenets. "Eh, you can get away with other things if you want."

Perhaps, but I think Tenets that have come from different cultures and times independently are more likely to be true not less likely.

Meh, I disagree. We've probably been over it at some point.

Fair enough

Whatever, man, that's all you. If you're going to claim the religion, claim it all and lump yourself in with the fundamentalists. If you're going to try to be reasonable about it, be reasonable about all of it.

The crux, however, is this why would you want me to fit your stereotype? I would be alot easier to argue against granted, but what's the fun in that? It isn't as if there are only two options.

According to your above statement, do you not fit that type?

No, but I see the confusion and it was my fault for being vague. It just never occurred to me that you would take that statement that way. Like I said not threatening just poorly worded.

Shit happens.

As for the schooling, I'll say that depends on a lot of factors. I was ahead of my peers through grade 7, when i moved to Hawaii (which has a notoriously bad school system, for good reason). I was ahead of all my Hawaiian peers as well, but when I moved back to the mainland and attended a liberal arts magnet school, I had a bit of catching up to do. There are good teachers and poor teachers in both systems, just as there are good students and poor students. However, I will surely take the chances with my children in the hands of accredited, state-trained individuals. It seems that your odds of getting a teacher deficient in any one field increase with home-schooling. I, for example, would be a terrible history teacher, but my kids would probably be a bit more advanced in their science education. I don't think that's fair at all to them, so I'd prefer they were at a school where they can get more of everything and just complement that education with my own input.

I am one of those state trained and accredited individuals. That means exactly nothing as far as this post goes though. The point was merely this. I agree wholeheartedly with you and Player. There are good and bad teachers in every system, school (public or private) and there are good and bad homeschoolers I'm sure. Joe's statement implied that homeschooling for religious purposes was unbalanced and (I'm assuming) neglectful in some way. I merely pointed out the success stories and people began saying how there are good and bad in all systems and approaches. I agree with this and it was what I wanted to bring the conversation around to anyway.

I imagine they do tend to be neglectful in at least one way, just because it is difficult to give a full spectrum education as just one person. I imagine there are many who are capable, but what are the odds?

Yeah I kinda saw where you were going a bit late and edited. I'm still not sure where you get the assumption that homeschooling means only one teacher. Friends, Family, and other members in a homeschool assoc. can be of great service to alleviate that particular drawback.

Very true. It may be clear that I'm not particularly well-versed in the system. It still seems like it can be more prone to dangerous limitations, but that's purely opinion, and one that probably wouldn't take much to change my mind on. My girlfriend was home-schooled for a year or two for some reason I've never inquired about. One of her (and mine) passions is ensuring that everyone gets an excellent education, and she's a very intelligent woman, so I don't doubt that home-schooling can be successful. It just seems shakier than what I'd like to encourage. Perhaps because monitoring for abuses might be more difficult logistically? I dunno.

[Snorri1234]

[CrazyAnglican]

Joe I have to admit I was ramped up for something earthshattering there, but thanks that article was pretty darned funny. C'mon, it's propaganda.

#1 it derides Christian schools as having low standards academically without qualifying what standards are being assessed. For instance, most public schools would perform pretty lousy if the standard is biblical studies. I know evolution is the darling subject of your side, but there is a lot more to an education than just that subject.


#2 I particularly liked the sinister seeming 7 out of 100 internships went to students from this college. Seven kids from school within driving distance of the capitol got internships there? Go figure, funny that it didn't mention where the other 93 came from. I'd warrant a far few were from public colleges within driving distance.
I was an aide at the state capitol three times, due largely to two facts. A friend's mom was a Senate secretary and my college was a block from the capitol building. No big conspiracy there.

#3 The stated overthrow of materialism and the Exodus movement were pretty good too. Okay a few people want to take their kids out of the public school system and want the Southern Baptist Convention to tell their mindless drones (insert sarcasm smilie ) to yank their kids out of public school. My public school system is the largest employer in the county. We are adding two classrooms worth of new students a week. If this were a big issue I wouldn't be teaching in a trailer. In twelve years as an educator I've never heard any system official from any system say "Gosh! I wish we had more kids!".
Are there people who would like to get government out of education altogether? Sure there are, but don't look for it to happen anytime soon. Kinda like people that would like to eradicate religion, I doubt it's going anywhere anytime soon either. There are extremeists in both camps.

#4 Beyond this it's an admittedly good school whose stated objective is to train smart people to disagree with you. That's not conspiracy. That's democracy.

