• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Enough To Make Fair-Minded Christians Sick To Their Stomachs

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
...You mean like Christian kids are subjected to biased teaching regarding evolution, sex education, etc. in public schools?
No, I don't mean that at all. Those aren't religious topics. They are scientific topics, and are taught based on the current available science.

My response and that of my spouse is to either home school or use a parochial school (free will association) or send the kids to government school, yet absolutely without doing the sort of moaning/complaining/accusing I'm seeing used against me on this thread. Parents should interact with the kids and what they're learning, of course!
People are moaning/complaining/accusing you in this thread, because you've admitted that you have violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If you don't want people to moan/complain/accuse you, then stop doing that. If you continue, people will continue to call you out on it.

If you want your kids to be subjected to purely religious teachings then you need to home school them or use a parochial school, rather than everybody else having to accommodate your beliefs over that of others.

HEAVEN FORFEND that I took ten minutes to share about Jesus with public school students who have 20,000 hours of secular, anti-God programming placed on them for 18 years before they get to university to have more sheer baloney pressed on them. I'M EVIL AND SHOULD BE IMPRISONED.

This is the problem with the liberal and skeptical biases alike!
Oh poor you, you're so oppressed for pushing your religious views on kids and proselytizing to them in a public school setting. I guess you should stop violating the Constitution then.

There is no "anti-God programming" going on in public schools. Leaving god out of science or math isn't the same thing as telling kids there are no god(s). I wish you could understand this.

Nobody has said you're evil or that you should be imprisoned. No need to be so melodramatic. All we've said is that proselytizing to kids in a public school setting is not proper.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What the hell are you babbling about? How would I possibly "disprove The Bible" by simply stating that "I do not love you."? Because Jesus told us to "love our neighbor" or "love our enemies?" Isn't that just a prescription of behavior? Did Jesus not understand that he couldn't force people to do those things, nor could he automatically expect it? Did he think what he spoke was some sort of natural state of things? If so, then why worry about stating it? Why worry about prescribing behavior if you simply feel that everyone is BOUND to behave in such ways anyway?

Jesus knew people weren't bound to heed his words... which is why he felt them worth saying in the first place. I am not bound to "love you." And me disobeying some command from Jesus to "love" you doesn't disprove anything. Jesus doesn't control me. Jesus doesn't get to decide what I do or don't do. Do you get that? You can't possibly be so thoroughly deluded, so thoroughly entrenched within your own little world in your mind that you actually think I am beholden to Jesus and his thoughts about what people should be doing in some way, are you? Do you honestly think that Jesus holds sway over my life regardless whether or not I give him (or the concept of him) such power? Seriously?

"What the Hell are you babbling about?" is the disdain the Bible says skeptics show for righteous people. Were you to change and be respectful and loving towards me, you would discredit the Bible. I dare you to apologize for your post above and show respect...
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Look at what you just said. You are "self-aware of your confirmation bias" but you're sure that your anecdotes that you've complied using that confirmation bias are statistically significant. Really think about that.

It's a good thing that's not how we do proper science. We'd all just be confirming our own beliefs all over the place.

Are you saying no scientists perform any science while being aware of their biases?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No, I don't mean that at all. Those aren't religious topics. They are scientific topics, and are taught based on the current available science.


People are moaning/complaining/accusing you in this thread, because you've admitted that you have violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If you don't want people to moan/complain/accuse you, then stop doing that. If you continue, people will continue to call you out on it.

If you want your kids to be subjected to purely religious teachings then you need to home school them or use a parochial school, rather than everybody else having to accommodate your beliefs over that of others.


Oh poor you, you're so oppressed for pushing your religious views on kids and proselytizing to them in a public school setting. I guess you should stop violating the Constitution then.

There is no "anti-God programming" going on in public schools. Leaving god out of science or math isn't the same thing as telling kids there are no god(s). I wish you could understand this.

Nobody has said you're evil or that you should be imprisoned. No need to be so melodramatic. All we've said is that proselytizing to kids in a public school setting is not proper.

Huh? I did not "establish a religion in school as a government agent" nor did I make a law in a school as a government agent. Indeed, I entered the school as at at-large educator. READ THE CLAUSE.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If schools aren't filled with solely secular indoctrination and secular mindsets, why are you so ticked off that I shared the gospel in a school(s)?

You do not appear to understand what the word "secular" means. Schools are supposed to be secular. You described an illegal activity where you abused children. Any right thinking Christian would be ticked off at you.. By the way, there is no such thing as "secular indoctrination". There can't be. It is like calling atheism a belief. Let's take an example that shows what you did was wrong. If a Muslim came to your school and your children or children of a friend had to go to an event that they could not leave ended up joining Islam as a result would you not be angry at the school for allowing that illegal activity?

