Can politicians talk to Americans like adults?
I would claim that all adults are significantly more sophisticated in all ways from children. However, in the matter of intellectual sophistication American adults do not differ enough from children to assure that our species will not self destruct within the next several generations. The American adult, because s/he was taught what to think rather than how to think, has not yet become sophisticated enough to manage our high tech culture.
Can our brain survive this high tech modern world? I doubt that our present generation of adults has the sophistication required to even comprehend the question. Why is this the case? It is the case because our brains have not been able to move from its primitive level to the modern level.
“Our political system sometimes produces such skewed results that it’s difficult not to blame bloviating politicians. But maybe the deeper problem lies in our brains.
Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks. In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought.”
The “human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks”. We go berserk looking for a stick to beat a snake to death. We sleep without disturbance while stock piling thousands of nuclear weapons. Our brain has evolved to be instantly alerted by enemies with sticks or snakes in the grass but we give little regard to any situation that is a long range gigantic threat to our well being.
Unfortunately when science informs us of the danger that our carbon emissions will destroy the planet as we now know it “only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer”.
“We humans do strange things, perhaps because vestiges of our ancient brain still guide us in the modern world, notes Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon and author of a book on how our minds assess risks.”
“That’s why people are incensed about flag burning, or about what kind of sex people have in private, even though that doesn’t really affect the rest of us,” Professor Gilbert said. “Yet where we have a real threat to our well-being, like global warming, it doesn’t ring alarm bells.”
Quotes from NYTimes article When Our Brains Short-Circuitby Nicholas Kristof
HTTP://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/2009/07/02/OPINION/02KRISTOF.HTML
I remember when Ronald Reagan spoke to us like grandpa. He spoke to Americans as children, and everybody ate it up.
The article looks like it was an interesting one, but your link did not work.
The only way to compensate for the growing complexity of our society is to have school longer. High school had ended at the 12th grade since the 40's or 50's, and yet modern life is so much more complex than it was then. Perhaps high school has to last until age 21 or 22, then college in order to make people more sophisticated in their thinking.
The article looks like it was an interesting one, but your link did not work.
The only way to compensate for the growing complexity of our society is to have school longer. High school had ended at the 12th grade since the 40's or 50's, and yet modern life is so much more complex than it was then. Perhaps high school has to last until age 21 or 22, then college in order to make people more sophisticated in their thinking.
QUOTE (coberst+Jul 16 2009, 05:58 AM)
...The American adult, because s/he was taught what to think rather than how to think, has not yet become sophisticated enough to manage our high tech culture.
Can our brain survive this high tech modern world? I doubt that our present generation of adults has the sophistication required to even comprehend the question. Why is this the case? It is the case because our brains have not been able to move from its primitive level to the modern level....
I strongly disagree with this sentiment, and I challenge anyone who agrees with it to find me any evidence whatsoever that this is so.
The fact that the wold (and more specifically, the US) has not collapsed as a result of people not being able to adapt stands as strong, strong evidence to the contrary. If people are not capable of adapting to this high tech world, then how the hell have we managed to adapt to this high tech world?
I mean, this is just ludicrous, yet it's a sentiment I see expressed all the time. Every single day, almost every person in the developed world interacts successfully with high technology. We use our iPods without difficulty, we use our computers, our microwave ovens, our vehicles, we surf the internet, we blog, buy songs and movies online, repair our own cars despite not being mechanics. Amateur physicists discuss the axioms of string theory, amateur investors make money off the stock market, amateur inventors use the latest in technological breakthroughs to produce new breakthroughs, and none of these people are even professionals in their fields. The professionals write new papers in science, develop new drugs and learn more about our past, they make fortunes off the stock market, make fortunes for their companies.
I can't imagine living in a world without television and telephones, teens can't imagine living in a world without the internet and cellphones. We adapt with a proficiency that no other animal has ever displayed, yet the neo-luddites among us consistently insist that we cannot do that which we are doing every day.
It's just ridiculous.
Can our brain survive this high tech modern world? I doubt that our present generation of adults has the sophistication required to even comprehend the question. Why is this the case? It is the case because our brains have not been able to move from its primitive level to the modern level....
I strongly disagree with this sentiment, and I challenge anyone who agrees with it to find me any evidence whatsoever that this is so.
The fact that the wold (and more specifically, the US) has not collapsed as a result of people not being able to adapt stands as strong, strong evidence to the contrary. If people are not capable of adapting to this high tech world, then how the hell have we managed to adapt to this high tech world?
I mean, this is just ludicrous, yet it's a sentiment I see expressed all the time. Every single day, almost every person in the developed world interacts successfully with high technology. We use our iPods without difficulty, we use our computers, our microwave ovens, our vehicles, we surf the internet, we blog, buy songs and movies online, repair our own cars despite not being mechanics. Amateur physicists discuss the axioms of string theory, amateur investors make money off the stock market, amateur inventors use the latest in technological breakthroughs to produce new breakthroughs, and none of these people are even professionals in their fields. The professionals write new papers in science, develop new drugs and learn more about our past, they make fortunes off the stock market, make fortunes for their companies.
I can't imagine living in a world without television and telephones, teens can't imagine living in a world without the internet and cellphones. We adapt with a proficiency that no other animal has ever displayed, yet the neo-luddites among us consistently insist that we cannot do that which we are doing every day.
It's just ridiculous.
I suspect that the point being made here is not so much that Americans are technologically immature - more that they are politically immature, or perhaps naive might be a better description. I mean ... just think Bush x 2 and a near miss with Palin !! 
QUOTE (Edward 3+Jul 16 2009, 01:56 PM)
I suspect that the point being made here is not so much that Americans are technologically immature - more that they are politically immature, or perhaps naive might be a better description. I mean ... just think Bush x 2 and a near miss with Palin !!
I understand that, and that point I tend to agree with. It's the claims made about our inability to handle our high-tech world that I disagree with.
I understand that, and that point I tend to agree with. It's the claims made about our inability to handle our high-tech world that I disagree with.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Try http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02kristof.html
Has global warming driven us extinct yet? Has it driven us back into the stone age, or impacted our desire or ability to continue to progress technologically?
Then it's not fair to say that it's evidence that we can't handle our world. It's only evidence that we handle it somewhat less effectively than we handle more primitive environments, but it certainly doesn't evince the notion that we cannot manage global warming.
Hell, new technologies offer the greatest hope for reversing mankind's effect on the global climate. More efficient photovoltaic cells, thermoelectric materials, more efficient hydrogen fuel cells, advances in geothermal, wind and oceanic wave power generation, etc... Those are all technologies that are even more high tech than what we have, yet promise a solution to the problem of global warming.
Has global warming driven us extinct yet? Has it driven us back into the stone age, or impacted our desire or ability to continue to progress technologically?
Then it's not fair to say that it's evidence that we can't handle our world. It's only evidence that we handle it somewhat less effectively than we handle more primitive environments, but it certainly doesn't evince the notion that we cannot manage global warming.
Hell, new technologies offer the greatest hope for reversing mankind's effect on the global climate. More efficient photovoltaic cells, thermoelectric materials, more efficient hydrogen fuel cells, advances in geothermal, wind and oceanic wave power generation, etc... Those are all technologies that are even more high tech than what we have, yet promise a solution to the problem of global warming.
Thank you Rpenner. That makes the focus of this discussion clearer.
I have always wondered why politics is seen in such primitive terms. This is as good an answer as any.
As to how well humans are adapting to all the modern gadgetry, I know plenty of people who are having trouble using all the new gadgets. Back in the 1970's, you were not needing to call on tech support for every device you bought.
I have always wondered why politics is seen in such primitive terms. This is as good an answer as any.
As to how well humans are adapting to all the modern gadgetry, I know plenty of people who are having trouble using all the new gadgets. Back in the 1970's, you were not needing to call on tech support for every device you bought.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Jul 16 2009, 03:36 PM)
As to how well humans are adapting to all the modern gadgetry, I know plenty of people who are having trouble using all the new gadgets. Back in the 1970's, you were not needing to call on tech support for every device you bought.