[CrazyAnglican]

Eh, not really. Just the overall perspective. So what would I have to do to get to hell, if rejecting god's existence isn't enough? Isn't that kind of a big deal? Like a commandment (at least I'm cutting out the idolatry, right)? Not that I'm aiming to go. I'm just trying to fully understand where you are coming from.

Umm....well...you know lust, greed, etc. but from a christian perspective that part of you that say's "be good" that knows the right action is divinely inspired. That's where the whole moral atheist argument breaks down. There are those that disagree with me (three that have stated it here), but I generally think that if you listen to that divine guide you're acting as a Christian should whether you profess faith or not. Snorri's comic is cute, but I think you'd probably get the same "Enter, good and trustworthy servant" as anyone else. You still aren't perfect (nobody is) so it's still a gift from God. But in general that's just specualtion. Your relationship with God (or whatever drives you morally) is your business. Wherever it ends up leading you might be of concern for a Christian who knows and cares about you, but you're driving the boat.

I guess I had trouble deciding where you were coming from here too. All I could think of was termites. In the book, he discusses his hypothesis for the evolution of altruism sans population-centrism. Dawkins' books on biology are where he really shines. I've reread your paragraph and all I keep thinking about are those stupid termites. I can understand emulating Christ, for the sake of the world, but you're also subscribing to all the heavenly glory that comes with it, right?

**silently mouths "Termites?"- shakes it off**

Heavenly glory - um yeah, subscribe to yes, focus on no.

A martial arts friend mine has a saying "You can't walk with one eye on the moon and one eye the path" / might be a Zen saying-not sure/, but it applies. You can't, in my opinion, be too tied up with the afterlife, just follow the rules as they are stated do your best for others and love them and let the future take care of itself.

Shit happens.

doesn't it though?

One of her (and mine) passions is ensuring that everyone gets an excellent education,

On that, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It just seems shakier than what I'd like to encourage. Perhaps because monitoring for abuses might be more difficult logistically? I dunno.

Perhaps, but the alternative is that a lot of standardization leads to a lot of mediocrity. You let people know where they can stop and most of them will.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Umm....well...you know lust, greed, etc. but from a christian perspective that part of you that say's "be good" that knows the right action is divinely inspired. That's where the whole moral atheist argument breaks down.

Or it might have evolved.
Seriously, you should read The Selfish gene.

[Snorri1234]

Umm....well...you know lust, greed, etc. but from a christian perspective that part of you that say's "be good" that knows the right action is divinely inspired. That's where the whole moral atheist argument breaks down.

Or it might have evolved.
Seriously, you should read The Selfish gene.

Yeah! It's full of quality porn!

[CrazyAnglican]

Umm....well...you know lust, greed, etc. but from a christian perspective that part of you that say's "be good" that knows the right action is divinely inspired. That's where the whole moral atheist argument breaks down.

Or it might have evolved.
Seriously, you should read The Selfish gene.

If you are stating that the conscience may have evolved, I'm aware of that position and I'm not discounting it here. I was just answering the question as it was posed.

So what would I have to do to get to hell, if rejecting god's existence isn't enough? Isn't that kind of a big deal? Like a commandment (at least I'm cutting out the idolatry, right)? Not that I'm aiming to go. I'm just trying to fully understand where you are coming from.

Yeah! It's full of quality porn!

**Chants distractedly** I'm a married spud. I'm a married spud. I'm a married spud.

[MeDeFe]

Umm....well...you know lust, greed, etc. but from a christian perspective that part of you that say's "be good" that knows the right action is divinely inspired. That's where the whole moral atheist argument breaks down.

Or it might have evolved.
Seriously, you should read The Selfish gene.

Yeah! It's full of quality porn!

I found an e-book version the other day (~3 months ago?) and might probably get around to read the whole over the next week.

[Neoteny]

Umm....well...you know lust, greed, etc. but from a christian perspective that part of you that say's "be good" that knows the right action is divinely inspired. That's where the whole moral atheist argument breaks down. There are those that disagree with me (three that have stated it here), but I generally think that if you listen to that divine guide you're acting as a Christian should whether you profess faith or not. Snorri's comic is cute, but I think you'd probably get the same "Enter, good and trustworthy servant" as anyone else. You still aren't perfect (nobody is) so it's still a gift from God. But in general that's just specualtion. Your relationship with God (or whatever drives you morally) is your business. Wherever it ends up leading you might be of concern for a Christian who knows and cares about you, but you're driving the boat.

Well, if following our conscience is all, then I think heaven is going to be a rather populous place. Of course, I'd disagree that anyone's conscience is divinely inspired.

