Hey, I'm the wild-eyed creationist smasher in this family. So why are all the lame creationists doing their stupid act in my daughter's blog? She's actually getting comments like this, intended to refute evolution:
why is it that nothing today is evolving and why is it (if we did come from apes)that they haven't all turned into humans?
Dogs are not evolving. different kinds of dogs yes but not dogs becoming cats
It's pathetic and creepy how they think they can get their arguments past the 16 year old girl instead of the curmudgeonly old college professor—and she and her friends are still kicking their butts.
Oh, and this "For the Kids" character is really repellent. Concern trolls are even slimier when they go after your kids…but again, Skatje's pretty good at handling herself.
- Log in to post comments
Well, it's only creationists who aren't evolving, and then only when they are not having sex.
There may even be some development during sleep, when they cannot actively fight reality, but that's not what generally qualifies as evolution in a Darwinian sense.
Why aren't dogs becoming cats? That's easy -- Darwin predicted dogs would not become cats, and God has arranged it so Darwin would be proven right. That's the story I give to creationists, and I'm stickin' to it.
Actually Larry King asked a question similar to the former on his show once, something along the lines of "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" Ai ya.
That's like asking "Well, if your grandma did have kids, why aren't your cousins your siblings?"
The above-mentioned ForTheKids writes
I've read your post ... where you quote bible passages that are pulled from scripture with no context of surrounding history or their connection with the entire bibical narrative.
Newsflash: the blogs of atheists are probably the least rich source of such quotes on the internets. This ForTheKids dipshit should take his/her complaints to the thousands of fundie Christian blogs which mindlessly quote-mine the xian bible and every other book under the sun.
Jeez...from PZ's comment plus the "troll" label I thought "forthekids" would be some kind of monster making unappropiate comment or insulting Skatje.
"ForTheKids" shows up on Panda's Thumb once in a great while and posts some truly odd things. I got the impression during some of these episodes that she is a regular troll of some sort on the KCFS board.
I think my cat is evolving into a dog. He comes when I call his name, he plays fetch, and he follows me around all day wagging his tail.
Sonja:
Does he still use a litter box? If he does then you should breed him and have the ultimate house pet! My cat used to play fetch, now he chases and then comes running back and wants me to go get the toy and throw it again.
I knew exactly what PZ meant. And they said exactly what was to be expected.
Vargas is our very own concern troll.
We're lucky that nearly all Creationist rhetoric is based in ignorance of even a simple understanding of science and evolution. Unfortunately, even when we point out the obvious, it's not enough and we get those classical non-starters: "God made it that way."
My brother's cat, Kafka, is part dog, since you can really rub his tummy with crushing force and he'll still like it.
I suspect he's a failed genetic experiment to make one of those hypoallergenic cats, rather than the target of a Creationist-style polymorph other spell.
I'm afraid we'd have to clone him. My cat Iggy has been responsibly de-'nadded. But he is the ultimate house pet, no doubt!
THIS IS NOT NATURAL. Have you checked to see what the radiation levels in your home are??
I love the f-bomb in 115, followed by a lot cognitive dissidence by the believers. I'd say Skatje is someone that you don't want to mess with.
I had a cat that thought it was raised by a dog, and it was kind of like a dog. And it grew a really big tail like a fox. So, well, whatever.
PZ: My daughter is 11, a freethinker. She is always turning in her teachers for doing things like wearing crosses around and making the kids sing hymns. She taunts her religious friends with talk of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (This is all public school, mind you.) I see your daughter's situation and think of Julia in a few years.
Maybe the whole internee thing will have dried up by then. But if not, there will be interesting things going on.
Kudos to Skatje.
Sonja:
Well, thats for the best (de-nadding, that is) but hell, Im all about cloning. Just so long as its not me... couldnt trust myself. I know Id come home one day and myself sleeping with my girlfriend. Then it would be suicide again for me.
PZ:
Well, I went and read through Skatje's blog, and it's better than yours. See, the thing is, if you want to catch fish, you don't use a big scary shark as a lure. You use something that looks safe to attack (I'm thinking bass fishing here, mainly, which fits best). Then you drag the fish out of the water and have your way with it.
From a purely pragmatic blogosphere point of view, it seems like appearing vulnerable or malleable in some way is better. Skatje only seems that way because she is young, a student, female, has blue background and a flower and stuff on her blog. You have a frog and some cockroaches and, well, you look a little scary.
Not that I can talk, really, I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm just sayin'...
Never before have I seen password protected content on a blog. Sad that it's come to this.
Well, one of my cats (the stupidest one) does not seem to see the species line between cats and dogs- his best friends include German Shepherds and a toy poodle. And one of the shepherds regularly tries to bathe him. Fortunately, he still uses the litter box; I'm not sure I could deal with a cat that had to be walked.
Incidentally, I notice from the comments that the species movement seems to be cats to dogs, and not vice versa; from a (normal) cat's perspective, wouldn't this qualify as devolution?
jba, I don't mind if someone clones me, but I hope to avoid being de-'nadded.
My cats, however, didn't get a vote on their own.
Those funny creationists:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?ArticleID=1428
Stove also wants to know why few are noting the relationship between Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest and the robber-baron capitalists who "scientifically" justified their ruthless acquisitiveness. He also wants to know why hardly anyone is pointing out the relationship between Darwin, Hitler and Stalin. Nazi and Communist crimes can all be traced directly to Darwin's theory. In fact, Hitler criticized Christianity because it was in rebellion against nature! Nature being Darwin's theory of natural selection, which works every hour of every day to bring about earth's "favored races."
And my favorite:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?ArticleID=1427
The problem with the Church during the time of Galileo was not that they were using the Bible to help them interpret the scientific evidence of the day, but rather, the Church had allowed the dominant philosophies and science of the day to influence their reading of scripture. Prior to Galileo, the dominant scientific viewpoint regarding the universe was that the earth was the center of everything; and thus, the sun, planets, and stars all revolved around the earth. This theory was first developed by pagan philosophers like Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Ptolemy (AD 2nd century); and later was adopted as the most plausible scientific explanation throughout academia and the Church. Thus, the Church had allowed their reading and interpretation of scripture to be influenced by the false theories of pagan philosophers, which had been adopted by the scientists of the day.
I feel like I am late to the conversation, since it have been an hour and twenty minutes, but there are so many comments. First off, I love the "f-bomb" referred to earlier in comment 115, because it is hilarious and made me laugh quite a bit. But, the main point of this comment is that PZ may almost feel sorry for them, but I totally do not feel sorry for them. They are the idiots, not us.
Incidentally, I notice from the comments that the species movement seems to be cats to dogs, and not vice versa; from a (normal) cat's perspective, wouldn't this qualify as devolution?
No, its that dogs are bigger. That's the way evolution works.
I used to have 2 cats: one was very intelligent, and the other was a dimwit. The smart one died a couple of years ago, and Dimwit's IQ has since increased greatly. Is this some kind of spiritual transfer? If so, can we figure out a way to transfer unused brain energy from smart people who have died into the dimwits who need it? ;)
No one still tells what did I miss about "forthekids" that was so awful... I guess she is only "repellent" and "troll" to the same "knights of reason" that call me a troll just for asking. I'd keep that for things more worth it, dudes If not, you just wear and wash out your "rage" tactics.
It's what ForTheKids assumed and implied.
They come on an admitted atheist teenagers blog and tries to act as if the daughter is the puppet of her father.
You're a concern troll because your always claiming people are treated unfairly.
Is that the same Jason that is banned from here posting over there? Didn't he become bored or something?
There seems to be a lot of adults going to kids blogs just to make trouble. Here's another example of that. These so called adults put comments where the kid couldn't respond to them. How brave.
As for dogs: if there are dogs, why are there still gray wolves?
As for cats: I always had dogs but then my sister got a cat and I took care of him sometimes. I didn't know how to interact with cats and a couple times I approached him like he was a dog. He didn't like it (obviously) but he got used to it. Maybe he thought that it was just some sort of weird human behavior. They get used to us fairly easily if they were raised around humans. Oh, btw, my sister's cat eats like a dog. I once lost the lox on my bagel when I was in the bathroom!
Hey, hey! I don't like fish in that way!
Rhampton said:
I understood the password protected posts as just personal stuff not for general consumption... Not sure that it's "come to this"
Yeah, even I (especially I?) don't get to read them.
These creationists don't know anything. Anyone with half-a-brain could tell them that dogs don't evolve into cats, they evolve into "dats".
Sheesh! Even Utah State Congressman Buttars knows that much!
So my kitty Iggy is becoming a "cog"?
Forthekids is one of the few people to get banned from the KCFS message boards (for creationist trolling). You can find her blog here.
Oh, and this "For the Kids" character is really repellent.
Isn't she awful? For a while I thought she had to be a sock-puppet for some atheist with a sick sense of humor. I'm afraid she isn't. *Shudder*
Yeah, seriously, if you've never seen password protected content on a blog, then you've never read the blog of anyone under 25.
Forthekids has her fingers in a lot of blogs.
"For Satan always finds some mischief still for idle hands to do."
PZ says:
My anecdotal observation is that we old folks who would be least surprised or concerned with what our young ones write privately also are the adults most willing to respect their need for that private space.
Thanks for those selected quotes, PZ. Best laugh I've had all day.
I honestly have trouble believing how stupid people can be sometimes.
"I think my cat is evolving into a dog. He comes when I call his name, he plays fetch, and he follows me around all day wagging his tail."
THIS IS NOT NATURAL. Have you checked to see what the radiation levels in your home are??
Posted by: Coin | January 12, 2007 04:10 PM
============================
These Chimaeras are what Bush was so frightened of last year! Ironically, the only know chimera is Vice President Cheney (1/2 cylon, 1/4 penguin, 1/4 horse's ass).
Someone needs to explain the concept of probability to creationists. And I am not putting my hand up to do it.
I think they also imagine the theory of biological evolution as being linear. Rather than the concept of common ancestry, or common descent. A twig on the end of a branch may have a common ancestry with the trunk, but it's relationship to another twig might not be so easy to observe. Especially if one does not have a complete picture of the tree to start with.
The theory of evolution through the study of fossils and genetics is in a continual process of ascertaining which twigs are in what relationship in order to map the "complete picture of the tree."
Perhaps it is like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle without any picture to refer to. One can see that all the pieces are related. But it takes a continual accumulation of knowledge to understand the specifics of those relationships.
I wouldn't favor a ban on religion any more than a ban on guns... but we need to find a way to keep them away from the kids.
PZ,
You have an amazing daughter. However you raised her, you did good.
About comment #115: I get cranky sometimes. I guess most of what I was responding to wasn't clear since McH has been disemvowelled, but since a couple people have mentioned it, here:
And about the protected posts: It's more of a courtesy thing. I've apparently collected a few readers just by my posts on religion and abortion and such. I'm pretty sure they really don't want to hear me whine about teenage girly drama. I also try to keep them out of the way because I don't want to look too whiny. :3
About Forthekids: Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. She refuses to read what's in front of her so she has the opportunity to whack away at strawmen. She also butted her ugly head in a post about a former friend of mine, telling me I need to accept people for who they are. In the abortion post, she tried to comment with a bunch of links to pictures of bloody, mangled late-term aborted fetuses and argue from emotion. It got caught in moderation and oopsie, I must have forgotten about it.