I have not called tech support for any reason in several years. Nor do I know anyone at all who's ever had to call tech support for every piece of technology they own, or even for the majority of the ten most high tech pieces of technology they own.
It's easy to focus on how often you call tech support, but you must consider how often you could be calling tech support for that to have any meaning. You may have called 3 times over your television tuner, twice over your iPhone, and a whopping 5 times over your computer, but you've never called once over your microwave, or your refrigerator. Also, you manage to boot up your computer, log onto the internet, type up your resume in a word processor and play video games without consulting tech support. You manage to make and receive calls on your iPhone without any trouble, as well as browsing the internet, downloading apps and playing music. You manage to watch tv and DVR your favorite shows on your tuner with no problems.
It's only when something breaks that most people call tech support, and the truth is: Technology tends to work more often than it breaks.
Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_effect
I have not called tech support for any reason in several years. Nor do I know anyone at all who's ever had to call tech support for every piece of technology they own, or even for the majority of the ten most high tech pieces of technology they own.
It's easy to focus on how often you call tech support, but you must consider how often you could be calling tech support for that to have any meaning. You may have called 3 times over your television tuner, twice over your iPhone, and a whopping 5 times over your computer, but you've never called once over your microwave, or your refrigerator. Also, you manage to boot up your computer, log onto the internet, type up your resume in a word processor and play video games without consulting tech support. You manage to make and receive calls on your iPhone without any trouble, as well as browsing the internet, downloading apps and playing music. You manage to watch tv and DVR your favorite shows on your tuner with no problems.
It's only when something breaks that most people call tech support, and the truth is: Technology tends to work more often than it breaks.
Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focusing_effect
It seems to me that our major problem is that we now cannot "just get along" with other nations.
If we add to this the fact that we have placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people we can see that morality is the only answer that is sustainable. We can no longer depend upon having greater military power than the other nation because this method leads to the extinction of the species and perhaps all life on this planet.
Morality is about human relationships and if we do not solve this problem we are faced with MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) either through destruction of our environment or through WMD.
If we add to this the fact that we have placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people we can see that morality is the only answer that is sustainable. We can no longer depend upon having greater military power than the other nation because this method leads to the extinction of the species and perhaps all life on this planet.
Morality is about human relationships and if we do not solve this problem we are faced with MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) either through destruction of our environment or through WMD.
Hi Titor Here
Are there any adults in America in 2009 ???
Are there any adults in America in 2009 ???
QUOTE (titor+Jul 31 2009, 12:13 AM)
Hi Titor Here
Are there any adults in America in 2009 ???
Not likely.
"A righteous man lays up an inheritance for his children and his children's children..."
Americans do just the opposite: Spend themselves into irreversible debt at every financial level imaginable.
Nevertheless, America can't afford education programs or new infrastructure, or even maintenance of existing infrastructure, yet about 60% drink habitually and/or smoke a pack of cigarettes or more per day.
The republicans seem only to care about what benefits people in the top 1% of household income, other than that, they honestly don't seem to stand for much of anything any more. While they claim to have certain moral standards, almost nobody actually keeps them.
The democrats all believe in subjective morality, which is to say, no morality whatsoever. While they claim to be the "party of the people" they nevertheless pass regressive taxes, such as the Cap and Trade system. Since there is no alternative energy structure in place, everyone is using the same total amount of carbon anyway nationwide, but now the price of everything is increasing, which hurts middle and low income people (who for some reason, keep voting these idiots into office).
Very soon there will be a "value added tax" to pay for programs. You do the math: value added tax on everything middle and low income families use, so that you can pay for....you guessed it...social programs (supposedly) to help low income families...makes no sense. Its like stealing $50 from someone's wallet, taking half of it to pay for government oversights, and then handing the balance back to them and saying, "Here, I'll help you pay for that!"
===
If our government and citizens were serious about the future of this civilization, there should be better education options, and as someone else stated, for longer duration. There is simply more to be learned now than in previous generations: More about physics, technology, biology, etc. It makes no sense to me that people graduate high school and apparantly cannot read and write at the same level I did in the 4th and 5th grade, and can hardly do arithmetic at all! A big part of this is individual parent responsibility (but of course, they don't even have parents, as the liberal morality, rather lack thereof, has totally destroyed the family unit,) AND the fact that everyone is required to be "politically correct" about everything. If education begins at home, then they will learn nothing at all, because almost all come from wrecked families. There is no discipline allowed in schools, and certainly none is given at home, and of course we can't seperate students based on ability or effort, because that would be "discrimination," so then the smart ones or the hard working ones are punished.
I think all high school curricula (not just the college prep,) should be adjusted to the modern reality.
Do away with "P.E." class. Obviously, the students aren't learning healthy lifestyles anyway, as so many young people are obese anyway. I remember in junior high and high school all the fat people were basicly willing to sit around and do nothing, even at the expense of a letter grade or two, just because they didn't want to be there anyway. So why bother? On the other hand, the atheletic people tend to exercise, run, and play sports with or without the presence of a Physical Education instructor, and "average" people tend to be "average" no matter what, so its pointless waste of 2-4 credit slots in the curriculum.
Require an entry level drafting course, an entry level computer programming course, a business math and/or personal finance course, an astronomy course, whatever. The point is teach people real modern knowledge and real modern skills, and how to think for themselves, not some bad, typically nonsense, poetry and theatre written by a guy who lived before the invention of the steam engine.
Reading and writing classes in both high school and college should be more focused on critical thinking as well as political, technical, and moral issues. Simply reading another one of Shakespeare's plays every year, and etc, is almost a complete waste of time, as they are outdated linguistically and have very little to no relevance to our modern technological civilization; to be honest, they are over-rated anyway with one or two exceptions.
High school reading and writing classes should focus on argumentative writing and critical thinking. Not book report excercises, which are mostly what I remember. When you think about it, as much as 1/6th of a high school students curriculum consists of reading hundreds of years old poems which teach students absolutely nothing, and quite frankly, modern country music or pop music makes better poetry than many of the "classics" anyway. Give at most one semester in such "classic literature" and then drop it, and go on to teaching the students more practical modern skills. They can learn song and poetry from "Hannah Montanna" for goodness sake.
We live in 2009, why the heck is the public school system, including some colleges, teaching skills from 1809?
Are there any adults in America in 2009 ???
Not likely.
"A righteous man lays up an inheritance for his children and his children's children..."
Americans do just the opposite: Spend themselves into irreversible debt at every financial level imaginable.
Nevertheless, America can't afford education programs or new infrastructure, or even maintenance of existing infrastructure, yet about 60% drink habitually and/or smoke a pack of cigarettes or more per day.
The republicans seem only to care about what benefits people in the top 1% of household income, other than that, they honestly don't seem to stand for much of anything any more. While they claim to have certain moral standards, almost nobody actually keeps them.
The democrats all believe in subjective morality, which is to say, no morality whatsoever. While they claim to be the "party of the people" they nevertheless pass regressive taxes, such as the Cap and Trade system. Since there is no alternative energy structure in place, everyone is using the same total amount of carbon anyway nationwide, but now the price of everything is increasing, which hurts middle and low income people (who for some reason, keep voting these idiots into office).
Very soon there will be a "value added tax" to pay for programs. You do the math: value added tax on everything middle and low income families use, so that you can pay for....you guessed it...social programs (supposedly) to help low income families...makes no sense. Its like stealing $50 from someone's wallet, taking half of it to pay for government oversights, and then handing the balance back to them and saying, "Here, I'll help you pay for that!"
===
If our government and citizens were serious about the future of this civilization, there should be better education options, and as someone else stated, for longer duration. There is simply more to be learned now than in previous generations: More about physics, technology, biology, etc. It makes no sense to me that people graduate high school and apparantly cannot read and write at the same level I did in the 4th and 5th grade, and can hardly do arithmetic at all! A big part of this is individual parent responsibility (but of course, they don't even have parents, as the liberal morality, rather lack thereof, has totally destroyed the family unit,) AND the fact that everyone is required to be "politically correct" about everything. If education begins at home, then they will learn nothing at all, because almost all come from wrecked families. There is no discipline allowed in schools, and certainly none is given at home, and of course we can't seperate students based on ability or effort, because that would be "discrimination," so then the smart ones or the hard working ones are punished.