And you appear to also be conflating teaching reality with "indoctrination". I know that you don't like the fact that some of the myths of the Bible have been shown to be wrong but facts are facts. You are the product of evolution. Most Christians can accept that belief. By your standards one could not teach geography because it is "secular indoctrination that the Earth is round". Most Flat Earthers do so because of their interpretation of the Bible just as most YEC's and OEC's in the U.S. believe that because of their interpretation of the Bible. If a parent cannot handle reality then they can always home school. But schools do not teach that Christianity is wrong. They do not teach that Judaism is wrong. They do not teach that Islam is wrong. They do not teach that atheism is wrong (or correct) for that matter. Schools are secular because the Constitution says that they have to be:

Definition of SECULAR
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Huh? I did not "establish a religion in school as a government agent" nor did I make a law in a school as a government agent. Indeed, I entered the school as at at-large educator. READ THE CLAUSE.
Sorry, a lack of understanding of the law is not an excuse. And making false claims does not help you. If you use the term "educator" then you cannot discuss religion, especially since you are far from qualified to do so.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
"What the Hell are you babbling about?" is the disdain the Bible says skeptics show for righteous people. Were you to change and be respectful and loving towards me, you would discredit the Bible. I dare you to apologize for your post above and show respect...
I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt by what I say, I am. I don't know why reality seems to hurt so many people so much that they tend to run away from it and find solace in fantasies. I honestly wish it didn't, and that you could simply show some amount of responsibility for the viewpoints you adopt. Just admit that you don't know these things you keep claiming you know. Just admit that the evidence you may have is nowhere near sufficient for anyone else to necessarily come to the same conclusions, let alone beliefs. And I, personally, feel that you should admit that you could be entirely wrong, but your hope is that you are not - and that this hope isn't for the good of mankind, but rather to soothe your own discomfort with reality as it ultimately presents itself to you. I feel you are entirely irresponsible in lieu of your ability to admit to the above. I am readily willing to admit that I could be wrong, and I will responsibly tell people that anything I say needs to be vetted by their own methods of understanding, but that this is what I feel I know to the best of my ability. That's responsibility toward your fellow man. And that, I truly feel, is one of the sincerest ways you can show respect and to show this form or "stranger love" you claim to espouse yourself to.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt by what I say, I am. I don't know why reality seems to hurt so many people so much that they tend to run away from it and find solace in fantasies. I honestly wish it didn't, and that you could simply show some amount of responsibility for the viewpoints you adopt. Just admit that you don't know these things you keep claiming you know. Just admit that the evidence you may have is nowhere near sufficient for anyone else to necessarily come to the same conclusions, let alone beliefs. And I, personally, feel that you should admit that you could be entirely wrong, but your hope is that you are not - and that this hope isn't for the good of mankind, but rather to soothe your own discomfort with reality as it ultimately presents itself to you. I feel you are entirely irresponsible in lieu of your ability to admit to the above. I am readily willing to admit that I could be wrong, and I will responsibly tell people that anything I say needs to be vetted by their own methods of understanding, but that this is what I feel I know to the best of my ability. That's responsibility toward your fellow man. And that, I truly feel, is one of the sincerest ways you can show respect and to show this form or "stranger love" you claim to espouse yourself to.

Being apologetic for hurting my feelings some, then going on to say I'm irresponsible, and denying my right to have feelings or beliefs, is NOT showing me love. Show me you love me and you disprove the Bible, which says Christians can love even their enemies, but skeptics simply pile on the abuse (as above)!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Are you saying no scientists perform any science while being aware of their biases?
What I'm saying is about what you said in your post, which I summarized as ...

You are "self-aware of your confirmation bias" but you're sure that your anecdotes that you've complied using that confirmation bias are statistically significant.

So can you demonstrate that, the way a scientist can demonstrate their claim? How can we know that you're not just confirming your own biases? For instance, I don't think I've been particularly rude to you. Yet, you've told me over and over again that all skeptics are rude, and that comes from your experiences. So what I'm wondering is, where is your work? How can you show us, the way a scientist can show his/her own claims, that what you are claiming is correct and accurate?


Scientists go through years of schooling and training to be made aware of just how biased human beings truly are, and to develop studies that remove that bias as much as possible. You see, the scientific method has a built-in self-correcting mechanism to it, that's meant to remove as much personal bias as possible from the work. I don't see any of that in what you're talking about here.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Huh? I did not "establish a religion in school as a government agent" nor did I make a law in a school as a government agent. Indeed, I entered the school as at at-large educator. READ THE CLAUSE.
So too bad for that poor Jewish kid who is forced to leave the classroom because you just have to proselytize at a public school?
Come on, man.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What I'm saying is about what you said in your post, which I summarized as ...