She's not even the amusing kid of troll, dangit.
Skatje's pretty good at handling herself.
She's pretty darn astute, actually.
Raise your daughter right, and then watch her stand on her own two feet.
Good job, dad.
Hmmm....all very interesting. Here is some more for you to consider:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/01/religious-indoctrination…
Enjoy.
PZ wrote: "Oh, and this "For the Kids" character is really repellent..."
Yeah, let me chime in here. You know, 'For The Kids', I previously offered correspondence because (as I stated before) you don't seem to understand evolution. I pointed out to you that this was an opportunity to discuss this stuff with someone who is both a theist and a Darwinian, who is willing to give you a fair shake based upon the attitude you previously expressed.
That was months ago, and you've yet to respond. Don't you think before you go picking a fight with legitimate scientists whose expertise is in evolution and development that you should at least develop a little better understanding of what you're railing against? The offer remains open and I hope you'll consider it:
epigene13@hotmail.com
I now return this thread to its regularly-scheduled roasting of creationists....:)
Skatje, I would just ignore people like Forthekids and Jason (McH) because no matter what you say and no matter how eloquently you say it, your words are like neutrinos passing right through them without being noticed. It looks like Forthekids is back on the abortion photo track again. These days nuttiness is next to godliness and it's best not to give them a forum.
Scott,
You are either a liar or delusional. I contacted you, you wrote back to me, and I sent you another very lengthy response, WHICH YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO!!
You most certainly know that I contacted you! If that wasn't you, then who the heck was I talking to?
BTW, I've had plenty chances to talk with someone "who is a theist and a Darwinist". In fact, I've carried on numerous conversations with quite a few.
I was involved in the KCFS forum for 2 years and wrote over 3600 posts. I also led the longest thread they have ever had. So, don't tell me I don't "understand evolution".
I simply cannot believe you indicated that I didn't contact you. But, then again, I'm not sure you are actually a theist either. You seem to hang out with PZ on a regular basis and from your comments, you seem to agree with most of what he says. I've even seen you chime in with negative comments about people of faith.
I'll try to go dig up that last email I sent you. It might still be around here somewhere. If I find it, you MIGHT TRYING ANSWERING IT THIS TIME!!! UGH.......
"It looks like Forthekids is back on the abortion photo track again."
Yes, isn't that just "nutty". Posting those "emotional" pictures is such a crime, yet KILLING THOSE PRECIOUS LIVES means absolutely nothing. Pure nuttiness.
Oh, BTW, I certainly wouldn't consider Skatje an "eloquent" writer, unless telling someone to "Fuck off" falls under that category.
ForTheKids,
I think you are flipping out at exactly the wrong person there (Scott Hatfield)... unless you really do want *everyone* here to despise you.
Why not invite him to a discussion on your own blog? Since you moderate comments you can restrict comments to yourself and Scott alone (you could post the email you mentioned).
From:
http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2007/01/religious-indoctrination…
My point is that if we take secularism too far and are no longer allowed to discuss our personal religious beliefs, we are no better off than the fear of an authoritarian religious takeover of the government, which seems to be the paranoid vision that the Dawkins/Myers crowd fear. [The takeover has alreay happened. The President of the United States is an authoritarian bully who believes a fantasy God is telling him how to conduct foreign policy. He talks with religious kooks on a weekly basis.]
So, IMO, the way to solve this problem of the one-sided creation story currently being taught in our science classrooms would be to acknowledge the scientific inference of intellifent design. [Please tell us what a scientific inference is and why you consider intelligent design to be one.] That way, we mention no particular religious belief, yet our children are taught the very real scientific probability [what scientific probability, exactly? Where's the number? Throwing some pseudo-scientific jargon in with your opinions won't give them any more legitimacy.] that our origins arose [Huh?] from something other than a murky pond of nothingness, [Murky pond of nothingness. How poetic.] and that each human life is precious. [That's nice, but you don't need an intelligent designer to feel that way. I wonder if Geo. W. Bush, who has eliminated thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in the last 4 years, thinks all life is precious?]
In conclusion, after reading Skatje's blog, I believe that one could make very good arguments [but you are too lazy to make them?] that atheist's "indoctrinate" their own children [sounds to me like you are afraid of Skatje because she is so smart and articulate. Any sensible person can see that she takes pride in being independent and thinking for herself. If that's indoctrination, we need more of it.] into their faith beliefs [atheists don't have "faith beliefs."] they probably don't consider just as those who hold religious beliefs might "indoctrinate" their children. It should be pointed out that all three of PZ's children are atheists. [Yippeee! You realize that's a good thing, right?]
Yes, isn't that just "nutty". Posting those "emotional" pictures is such a crime, yet KILLING THOSE PRECIOUS LIVES means absolutely nothing. Pure nuttiness.
Neutrinos just streaming through...
You aren't interested in a dialogue, you want to preach. Since you apparently know my views on abortion, care to share them with the class? I must be one of dem der libruls, huh?
Oh, BTW, I certainly wouldn't consider Skatje an "eloquent" writer, unless telling someone to "Fuck off" falls under that category.
She's as eloquent as any 16 year old who is being harassed by an adult. Besides, we can't all use capitalization and quotes as well as you.
"Fuck off" is quite eloquent indeed. And you deserve no less the moment you start making assumptions about my personal life and telling me what to do. There is debating issues and there is spewing unwelcome bullshit concern into my personal issues.
Eloquent isn't the same as being nice, you know. I feel unobligated to be either in that situation. Most likely won't be nice in any other situation either, but personal things call for an extra level of "fuck off."
Why not invite him to a discussion on your own blog? Since you moderate comments you can restrict comments to yourself and Scott alone (you could post the email you mentioned).
Why not restrict comments to FTK? Better yet, make it a private blog with one subscriber: FTK.
FTK: Life is Precious. What do you think, FTK?
FTK: Oh so precious, FTK. Wait, I feel the old logorrhea coming on.... I think I'll go visit that atheist blog and spew my anti-abortion tripe all over the comment section.
FTK: Say a big hi to Scott! Happy spewing!
Wow. For the kids makes many mistakes in his/her/it's assumptions. First there is the complete misunderstanding of the word "indoctrination." Being exposed to an idea is quite different than being told that it is true and that you must believe as well. If mommy is a jainist and daddy is an agnostic, you can simply say that "this is what we both believe hunny and we want you to make up you own mind about it all." This though doesn't require anyone being in the dark about what your family believes. It's the imposition of belief and not the exposure to it that creates indoctrination.
Moreover, the implication that all of PZ's children being athiest means he has indoctrinated them is bold faced wrong. It implies that children being of like mind is due to indoctrination, and what naturally follows is that if children have differing opinions then this is due to a lack of indoctrination. This is simply wrong as any atheist retreating from an indocrtinating evangelical christian family background (like myself) will prove by their very existance.
And lastly, if any god makes claims that can be easily shown wrong (like god saying that he is at once all red and all green, all over) then I have no more need to inquire into that particular religon. So when we hear of the christians god's perfection, and the perfection of his word, all I need to do is find a single mistake disproving his omnipotence and then I can move on. I don't need to know the cultural history of man claiming that since he can only be where he is and cannot be anywhere other than where he is, therefore he cannot move, is wrong.
-I'd like to give a shout out to Zeno for that last one.
For the kids, anyone listening:
I think I may have goofed up here, and so I owe FTK an apology of sorts. I will also post this on FTK's blog as well as reply in person. The facts are these: after reading FTK's reply, I rechecked my email folder and I have to own up to everyone that I did, in fact, receive two identical replies from this person.
This may account for the vehemence of their response. Whatever reservations some of you may have about their arguments or tactics, it may very well be that they acted in good faith and I ask you not to misjudge FTK for any possible error of omission on my part.
However, I do not have the lengthy response that 'for the kids' alluded to. Perhaps this is due to failure of my email, or else an error on my part. I am willing to believe that if it will facilitate dialogue.
In that spirit, I would appreciate it if you would take me at my word when I say that I'm a theist. I don't know what I could possibly gain from saying otherwise at Pharyngula. Shoot, just Google my name and that of one Caledonian and you'll discover at least one individual who thinks I'm nothing more than a glib apologist for religion.
As far as agreeing with PZ, I've said on more than one occasion that I consider myself a guest here. I enjoy PZ's blog and I learn a great deal from it. I have received bracing criticism at times, but I have also been offered significant assistance and advice from PZ and others on this blog, not all of which is visible on the threads. Under the circumstances, I feel it would be rather crass of me to make a regular issue of our theological differences, especially when we have never broken bread together.
PZ, if you're listening, my standing offer of a beer should anyone make it to Fresno goes double for you. Apologies to all, again, for any errors in my previous post...SH
Be careful, that way leads to the Tard Side. Follow that path and you will end up like DaveScot
(Mental health warning: link to Uncommon Dissent. Try here for some perspective on what you may become).
Bob
Scott, I don't think there is such a thing as a 'true Christian', but in my experience, you seem to come close. Kudos to you, from a (some would say, militant) atheist.
People like ForTheKids re-enforce my view that theists are stupid, ignorant, deceitful, nutters. People like you allow me to keep an open mind, which is a good thing.
Thanks.
FTK: It should be pointed out that all three of PZ's children are atheists.
You're right... statistically we would expect one Christian, one Muslim and one Hindu kid?
Don't worry, Bob. It's not to censor her opinions or anything. I would've let it through had it not contained those foul images.
Greg Laden: "My daughter is 11, a freethinker. She is always turning in her teachers for doing things like wearing crosses around and making the kids sing hymns."
Do you think that there is something illegal or even inappropriate in a teacher at a public school wearing a cross? Please explain.
ForTheKids wrote: "I was involved in the KCFS forum for 2 years and wrote over 3600 posts. I also led the longest thread they have ever had. So, don't tell me I don't "understand evolution"."
Talking a lot about something and not listening to anyone else (dissent on your blog and UD and other similarly inclined sites is systematically deleted/banned) hardly constitutes understanding. Understanding consists first of listening, then assimilating knowledge, the applying that knowledge, and THEN talking about it. Skipping the first three steps makes the fourth one irrelevant as proof of knowledge.
FtK bragged of "leading" the biggest thread at KCFS.
That thread consisted of her posting a page from Walt Brown's crap each morning then ignoring the rebuttals and evidence provided by the other posters. The cycle was repeated for months.
The length of the thread is testimony to the impermeability of FtK's mind to the evidence against 6-day biblical creation and the Noachic epic.
Skatje's "fuck off" response was perfectly justified.
[/offtopic]
Scott,
Don't worry about it. Sorry about the harsh response, but your comment just took me by surprise because I remember the emails vividly.
I'll see if I can dig up the additional one I sent. I sometimes keep them for future reference, so I'll let you know one way or the other.
"FtK bragged of "leading" the biggest thread at KCFS."
Is she related to AFDave, who frequents Antievolution's " After the Bar Closes" forum? Mother? Daughter? Both?