I think all high school curricula (not just the college prep,) should be adjusted to the modern reality.
Do away with "P.E." class. Obviously, the students aren't learning healthy lifestyles anyway, as so many young people are obese anyway. I remember in junior high and high school all the fat people were basicly willing to sit around and do nothing, even at the expense of a letter grade or two, just because they didn't want to be there anyway. So why bother? On the other hand, the atheletic people tend to exercise, run, and play sports with or without the presence of a Physical Education instructor, and "average" people tend to be "average" no matter what, so its pointless waste of 2-4 credit slots in the curriculum.
Require an entry level drafting course, an entry level computer programming course, a business math and/or personal finance course, an astronomy course, whatever. The point is teach people real modern knowledge and real modern skills, and how to think for themselves, not some bad, typically nonsense, poetry and theatre written by a guy who lived before the invention of the steam engine.
Reading and writing classes in both high school and college should be more focused on critical thinking as well as political, technical, and moral issues. Simply reading another one of Shakespeare's plays every year, and etc, is almost a complete waste of time, as they are outdated linguistically and have very little to no relevance to our modern technological civilization; to be honest, they are over-rated anyway with one or two exceptions.
High school reading and writing classes should focus on argumentative writing and critical thinking. Not book report excercises, which are mostly what I remember. When you think about it, as much as 1/6th of a high school students curriculum consists of reading hundreds of years old poems which teach students absolutely nothing, and quite frankly, modern country music or pop music makes better poetry than many of the "classics" anyway. Give at most one semester in such "classic literature" and then drop it, and go on to teaching the students more practical modern skills. They can learn song and poetry from "Hannah Montanna" for goodness sake.
We live in 2009, why the heck is the public school system, including some colleges, teaching skills from 1809?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 12:32 PM)
Americans do just the opposite: Spend themselves into irreversible debt at every financial level imaginable.
Not everyone. Most of us are responsible adults.
So what do education and infrastructure have to do with smoking and drinking? OH YEAH! Taxes on alcohol and tobacco were put into place to fund education and infrastructure. The conclusion? Light up and pour yourself a shot.
So what do education and infrastructure have to do with smoking and drinking? OH YEAH! Taxes on alcohol and tobacco were put into place to fund education and infrastructure. The conclusion? Light up and pour yourself a shot.
The republicans seem only to care about what benefits people in the top 1% of household income, other than that, they honestly don't seem to stand for much of anything any more. While they claim to have certain moral standards, almost nobody actually keeps them.
Moral standards are overrated anyway.
They (relatively) just got into office, and they are working on those very things that you care about. They need time, cooperation, and less flak from the idiots. BTW, "equal rights for people of all sexual orientations" is a very moral policy. Unfortunately, some people think that morality is defined by the completely immoral book that they lovingly refer to as "The Holy Bible."
They (relatively) just got into office, and they are working on those very things that you care about. They need time, cooperation, and less flak from the idiots. BTW, "equal rights for people of all sexual orientations" is a very moral policy. Unfortunately, some people think that morality is defined by the completely immoral book that they lovingly refer to as "The Holy Bible."
Very soon there will be a "value added tax" to pay for programs. You do the math: value added tax on everything middle and low income families use, so that you can pay for....you guessed it...social programs (supposedly) to help low income families...makes no sense. Its like stealing $50 from someone's wallet, taking half of it to pay for government oversights, and then handing the balance back to them and saying, "Here, I'll help you pay for that!"
See tobacco and alcohol taxes.
It's amazing that you graduated from high school without any knowledge of physics, biology or geology. Seriously, how did that happen?
It's amazing that you graduated from high school without any knowledge of physics, biology or geology. Seriously, how did that happen?
I think all high school curricula (not just the college prep,) should be adjusted to the modern reality.
*achem* Like the fact of Evolution?
I'm sorry to hear that you think culture and history are a waste of time.
I'm sorry to hear that you think culture and history are a waste of time.
High school reading and writing classes should focus on argumentative writing and critical thinking. Not book report excercises, which are mostly what I remember. When you think about it, as much as 1/6th of a high school students curriculum consists of reading hundreds of years old poems which teach students absolutely nothing, and quite frankly, modern country music or pop music makes better poetry than many of the "classics" anyway. Give at most one semester in such "classic literature" and then drop it, and go on to teaching the students more practical modern skills. They can learn song and poetry from "Hannah Montanna" for goodness sake.
"Argumentative writing" has very little benefit, as it just teaches students how to be obstinate and stubborn. High School students don't need to be arguing, they need to be learning. Book reports are a valuable tool for verifying reading comprehension.
Not everyone. Most of us are responsible adults.
QUOTE
Nevertheless, America can't afford education programs or new infrastructure, or even maintenance of existing infrastructure, yet about 60% drink habitually and/or smoke a pack of cigarettes or more per day.
So what do education and infrastructure have to do with smoking and drinking? OH YEAH! Taxes on alcohol and tobacco were put into place to fund education and infrastructure. The conclusion? Light up and pour yourself a shot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nevertheless, America can't afford education programs or new infrastructure, or even maintenance of existing infrastructure, yet about 60% drink habitually and/or smoke a pack of cigarettes or more per day. |
So what do education and infrastructure have to do with smoking and drinking? OH YEAH! Taxes on alcohol and tobacco were put into place to fund education and infrastructure. The conclusion? Light up and pour yourself a shot.
The republicans seem only to care about what benefits people in the top 1% of household income, other than that, they honestly don't seem to stand for much of anything any more. While they claim to have certain moral standards, almost nobody actually keeps them.
Moral standards are overrated anyway.
QUOTE
The democrats all believe in subjective morality, which is to say, no morality whatsoever. While they claim to be the "party of the people" they nevertheless pass regressive taxes, such as the Cap and Trade system. Since there is no alternative energy structure in place, everyone is using the same total amount of carbon anyway nationwide, but now the price of everything is increasing, which hurts middle and low income people (who for some reason, keep voting these idiots into office).
They (relatively) just got into office, and they are working on those very things that you care about. They need time, cooperation, and less flak from the idiots. BTW, "equal rights for people of all sexual orientations" is a very moral policy. Unfortunately, some people think that morality is defined by the completely immoral book that they lovingly refer to as "The Holy Bible."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The democrats all believe in subjective morality, which is to say, no morality whatsoever. While they claim to be the "party of the people" they nevertheless pass regressive taxes, such as the Cap and Trade system. Since there is no alternative energy structure in place, everyone is using the same total amount of carbon anyway nationwide, but now the price of everything is increasing, which hurts middle and low income people (who for some reason, keep voting these idiots into office). |
They (relatively) just got into office, and they are working on those very things that you care about. They need time, cooperation, and less flak from the idiots. BTW, "equal rights for people of all sexual orientations" is a very moral policy. Unfortunately, some people think that morality is defined by the completely immoral book that they lovingly refer to as "The Holy Bible."
Very soon there will be a "value added tax" to pay for programs. You do the math: value added tax on everything middle and low income families use, so that you can pay for....you guessed it...social programs (supposedly) to help low income families...makes no sense. Its like stealing $50 from someone's wallet, taking half of it to pay for government oversights, and then handing the balance back to them and saying, "Here, I'll help you pay for that!"
See tobacco and alcohol taxes.
QUOTE
There is simply more to be learned now than in previous generations: More about physics, technology, biology, etc. It makes no sense to me that people graduate high school and apparantly cannot read and write at the same level I did in the 4th and 5th grade, and can hardly do arithmetic at all! A big part of this is individual parent responsibility (but of course, they don't even have parents, as the liberal morality, rather lack thereof, has totally destroyed the family unit,) AND the fact that everyone is required to be "politically correct" about everything.