**silently mouths "Termites?"- shakes it off**

Heavenly glory - um yeah, subscribe to yes, focus on no.

A martial arts friend mine has a saying "You can't walk with one eye on the moon and one eye the path" / might be a Zen saying-not sure/, but it applies. You can't, in my opinion, be too tied up with the afterlife, just follow the rules as they are stated do your best for others and love them and let the future take care of itself.

Well, that is how most people live, I guess. But the whole divinity thing still gets me. I'm still thinking of termites. The general gist of the hypothesis is that termite siblings end up through kinda wacky (anthropocentrically) genetics to end up more closely related to each other than either is to their parents (as opposed to most sexually reproducing organisms who are at an [approximately] equal 50/50 relatedness to siblings and parents and children [forgive me if I'm dumbing it down too much]). So any gene "for" altruism is more likely to be in a sibling than in a parent or a child, so the gene is self enhancing if the host dies for (or gives energy to, or otherwise helps at her own expense) one of her siblings. It's a lot more in depth than that, but it's a cool thought to tool around with.

Perhaps, but the alternative is that a lot of standardization leads to a lot of mediocrity. You let people know where they can stop and most of them will.

Too true. Home school does have the bonus (usually, anyway) of a deeper relationship between teacher and pupil. I imagine this might lead to some awkward sex ed classes, however.

Seriously, you should read The Selfish gene.

Yeah! It's full of quality porn!

Termite sex for everyone!

I found an e-book version the other day (~3 months ago?) and might probably get around to read the whole over the next week.

My paperback copy is starting to look a little rough, but it's been awhile since I last perused it. I think I might start it once I finish my current Dennett foray.

[Simon Viavant]

The mellower christians never get heard cause they don't broadcast the fact that they're christain to the world and try to convert people. btw, homeschooling on the grounds on religion should be banned. The stereotype of the stupid christian exists cause most of the loud ones are stupid, and therefore get overrepresented. Like, one time my brother was debating with a christian, and he was supporting evolution, he kept asking things like
"Why do snakes have leg bones?" The guy thought for a second and then said:
"Well, in the Bible it says that after the snake tricked Eve, God cursed it to crawl on it's belly in the dust forever, so maybe it walked before that." Is that a plausible answer?

We think Christians are stupid cause of what they believe in. For example:

Day one: Light
Day two: Plants
Day three: the sun, moon, and stars.
How could plants exist before the sun? And how was there light before the sun, moon, and stars?

God is all knowing. He knows everything that will happen in the past present, and future. But then...
God creates humans. He decides to wipe them out, and spares one to continue the population. (Another thing: Nobody on earth owned a boat?) So after wiping humans out, he feels bad and promises never to do it again. So then, a few thousand years later, he does it again. Explain that one.

Also: The portable temple tent the Israelites used in the Exodus was supposed to be 75 feet by 150 feet. That's 12,500 square feet. So that would require more than 13,000 square feet of goathide, just for the roof. And it's completely portable.

And the earth being 6000 years old: I don't think I need to go into detail about that one.

These are just a few examples. I could list dozens. And if you dismiss these as being from the old testament, I could give some from the new testament.

Now do you see why we think christians are stupid?

Anyway, on the topic: Judging by what god does in the bible, people couldn't get into heaven unless they devoted every aspect of their daily life to god, no sex before marriage, if your neighbor worships another god and refuses to convert, kill him. Stuff like that.

[CrazyAnglican]

Well, if following our conscience is all, then I think heaven is going to be a rather populous place. Of course, I'd disagree that anyone's conscience is divinely inspired

Hope so....yeah. So um we reached the point where we hashed everything out and It comes down to you say "No he ain't" I say "Yeah, he is" and it doesn't really matter because the end result is the same, huh?

**silently mouths "Termites?"- shakes it off**

Well, that is how most people live, I guess. But the whole divinity thing still gets me. I'm still thinking of termites. The general gist of the hypothesis is that termite siblings end up through kinda wacky (anthropocentrically) genetics to end up more closely related to each other than either is to their parents (as opposed to most sexually reproducing organisms who are at an [approximately] equal 50/50 relatedness to siblings and parents and children [forgive me if I'm dumbing it down too much]). So any gene "for" altruism is more likely to be in a sibling than in a parent or a child, so the gene is self enhancing if the host dies for (or gives energy to, or otherwise helps at her own expense) one of her siblings. It's a lot more in depth than that, but it's a cool thought to tool around with.