AF DAVE'S UPDATED CREATOR GOD HYPOTHESIS stretched to 5000 posts over several months. Beat that, FtK!
Skatje:
As a former kid who constantly had smarmy adults lose in the intellectual arena with me, and dishonorably retort with "well, when you are my age you will agree with me", or some such nonsense as you got, I say keep at it. I've been proving them wrong my whole life, and I hope you do to.
Mark: (blushing) I'm afraid my true Scotsman kilt is showing.
In all seriousness, though,thanks for the encouragement. Regardless of our religious commitments (or lack of same), all of us can profit by listening to each other, not being too quick to judge one another and confessing our faults.
I failed to do the second, and so it's good for me to do the second. May the day come when seeking or offering forgiveness is not seen as the Christian thing to do, but the human thing.
Michael Kremer: the problem is not that wearing a religious emblem is illegal. The difficulty comes when there is any student interaction involving the symbol. Unless you are very quick to note that it is something personal and private, you are likely to have a conversation that could be interpreted as proselytizing.
I get around this once a year (heh) by dressing up as Gregor Mendel. When I start to teach evolution, however, you can bet that I get a lot of questions about my personal faith. I try to defer those questions by pointing to the very real fact that I don't have as much personal freedom of religious expression in the classroom as students do, and that this arrangement is appropriate.
The disturbing thing about the David Paskiewicz case discussed elsewhere is that the teacher clearly routinely goes beyond wearing a cross, and browbeats students with his private religious views. My district has policies that clearly rule out such conduct and has given seminars hosted by a lawyer to explain the grey areas to make sure that teachers know their limits.
SH
DMC: Ewww. A truly repellent post.
Only a fanatic eager to score talking points at the expense of the truth would so eagerly clutch at an argument that says, in effect, that another's parental pride is merely an agitprop for their own personal agenda.
If any child of mine was as brave and forthright as Skatje Myers, I would be proud of them, even if I disagreed with their views. If any child of mine was as cowardly and unprincipled to attack a atheism (another human being) through their offspring, as you did, I would be ashamed of them even if I shared their views on atheism.
Disgustedly...SH
"links to pictures of bloody, mangled late-term aborted fetuses"
Tasteless. I persoanlly do not need to see carnage to make up my mind. We could find some gory pictures to make our points too, but usually this is only done by us to prove an scientific observation. To link to this kind of graphic material on a teeenager's blog is beyond what's acceptable for my standards. Are you into "hell shows" too?
Because of that, plus the weird and cheaty "forthekids" name, I declare you totally repellent!!!! I finally see what the others are talking about.
Michael,
Heh. It's due to children being children. Aping their parents is what children do, and is entirely healthy. Now of course, as children get older they should do this less and less, but even adults behave in this manner to some extent. But all of PZ's children starting out their intellectual life as atheists is entirely what I would expect, and doesn't indicate anything improper. (I'm presuming the other parent(s) are also atheist—not that it's any of my business).
Yes. I presume that as you grew up you started evaluating your beliefs with greater and greater sophistication? I would presume Skatje is also evaluating her beliefs; that's what I would expect.
But I do think that people underestimate how much their pre-existing biases and expectations effect their judgements. I am not surprised by bright, intelligent people remaining theists. I am also not surprised by bright, intelligent atheists remaining atheists, but then I wouldn't, being an atheist myself. I don't mean this as a slam against Skatje, I see it as part of the human condition.
I also don't mean this analysis as a slam against Skatje's arguments. Those arguments should stand or fall on their own merits; how Skatje came to them is quite immaterial.
Andrew Wade -
Your analysis fails when dealing with a child of religious parents who grew up religion-free. Without indoctrination in the beliefs, those beliefs cannot take hold easily. It has nothing to do with whether the parents are atheist or not. I have recounted elsewhere that my parents were religious but did not raise us with any particular faith. Atheism appears to me to be the default, as well. Thankfully, my parents let me make the choice for myself.
Actually the "Apes into humans" aurgument and "Cats into Dogs" aurgument made me think. Just why hasn't my Cd player turned into a Dvd player? Or my washer into a dryer?
To paraphrase Morbo from Futurama- Evolution does not work that way! Apes went down a differnt evolutonary branch, as did cats from dogs.
As for "Fuck Off". Depends on the context. Their are times when I can be the best reply possible.
Yes, I grew up attending the Lutheran church (my mother's choice), but my father was Church of Christ -- he never attended that I saw -- and while getting regularly exposed to religion, I never got any of that "you'll go to hell if you don't go to sunday school" crap, and I never even heard any suggestions that you had to believe a certain way to go to heaven. It is entirely possible to be raised with religion in a way that is not indoctrination, just as you can be brought up in an atheist household with no pressure to be godless.
Some people seem unable to understand that. You can be an example and you can stand up for beliefs in yourself without having to compel your kids to be anything in particular.
I get the same problem in teaching from certain quarters. I can be a vocal atheist, yet that doesn't mean when I'm in the classroom that I treat theistic students less than fairly, or even care what their religious beliefs might be. It's actually possible to teach without trying to indoctrinate. A certain David Paszkiewicz doesn't comprehend that, and that's why he's a poor teacher.
Scott wrote:
"Only a fanatic eager to score talking points at the expense of the truth would so eagerly clutch at an argument that says, in effect, that another's parental pride is merely an agitprop for their own personal agenda.
If any child of mine was as brave and forthright as Skatje Myers, I would be proud of them, even if I disagreed with their views. If any child of mine was as cowardly and unprincipled to attack a atheism (another human being) through their offspring, as you did, I would be ashamed of them even if I shared their views on atheism.
Disgustedly...SH"
??????
Are you referring to MY post regarding religious indoctrination?? I most certainly did not imply that "another's parental pride is merely an agitprop for their own personal agenda". I made it very clear that I don't think Skatje and PZ even realize that Skatje is affected by her father's beliefs in the same manner that a religious parent influences their child's beliefs. It's as though they are both blind to the fact. My point is that if you (and the choirboys) deem me as a "fanatic" who indoctrinates her children because she shares her religious beliefs with them, I in turn see no difference between my "fanatic" behavior and that of PZ Myers.
I didn't "attack" Skatje - I was making an observation, and she was the perfect person to observe in regard to this subject. And, Skatje is most certainly forthright, but if my sons spoke to people with the type of attitude and disregard for the perspectives and feelings of others that she often displays, "proud" is not the feeling that I would hold for them.
Something else that you need to understand clearly is that I am not "attacking" atheists. I have many friends who are agnostic and atheistic (in fact one has been a very close friend for 20 years). But, I can tell you that those people treat me respect regardless of my personal religious beliefs.
I was not attacking, but making an observation that those who hold atheistic beliefs influence their children just as religious folks do. There is no difference, unless someone is holding a gun to their child's head and forcing them to kneel at an alter somewhere. In that case, forcing a child to believe anything is certainly not going to be a positive influence.
It is very interesting that you consider my views on religious indoctrination as an "attack" to be ashamed of, yet you seem to defend PZ & his daughter who regularly attack those who hold religious views. Let's see, PZ's last volatile attack was on Doug Kaufman, and in this post he refered to me as "slimy" and "repellent". I believe he files these type of attacks under "kooks".
Both PZ & Skatje have written posts regarding religious indoctrination, and I see absolutely no reason why I should be "ashamed" of sharing my views on the subject as well.
Sir, I believe you have not thought this issue through thoroughly, and be quite aware that I am not "cowardly" as I have no problem going straight to the source and discussing these issues with PZ . I'm here, and I'm sharing. If he wants to pipe in and speak to me, all power to him.
Sure, I'll pipe in. You're contemptible. Go away.
I still remember the first time my parents took me to a regular Sunday church service (I guess I was about 4) and I still recall my initial impression. What I saw were adults "playing" a game, "playing" pretend like kids do. Then all through Sunday school growing up, I always thought that there was no way that the grown-ups actually believed any of this stuff. I assumed they were all pretending.
By the time I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I knew I didn't believe in God, heaven, hell or any of it and only saw hypocracy among the wealthy church-goers at the words of Jesus (helping the poor and loving your enemies, etc.).
So, how do you explain the people who go through the system and still don't believe?
This is a question I've asked my whole life. When I was younger (as I said), I guessed that many of the people in church didn't really believe everything, but attended church for social reasons.
Of course, I've found later that people really do believe this nonsense.
I know Dawkins has been criticized for implying that people that haven't come to the same conclusions as him are "stupid". But from my own life experience, a person's individual intellectual capabilities just can't be dismissed as a factor in their ability to escape from the indoctrination.
So in conclusion, the idea that those of us who get our understanding of the world by using our own reason and intelligence can convince people who get their understanding of the world through indoctrination is on its face a foolish notion.
Dismiss the trolls and seek out people who have the capacity for independent thought.
BTW, it is impossible by definition to "indoctrinate" someone to critical thinking.
"I have many friends who are agnostic and atheistic (in fact one has been a very close friend for 20 years). But, I can tell you that those people treat me respect regardless of my personal religious beliefs."
I don't respect theism, but I do respect theists until they've otherwise proved that they don't deserve it. You, FtK, have proven time and time again to be nothing more than a pathetically annoying troll and I'll treat you as such.
Just go away already. Seriously.
PZ writes:
"You're contemptible"
I keep seeing all these adjectives flying across my screen, but have yet seen them applied specifically to the supposed offensive wording of my posts.
As opposed to people who troll under phony names, who are courageous??
I was not attacking, but making an observation that those who hold atheistic beliefs influence their children just as religious folks do.
I would hope we do!
Let me be clear that I am not even coming close to speaking for PZ or Skatje. I'm saying that at the outset because I can see why someone might think this. In fact, I'm suspecting that Professor Myers is getting a little fed up, so have put more extensive comments on my own blog and will make only the briefest remarks here.
My name is Greg Laden, I'm a professor of anthropology and I am an Atheist. PZ Myers puts a face and an email to his name, and Skatje does a well.
Scott Hatfield has been discussing this issue. Ed Darnell, who runs a pretty interesting blog, and Jane Valentine, a grad student at Carnegie Mellon U have also been engaged in the conversation. And others.
Many of us, I know for certain including Professor Myers and I, are active members of the community of people, including regular citizens (who have names) school teachers (who have names) and scholars (who have names) helping to stay the murky tide of religious groups and individuals trying to ... quite literally ... indoctrinate our children into largely Evangelical and similar Christian beliefs in our public schools.
But who are you? You are called "forthekids" and your objective according to your web site is to "find the truth in a mangled mess of misinformation being fed to Kansans through the media."
You have a link on your site to a petition that asks people to "stand up for science" by insisting that Intelligent Design be forced down our children's throats.
You insist on equating rational thought with religion, and not even the Vatican does that! They make a strong and clear distinction.
You are, in short, lying to us and hiding from us at the same time. In the mean time, we are trying to defend the quality of education in our classrooms from Dark Horse candidates on schoolboard and sometimes beyond the pale insane people who believe we must get everyone on the planet baptized before August or we will all die, etc.