It's amazing that you graduated from high school without any knowledge of physics, biology or geology. Seriously, how did that happen?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is simply more to be learned now than in previous generations: More about physics, technology, biology, etc. It makes no sense to me that people graduate high school and apparantly cannot read and write at the same level I did in the 4th and 5th grade, and can hardly do arithmetic at all! A big part of this is individual parent responsibility (but of course, they don't even have parents, as the liberal morality, rather lack thereof, has totally destroyed the family unit,) AND the fact that everyone is required to be "politically correct" about everything. |
It's amazing that you graduated from high school without any knowledge of physics, biology or geology. Seriously, how did that happen?
I think all high school curricula (not just the college prep,) should be adjusted to the modern reality.
*achem* Like the fact of Evolution?
QUOTE
Reading and writing classes in both high school and college should be more focused on critical thinking as well as political, technical, and moral issues. Simply reading another one of Shakespeare's plays every year, and etc, is almost a complete waste of time, as they are outdated linguistically and have very little to no relevance to our modern technological civilization; to be honest, they are over-rated anyway with one or two exceptions.
I'm sorry to hear that you think culture and history are a waste of time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Reading and writing classes in both high school and college should be more focused on critical thinking as well as political, technical, and moral issues. Simply reading another one of Shakespeare's plays every year, and etc, is almost a complete waste of time, as they are outdated linguistically and have very little to no relevance to our modern technological civilization; to be honest, they are over-rated anyway with one or two exceptions. |
I'm sorry to hear that you think culture and history are a waste of time.
High school reading and writing classes should focus on argumentative writing and critical thinking. Not book report excercises, which are mostly what I remember. When you think about it, as much as 1/6th of a high school students curriculum consists of reading hundreds of years old poems which teach students absolutely nothing, and quite frankly, modern country music or pop music makes better poetry than many of the "classics" anyway. Give at most one semester in such "classic literature" and then drop it, and go on to teaching the students more practical modern skills. They can learn song and poetry from "Hannah Montanna" for goodness sake.
"Argumentative writing" has very little benefit, as it just teaches students how to be obstinate and stubborn. High School students don't need to be arguing, they need to be learning. Book reports are a valuable tool for verifying reading comprehension.
Well... another nonsensical post by Quantum. Almost everything is incorrect but I will just pick a few to demonstrate.
Statistics you pull out of your rear end are unlikely to be believable.
Statistics you pull out of your rear end are unlikely to be believable.
In the United States, an estimated 26.2 million men (23.5 percent) and 20.9 million women (18.1 percent) are smokers. These people are at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. The latest estimates for persons age 18 and older show...*
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 2006, National Center for Health Statistics
Not even close to 60%
Not even close to 60%
The democrats all believe in subjective morality,
So... you know all the Democrats then? Impressive... also.. BS.
It's spelled... "apparently".. not "apparantly". Obviously you have not gotten much past the 4th grade yourself.
The rest is so ... arrogant and narrow minded... that it's not worth mentioning. Let's let kids ignore history, arts, music, etc. Brilliant.. that should really help..
I find it amusing that you want schools to teach morals.
Which morals?
Yours? Not a chance with my kids.
QUOTE
yet about 60% drink habitually and/or smoke a pack of cigarettes or more per day.
Statistics you pull out of your rear end are unlikely to be believable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| yet about 60% drink habitually and/or smoke a pack of cigarettes or more per day. |
Statistics you pull out of your rear end are unlikely to be believable.
In the United States, an estimated 26.2 million men (23.5 percent) and 20.9 million women (18.1 percent) are smokers. These people are at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. The latest estimates for persons age 18 and older show...*
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 2006, National Center for Health Statistics
QUOTE
* In 2005, about 10.8 million persons ages 12-20 (28.2% of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.2 million (18.8%) were binge drinkers, and 2.3 million (6.0%) were heavy drinkers.
2005 SAMHSA National Survey on Drug Use and Health
2005 SAMHSA National Survey on Drug Use and Health
Not even close to 60%
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| * In 2005, about 10.8 million persons ages 12-20 (28.2% of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.2 million (18.8%) were binge drinkers, and 2.3 million (6.0%) were heavy drinkers. 2005 SAMHSA National Survey on Drug Use and Health |
Not even close to 60%
The democrats all believe in subjective morality,
So... you know all the Democrats then? Impressive... also.. BS.
QUOTE
t makes no sense to me that people graduate high school and apparantly cannot read and write at the same level I did in the 4th and 5th grade
It's spelled... "apparently".. not "apparantly". Obviously you have not gotten much past the 4th grade yourself.
The rest is so ... arrogant and narrow minded... that it's not worth mentioning. Let's let kids ignore history, arts, music, etc. Brilliant.. that should really help..
I find it amusing that you want schools to teach morals.
Which morals?
Yours? Not a chance with my kids.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 2 2009, 12:35 PM)
Well... another nonsensical post by Quantum. Almost everything is incorrect but I will just pick a few to demonstrate.
Statistics you pull out of your rear end are unlikely to be believable.
Not even close to 60%
So... you know all the Democrats then? Impressive... also.. BS.
It's spelled... "apparently".. not "apparantly". Obviously you have not gotten much past the 4th grade yourself.
Considering 12-20 year olds aren't supposed to be drinking at all, am I supposed to be impressed by that statistic? It simply shows the degree of disobedience and lawlessness of our civilization. If anything, it supports my position.
I don't have to know "all" of the democrats when I can watch the idiots they vote for on television every day of the week.
What the hell good is it doing anyone to take all those courses on things that cannot and do not benefit them in real modern life?
Ok, so like 1 in...forever... will become a country music star or an artist, gee, that was really worth it teaching music to everyone at the state's expense when they could have been learning technical skills.
I never said to do away with those things completely anyway, but for goodness sakes, you spend something like 6-10 credit hours total teaching students history, which often is taught as little more than who killed who and when, but maybe 1 or 2 credits on anything related to technical skills or trades. Why? That's completely backwards. I don't need to know every battle that a bunch of warmongering idiots fought hundreds or thousands of years ago. If someone wants to be a historian, anthropologist or archeologist, fine, offer them those courses, but beyond the high notes, its a complete waste of a lot of other students' time that could be better spent on trade skills, math, and science.
What the hell good is it doing anyone to take all those courses on things that cannot and do not benefit them in real modern life?
Ok, so like 1 in...forever... will become a country music star or an artist, gee, that was really worth it teaching music to everyone at the state's expense when they could have been learning technical skills.
I never said to do away with those things completely anyway, but for goodness sakes, you spend something like 6-10 credit hours total teaching students history, which often is taught as little more than who killed who and when, but maybe 1 or 2 credits on anything related to technical skills or trades. Why? That's completely backwards. I don't need to know every battle that a bunch of warmongering idiots fought hundreds or thousands of years ago. If someone wants to be a historian, anthropologist or archeologist, fine, offer them those courses, but beyond the high notes, its a complete waste of a lot of other students' time that could be better spent on trade skills, math, and science.
I find it amusing that you want schools to teach morals.
Which morals?
Yours? Not a chance with my kids.
Of course not, because you pretty much believe there is no such thing as right and wrong, right? As long as you don't murder or rape someone, everything's just peachy.
No.. it just shows that you make up statistics without even looking them up, then base your position on your made up stats.
No.. it just shows that you make up statistics without even looking them up, then base your position on your made up stats.
I don't have to know "all" of the democrats when I can watch the idiots they vote for on television every day of the week
You do have to know them if you are going to claim to know what they believe.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Do you really believe that learning from past errors is wrong? If that is the case, I am surprised that you survive going anywhere.
Here's a hint to remember... the stove is hot when it's turned on. A little bit of history for you to remember that might be useful.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Do you really believe that learning from past errors is wrong? If that is the case, I am surprised that you survive going anywhere.
Here's a hint to remember... the stove is hot when it's turned on. A little bit of history for you to remember that might be useful.
Of course not, because you pretty much believe there is no such thing as right and wrong, right?
You have no idea what I believe.
Again.. it would be nice if you just didn't make stuff up as though it were facts. There is a difference between what you made up and what actually exists.