You are "self-aware of your confirmation bias" but you're sure that your anecdotes that you've complied using that confirmation bias are statistically significant.

So can you demonstrate that, the way a scientist can demonstrate their claim? How can we know that you're not just confirming your own biases? For instance, I don't think I've been particularly rude to you. Yet, you've told me over and over again that all skeptics are rude, and that comes from your experiences. So what I'm wondering is, where is your work? How can you show us, the way a scientist can show his/her own claims, that what you are claiming is correct and accurate?


Scientists go through years of schooling and training to be made aware of just how biased human beings truly are, and to develop studies that remove that bias as much as possible. You see, the scientific method has a built-in self-correcting mechanism to it, that's meant to remove as much personal bias as possible from the work. I don't see any of that in what you're talking about here.

You are assuming I have no such training. I have heard for decades as a holder of three college degrees what good, careful research is, and I know how to assess a given proposition for statistical significance.

I have both made thousands of field observations and am self-aware of my biases, like any good scientist should be. When I say "I have encountered hundreds of aggressive, rude skeptics, who've assaulted me verbally and otherwise, often when I am being gentle, and Spirit-filled," I have a standing.

For example, you are currently continuing to bust my chops on this very subject. BE NICE. Leave it alone already.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You are assuming I have no such training. I have heard for decades as a holder of three college degrees what good, careful research is, and I know how to assess a given proposition for statistical significance.
I'm going on what you've said.
If you have so much training, how is it that you managed to botch your "studies" so badly and littered them with so much confirmation bias? You do realize that your description of your own "study" is the reason we're having this conversation, right?

I have both made thousands of field observations and am self-aware of my biases, like any good scientist should be. When I say "I have encountered hundreds of aggressive, rude skeptics, who've assaulted me verbally and otherwise, often when I am being gentle, and Spirit-filled," I have a standing.
Oh, you were just being all gentle and "spirit filled" and those big mean rude skeptics came after you? My goodness, you sound like a saint! Funny how you come off as rude in some of your very own posts. You're not a closet skeptic, are you?

You have no standing on the claims you've made. Perhaps that is why you are getting so bent out of shape?

For example, you are currently continuing to bust my chops on this very subject. BE NICE. Leave it alone already.
If you feel that being questioned about your claims is rude, then as I pointed out the last several times you've complained, perhaps forums aren't for you. Because that's what goes on here. From where I stand, there is nothing rude about attempting to verify the things people are trying to tell me.

I'm questioning your claims. That's what we do here.
What I find rude is people making claims without having any evidence to back them up. What I also find rude is when people generalize about a huge group of people (again, pretty much anybody can be a skeptic, the religious-minded included) and then get their back up when people question their flawed methodology. I'm sorry but there is no way that every single skeptical person in the world is rude. That is, unless you interpret "rude" as not just immediately buying into the veracity of every claim you make.

I have assaulted you in no way. I have not been mean to you. What I have done, is ask you to verify your claims. That shouldn't be too much to ask on a debate forum. In your mind, if that is rude, then so be it, I guess.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Being apologetic for hurting my feelings some, then going on to say I'm irresponsible, and denying my right to have feelings or beliefs, is NOT showing me love. Show me you love me and you disprove the Bible, which says Christians can love even their enemies, but skeptics simply pile on the abuse (as above)!
I don't subscribe to The Bible, and don't care what it says about me or about anyone else. It doesn't get to inform me how I should live my life, nor do you. Here you are, nearly commanding me to claim I love you so that I can appease some strange reverse-psychology gimmick you're trying to pull. I'll put up a reply for as many as you do, but until I actually do, I'm not going to claim that I love you. That would truly be irresponsible of me, because I do not feel such feelings for you.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I'm going on what you've said.
If you have so much training, how is it that you managed to botch your "studies" so badly and littered them with so much confirmation bias? You do realize that your description of your own "study" is the reason we're having this conversation, right?


Oh, you were just being all gentle and "spirit filled" and those big mean rude skeptics came after you? My goodness, you sound like a saint! Funny how you come off as rude in some of your very own posts. You're not a closet skeptic, are you?

You have no standing on the claims you've made. Perhaps that is why you are getting so bent out of shape?


If you feel that being questioned about your claims is rude, then as I pointed out the last several times you've complained, perhaps forums aren't for you. Because that's what goes on here. From where I stand, there is nothing rude about attempting to verify the things people are trying to tell me.

I'm questioning your claims. That's what we do here.
What I find rude is people making claims without having any evidence to back them up. What I also find rude is when people generalize about a huge group of people (again, pretty much anybody can be a skeptic, the religious-minded included) and then get their back up when people question their flawed methodology. I'm sorry but there is no way that every single skeptical person in the world is rude. That is, unless you interpret "rude" as not just immediately buying into the veracity of every claim you make.