Why do you seem so surprised that the reception you recieve, whomever you are, is cold?
Anyway, a further analysis of, well, you, can be found here:
Today's
Mystery Creationist
Enjoy!
I was not attacking, but making an observation that those who hold atheistic beliefs influence their children just as religious folks do. There is no difference, unless someone is holding a gun to their child's head and forcing them to kneel at an alter somewhere.
I actually almost understand your point in that first sentence. Yes, there is an influence. But it isn't anything near the zealousness with which religious people influence their children, and as for the second sentence, yeah, that's kind of how it is. Let me provide you with a dialogue that occurs in hundreds of thousands of religious households every Sunday, yet nothing of the sort happens in an atheist household:
"I don't want to go to church."
"Too bad, we're going."
"Why?"
"Because that's what we do on Sundays."
"But I don't wanna go!"
"When you're an adult, you can decide, but for now you live with us and you're going!"
You don't think it happens? Then you haven't met many actual children. Religious parents force their children to sit through 2-4 hours (or more) of absolute indoctrination every week, from not just them, but lots of other adults presented as authority figures.
And if you're attacking Scott Hatfield, possibly the most respected (by this group) religious person ever to cross this blog, that's really shooting yourself in the foot.
Good point, Carlie!
Here, let me try...
Let me provide you with a dialogue that occurs in hundreds of thousands of households every morning, Monday through Friday, in both theist & atheist household:
"I don't want to go to school."
"Too bad, we're going."
"Why?"
"Because that's how we learn things that help us through life."
"But I don't wanna go!"
"When you're an adult, you can decide, but for now you live with us and you're going!"
You don't think it happens? Then you haven't met many actual children. Parents force their children to sit through 7 hours (or more) of school every week where they learn from many other adults who are authority figures.
~Not any difference, IMO.~ But, then I view the benefits of a religious upbrings quite differently than the rest of you.
"You have a link on your site to a petition that asks people to "stand up for science" by insisting that Intelligent Design be forced down our children's throats."
I have never suggested "forcing" ID down our children's throats. I leave the "forcing", manipulating, and misinformation to Darwinists who insist that we never breath a word about the controversial issues surrounding the theory of evolution.
"You insist on equating rational thought with religion, and not even the Vatican does that! They make a strong and clear distinction."
I've never made a statement similiar to that either. I have simply implied that it is not exclusively atheists who support "rational thinking", as they would have us believe.
As far as my choice not to reveal my identity, you can say or think whatever you want. My husband has read many of the harsh comments thrown at me from the opposition, and told me some time ago that he is not ~at all~ comfortable with my name and face being plastered all over the internet. I respect his wishes. End of story.
"Not any difference, IMO."
I don't believe in religious indoctrination through church attendance, and I don't believe in compulsory public schooling either.
Whose your daddy, SM?
Carlie, that dialog you posted sounds extremely familiar, even though I haven't had that kind of conversation with my mother for a couple of decades now. But it certainly brought back memories. I think you quoted our arguments about going to church verbatim.
I grew up in a Catholic household. A divorced mother who wasn't a creationist by any means, but she made us attend church every Sunday without fail, and catechism as well. When she disagreed with our views or actions, she used the bible as the basis for her "reasoning". Abortion is wrong because the bible says Thou shalt not kill. Homosexuality is wrong because of that part about men not lying with men as they do with a woman. Jews are wrong by not recognizing jesus as the messiah because the bible says jesus is the messiah. And on and on. (It about killed her when I became a Jew, and now an atheist, but that's another story).
I would say that I was indoctrinated into the catholic religion, or at least she attempted to indoctrinate me. My father, on the other hand, has always been an atheist, something I didn't realize until my teens. He simply never talked about religion or god in any way. He didn't indoctrinate me into atheism, he simply never made religion an issue either way. We never talked about any religious issue whatsoever. We talked about astronomy, biology, evolution, forensics (he's a cop), and many other scientific subjects. I love science and excelled at it in school.
My siblings and I only spent every other weekend with my father as we were growing up, and we spent the rest of the time with our mother. She talked about religion frequently, and our father never did. Yet 4 out of 5 of us are now atheists. I don't know what influences people to believe or disbelieve as they do. I don't claim to know. But my 2 brothers and one of my sisters and I are proof that atheists don't arise from indoctrination of atheism. We were NOT indoctrinated into atheism. We were simply shown rational thought and logic by our father.
BTW, everything after that first paragraph was directed for FTK, to refute her claims of atheist "indoctrination". Sorry to Carlie if it seemed I was directing that entire to comment to you.
I have never suggested "forcing" ID down our children's throats. I leave the "forcing", manipulating, and misinformation to Darwinists who insist that we never breath a word about the controversial issues surrounding the theory of evolution.
You would rather that Jesusists petitioned to shove the hypothesis of ID down everyone's throat, in other words. Start making sense! By the way, do you think that your husband might be embarassed by what you say and do online and that's why he doesn't want anyone to know who you really are? That brag about the long post was just too much. Do you even have a job? Do you spend any time with your kids or are you always on this crusade?
As far as my choice not to reveal my identity, you can say or think whatever you want. My husband has read many of the harsh comments thrown at me from the opposition, and told me some time ago that he is not ~at all~ comfortable with my name and face being plastered all over the internet. I respect his wishes. End of story.
buck buck buck buck buck
Hey, Forthekids, if you are going to throw down the gauntlet then take off the mask.
If I find you lurking around on MY daughter's sight, I call the FBI, get it?
ooops.. I mean site. Either way really. Cite even....
FTK is over there.....i have fought the creature before ...have fun, shes a real nutcase
her arguments are silly and illogical so somewhat easy to refute ..but FTK never reads them ...creationists rarely do ..theyre much more interested in spouting off about Gawd a
Three more examples to refute FTK's claim that atheists arise out of atheist "indoctrination": My own children. Although I never really fully believed what I was taught about catholicism growing up, I can't say I was truly an atheist until my 30's. My children attended catholic schools during their elementary school years. Even though I was quite skeptical of the religion, I attended church semi-regularly, and I sent my kids to the school because it offered a higher quality education (and they didn't teach creationism)and a safer environment than our local public schools did. (We lived in a city with one of the highest crime rates in the nation). My husband and I rarely talked about religion at home, but for 5 years our kids spent 8 hours a day, 9 months a year in a catholic school, and if that isn't indoctrination, I don't know what is.
A few years ago, one of my children was discussing religion with me, and she told me she's an atheist. Soon, all of us were talking, and each of my children said they don't believe in god. I told them I felt the same way. They hadn't known that before. I had only recently realized that about myself, and hadn't mentioned it. So, my kids are atheists, despite (or because of?) years of catholic education. There was no atheistic "indoctrination" as FTK likes to think.
FTK, you missed my point entirely. I was not addressing the benefits of different activities and whether or not kids enjoy them, but rather your opinion that religious families don't forcibly indoctrinate their children into their beliefs. The answer is that yes, they do, by virtue of making them go to church each week. And, in contrast, atheists do not have "atheist meetings" that they make their children attend on a regular basis. I would accept that religious parents and atheist parents have equal influence on their children's beliefs by "living by example", but religious parents also add in several extra hours in a large-scale, codified, intensely coercive environment every few days.
Come to think of it I personally still don't know what my moms religous leanings are. I know she knows I'm an Athiest, And I know that she's not part of any organized religon.
You know it is possible to appreciate a belif or symbol without being part of a religious faith. While I probably won't get it, I want a Viking funeral. That's going out with some flair, baby.
Oh, I see, the creats think evolution is kind of like cooking...you take all the apes, simmer them for awhile and they turn into humans...makes a lot of sense.
I don't follow the dog point at all.
This is some scary stuff you are posting, Prof!
ForTheDipshits
There is no difference, unless someone is holding a gun to their child's head and forcing them to kneel at an alter somewhere.
Who needs a gun when you can simply deny the kid food, slap him/her in the lips with your ring hand, beat the kid with a kitchen utensil, or whip the kid with a belt?
Happens every Sunday to kids who throw tantrums because they don't want to sing along with the zombies in their parents' church. But go ahead and keep pretending otherwise, FtK.
Do you think that there is something illegal or even inappropriate in a teacher at a public school wearing a cross? Please explain.<\em>
I will be happy to explain it to you.
First, let me say generally that teachers are role models and that any expression of socio behavioral norms that is not plain vanilla is probably inappropriate. All teachers know this.
Did I say wearing? Yes, I personally find that annoying. Crosses are symbols of something I find annoying, so it's annoying to me, but I never notice it. My daughter does find it annoying and I tell her to get over it.
What has actually happened is teachers having crosses and other religious icons on their desks in their classrooms. That is not OK, not legal, and is a violation of both school policies and of the children's civil rights.
What has actually happened is teachers having the children read religious books ... story books about religious or with strong religious overtones or with just plain religious stories or themes. And religious songs. That is annoying, a violation of school policy, and illegal.
Wearing a cross or any symbol around's one neck or a tee-shirt with something on it can be regulated by a particular school. However, the regulation has to be uniform both across categories of people and across symbolic types or meanings. You can't say "No Jesus T-shirts but hell's angels T-shits are OK" You either say "no t-shirts with stuff on them" or you have no policy against such things. In the latter case you can still ban t-shirts that are profane or distracting, etc.
My daughter goes to a very liberal and progressive public school with a very international and ethnically diverse student body. (Like most schools in the greater twin cities areas, there is a LOT more diversity in the student body than among the staff!). I'm happy with the school and they are happy with her. They are even happy with me. I do seminars and stuff with the teachers.
They choose to not ban expressive activities. Even so, none of the teachers wear crosses, ever, as far as I can see. I think they are simply being respectful and smart about it.
There are however a couple of teachers that put their little cross out on their desk when the start class and put it away, or use the religious books, etc.
My daughter gets terribly annoyed and carries out subversive acts of vengeance on the religious infracting teachers. Like wering her Spagetti Monster shirt. She and I have discussed this often. She simply does not want me to do anything about it. She prefers to handle it herself and so far she is doing great.
"Who needs a gun when you can simply deny the kid food, slap him/her in the lips with your ring hand, beat the kid with a kitchen utensil, or whip the kid with a belt?"
Wow. You watch waaaaaay to much 20/20.
"Happens every Sunday to kids who throw tantrums because they don't want to sing along with the zombies in their parents' church. But go ahead and keep pretending otherwise, FtK."
Yeah, organ music really sucks, doesn't it? Actually, my whole family loves the music at our church... electric guitars, drums, electric keyboard, the whole nine yards. Seriously great music.
Greg,
Are you serious? You and your daughter get that upset over people wearing cross necklaces? I'd never even considered that people actually get upset about something like that. Shoot, many people wear cross necklaces and are not even particularly religious.
Hmmmm...
I guess the difference I see between the cross necklace and the spaghetti t-shirt is that the cross has never been considered something that is worn to provoke people, it's rather a symbol of their beliefs. Clearly, the Spaghetii Monster was designed to provoke and poke fun of a belief (but he is kinda cute).
FTK, are you still contending that merely being raised by atheist parents amounts to the same level of indoctrination as being compelled to attend church for a few hours a week?