You appear to be arguing with an adolescent. The 'I know everything I need to know' posture is pretty typical of teenagers.
Mine doesn't do that.
Maybe I should get him to argue here, but he considers such debates as being totally useless.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
That's Ironic. This whole bunch of reverse-fascist progressives on this forum, and throughout much of the democratic party, want to see 5/6ths of the world population erased in a modern Eugenics-based holocaust, a gradual one mind, but nevertheless a holocaust, and you're telling ME about learning from history? They have the audacity to call ME the Fascist! For all I know, you might be one of them.
"History" tells me that people who go around calling for the "extermination of religion" and other such similar statements quickly follow suit by exterminating humans.
Who on this forum keeps using such terminology?
Well, its FlyingButtressman, Capracius, and their buddies, of course. There are others, I just don't care to open another window and go gold mining, though similar statements are made often here.
Anyway, the point is, look around. "History" is repeating itself right here with your subjective morality, progressive atheist friends who want to see 5/6th of us dead through "attrition and birth control", as one of them put it.
Hey guys, since you want "attrition" to reduce human population, why not make us an example by being the first to go? If your motives are honourable, quit taking your meds and just die next time you get sick. Show us all how to "attrition" our human population down to 1 billion.
Statistics you pull out of your rear end are unlikely to be believable.
Not even close to 60%
So... you know all the Democrats then? Impressive... also.. BS.
It's spelled... "apparently".. not "apparantly". Obviously you have not gotten much past the 4th grade yourself.
Considering 12-20 year olds aren't supposed to be drinking at all, am I supposed to be impressed by that statistic? It simply shows the degree of disobedience and lawlessness of our civilization. If anything, it supports my position.
I don't have to know "all" of the democrats when I can watch the idiots they vote for on television every day of the week.
QUOTE
The rest is so ... arrogant and narrow minded... that it's not worth mentioning. Let's let kids ignore history, arts, music, etc. Brilliant.. that should really help..
What the hell good is it doing anyone to take all those courses on things that cannot and do not benefit them in real modern life?
Ok, so like 1 in...forever... will become a country music star or an artist, gee, that was really worth it teaching music to everyone at the state's expense when they could have been learning technical skills.
I never said to do away with those things completely anyway, but for goodness sakes, you spend something like 6-10 credit hours total teaching students history, which often is taught as little more than who killed who and when, but maybe 1 or 2 credits on anything related to technical skills or trades. Why? That's completely backwards. I don't need to know every battle that a bunch of warmongering idiots fought hundreds or thousands of years ago. If someone wants to be a historian, anthropologist or archeologist, fine, offer them those courses, but beyond the high notes, its a complete waste of a lot of other students' time that could be better spent on trade skills, math, and science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The rest is so ... arrogant and narrow minded... that it's not worth mentioning. Let's let kids ignore history, arts, music, etc. Brilliant.. that should really help.. |
What the hell good is it doing anyone to take all those courses on things that cannot and do not benefit them in real modern life?
Ok, so like 1 in...forever... will become a country music star or an artist, gee, that was really worth it teaching music to everyone at the state's expense when they could have been learning technical skills.
I never said to do away with those things completely anyway, but for goodness sakes, you spend something like 6-10 credit hours total teaching students history, which often is taught as little more than who killed who and when, but maybe 1 or 2 credits on anything related to technical skills or trades. Why? That's completely backwards. I don't need to know every battle that a bunch of warmongering idiots fought hundreds or thousands of years ago. If someone wants to be a historian, anthropologist or archeologist, fine, offer them those courses, but beyond the high notes, its a complete waste of a lot of other students' time that could be better spent on trade skills, math, and science.
I find it amusing that you want schools to teach morals.
Which morals?
Yours? Not a chance with my kids.
Of course not, because you pretty much believe there is no such thing as right and wrong, right? As long as you don't murder or rape someone, everything's just peachy.
QUOTE
Considering 12-20 year olds aren't supposed to be drinking at all, am I supposed to be impressed by that statistic? It simply shows the degree of disobedience and lawlessness of our civilization. If anything, it supports my position.
No.. it just shows that you make up statistics without even looking them up, then base your position on your made up stats.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Considering 12-20 year olds aren't supposed to be drinking at all, am I supposed to be impressed by that statistic? It simply shows the degree of disobedience and lawlessness of our civilization. If anything, it supports my position. |
No.. it just shows that you make up statistics without even looking them up, then base your position on your made up stats.
I don't have to know "all" of the democrats when I can watch the idiots they vote for on television every day of the week
You do have to know them if you are going to claim to know what they believe.
QUOTE
What the hell good is it doing anyone to take all those courses on things that cannot and do not benefit them in real modern life?
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Do you really believe that learning from past errors is wrong? If that is the case, I am surprised that you survive going anywhere.
Here's a hint to remember... the stove is hot when it's turned on. A little bit of history for you to remember that might be useful.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What the hell good is it doing anyone to take all those courses on things that cannot and do not benefit them in real modern life? |
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Do you really believe that learning from past errors is wrong? If that is the case, I am surprised that you survive going anywhere.
Here's a hint to remember... the stove is hot when it's turned on. A little bit of history for you to remember that might be useful.
Of course not, because you pretty much believe there is no such thing as right and wrong, right?
You have no idea what I believe.
Again.. it would be nice if you just didn't make stuff up as though it were facts. There is a difference between what you made up and what actually exists.
QUOTE
Again.. it would be nice if you just didn't make stuff up as though it were facts. There is a difference between what you made up and what actually exists.
You appear to be arguing with an adolescent. The 'I know everything I need to know' posture is pretty typical of teenagers.
QUOTE
The 'I know everything I need to know' posture is pretty typical of teenagers.
Mine doesn't do that.
Maybe I should get him to argue here, but he considers such debates as being totally useless.
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 2 2009, 03:19 PM)
You appear to be arguing with an adolescent. The 'I know everything I need to know' posture is pretty typical of teenagers.
I'm amazed by the number of retirees on this forum who act like adolescents. Maybe the "wisdom that comes with age" isn't so good when it comes to science?
I'm amazed by the number of retirees on this forum who act like adolescents. Maybe the "wisdom that comes with age" isn't so good when it comes to science?
There are other fora, you know.
Specifically, places where adults are treated with respect, and children of the sort you bring up here are shown the door.
People will play where they feel most comfortable, though, so y'all just keep on...
Specifically, places where adults are treated with respect, and children of the sort you bring up here are shown the door.
People will play where they feel most comfortable, though, so y'all just keep on...
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 2 2009, 02:09 PM)
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
That's Ironic. This whole bunch of reverse-fascist progressives on this forum, and throughout much of the democratic party, want to see 5/6ths of the world population erased in a modern Eugenics-based holocaust, a gradual one mind, but nevertheless a holocaust, and you're telling ME about learning from history? They have the audacity to call ME the Fascist! For all I know, you might be one of them.
"History" tells me that people who go around calling for the "extermination of religion" and other such similar statements quickly follow suit by exterminating humans.
Who on this forum keeps using such terminology?
Well, its FlyingButtressman, Capracius, and their buddies, of course. There are others, I just don't care to open another window and go gold mining, though similar statements are made often here.
Anyway, the point is, look around. "History" is repeating itself right here with your subjective morality, progressive atheist friends who want to see 5/6th of us dead through "attrition and birth control", as one of them put it.
Hey guys, since you want "attrition" to reduce human population, why not make us an example by being the first to go? If your motives are honourable, quit taking your meds and just die next time you get sick. Show us all how to "attrition" our human population down to 1 billion.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 08:42 PM)
That's Ironic. This whole bunch of reverse-fascist progressives on this forum, and throughout much of the democratic party, want to see 5/6ths of the world population erased in a modern Eugenics-based holocaust, a gradual one mind, but nevertheless a holocaust, and you're telling ME about learning from history? They have the audacity to call ME the Fascist! For all I know, you might be one of them.