**Termites?**

Too true. Home school does have the bonus (usually, anyway) of a deeper relationship between teacher and pupil. I imagine this might lead to some awkward sex ed classes, however.

Mooooom! Just tell me to abstain! No really, We're good!

[CrazyAnglican]

The mellower christians never get heard cause they don't broadcast the fact that they're christain to the world and try to convert people.

Right, if they're smart those Christians'll be quiet eh?

btw, homeschooling on the grounds on religion should be banned.

.........and that would be enforced how?

The stereotype of the stupid christian exists cause most of the loud ones are stupid, and therefore get overrepresented.

Your stereotype's valid because you've met a few that fit the bill......okay I'm with ya'

Like, one time my brother was debating with a christian, and he was supporting evolution, he kept asking things like
"Why do snakes have leg bones?" The guy thought for a second and then said:
"Well, in the Bible it says that after the snake tricked Eve, God cursed it to crawl on it's belly in the dust forever, so maybe it walked before that." Is that a plausible answer?

cue the anecdote.

We think Christians are stupid cause of what they believe in. For example:

..........and cue the fallacy of omniscience. You know what I believe how? Do I ascribe to Sola Scriptura? How do you know this? Have you interviewed me? Looked at my past posts?
Exactly what are my beliefs? C'mon get out the crystal ball?

Now do you see why we think christians are stupid?

Crystal clear thanks

[MeDeFe]

btw, homeschooling on the grounds on religion should be banned.

.........and that would be enforced how?

Maybe... by not exempting parents (or whoever) from having to have at least a BA before allowing them to homeschool?

[CrazyAnglican]

And I could still homeschool my kids for religious purposes. As could tons of other degree holding Christians.

This also begins to sound dangerously like the government should intervene to make sure all kids get indoctrinated into your "that is a strictly secular" system. Parents can't make up their minds about what is best for their kids so the government has to step in. For their own good?

[Neoteny]

btw, homeschooling on the grounds on religion should be banned.

As much as I think of religious home schooling as a bad thing, banning it is probably one of the few slippery slope arguments I could see reaching actuality. That would be bad. Then again, raising a child with a terrible education (my opinion, obviously, but I'm pretty sure I'm right) should be considered a form of child abuse in most industrial nations, so it's hard to really pick a side.

[MeDeFe]

And I could still homeschool my kids for religious purposes. As could tons of other degree holding Christians.

At least you'd be halfway competent then.

[CrazyAnglican]

Then again, raising a child with a terrible education (my opinion, obviously, but I'm pretty sure I'm right) should be considered a form of child abuse in most industrial nations, so it's hard to really pick a side.

Then how many public school kids are being abused by loving parent who send them to a substandard school?

And I could still homeschool my kids for religious purposes. As could tons of other degree holding Christians.

At least you'd be halfway competent then.

Competency is irrelevant to the point. I'd still be homeschooling for religious purposes.

[joecoolfrog]

Anyway now for something important....After 30 years of indulging in the filthy habit I have now managed to quit smoking for 1 month and im quite proud of myself

Ok back to the Reasonable v Loony Christian debate....round 164

[CrazyAnglican]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope you have a long and happy life as a result.


ding ding

[MeDeFe]

And I could still homeschool my kids for religious purposes. As could tons of other degree holding Christians.

At least you'd be halfway competent then.

Competency is irrelevant to the point. I'd still be homeschooling for religious purposes.

So you think it's a good idea to allow parents who want to homeschool specifically for religious reasons not to have the same qualifications as parents who want to homeschool for any other reason must have?

[CrazyAnglican]

Not at all. I'm in favor of qualified teachers. Unfortunately, I've seen some wretched certified ones. I've also seen a good many great uncertified ones. The piece of paper doesn't make you good teacher.

Again it's a little off the subject whether that law is just (I'm not in favor of it) isn't the original question.

[Neoteny]

Then again, raising a child with a terrible education (my opinion, obviously, but I'm pretty sure I'm right) should be considered a form of child abuse in most industrial nations, so it's hard to really pick a side.

Then how many public school kids are being abused by loving parent who send them to a substandard school?

Too many are right now (much to my and my previously mentioned girlfriend's chagrin). But how many of them would be better off home-schooled? Particularly by individuals put through the same system. The best way to have wide-scale change is through the public schooling system. If only it were more simple to accomplish...

Not at all. I'm in favor of qualified teacher. Unfortnately I've seen some wretched certified ones and some great uncertified ones. The piece of paper doesn't make you good teacher.

Yes, but many a great teacher have been terribly misinformed...