What do you think is the atheist equivalent of this kind of exposure? Do you think that in atheist families they take turns reading from Origin of Species after dinner?
Greg,
Are you serious? You and your daughter get that upset over people wearing cross necklaces? I'd never even considered that people actually get upset about something like that.
FTK, you're the one who can't be serious. You've never heard about christians who throw a fit when a child wears a pentagram necklace to school? Or a child who wears a peace symbol to school, because their ignorant minds think it looks like a pentagram? Or the lady who was told by her neighborhood association to take her large peace symbol down because her neighbors thought it was a pentagram?
Maybe you've never heard of such things, sure. I guess that's because you spend so much time spewing your sarcastic bullshit around the internet that you never see the news or read a newspaper.
Yikes. That entire first paragraph is a quote, and it's supposed to be in italics. Sorry 'bout that.
"FTK, are you still contending that merely being raised by atheist parents amounts to the same level of indoctrination as being compelled to attend church for a few hours a week?"
Sure I do. Sitting in a church an hour each week isn't going to have much of an impact on a child one way or the other. One doesn't need to sit in church to be a Christian. Christianity is centered around God's word and it's meaning for our lives. Churches are where people gather for fellowship and fun. It's where they can ask those hard questions and get answers (and, if they aren't getting them, they should find another church). It's a part of a bigger family.
But, if a family merely goes to church on Sunday yet doesn't consider how they live their life the rest of the week, then it's pointless.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that parents influence their children by what they say, what they do, and where their priorities and loyalities lie.
Families influence their children moreso than what they will get out of an hour of church on Sunday morning.
FTK: No to your above question. The post I found repellent was left by one DMC, as you can see from re-reading the original post. I believe PZ deleted this post,which is understandable. It wasn't cricket....SH
"Maybe you've never heard of such things, sure. I guess that's because you spend so much time spewing your sarcastic bullshit around the internet that you never see the news or read a newspaper."
I learned some time ago that the media likes a provocative story that will hold the listener's attention. Sure, I saw something about a peace symbol here at PZ's blog that someone was complaining about, but goodness sakes, that's not something that goes down every day. Even if it did, their are millions of people in this world and those are rare cases.
I've seen people with a pentagram symbol tattoo or bumper stickers on their car. So what? What the heck good would it do to get riled up about it? Life is way too short to get give two hoots about that kind of stuff.
Sorry Scott, confusion on my part.
FTK, im sorry,
there must be 2 of you ...youre the other one ...the not-evil twin
"Sitting in a church an hour each week isn't going to have much of an impact on a child one way or the other."
And the parts where kids have to write papers on their religion to get confirmed and memorise bible verses (often with candy bribes!) during the youth services? Those don't have any impact, I'm sure!
Even the droning preacher is going to have an effect. Even if the kid isn't completely following along, seeing all these adults listening and taking religion as unquestioning fact IS going to affect them.
Sitting in a church an hour each week isn't going to have much of an impact on a child one way or the other.
Great!!! Then churches can stop pouring so much money and energy into their children's programs, since it won't have much of an impact on the kids one way or another. I'm sure you'd be happy to tell all of the children's ministry workers at your church that they have no impact, so they can just quit. No more Sunday School, no more VBS, no more homilies in the sermon on how most people who come into the church from outside do so as children invited by friends, and how important it is to snag them when they're young because they're not likely to buy into it all when they're older. Thank god, now they can all stop supporting the multimillion dollar children's worship curriculum companies like Group and spend the money feeding the poor instead.
Are you kidding??? Even if you don't believe that, churches as a whole know for damned sure that getting children is the most important part of survival. Wait until early June and see how many big banners are in your town for VBS - those programs aren't cheap. A relatively small church with around 50-70 kids in a week of VBS will spend around $2000 for the lot. Weekly Sunday curriculum for a group of about 20 kids is around $1000/year in curriculum, a few hundred extra in supplies, multiplied by the number of age groups (preschool through high school would be about 5-7 groups depending on the split). If churches weren't counting on impact, they wouldn't be spending the money.
[...] but making an observation that those who hold atheistic beliefs influence their children just as religious folks do."
im a theist... i was certainly forced to think about my beliefs by an atheist father .....which is why ive NEVER accepted fundie YEC thinking ....im still working out what i think God is ......i mainly call myself a christian because i was born as one ..but ive discarded most christian dogmas as being silly
BTW FTK posting pictures of gore on someones site is just impolite ... i agree with skatje on that one
and your views on abortion dont match fetal development
facts
my 2 cents ....a fetus can't survive outside of the mothers body before about 5 months (until then its basically part of the mother's body) ...the brain isnt developed enough to feel pain like we do ...think of the last time you burned yourself ...you pulled your hand away long before you felt pain
women think of abortion as a lesser of 2 evils choice ....
women need to choose what happens to their bodies ....ive got 2 kids and a grandson ..with both pregnancies i was very well aware that i could die quite easily, especially, during that last trimester....
FTK youre basically telling women that they MUST choose another life over their own .....that's not your decision, sorry
and what your posting is propaganda, not facts and it's unfair to put sheer propaganda on a kids weblog
FTK, you say you also teach a midweek class at church for 7th and 8th graders--apparently a waste of time, since an hour or so a week doesn't make much of an impact.
Think about all the things you could be doing instead of wasting time teaching kids who won't be affected anyway. Perhaps you could be organizing town meetings in an attempt to get the citizens to force the schools to teach ID. Or you could be protesting outside abortion clinics, saving PRECIOUS LIVES.
I'm glad that you're not actually doing anything that would have an influence on anyone.
Are you serious? You and your daughter get that upset over people wearing cross necklaces? I'd never even considered that people actually get upset about something like that. Shoot, many people wear cross necklaces and are not even particularly religious.
How dare you condescend to me. Do you have any idea to whom you are speaking?
Oh, right, you do. So does everybody else. Because I identify myself. You can even look me up in the phone book.
But it turns out I have no idea who you are, do I?
Hey I have a question for you. Is there only one of you or several? I'm speaking here of all of the different cloaked anonymous yahoos.
I'm guessing there is only one of you.
What else are you into? Anything you'd like to confess to?
ABEJA:FTK, you're the one who can't be serious. You've never heard about christians who throw a fit when a child wears a pentagram necklace to school? Or a child who wears a peace symbol to school, because their ignorant minds think it looks like a pentagram? Or the lady who was told by her neighborhood association to take her large peace symbol down because her neighbors thought it was a pentagram?
Yes! Tell it like it is!
Is there only one of you or several?
There's only one. FuckUp the Kids drinks a lot of coffee and energy drinks.
1) http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006/10/cocaine_26.html
Okay, I'll admit that I have a serious love for these new energy drinks on the market....my favorite being the Monster drink.
But, check out this new one. It's called Cocaine. What in the world were the makers of this drink thinking??? I guess it's already been pulled from the shelves of 7-Elevens.
2) http://reasonablekansans.blogspot.com/2006/09/too-much-caffeine-sucks.h…
Yup, those Monster drinks are killer. I drank one on my way to Lawrence to listen to Jones lecture. I figured I'd be so fired up afterwards about the content of his presentation that I'd need to sit down and rant a while. I find that writing clears my mind.
So here I sit, jacked up ready to vent, but Jones didn't give me much to rant about. He merely stated that he wasn't an activist judge.
Hmmm.... what to do. Can't sleep...
If only we could figure out a way to cut off her supply...
To quote Greg Laden: "Yes! Tell it like it is!"
I keep trying, but it doesn't seem to sink into FTK's concrete little head.
But ATHEIST spells EATSHIT, this guy went to church every Sunday. By weird fundie logic doesn't that make religion responsible for what he did?
Oh, my name is Selma, not Caveat...not hiding, just a habit.
Um, ASE, 'atheist' spells 'atheist', OK? You mean 'can be transposed to read' or 'is an anagram for'.
Got it?
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls...
Caveat, you need to remember to consider the source! All gone apparently.
"And the parts where kids have to write papers on their religion to get confirmed and memorise bible verses (often with candy bribes!) during the youth services? Those don't have any impact, I'm sure!"
Skatje, have you ever had a class at school that you have not wanted to sit through? Have your parents ever had to convince you that taking a particular class or learning to play an instrument would enhance your life in some way and down the road you found them to be correct?
Certainly, there were years when I detested sitting in a Sunday school class. One year in particular, my Mom just let me sit out while the rest of them went. I think I sat in with her class or something (long time ago). I was a kid, and there are many times that kids don't want to do things that in the end might better there lives in some way. Looking back now, I'm very glad my parents took me to church and although during my college years and early 20's I took quite a little hiatus, I found my way back and also found that when I lived my life according to how God designed for me to live it, I was a much happier person. That is *definitely* not to say that atheists or people of other religions are not as "happy" as I am, it just means that *for me* it has undoubtedly benefited my life in numerous ways.
You mentioned confirmation class. My sixth grader is in confirmation right now. We recently changed churches and are going to a non-denominational church due to a move across town last year, but he started confirmation at a Lutheran church and he's stuck with the classes and has learned a lot. Usually, he doesn't complain about going, but some nights he's not in the mood to go . If he's had a hard day, I let him stay home, but usually he'll get going and when he comes out of class he always comes out with a smile and has a great time with his friends. As far as having to write papers and memorize bible verses, how on earth is that different from school? Are children victimized for having to take math & science tests? How can learning something a crime? My son doesn't have to "write a paper", but he takes sermon notes a couple times a month and memorized the Apostles Creed and it's meaning. No biggie - certainly nothing he couldn't handle seeing as he is doing MUCH more of that type of thing in school.
I have no doubt there are people who had bad churches experiences and it stuck with them forever. But, that has not been the case for me and millions of others.
"Even the droning preacher is going to have an effect. Even if the kid isn't completely following along, seeing all these adults listening and taking religion as unquestioning fact IS going to affect them."
Sigh...I've heard droning preachers and you're right, it's terribly hard to sit through. But, that's the beauty of American. Freedom of religion. I can choose any religion I want, any church I want to attend, and any preacher I want to listen to. Right now I attend a church with a preacher who has me sitting on the edge of my seat due to how interesting and informative he is. The music is NOT dreary organ music, but a band with electric guitars and the whole shebang. We honestly enjoy it.
And, don't by any means fool yourself into thinking that I take religion or anything the preacher says as an "unquestioning" fact. I am constantly questioning my faith and searching for answers, and each time I do so it is amazing the things I'll discover than I had never known before. I ask questions of the Pastor and teachers all the time. I sat through one class that went through the entire bible, and asked so many questions that leader at times would see that look on my face and know I had another question. There's nothing wrong with asking questions and if the preacher or teacher blows you off and doesn't answer them for you, you're probably in the wrong church.
Didn't mean to preach, but you asked, so there you go. Not everyone has a bad experience with their religious upbringing. Although, I am sure there are times in every church goers' life when they have not wanted to go to church or sunday school. It's our nature at times to just be lazy.
Greg wonders:
"What else are you into? Anything you'd like to confess to?"
LOL...um, not really. All the really naughty stuff I was into years ago I've pretty much found to be problematic and have discontinued.