What? You might as well yell out "I'm a purple chicken!" for all the sense that made. Reverse fascism? What the hell is that? You are the one who wants to dictate how people live their lives.
And who here advocates extermination of religion? I'm not against religion per-se, but I am very against religions that motivate people to do immoral things.
And who here advocates extermination of religion? I'm not against religion per-se, but I am very against religions that motivate people to do immoral things.
Well, its FlyingButtressman, Capracius, and their buddies, of course. There are others, I just don't care to open another window and go gold mining, though similar statements are made often here.
??? Are you saying that you refuse to do research?
Believe whatever you want fuckwit, it doesn't make it true. You can be as deluded as you want to be.
The world doesn't follow your or your imaginary god's rules. Get over it.
What? You might as well yell out "I'm a purple chicken!" for all the sense that made. Reverse fascism? What the hell is that? You are the one who wants to dictate how people live their lives.
QUOTE
"History" tells me that people who go around calling for the "extermination of religion" and other such similar statements quickly follow suit by exterminating humans.
And who here advocates extermination of religion? I'm not against religion per-se, but I am very against religions that motivate people to do immoral things.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "History" tells me that people who go around calling for the "extermination of religion" and other such similar statements quickly follow suit by exterminating humans. |
And who here advocates extermination of religion? I'm not against religion per-se, but I am very against religions that motivate people to do immoral things.
Well, its FlyingButtressman, Capracius, and their buddies, of course. There are others, I just don't care to open another window and go gold mining, though similar statements are made often here.
??? Are you saying that you refuse to do research?
QUOTE
Anyway, the point is, look around. "History" is repeating itself right here with your subjective morality, progressive atheist friends who want to see 5/6th of us dead through "attrition and birth control", as one of them put it.
Believe whatever you want fuckwit, it doesn't make it true. You can be as deluded as you want to be.
The world doesn't follow your or your imaginary god's rules. Get over it.
Wow.. quite the load of bile coming from Quantum...
Would that be a communist? If so, I am not... I am a Canadian, therefore most likely socialist, though that would not be exactly accurate either.
Would that be a communist? If so, I am not... I am a Canadian, therefore most likely socialist, though that would not be exactly accurate either.
want to see 5/6ths of the world population erased in a modern Eugenics-based holocaust,
A ridiculous claim. Saying that birth control would reduce our population, since one generation would inevitably die off of old age is hardly a holocaust... unless you want to indict the Grim Reaper Himself (or Herself) for genocide.
My friends don't tend to be atheist. They tend more towards pagan. And again.. if you consider dying of old age attrition... it's a hard one to pin on the atheists. They didn't invent aging as far as I know.
My friends don't tend to be atheist. They tend more towards pagan. And again.. if you consider dying of old age attrition... it's a hard one to pin on the atheists. They didn't invent aging as far as I know.
Show us all how to "attrition" our human population down to 1 billion.
Easy.. attrition via birth control and OLD AGE.
No one gets killed. Do you get that?
Seriously... learn to read an argument before trying to refute it.
QUOTE
This whole bunch of reverse-fascist progressives on this forum,
Would that be a communist? If so, I am not... I am a Canadian, therefore most likely socialist, though that would not be exactly accurate either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This whole bunch of reverse-fascist progressives on this forum, |
Would that be a communist? If so, I am not... I am a Canadian, therefore most likely socialist, though that would not be exactly accurate either.
want to see 5/6ths of the world population erased in a modern Eugenics-based holocaust,
A ridiculous claim. Saying that birth control would reduce our population, since one generation would inevitably die off of old age is hardly a holocaust... unless you want to indict the Grim Reaper Himself (or Herself) for genocide.
QUOTE
History" is repeating itself right here with your subjective morality, progressive atheist friends who want to see 5/6th of us dead through "attrition and birth control", as one of them put it.
My friends don't tend to be atheist. They tend more towards pagan. And again.. if you consider dying of old age attrition... it's a hard one to pin on the atheists. They didn't invent aging as far as I know.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| History" is repeating itself right here with your subjective morality, progressive atheist friends who want to see 5/6th of us dead through "attrition and birth control", as one of them put it. |
My friends don't tend to be atheist. They tend more towards pagan. And again.. if you consider dying of old age attrition... it's a hard one to pin on the atheists. They didn't invent aging as far as I know.
Show us all how to "attrition" our human population down to 1 billion.
Easy.. attrition via birth control and OLD AGE.
No one gets killed. Do you get that?
Seriously... learn to read an argument before trying to refute it.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 2 2009, 04:32 PM)
The point is teach people real modern knowledge and real modern skills, and how to think for themselves, not some bad, typically nonsense, poetry and theatre written by a guy who lived before the invention of the steam engine.
This from someone who's ideal vision of a modern society is based on a 3500 year old creation myth.
This from someone who's ideal vision of a modern society is based on a 3500 year old creation myth.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 3 2009, 12:54 AM)
And who here advocates extermination of religion? I'm not against religion per-se, but I am very against religions that motivate people to do immoral things.
I do. Tomorrow if possible. Clinging to mythology is childish. It's done because it's an easy answer. Though most every human is capable of rational thought most prefer to accept "magic" because it satisfies them sufficiently to come to terms with the important questions we all wonder about. Using their reasoning faculties apparently gives them a headache.
Religionists mentally abuse their children and many of their doctrines encourage them to proliferate in huge numbers. Such institutional methodologies ensure the continuation of their dogma because they can brainwash em from birth. Buddy Jesus says, "Get 'em while they're young!"
Religion is vile. It's adherents are pitiful.
I do. Tomorrow if possible. Clinging to mythology is childish. It's done because it's an easy answer. Though most every human is capable of rational thought most prefer to accept "magic" because it satisfies them sufficiently to come to terms with the important questions we all wonder about. Using their reasoning faculties apparently gives them a headache.
Religionists mentally abuse their children and many of their doctrines encourage them to proliferate in huge numbers. Such institutional methodologies ensure the continuation of their dogma because they can brainwash em from birth. Buddy Jesus says, "Get 'em while they're young!"
Religion is vile. It's adherents are pitiful.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 3 2009, 08:30 PM)
I do. Tomorrow if possible. Clinging to mythology is childish. It's done because it's an easy answer. Though most every human is capable of rational thought most prefer to accept "magic" because it satisfies them sufficiently to come to terms with the important questions we all wonder about. Using their reasoning faculties apparently gives them a headache.
Religionists mentally abuse their children and many of their doctrines encourage them to proliferate in huge numbers. Such institutional methodologies ensure the continuation of their dogma because they can brainwash em from birth. Buddy Jesus says, "Get 'em while they're young!"
Religion is vile. It's adherents are pitiful.
I share your sentiments on the subject, but I don't think that our goals will be accomplished by denouncing religion as nonsense and foolishness. If we are going to win the hearts and minds of the people, we have to portray ourselves as tolerant and as being above petty religious squabbles. We must not evangelize.
Our best strategy is to live life to its fullest. The best proof against religion is the fact that religious people are not better, not more blessed and not more moral than atheists. If atheists are successful, generous, kind and loving, then xians will be forced to reconsider how their religion makes them better people.
Religionists mentally abuse their children and many of their doctrines encourage them to proliferate in huge numbers. Such institutional methodologies ensure the continuation of their dogma because they can brainwash em from birth. Buddy Jesus says, "Get 'em while they're young!"
Religion is vile. It's adherents are pitiful.
I share your sentiments on the subject, but I don't think that our goals will be accomplished by denouncing religion as nonsense and foolishness. If we are going to win the hearts and minds of the people, we have to portray ourselves as tolerant and as being above petty religious squabbles. We must not evangelize.
Our best strategy is to live life to its fullest. The best proof against religion is the fact that religious people are not better, not more blessed and not more moral than atheists. If atheists are successful, generous, kind and loving, then xians will be forced to reconsider how their religion makes them better people.
What about us poor overlooked agnostics?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Sep 3 2009, 10:59 PM)
What about us poor overlooked agnostics?
Can atheists and agnostics join forces against religious certainty?
Then again, you agnostics are shifty, untrustworthy...