I have assaulted you in no way. I have not been mean to you. What I have done, is ask you to verify your claims. That shouldn't be too much to ask on a debate forum. In your mind, if that is rude, then so be it, I guess.

Repeating/restating:

1) I have both discussed the issues at length with hundreds of skeptics and am aware of my biases--highly aware, which is half the battle--indeed, when confronted with facts they cannot undermine easily, skeptics accuse me of biases and fallacies--so I'm certainly aware--but we both know you always adhere to the scientific method and are utterly without bias, yes?

2) I try, like you, to not adhere to anecdotal evidence--but when I observe something in hundreds of iterations, it is highly statistically significant, not due to chance

3) I've offered you several chances to become an outlier in my research/disprove what God tells me, by avoiding being rude, and you conclude your latest post this way, "if that is rude, then so be it, I guess"

Thanks for confirming my research--again.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
I don't subscribe to The Bible, and don't care what it says about me or about anyone else. It doesn't get to inform me how I should live my life, nor do you. Here you are, nearly commanding me to claim I love you so that I can appease some strange reverse-psychology gimmick you're trying to pull. I'll put up a reply for as many as you do, but until I actually do, I'm not going to claim that I love you. That would truly be irresponsible of me, because I do not feel such feelings for you.

Let's review:

1) The Bible says skeptics behave very badly, not playing nicely in the sandbox
2) I claim you can break the Bible for me and snap me out of my delusion by playing nicely
3) You reaffirm you will not respect the Bible or me or even attempt to love someone else today who isn't you, whom you seem to love above all

THANK YOU for reaffirming the Bible for me--I have no reason to be a skeptic now--plus it will make me a sour person, looks like!
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Repeating/restating:

1) I have both discussed the issues at length with hundreds of skeptics and am aware of my biases--highly aware, which is half the battle--indeed, when confronted with facts they cannot undermine easily, skeptics accuse me of biases and fallacies--so I'm certainly aware--but we both know you always adhere to the scientific method and are utterly without bias, yes?
This isn't about me. I don't claim to have done biased studies that count as evidence for anything. That's you doing that. I'm the one questioning your claims. If you're interested in doing actual science, you should get used to your claims being questioned, because that's what it's all about.

Remember back when I was asking you questions about your prayer "studies" you had talked about doing when you claimed that all your prayers have come true? I had asked you to demonstrate that. You couldn't, because your "study" was simply based on your biased personal opinion. Something that is not demonstrable to anyone isn't really that informative or helpful, is it?

2) I try, like you, to not adhere to anecdotal evidence--but when I observe something in hundreds of iterations, it is highly statistically significant, not due to chance
There you go again. This is where you run into problems. You can't claim statistical significance without being able to demonstrate it. Basically, we're just going on your opinion here.
How did you determine it is not due to chance? What is your sample size? We don't have to go over this again, do we?

3) I've offered you several chances to become an outlier in my research/disprove what God tells me, by avoiding being rude, and you conclude your latest post this way, "if that is rude, then so be it, I guess"

Thanks for confirming my research--again.
You keep saying this and yet I've asked you several times to point out where you thought I was being rude (because I don't generally like to be rude) and you have still not done it.

What I actually said was this:

"I have assaulted you in no way. I have not been mean to you. What I have done, is ask you to verify your claims. That shouldn't be too much to ask on a debate forum. In your mind, if that is rude, then so be it, I guess."

So yeah, I guess if you think debating in a debate forum is rude, then I'm being rude. However, I do not define rudeness in that way, and I doubt many other people do either. I'm here doing what I'm supposed to be doing here. You are here complaining about it and branding debate and questioning of claims as rude. So there's nothing I can do about that but disagree with your definition. If you just want to define anything that questions your claims and beliefs as "rude" then I guess an awful lot of people are going to seem rude to you. So again I will suggest that debate forums aren't for you, given that you apparently think debating and questioning is so very rude.

Look, you are making claims about the world that you declare to be the absolute Truth. Is it really all that surprising to you that people would question how and why you've come to such determinations, especially when many other people either can't see what you see, or believe in different god(s) or Truths? That's all I've ever wanted to know about your beliefs (other than what they are). Why do you believe the things you do and why should others believe them as well? That's the bottom line. If you can't demonstrate something, why should anyone just believe whatever you say?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Let's review:

1) The Bible says skeptics behave very badly, not playing nicely in the sandbox
2) I claim you can break the Bible for me and snap me out of my delusion by playing nicely
3) You reaffirm you will not respect the Bible or me or even attempt to love someone else today who isn't you, whom you seem to love above all

THANK YOU for reaffirming the Bible for me--I have no reason to be a skeptic now--plus it will make me a sour person, looks like!
What is "playing nicely" in your opinion?
 
Top