"FTK youre basically telling women that they MUST choose another life over their own .....that's not your decision, sorry."
Nope, never said that. Neither did I say that I would vote to ban abortion. I wouldn't. I can't control what someone else does to their body. That is their business.
I know what is right for me, and I instinctively know that late term abortion is wrong and there are few people who actually, in their heart, believe differently.
FTK, you half answer questions and then spout crap about how fun your church is. The point is not that church is unpleasant, the point is that church is there to indoctrinate. Telling us how much fun it is only makes it sound worse (because it is being more effective). Nothing you have said here validates your indoctrination point, unless you count NOT teaching someone God's word as indoctrination (and I'm starting to think you do).
Why haven't I heard the EATSHIT anagram before? I think it would be fantastic if someone (ie PZ) could promote a new slang term for atheists as "Shit Eaters"... as in shit-eating grin.
Errrr scratch that, it's a dumb idea which appealed to me in a moment of whimsy :)
Andrew
You seem to have skipped my point. I was irritated so maybe it wasn't clear. It wasn't my intention to say that children don't want to be like mom or dad or that a parents beliefs don't have influence over a developing child's. My point was to show the difference between simply being exposed to a parents beliefs, and being made to follow them. For the kids attempted to use PZ's children's likeminded beliefs as evidence of his indoctrination of them. I simply showed how this is logically unfounded by following through with FtK's logic line and where it went. If we took her reasoning at face value then it would indicate that all children who hold similar views have been indoctrinated (otherwise the charge thrown at PZ would be meaningless) and thus it follows that those with differing views from their parents can only be from non-indoctrinating families. I stated that the existance of atheists born in conservative christian familes (like myself) disproves this.
As far as children being children goes, it makes no difference to my conclusion. Kids will be kids no matter what happens. The act of indoctrination is an adult act and it is the exact opposite of letting your children make up their own minds. And this distinction was the point of my last post.
On a side note, if indoctrination was taken to mean "letting your children know your opinions, which they may be influenced by", we wouldn't have need of the word to distinguish from everyday life.
And lastly, I'm taken aback by For the kids latest implication. And that is that church being enjoyable makes it any less indoctrinating. It only seems to make sense that indoctrination flourishes most where it's most enjoyable. Otherwise people would be less inclined to listen and follow. (and my former church had electric guitars as well. The music was still poor. But, I went for the social aspect and ended up indoctrinated nonetheless.)
In the end, For the kids seems to miss the clear and simple difference between exposure and indoctrination.
Perhaps FTK can tell us what her definition of "indoctrination" is, since it seems to be so different from the definition the rest of the world uses.
Ah, I see. And you let him make that decision for you?
Does he rub your tummy and feed you out of a bowl on the floor, too? *eyeroll*
"Skatje, have you ever had a class at school that you have not wanted to sit through? (...) Are children victimized for having to take math & science tests?"
Never ever equate church with school, you vile hag.
This blog is subtitled "random biological ejaculations."
I think a lot of masturbators are getting their jism all over the posts.
Please wear your rubbers.
And, don't by any means fool yourself into thinking that I take religion or anything the preacher says as an "unquestioning" fact. I am constantly questioning my faith and searching for answers, and each time I do so it is amazing the things I'll discover than I had never known before.
You're a class-A idiot. Stop wasting your life reading a load of crap and join the modern, enlightened world, you opinionated jerk. Your willful ignorance annoys people. Your opinions don't matter because they are shallow and barely thought out, and your willingness to blather on endlessly does not endear you to anyone on the blog. Go bother people somewhere else, you silly, obnoxious blowhard.
FTK said:
"Neither did I say that I would vote to ban abortion. I wouldn't. I can't control what someone else does to their body. That is their business.
I know what is right for me, and I instinctively know that late term abortion is wrong and there are few people who actually, in their heart, believe differently."
You've made your extreme fundalmentalist christian views obvious, but when people point out the irrationality of your opinions, you change your tune and try to claim that your views are not so extreme after all.
Example: You want ID taught in schools, but then you say that you don't want ID or religion crammed down anyone's throat. You can't have it both ways.
You post pictures of bloody, aborted fetuses on a minors blog, yet you claim you're pro-choice. In my experience, I have never seen an abortion rights supporter thrust pictures of aborted fetuses in someones face in an attempt to convince them that abortion is wrong. Once again, you can't have it both ways. Are you schizophrenic?
What's next? You're going to claim that you're a liberal democrat-agnostic who spends Tuesday evenings volunteering at the local NOW organization. Oh, and that you're also a member of the ACLU.
Greg wonders:
"What else are you into? Anything you'd like to confess to?"
LOL...um, not really. All the really naughty stuff I was into years ago I've pretty much found to be problematic and have discontinued.
Yes, yes, we have a file on that too. This thick...
"And lastly, I'm taken aback by For the kids latest implication. And that is that church being enjoyable makes it any less indoctrinating."
No, that was not what I was indicating. Many of you made it seem as though sitting through an hour of church each week was a torturous event. I, in turn, am stating that for many that it just not true. I enjoy going to my church, and my pastor is extremely well read and brings in an abundant amount of ancient history, science, philosophy, and other areas of knowledge into each sermon. It's really quite interesting.
"In the end, For the kids seems to miss the clear and simple difference between exposure and indoctrination. "
You're right, and maybe you can help me out here. I grabbed my dictionary and it provides me with these definitions:
Indoctrinate - to instruct in, or imbue with, doctrines, theories, etc.
Exposure - an exposing or being exposed
Hmmm...not very helpful. Perhaps the word imbue is the ticket? -Permeate with ideas or emotions. So, is it that you think we scream and yell and threaten our children with a fiery hell in order to convince them that they must sit through an hour of church each week? I have to be real honest here and tell you that that sounds like something from a 20/20 show. I truly don't think that most religious parents are like that (although I'm quite sure there are some of them out there somewhere). I just think that many of you have to wrong idea of why many people go to church.
I truly don't understand why it is a bad thing to teach a child about biblical history, and the many stories that relay life lessons to learn from and live by. Regardless of what you'd like to believe, there are many very good lessons to learn from scripture. And, I firmly believe that there are lines of evidence that support the validity of the biblical God. Why would I not share that with my child? It's not hurting anyone else. I have no intention of shoving those beliefs down anyone's throat, and I definently do not believe that religion should control government. Jesus said, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". Jesus never conspired to take control of government, and that is not what Christianity is about.
I'm sure that PZ has had his own methods in which he raised Skatje to appreciate what science tells us about our world, and he used methods other than biblical stories in which to raise Skatje as a respectful, considerate person who displays good morals, and in turn she will share those with her children. I think many of these moral issues are written on our hearts and regardless of whether one searches for answer in the bible or not, we instinctively know when things are morally wrong. But, because of our nature, it's not always easier to make the decision that will be best for our future.
Dang...it keeps sounding like I'm preaching and I don't mean to, but it's darn hard for me not to respond to some of your comments.
Skatje writes:
"Never ever equate church with school, you vile hag."
Why? Church, just like school, is a place where we learn. The bible is filled with historical facts, and many moral lessons which we relay to our children in hopes that they will turn out to be respectful, considerate, kind adults.
Church is a place where you are taught lies. That's a pretty good reason to see church and school as different -- at least in school, you are supposed to learn things that are supported by evidence.
The "historical facts" in the bible are few and far between, and are jumbled in with a lot of self-serving myth.
I think the moral lesson you were taught was to be a smarmy weasel willing to rationalize dishonesty...not very moral at all.
And, I firmly believe that there are lines of evidence that support the validity of the biblical God.
Do you? Have you defended them anywhere? I'd love to read that.
You've made your extreme fundalmentalist christian views obvious, but when people point out the irrationality of your opinions, you change your tune and try to claim that your views are not so extreme after all.
Example: You want ID taught in schools, but then you say that you don't want ID or religion crammed down anyone's throat. You can't have it both ways.
Let me be very clear. I support ID because I believe it is obvious to all that it is a valid scientific inference and is only rejected due to those scientists who hold the belief that philosophical naturalism is the only "truth" one need to consider.
At this point in time, what I want in the schools is the chance to consider the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. If ID were allowed into the science class, of course I would support it. It's science and it doesn't mention one word of religion whatsoever. Neither does it support any particular religious viewpoint. Those who think differently are basing that belief on unwarranted fear, as ID & religion are not one and the same.
So, no, I do not want religion "crammed down anyone's throat". You need to remember that the atheist creation story is already in the science classroom, and I'm not complaining. I have no want to take that away from you. ID, in and of itself, has no impact on evolution at all - unless you are a hard core philosophical naturalist. In that case, your faith beliefs are what is keeping you from accepting the science of ID.
"You post pictures of bloody, aborted fetuses on a minors blog, yet you claim you're pro-choice. In my experience, I have never seen an abortion rights supporter thrust pictures of aborted fetuses in someones face in an attempt to convince them that abortion is wrong. Once again, you can't have it both ways. Are you schizophrenic?"
First of all, that "minor" has no problem talking about her support in killing those "bloody, aborted fetuses", and spoke as though it is no big deal. So, those pictures should not be a big deal either. Second, I don't "support" abortion. I said I would not vote to ban abortion, because I don't have the right to make someone do something against their will. Everyone makes their own decisions in life. God gave us that right from the start - it's called free will. Women can make their own choices on those issues. But, that doesn't mean that I support abortion, and yes I personally think it is wrong.
"What's next? You're going to claim that you're a liberal democrat-agnostic who spends Tuesday evenings volunteering at the local NOW organization. Oh, and that you're also a member of the ACLU."
Guess what, not all of us have such clear cut lines - I don't side with any particular group on all issues. I'm my own person, and I think, reason, and vote according to what I personally think is right.
"Church is a place where you are taught lies. That's a pretty good reason to see church and school as different -- at least in school, you are supposed to learn things that are supported by evidence."
PZ, do you ever just sit back and listen to yourself? I mean from the view of someone from my side of this debate? I do that all the time. I think about how you people picture me, and how I can be fair and respectful to people of all worldviews.
I mean, why is it that you get to decide for the rest of us that "church is a place where you are taught lies". Why is it that you can accuse Christians of being conceited, vicious liars due to their beliefs, yet you can make the grand claim to know for a fact that there is no God and that churches teach "lies", and if we don't agree with you we are all uneducated, "smarmy weasels"? Why should we believe you? Is it because you have a degree in the *all knowing* field of science, or is it because your choirboys give you such praise that you feel you are above reproach? What is it with guys like you?
I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do believe that it is my right to make these choices about life without someone constantly telling me I'm a fool. I certainly have never indicated that about those whose chose to be atheists.
When's the last time you set foot in a church? There is so much evidence for many of the stories taught in scripture, but I'm sure you must be familiar with some of it. You choose to reject the evidence, whereas many don't see how it is possible to turn their back on something that is so strongly supported. Sometimes it seems to me that those who have rejected God just truly can't see it. It's as plain as day, yet I watch atheists discuss these issues on line and just sit here with my jaw dropping. *You simply can't see it*. It's fascinating.