In the words of the immortal Stephen Colbert: PICK A SIDE! WE'RE AT WAR!
Can atheists and agnostics join forces against religious certainty?
Then again, you agnostics are shifty, untrustworthy...
In the words of the immortal Stephen Colbert: PICK A SIDE! WE'RE AT WAR!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 01:13 AM)
I share your sentiments on the subject, but I don't think that our goals will be accomplished by denouncing religion as nonsense and foolishness. If we are going to win the hearts and minds of the people, we have to portray ourselves as tolerant and as being above petty religious squabbles. We must not evangelize.
Our best strategy is to live life to its fullest. The best proof against religion is the fact that religious people are not better, not more blessed and not more moral than atheists. If atheists are successful, generous, kind and loving, then xians will be forced to reconsider how their religion makes them better people.
I don't know. That seems like coddling them. Haven't men of reason being doing that for a long long long long time?
I think without a concentrated effort by people dedicated to the the same goal that no existing system can be undone. Marx and Engels were right in their assessments of basic human nature. So unless and until a more virulent (or if you will "extremist") set of atheists come together in some sort of "Illuminati" power structure then religion will survive.
It will likely take hundreds of years to completely banish these stupid mythologies. Until then we are doomed to have to put up with their backward-assness which will continue to attempt to get in the way of societal, technological and cultural progress.
Religious indoctrination of children IS child abuse. --- so yes ... I advocate that a secular state has the responsibility to remove these abused children from their parents. And those parents who refuse to stop brainwashing their kids should be jailed.
Our best strategy is to live life to its fullest. The best proof against religion is the fact that religious people are not better, not more blessed and not more moral than atheists. If atheists are successful, generous, kind and loving, then xians will be forced to reconsider how their religion makes them better people.
I don't know. That seems like coddling them. Haven't men of reason being doing that for a long long long long time?
I think without a concentrated effort by people dedicated to the the same goal that no existing system can be undone. Marx and Engels were right in their assessments of basic human nature. So unless and until a more virulent (or if you will "extremist") set of atheists come together in some sort of "Illuminati" power structure then religion will survive.
It will likely take hundreds of years to completely banish these stupid mythologies. Until then we are doomed to have to put up with their backward-assness which will continue to attempt to get in the way of societal, technological and cultural progress.
Religious indoctrination of children IS child abuse. --- so yes ... I advocate that a secular state has the responsibility to remove these abused children from their parents. And those parents who refuse to stop brainwashing their kids should be jailed.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 3 2009, 11:30 PM)
I don't know. That seems like coddling them. Haven't men of reason being doing that for a long long long long time?
Yes, and now atheism is more common than it has ever been.
Extremism is what makes religion bad. Any ideology that encourages or allows extreme behavior is wrong. We have to analyze what make religion dangerous or else we are in danger of following the same path.
Extremism is what makes religion bad. Any ideology that encourages or allows extreme behavior is wrong. We have to analyze what make religion dangerous or else we are in danger of following the same path.
It will likely take hundreds of years to completely banish these stupid mythologies. Until then we are doomed to have to put up with their backward-assness which will continue to attempt to get in the way of societal, technological and cultural progress.
Luckily we have seen this trend accelerate in recent times.
There are levels of indoctrination, from the harmless to the dangerous. I don't have any problem with parents raising their kids within their religion (who can blame them?), but I do have a problem when they try to pass down "dangerous" ignorance. I have a problem with parents teaching their kids that science wrong whenever it conflicts with faith. I have a problem with parents teaching their kids that some other group of people is evil for some godforsaken reason.
The last thing we want to do is portray ourselves as extremists. That will alienate the majority of people in this country and cause a resurgence of religious faith. We need to be the light of intellectual development, not the angry finger-pointers. Telling parents that they can't raise their kids with their religion would cause massive backlash.
This is where we diverge again. I consider any level of lies told to children by any institution based on religion as dangerous. It matters not to me if the lie is about a wonderful everlasting life after death or something more acute like martyrdom earns 72 virgins. They are intrinsically the same.
I'm aware most folks consider the general comfort given by religion to be something mild. But it isn't. It's a full-on hardcore affront to reason.
I'm offended by ignorance and a fairy tale Santa that knows when you've been bad or good (i.e... the god of Abraham) is a complete rejection of reason.
This is where we diverge again. I consider any level of lies told to children by any institution based on religion as dangerous. It matters not to me if the lie is about a wonderful everlasting life after death or something more acute like martyrdom earns 72 virgins. They are intrinsically the same.
I'm aware most folks consider the general comfort given by religion to be something mild. But it isn't. It's a full-on hardcore affront to reason.
I'm offended by ignorance and a fairy tale Santa that knows when you've been bad or good (i.e... the god of Abraham) is a complete rejection of reason.
The last thing we want to do is portray ourselves as extremists. That will alienate the majority of people in this country and cause a resurgence of religious faith. We need to be the light of intellectual development, not the angry finger-pointers. Telling parents that they can't raise their kids with their religion would cause massive backlash.
Which is why I mentioned some sort of Atheist "Illuminati". Atheists will have to actually do what all these religionist nutbags are afraid of. They'll have to conspire. They'll have to get into positions that allow them to whittle away at the dogma. Science has killed god ... unfortunately it has been useless at telling everyone. Gaining political and economic power is the key. Being in control of media of course is perhaps the most important key to it all. Then when we finally get to the point where science CAN explain everything ... the nonexistence of their silly deities will be clear to all. They'll be marginalized and ripe to be put in jail and have their children taken away by the state.
Yes, and now atheism is more common than it has ever been.
QUOTE
I think without a concentrated effort by people dedicated to the the same goal that no existing system can be undone. Marx and Engels were right in their assessments of basic human nature. So unless and until a more virulent (or if you will "extremist") set of atheists come together in some sort of "Illuminati" power structure then religion will survive.
Extremism is what makes religion bad. Any ideology that encourages or allows extreme behavior is wrong. We have to analyze what make religion dangerous or else we are in danger of following the same path.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think without a concentrated effort by people dedicated to the the same goal that no existing system can be undone. Marx and Engels were right in their assessments of basic human nature. So unless and until a more virulent (or if you will "extremist") set of atheists come together in some sort of "Illuminati" power structure then religion will survive. |
Extremism is what makes religion bad. Any ideology that encourages or allows extreme behavior is wrong. We have to analyze what make religion dangerous or else we are in danger of following the same path.
It will likely take hundreds of years to completely banish these stupid mythologies. Until then we are doomed to have to put up with their backward-assness which will continue to attempt to get in the way of societal, technological and cultural progress.
Luckily we have seen this trend accelerate in recent times.
QUOTE
Religious indoctrination of children IS child abuse. --- so yes ... I advocate that a secular state has the responsibility to remove these abused children from their parents. And those parents who refuse to stop brainwashing their kids should be jailed.
There are levels of indoctrination, from the harmless to the dangerous. I don't have any problem with parents raising their kids within their religion (who can blame them?), but I do have a problem when they try to pass down "dangerous" ignorance. I have a problem with parents teaching their kids that science wrong whenever it conflicts with faith. I have a problem with parents teaching their kids that some other group of people is evil for some godforsaken reason.
The last thing we want to do is portray ourselves as extremists. That will alienate the majority of people in this country and cause a resurgence of religious faith. We need to be the light of intellectual development, not the angry finger-pointers. Telling parents that they can't raise their kids with their religion would cause massive backlash.
QUOTE
There are levels of indoctrination, from the harmless to the dangerous. I don't have any problem with parents raising their kids within their religion (who can blame them?), but I do have a problem when they try to pass down "dangerous" ignorance.
This is where we diverge again. I consider any level of lies told to children by any institution based on religion as dangerous. It matters not to me if the lie is about a wonderful everlasting life after death or something more acute like martyrdom earns 72 virgins. They are intrinsically the same.
I'm aware most folks consider the general comfort given by religion to be something mild. But it isn't. It's a full-on hardcore affront to reason.
