Socialization, insults and clicks.

[Boerseun]

In your previous post (your elaborate reply to my rather elaborate post), you say the following:

God is the stuff of the universe, means whatever the universe is made of, we can think of that as God.

Yet in the very next paragraph, you state the following:

I am not giving the Jews nor Christians the right to define God.

The very next sentence, reads:

Why should I or anyone else, allow someone else the right to define God?

Exactly. Yet, after denying everybody else the right of defining God, you still hold fast to the following:

God is the stuff of the universe, means whatever the universe is made of, we can think of that as God.

You're preaching. Your interpretation is the only sound and valid one regarding God. You will not tolerate anybody else's opinion regarding the matter. I don't know if you see yourself as a pantheist prophet or whatever the case might be, but these views as presented by yourself in the quoted post is a perfect example of the preaching as defined in our rules. Give it up or find a site suitable for your intentions. Scientists and scientifically minded people are notoriously hard customers when it comes to matters claiming any truth in what cannot be proven.

 

In all of Science, there is no call for God. There is no god-shaped slot in any incomplete hypothesis to complete it. Science is empirical, God is a psychological abberation of hairless bipeds with an inherent fear of the dark, of falling, and of loud noises. Those fears have been built into us, the fear of falling is an evolutionary leftover from our days as tree-swinging apes, our fear of the dark is basically a fear of not seeing nocturnal predators who might decide to take a chomp on our butts, and our fear of loud noises is a reflex to avoid loud animals that might be bigger and stronger than us. Most of these fears have been sorted out - but the biological mechanism still resides - we still fear the boogeyman or the scary monster in the closet - which is a throwback to our evolutionary past. Those that are completely fearless from young have less of a chance of survival. Our fear of the boogeyman is the only god-shaped slot anywhere in our culture, or in nature as we know it. And religious-minded folks have been exploiting that particular fear for ages now. But in Nature, empirically, there is no call for God, or even to hypothesise about the existence of God in the face of a glaring lack of evidence.

 

And that is regardless whether you would tolerate my particular definition of God or not.

 

So please stop your preaching, or go to some religious website which Hypography definitely is not.

[Nitack]

I would love to objectively analyze what Nitack said in response to what I said, and may be it would be a good thing to continuing taking this thread off subject? But I honestly did start this thread because I was delighted with the realization that there is a social purpose behind insulting people and that is clique behavior.

{shortened for space considerations}

 

 

Nutron,

 

As much as you seem obsessed with vilifying me you completely ignore the facts. The original quote that you took from me was after pages upon pages of discussion. Those discussions involved you posting nonsense about democracy and American government with no supporting evidence and me patiently trying to explain where you went wrong. As was predicted by others, you completely ignored any time you were called out for inaccuracies in your statements and constantly tried to maneuver a thread about government and democracy into your topic of choice, religion.

 

Despite your feelings of persecution, there is no conspiracy against you. I was responding, admittedly harsh in approach, to your attempts to ride roughshod over the topic we were trying to discuss and bend it to the topic you wanted to discuss. You have shown a complete lack of respect for others by your hijacking of threads to suite your purpose and in the same breath whine about your view point not being respected. If you want to espouse your religious beliefs I am sure that it would be tolerated IN THE RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY forum. Hijacking threads in other forums in order to bend them to your chosen topic absolutely justifies the ire that you receive from the people who actually wanted to have a discussion on the topic of the thread.

 

Your preaching about manners and etiquette is extremely hypocritical considering your complete disregard the etiquette and manners expected on this forum. Perhaps to bring this to a level that you can appreciate:

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" (Jesus in Matthew 7:3, NIV)

[jackson33]

Well I guess it is a good thing we are speaking of democracy, however, I do not want to participate in another hostile argument, so I don't know how to handle this, because democracy is very much a state of mind. It you google, "Democracy is a state of mind" you find many links. I chose one that I think best addresses your comments, because it makes an issue of the importance of the people in a democracy. The article begins with an explanation of how during the cold war, the US was supporting strong military leaders in both Africa and South America, and how despite the trappings of democracy, these countries did not have democracy. Then the cold war ended and power returned to the people....

 

Does your insistance of local control of public education include knowledge of the No, Child Left Behind Act and other federal government mandates, and knowledge of the 1958 National Defense Education Act of which I speak often?

 

Most industry will not get involved with totalitarian governments, whether in the case of the British Empire or the corporate/capitalist structure today. I really don't see a connection in the cold war and democracy in African. I do see a connection in all third world governments needing assistance from all industrialized ones. Democracy is in degree to that of a pure, controled by the acceptance of the governed and restrictions made by the governing.

 

The US 2008 Budget allowed 56B (dept. of Education) of the 2,900B (2.9 trillion) budget, of which 14 B was mandated for spending or authorized for grants to STATES. Each of the 50 States collects taxes in its own manner and most every county and many town/city collects some tax specifically for education. If you like I'll get specific, but Federal contribution amounts to about 2% of what school districts spend on a per child basis, then this is for expenses in complying to Federal law on such things as testing. There may be other contributions or expenses made through other departments for school breakfast, lunches, after school programs busing and programs falling into equal rights/disability or special education, but NONE of any pertains to what is taught or how.

 

The above does represent a 60% increase from when Bush II took office and based on the 'No Kid' but that law primarily was an outline of objectives in education K-8 and K-12 for public schooling. Increasing the quality of teachers, one objective, has been fought by Teachers Unions over the objections of virtually every School District in the country, as well as School choice by every school.

[Overdog]

The US 2008 Budget allowed 56B (dept. of Education) of the 2,900B (2.9 trillion) budget, of which 14 B was mandated for spending or authorized for grants to STATES. Each of the 50 States collects taxes in its own manner and most every county and many town/city collects some tax specifically for education. If you like I'll get specific, but Federal contribution amounts to about 2% of what school districts spend on a per child basis, then this is for expenses in complying to Federal law on such things as testing. There may be other contributions or expenses made through other departments for school breakfast, lunches, after school programs busing and programs falling into equal rights/disability or special education, but NONE of any pertains to what is taught or how.

 

The above does represent a 60% increase from when Bush II took office and based on the 'No Kid' but that law primarily was an outline of objectives in education K-8 and K-12 for public schooling. Increasing the quality of teachers, one objective, has been fought by Teachers Unions over the objections of virtually every School District in the country, as well as School choice by every school.

 

It's good to hear someone point this out for a change. The truth is that the way the educational system is set up it's practically impossible for the federal government (or anyone else) to mandate what gets taught in schools at a national level. I think that's actually a good thing. The federal government sets policy at the national level like NCLB, but States set their own policies, and CAN opt out of NCLB, if they want to forgo the fraction of funding they get from the government. It is the individual teachers who must implement these policies, and every classroom has it's own unique set of political and financial circumstances and problems to deal with. The teacher's are trying to do the best they can with what they have. There is no grand conspiracy of government and industry determining what gets taught in our schools.

[nutronjon]

Please provide proof that atomic particles do not exist.

 

Prove God is the not stuff of the universe.

[Nitack]

Prove God is the not stuff of the universe.

 

The absence of proof of existence is as good as proof of non-existence.