"The "historical facts" in the bible are few and far between, and are jumbled in with a lot of self-serving myth."
So *you* say.
"I think the moral lesson you were taught was to be a smarmy weasel willing to rationalize dishonesty...not very moral at all."
What have I said here that has been dishonest? What is wrong with you that you treat people like this, PZ? Seriously. I've read your stuff for the last year, and I just don't get how you can treat good people with such utter contempt. Is it because you have so many comments that egg you on into this type of behavior or what is it exactly?
The average middle-school history textbook contains more verifiable fact than the Bible. The products of human hands and minds have long since exceeded self-proclaimed Divine Scripture in both factual content and moral subtlety. One can either lament this or learn to appreciate it; for myself, I like to look with gratitude at all the books I've read and the people who helped me learn. I like to find ways to criticize and correct the remaining flaws in schoolbooks: which history lessons are oversimplified or self-serving, which diagrams in the science books are drawn improperly? We have done well for ourselves, and though an entire armory of Damocles hangs over our heads — with swords named nuclear war and overpopulation, to name but a couple — we still have great reserves of compassion and curiosity.
We will do much better in our struggle towards the future if we tell the truth at every opportunity we have.
Fact is the enemy of superstition, and make no mistake, creationism and its mutant offspring Intelligent Design are superstition par excellence. And where does such superstition lead?
So if you support invasive surgery, or euthanasia of sick pets, you should enjoy looking at full-color pictures of their performance? If you support certain wars as just, pictures of the casualties should be "no big deal?" Yeesh.
I sat through church until I was a senior in high school -- not because I believed any of it, but because I loved my grandmother. My parents sang in the choir and the only way grandma could go to church was if one of us kids would take her (she had trouble walking).
I have older siblings and my parents would try to wake each of us Sunday morning to take grandma to church. I remember laying in bed thinking to myself, "I'm the actual atheist and I'm the one who's going to church every Sunday!" Then I would get up and take grandma to church.
I don't regret it; I studied how the church works -- the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways they use behavior modification to get people to keep coming each week.
For example, the "doubting Thomas" story was perfect -- I thought, if I ever started religion, I would include a story that portrays people who question my religion as foolish.
Kids go to church because their parents make them, because they have friends there, because they love their grandma. But, to use a cliche, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
There will be a certain percentage of kids who aren't going to buy it, no matter how much they go.
What I've been trying to figure out, is what makes those kids different? How do they know to question and to think for themselves? I'm almost at the point where I want to tell people I was born an atheist. No one taught me. It's like I was born with a built-in bullshit detector.
This was how, in the 80's when my South Minneapolis friends were rejecting traditional church and drifting toward various New Age nonsense, I was able to call "bullshit" on that.
There's a reason dictators kill/jail the thinking people first. These are the people that can't be turned into sheep.
But I've also come to the conclusion that we'll probably always be a small minority. As PZ points out in post after post after post on this great blog, there are a lot of really stupid people out there!
Does anyone have access to a proposed curriculum for religion free ID? I imagine it would be embarrassingly lame and short, and useless as a teaching resource, since the whole thing seems to be about suggesting that there is evidence for a creator, while explaining nothing about the process. What is there to teach?
As far as I can tell, "religion-free" ID would cover some of the wackier panspermia hypotheses.
"We here have already studied the evidence and cross-examined the arguments, so we don't have to couch our statements with politic clauses: evolution happened. Creationism is a lie."
Who is "WE"? It is unclear from your link.
How, then, does one become a mouthpiece for lies? It is possible to repeat without consideration what one has been told, propagating a meme because it derives from an authority figure or, more fundamentally, because it brings comfort. Yet what about the memes' originators, the ones paid to put "politically incorrect" and factually flat-out wrong assertions into books? I suspect that such a career requires a studied indifference to subtle matters of ethics. No matter how genuine the beliefs they hold in their beating hearts, the meme-masters have to distort everything they touch, and making dishonesty the key ingredient in one's career can only inure the practitioner to greater sins. It begins with quote-mining, continues with folly like puerile Flash animations. . . and ends where? Creationism breeds immorality.""
This statement says nothing other than the writer likes the word meme. It's empty rhetoric.
FTK,you said;
"Let me be very clear. I support ID because I believe it is obvious to all that it is a valid scientific inference"
You are telling ME what is obvious to me? Don't even try. ID is not a "valid scientific inference". So, your statement that it is obvious to all is flat-out wrong.
You said:
"I don't "support" abortion. I said I would not vote to ban abortion, because I don't have the right to make someone do something against their will. Everyone makes their own decisions in life. God gave us that right from the start - it's called free will. Women can make their own choices on those issues. But, that doesn't mean that I support abortion, and yes I personally think it is wrong."
What's your point? We're arguing apples and oranges here. I never said that you support abortion. Never. I said you support abortion rights. Very big difference there. Once again, your lack of reading comprehension shows through. If you would not vote to ban abortion, then you are pro-choice. You do indeed support abortion rights. Accept it and get over it.
I said:
"You post pictures of bloody, aborted fetuses on a minors blog, yet you claim you're pro-choice."
You responded:
"First of all, that "minor" has no problem talking about her support in killing those "bloody, aborted fetuses", and spoke as though it is no big deal. So, those pictures should not be a big deal either."
And what about her minor friends who read her blog?
Who would have the most to lose if the gods' existences were proved?
The people who control and therefore make money out of religions.
If there were gods, why would you need to listen to blowhards who deign to 'interpret' the concept? You'd have evidence, so there'd be no need for belief.
Who has the most to lose if the true believers all snap out of it and face reality, realize that the whole thing is a massive fairytale without a shred of solid evidence behind it?
The same wonderful folk.
Does repeating a myth make it true? Does support for the story of one particular god and not the rest make one a believer or an atheist?
Let's see an example of the so-called 'evidence' if it is so readily available.
Otherwise, let's just stick a sock in it, shall we?
I wrote:
"And, I firmly believe that there are lines of evidence that support the validity of the biblical God."
junk science responded:
"Do you? Have you defended them anywhere? I'd love to read that."
Here's a handful to start with:
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001723;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001657;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000142;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000385;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000145;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000161;p…
mndean,
Yes, it does fail. I was taken aback by your and Sonja's experiences; I wasn't expecting that. With respect, if it was just you I may have assumed that your experience was anomalous. But it seems that I am at least somewhat wrong about how children pick up religion.
Ah, a dictionary. How novel. I do wonder which one you're using though. Mine lists the words as thus: verb [ trans. ] teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
It also has a note for the definition you gave. It starts with the clincher: archaic, teach or instruct (someone)
I will repeat the first word in caps so that it's hard to ignore. ARCHAIC. In case we are lost as to the definition of this word it's listed as: very old or old-fashioned. My thesaurus lists these words as going along with indoctrination: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, condition, program, discipline, drill. The sentance they give as an example even says this: "armed with an evil political agenda, they set out to indoctrinate the nation's idealistic youth."
In case we forgot what expose means in the context of our conversation it's this: (expose someone to) introduce (someone) to (a subject or area of knowledge).
My thesaurus also lists words that go along with expose: introduce to, bring into contact with, make aware of, familiarize with, acquaint with.
Notice the amazing difference between these words now?
I should never need to make this clarification again. Exposure is different than indoctrination. My former claim stands. FortheKids remains incorrect in her assumptions of PZ. Now lets move on.
Here's a handful to start with:
You're arguing that there's reason to believe there was once a dude named Jesus that a lot of people thought was a god. Not quite the revelation I was hoping for.
FtK said:
"So, is it that you think we scream and yell and threaten our children with a fiery hell in order to convince them that they must sit through an hour of church each week?"
When I stated before that I would be more inclined to believe indoctrinated people enjoy their indoctrination, that should at once rebuttle any idea that I believe indoctrinators are usually yelling or screaming on a weekly basis at those whom they indoctrinate.
So lets end the indoctrination discussion as you have gotten it wrong since the very beginning. And I quote from your own site "'indoctrination' (or what I would call sharing your beliefs, feelings, and thoughts about life and where we came from with your child)". From what we just learned in my last post indoctrination means no such thing no matter how you choose to redefine it. And attempting to label PZ as an indoctrinator is clearly false.
Lastly, I doubt that you'll find a single poster here who believes that teaching children comparitive religion is a bad idea. Although I'm not sure if that is what you had in mind when you mentioned "Biblical history." Though there will be plenty who know the simple truth that Jesus wasn't the first to any of his ideas. Even his life was hardly more than a ripoff of Mithras. So attempting to justify christian nonsense as a good teaching tool is shown to be useless when we realize that there are other previous examples from hundreds of years earlier. So at this point I'll let the matter end. Your origional accusation is dead in the water and I couldn't care less to argue other points that have been brought up as they aren't important to the matter that started this whole post.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- neither more nor less."
-- Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
"In case we forgot what expose means in the context of our conversation it's this: (expose someone to) introduce (someone) to (a subject or area of knowledge).
My thesaurus also lists words that go along with expose: introduce to, bring into contact with, make aware of, familiarize with, acquaint with. "
Ah....I see. Well, there you have it. I "expose" my children to religion. Because the above is what I do. I have introduced them to religion, and they have willingly read biblical history, enjoyed time with their friends at youth groups and parties, etc. etc.
I certainly haven't brainwashed them or forced them by gunpoint to stand at attention at the altar of doom. Shoot, they didn't even make it to church this morning. They were up late last night and didn't get up in time.
Look, I'm sorry you've all had such a bad time with religion, but don't pawn us all off as kooks due to your bad experiences.
FTK claimed,
"Here's a handful to start with:
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001723;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001657;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000142;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000385;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000145;p…
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000161;p…"
I've looked at them. You manage, in all that verbage, to not produce a single piece of empirical evidence to support the existence of the Christian God. Not one.
Why do you insist on being so wrong, illogical, contradictory, and obnoxious?
Just curious.
And I was raised in a quite nicely religious household, and had a great time at church and Bible class, etc.
I just realized that it was all so much nonsense, and bull hockey.
So stop projecting your own weird fantasies about atheists (or in my case, Zen Buddhists) on others - it's icky.
I hate to be contrary, but none of this has anything to do with how you raise your children. That would be a different post. The point of this seems to be whether PZ indoctrinated Skatje. The conclusion is that there is no evidence to support this claim. I would also like to add that indoctrination doesn't need a gun. I think you may have watched too much 20/20, as you keep claiming that connection.
I have repeatedly stated that flourishing indoctrination makes more sense in a non-threatening atmosphere. (I won't even begin to comment on the idea of being free from indoctrination in a belief system that claims absolute truth.)
And I can only speak for myself when I say this, but I don't pawn people off as kooks because of past experiences. I let every kook stand up for themselves and be counted. So if you find yourself the object of scorn I can only assume that most people here would have a reason for it that deals with you and your actions, and you and your actions alone. (Otherwise Scott Hatfield wouldn't get a word in edgewise)
Speaking of dog/cat evolution and radiation:
35.
The Hydrogen Dog and the Cobalt Cat
Side by side in the Armory sat.