I'm offended by ignorance and a fairy tale Santa that knows when you've been bad or good (i.e... the god of Abraham) is a complete rejection of reason.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are levels of indoctrination, from the harmless to the dangerous. I don't have any problem with parents raising their kids within their religion (who can blame them?), but I do have a problem when they try to pass down "dangerous" ignorance. |
This is where we diverge again. I consider any level of lies told to children by any institution based on religion as dangerous. It matters not to me if the lie is about a wonderful everlasting life after death or something more acute like martyrdom earns 72 virgins. They are intrinsically the same.
I'm aware most folks consider the general comfort given by religion to be something mild. But it isn't. It's a full-on hardcore affront to reason.
I'm offended by ignorance and a fairy tale Santa that knows when you've been bad or good (i.e... the god of Abraham) is a complete rejection of reason.
The last thing we want to do is portray ourselves as extremists. That will alienate the majority of people in this country and cause a resurgence of religious faith. We need to be the light of intellectual development, not the angry finger-pointers. Telling parents that they can't raise their kids with their religion would cause massive backlash.
Which is why I mentioned some sort of Atheist "Illuminati". Atheists will have to actually do what all these religionist nutbags are afraid of. They'll have to conspire. They'll have to get into positions that allow them to whittle away at the dogma. Science has killed god ... unfortunately it has been useless at telling everyone. Gaining political and economic power is the key. Being in control of media of course is perhaps the most important key to it all. Then when we finally get to the point where science CAN explain everything ... the nonexistence of their silly deities will be clear to all. They'll be marginalized and ripe to be put in jail and have their children taken away by the state.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 4 2009, 07:14 AM)
Then when we finally get to the point where science CAN explain everything ... the nonexistence of their silly deities will be clear to all. They'll be marginalized and ripe to be put in jail and have their children taken away by the state.
Unfortunately science as practiced by Homo sapiens will never be able to explain everything, so even if you manage to someday eliminate the squabbles that result from religious behavior, we'll still be stuck with the rest of the irrational behavior that seems inherent in our species. Improvement in the ability to reason will likely be left to a higher branch of the evolutionary tree.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 4 2009, 09:06 AM)
Unfortunately science as practiced by Homo sapiens will never be able to explain everything, so even if you manage to someday eliminate the squabbles that result from religious behavior, we'll still be stuck with the rest of the irrational behavior that seems inherent in our species. Improvement in the ability to reason will likely be left to a higher branch of the evolutionary tree.
We've explained everything that most rational people care about. You can point out any phenomenon that occurs during the course of your daily life, and science can explain it. The things that science has yet to explain are too obscure for most people to even understand the question, let alone understand the answer. The origins of the universe an obvious gap in scientific knowledge, but that kind of thing is pretty much unknown by definition. The people who go around claiming that science doesn't have all the answers have one or more things in common:
1) They disagree with scientific conclusions for ideological reasons.
2) They are trying to find a place to insert their deity of choice so that they can point at it and say "Look, this is where god is; science can't explain it." (obviously a strategy destined to fail)
3) They would rather make up their own conclusions than accept science's claim of ignorance. e.g. Science can technically never know what came before the big bang, but this doesn't stop religious nuts from yelling GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD.
We've explained everything that most rational people care about. You can point out any phenomenon that occurs during the course of your daily life, and science can explain it. The things that science has yet to explain are too obscure for most people to even understand the question, let alone understand the answer. The origins of the universe an obvious gap in scientific knowledge, but that kind of thing is pretty much unknown by definition. The people who go around claiming that science doesn't have all the answers have one or more things in common:
1) They disagree with scientific conclusions for ideological reasons.
2) They are trying to find a place to insert their deity of choice so that they can point at it and say "Look, this is where god is; science can't explain it." (obviously a strategy destined to fail)
3) They would rather make up their own conclusions than accept science's claim of ignorance. e.g. Science can technically never know what came before the big bang, but this doesn't stop religious nuts from yelling GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 01:21 PM)
They would rather make up their own conclusions than accept science's claim of ignorance. e.g. Science can technically never know what came before the big bang, but this doesn't stop religious nuts from yelling GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD.
Take away religion, and you still have to deal with stuff like this;
Take away religion, and you still have to deal with stuff like this;
QUOTE
Japan's new first lady says rode in a spaceship
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090902/od_nm/us_election_alien
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090902/od_nm/us_election_alien
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 4 2009, 09:38 AM)
Take away religion, and you still have to deal with stuff like this;
Oh yes, I've heard of that. I agree that craziness would still exist without religion, but craziness will not be an institution. The point is to keep the crazies from uniting into a front of ignorance. Right now, if a politician declared that he was an atheist, he would never be elected to public office again (outside of the most liberal states at least). At this point, there are no problems with a politician claiming that vaccines do not cause autism, or that aliens have never visited Earth, or that Obama was indeed born in the USA.
Crazy people will always exist, but we can only hope that they will take second seat to science from now on. Religion legitimizes crazy.
Oh yes, I've heard of that. I agree that craziness would still exist without religion, but craziness will not be an institution. The point is to keep the crazies from uniting into a front of ignorance. Right now, if a politician declared that he was an atheist, he would never be elected to public office again (outside of the most liberal states at least). At this point, there are no problems with a politician claiming that vaccines do not cause autism, or that aliens have never visited Earth, or that Obama was indeed born in the USA.
Crazy people will always exist, but we can only hope that they will take second seat to science from now on. Religion legitimizes crazy.
QUOTE (Capracus+Sep 4 2009, 01:06 PM)
Unfortunately science as practiced by Homo sapiens will never be able to explain everything, so even if you manage to someday eliminate the squabbles that result from religious behavior, we'll still be stuck with the rest of the irrational behavior that seems inherent in our species. Improvement in the ability to reason will likely be left to a higher branch of the evolutionary tree.
On the contrary, there is every reason to expect that that Humans can and will "explain everything". The only question is will that be sooner or later.
Currently, you have a ridiculously small percentage of humans that are actually involved in such efforts. With each day that passes the chance increases that the next special mind is born somewhere. A single mind has shown the ability numerous times in the past to depose old paradigms and define new direction for group thought.
The fact that each experiment in science essentially builds on previous work means that reaching the pinnacle is quite simply closer and closer over time. I'd say it's more likely that science reaches that pinnacle yet it isn't recognized fully, due to the sheer volume of noisy assholes decrying it because of their belief in mythology. Such opposition won't change the fact that the pinnacle has been reached.
Reason will prevail over mythology at some point though. I tend to think hundreds of years versus having to wait for evolution to assist us over some millions of years.
On the contrary, there is every reason to expect that that Humans can and will "explain everything". The only question is will that be sooner or later.
Currently, you have a ridiculously small percentage of humans that are actually involved in such efforts. With each day that passes the chance increases that the next special mind is born somewhere. A single mind has shown the ability numerous times in the past to depose old paradigms and define new direction for group thought.
The fact that each experiment in science essentially builds on previous work means that reaching the pinnacle is quite simply closer and closer over time. I'd say it's more likely that science reaches that pinnacle yet it isn't recognized fully, due to the sheer volume of noisy assholes decrying it because of their belief in mythology. Such opposition won't change the fact that the pinnacle has been reached.
Reason will prevail over mythology at some point though. I tend to think hundreds of years versus having to wait for evolution to assist us over some millions of years.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 01:21 PM)
3) They would rather make up their own conclusions than accept science's claim of ignorance. e.g. Science can technically never know what came before the big bang, but this doesn't stop religious nuts from yelling GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD.
That should be rectified when the BBT is finally put out of it's misery.
That should be rectified when the BBT is finally put out of it's misery.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 4 2009, 03:54 PM)
That should be rectified when the BBT is finally put out of it's misery.
What's wrong with the BBT? Last time I checked, it was a pretty decent theory.
What's wrong with the BBT? Last time I checked, it was a pretty decent theory.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 4 2009, 08:10 PM)
What's wrong with the BBT? Last time I checked, it was a pretty decent theory.
LOL. No need to get into all that here ...
LOL. No need to get into all that here ...
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.