Nobody thought about fusion or fission
Everyone spoke of their peacetime mission,
Till somebody came and opened the door.
There they were, in a neutron fog,
The Codrogen Cat and the Hybalt Dog;
They mushroomed up with a terrible roar-
And Nobody Never was there-Nomore.
[The Space Child's Mother Goose (Hardcover)
by Frederick Winsor, Marian Parry (illustrator); reprint edition available:
# Hardcover: 92 pages
# Publisher: Purple House Press; 1st ed edition (August 15, 2001)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 1930900074
# ISBN-13: 978-1930900073]
First, why am I the only one to even point out the bizarrity of her letting her husband make personal decisions like that for her, and second, why have I yet to receive a sputtering, backpedaling response? I feel so unloved... ;(
Azkyroth said:
"First, why am I the only one to even point out the bizarrity of her letting her husband make personal decisions like that for her, and second, why have I yet to receive a sputtering, backpedaling response? I feel so unloved..."
I've noticed the bizzarity of that too (I love that word-- bizzarity!). And not only is it weird that she lets her husband make decisions for her, but I wonder why she feels the need to use her husband as an excuse not to post her name? She said that her husband has seen the threatening comments people have made to her on the internet, so he asked her not to post her name anywhere. Is she implying that she herself would have no qualms about using her real name, despite the supposed threats she has received? She could have just said that she is uncomfortable using her real name.
She's an odd duck, that's for sure.
Azkyroth, don't feel bad. I've known some women who use the 'my husband won't let me' as an excuse for not doing whatever it is the wife doesn't want to do in the first place. Plenty of non-anonymous commenters here have kids, spouses, and lives too.
Maybe forthekids(not) is planning on running for office in Kansas someday, and thinks anonymity here will help her run a stealth campaign.
So stop projecting your own weird fantasies about atheists...
Not likely to happen. Projecting is what they are all about. God is the ultimate projection. These people love to project their thoughts and feelings onto others. If they would stop being so self-centered and recognize that they might not have all the answers, if they would try to be more skeptical about everything, including themselves, the world would be a better place.
Well, that would make more sense if everyone who rejects ID was, in fact, a philosophical naturalist. Since that's utter nonsense, I'm afraid you're going to have to explain where the many scientists who believe in God but reject ID fit in.
The argument for the existence of a "supreme being" that I hear frequently from intelligent people is in regard to their own creative processes. They define "God" as that feeling they get when they listen to/perform great musical works or view/create great art. They point to all the great artists in history that were inspired by "God".
As beautiful as this all sounds, it is another side of the "projection" coin.
Why do religious people project all that is good about humanity onto God and project all that is evil onto themselves? What does this concept do to the psychology of a developing child?
Give Bach some credit already!
I also think there's a biological explanation for the "feeling" creative people get that their ideas are coming from outside themselves -- because creativity comes from the non-verbal part of the brain, it "feels" like the ideas magically appear from outside of ourselves.
Biologists? Psychologists?
Bach is good, yes, but I submit cherry cheesecake as proof of the existence a higher power.
In FTK's favor, she has yet to suggest that geese fly in a "V" formation to remind us of the Virgin Mary, or that the V formation is proof of the existence of God, and that anyone who can't see that "Just doesn't get it."
That's right up there with the frozen waterfall thing.
I hope that one day, abortion-for-convenience becomes a thing of the past. I do not think that making it illegal will accomplish this, nor will the black-and-white mindset that claims all abortion is wrong. Not that Bill Napoli and his rape-of-the-virgins fantasies are a step in the right direction, either...
Well, FTK, humans, like all vertebrates, are generated by the repoductive process. Yet you expect scientists to ignore this basic fact and accept that instead of being descended from previous organisms, humans appeared suddenly and supernaturally. Further, you expect us to discard common descent of all the fossil species that document the origin of humans. You expect scientists to believe these organisms just popped up in a way that just "looks" like evolution, with no relatedness.
Well, this is the reason why "creation science" is relegated to informal crap media destined for mass consumption rather than true academia. You may think all academia is conspiring and motivated by atheism (a very silly idea for sure). But the simple truth is, scientists cannot brush away their methods, known mechanisms and data, in favor of useless, supernatural explanations. Period. Nothing personal against religon (though people like you manage to piss off more and more scientists).
Well-infomed or simply astute and sophisticated religious people do not take the fact of evolution as the refutation of god. Remember what pope JPII said: "The truth cannnot contradict the truth"
Unless of course you decide that the fact of evolution REQUIRES you must stop believing in god in which case though you may never know this, you should totally be in the atheists fold hahah
I recommend you flexibilize, though you seem like a total fundie. Oh yeah, and I hope part of your sooo "non- indoctrinating" education of children does not include showing them photos of late term mangled aborted fetuses.
This and denial of common descent are excellent indicators we are dealing radical extremist jesus freaks.
Look, I'm sorry you've all had such a bad time with religion, but don't pawn us all off as kooks due to your bad experiences.
I'm sure most religious people are not kooks, and frankly, I'm pretty sure many of my colleagues who declare themselves as atheists feel pretty much the same way.
When I was a child it was still totally normal to make a child stay for a long period in the "cloak room" at shcool, or to spank or otherwise hit a child in school. (both catholic and public.) Some years before that, even more serious physical punishments were allowed.
Before that, people who did not follow through with certain activities or beliefs may have been publicly flogged or humiliated.
Before that it was not totally unheard of to cut someone's head off and put it up on a big sharp stick for all to see. The tzar of Russia used to participate in public executions himself when he had the spare time and was in town on Execution Day (which I think was weekly).
In Boston harbor, ther is an island (really just a rock) where the heads of conflicted pirates were stuck for all to see coming into the harbor. Being a pirate sometimes meant not being a protestant.
There was a time in the past when certain beliefs were required of you, usually with a particular religious slant, and failure to tow the line would lead to bad thing happening.
Today we don't hang the heads of the executed out in public. We don't beat our children and we don't allow teachers to do that. There are a lot of other ways in which our civilization has advanced.
We're just asking to take the next obvious steps. And you are desparately afraid that this will happen in your lifetime, I think. I sympathize and understand, but you just need to deal with it.
You can start by coming out of the closet. Maybe take a couple of classes at your local University on biology and evolution. You are missing out on some REALLY INTERESTING STUFF!!! No kidding.
Stop this with the children. We know what goes on, we know what you are doing. Please don't condescend to us or make excuses. Stop trying to cover it up. Just leave the children alone.
Please, do it for the kids...
FTK wrote: "..but I do believe that it is my right to make these choices about life without someone constantly telling me I'm a fool."
See, this is a big part of the problem. The right you think you have doesn't exist here. Non-believers are not going to take you seriously when you say something like this, especially when many of them have had unpleasant experiences in which someone in the employ of the state (such as a teacher) used their position to push their own sectarian views.
(Now, does something like that happen when believers receive a secular viewpoint in a science classroom? Well, yes, it does---but rarely is the situation morally equivalent, because what the sectarian religious are objecting to is typically facts that contradict their beliefs, rather than another's sectarian views.)
At any rate, this isn't a public school classroom. This is a private citizen's blog. As a theist, I can't expect any sort of privilege for my beliefs here. Neither can you, and while this is just my opinion, but as a guest in a non-believer's forum I really don't see that I have any business complaining about ridicule. It goes with the territory, I think. Seriously....SH
Cathy in Seattle: At least horse's behinds allow the horse to run and frolic. Cheney never looks like he's having a good time, except when he's hunting or most evil.
George: Maybe then some wandering The Cheat (or rather, fundie equivalent) would then suffer from a head explosion.
intepid: The Raelians might have such a curriculum.
At this point I think "d20" would be a better metaphor. ;/
"Church, just like school, is a place where we learn"
i completely disagree with that, FTK..... you learn in school ....(hopefully, they try to teach you HOW to learn and for some of us that is just what happens)
in church youre taught how not to think ..youre supposed to NOT question dogmas ...if you do, youre automatically a "sinner" or a heretic or just plain "bad"
"How, then, does one become a mouthpiece for lies? It is possible to repeat without consideration what one has been told, propagating a meme because it derives from an authority figure or, more fundamentally, because it brings comfort. Yet what about the memes' originators, the ones paid to put "politically incorrect" and factually flat-out wrong assertions into books? I suspect that such a career requires a studied indifference to subtle matters of ethics'
FTK
no hon, you dont get off so easily ......this is exactly what creationists do .....they distort, they misinform , they outright LIE, to gullible and ignorant people to convince them that their distortions of science and nature are reality ......i deal with the victims of these lies all the time ....i spend a great deal of my time and energy correcting their distortions of science
the consequences of creationist lying are horrible
at a minimum ,the LIE that humans are somehow not-animal or are separated out from the rest of nature ..has lead directly to the abuses of the environment that are now causing global warming
forthekids writes:
I was involved in the KCFS forum for 2 years and wrote over 3600 posts. I also led the longest thread they have ever had. So, don't tell me I don't "understand evolution".
Um, being involved in a long thread nad making lots of posts does not in any way indicate or demonstrate that you understand evolution.
In fact, having engaged (or tried to engage - you have/had a tendency to ignore posts that you could not handle) youy at KCFS, I can say with some confidence that you in fact do NOT understand evolution, certainly not the technical scientific issues surrounding it. This is demonstrated in part by your trumpeting Walt Brown's drivel as unassailable fact despite having several people explain to you the errors of Brown's claims.
You are a creationist shill - gullible to the gills and possessing of an unwarranted confidence seen primarily in those who do not realize how little they actually understand an issue.
forthekids writes:
I have never suggested "forcing" ID down our children's throats. I leave the "forcing", manipulating, and misinformation to Darwinists who insist that we never breath a word about the controversial issues surrounding the theory of evolution.
The 'petition' is an offshoot of Jon Wells' Icons of Evolution' propaganda. It advocates spreading Wells' lies and disinformation regarding the supposed 'problems' of evolution.
People like FTK are not interested in 'truth' - in science or anything else. Not that most of them would even understand the issues. FTK does not. They simply want their propaganda disseminated.
FTK:
"Sitting in a church an hour each week isn't going to have much of an impact on a child one way or the other."
Sure. And you wouldn't mind if your kids went to an atheist meeting? A Mosque?
I only talk about religion when my children ask about it or when I hear them repeat some religious nonsense that they have heard form the religious friends.
We thought it would be fine to 'expose' our kids to religion, so as not to appear to be 'preventing' them from making up their own minds, or to be accused of brainwashing them against religion. So, to that end, we have let our older daughter (9) go to church a couple of times with one of her friends.
Not any more.
Not after I heard her tell her little brother that she believes in God because she was told at church that people who do not believe in God are "stupid".
I asked her if she thought I was stupid because I don't believe in God. She was silent.
If that is the sort of bullshit that Sunday school teachers and religious parents and preachers feel the need to tell their kids to prevent them from thinking, then my children will have no part of it.
Just in case anyone is interested, Bronstein claims to have identified FTK, and produces a photo here:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=131#comment-9602
... I am skeptical. I understand Bronstein also has photographs of Bigfoot and the Aliens that abducted him last year .... but I suppose it's possible.