Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by MrDinky
Wow - surprised this thread is still kicking. Rs7 - how can you think private schools would NOT be better than public schools? For that matter, can you think of anything done by the government that is somehow more cost effective?
More...
I am surprised this thread got past the first post, which was meant as a stab at humor (at Faster's expense, for which I am sorry). How it evolved to this would have surprised me had it not been done before in another thread I started....the now infamous "superstition, luck and Voodo" thread. Which ended up going in this same direction. So now I am not surprised.

Private vs. Public schools:
Good private schools are good because of limited class size, and parental concern. Period!

Do you know what qualifications are required by private school teachers? Public school teachers? Do you know what teachers earn in public schools? In private schools?

If vouchers enabled more kids to go to private schools (which they would not), would class sizes remain as they are? Or is it possible that class sizes would expand? Are private schools in business to make a profit? Are public schools?

The problem is not with the teachers. The problem with public schools is their budgets. Where the parents are concerned, and willing to vote yes on taxes for education, the school systems are just fine. Where the constituents don't care, the school systems are horrible. It's about economics.

This is why you now see explosive growth in "active adult communities". This is a way of separating the taxpayers who are beyond the age of being willing to subsidize the schools. They are exempt from education taxes. Which is fair I suppose.

But in neighborhoods (towns, cities, counties) where property taxes are used for education, it is clear and provable that the parents that are willing to pay for education (through local taxes) get their money's worth. And in the areas that do not have the tax base to support a worthy educational system, they too get their money's worth, which isn't much. So the question becomes; do we ignore this problem or address it? To issue vouchers is to ignore the problem in public schools. Which would be disastrous. Why should inner city kids (for example) be deprived of a good public school education? If there is money for vouchers, why not put it where it will benefit everyone?

Or is it really a way of getting around the separation of church and state?

By the way, two of my kids did go to private religious schools because the alternative was to go to inadequate public schools. But I still feel it was not the the ideal solution. And then they went to public high school. And thrived. Because they had an advantage. They knew how to study. But this was due to parenting and small classes that did not allow them to get lost in the system. The teachers were not better. The books were not better. The curriculums were not better. The only thing that was better was class size. And parent involvement. The teachers were actually less qualified. But the parents demands were strong, so the teachers (and of course the students) responded.

Oh, and one side note. When I got out of college, I was able to get a draft deferment for a year (before the lottery) by teaching. I was not qualified to teach in a public school. But I got a job in a very expensive private school. I had not one single college credit in education. This was in New York State. I was totally unqualified. But the state only required teachers to have a college degree. My first wife was a teacher in the New York City school system. She had to have her Masters Degree to teach in the Bronx. What does this say about private schools?

:)Rs7
 
Originally posted by rs7

I am surprised this thread got past the first post, which was meant as a stab at humor (at Faster's expense, for which I am sorry). How it evolved to this would have surprised me had it not been done before in another thread I started....the now infamous "superstition, luck and Voodo" thread. Which ended up going in this same direction. So now I am not surprised.

Private vs. Public schools:
Good private schools are good because of limited class size, and parental concern. Period!

Do you know what qualifications are required by private school teachers? Public school teachers? Do you know what teachers earn in public schools? In private schools?

If vouchers enabled more kids to go to private schools (which they would not), would class sizes remain as they are? Or is it possible that class sizes would expand? Are private schools in business to make a profit? Are public schools?

The problem is not with the teachers. The problem with public schools is their budgets. Where the parents are concerned, and willing to vote yes on taxes for education, the school systems are just fine. Where the constituents don't care, the school systems are horrible. It's about economics.

This is why you now see explosive growth in "active adult communities". This is a way of separating the taxpayers who are beyond the age of being willing to subsidize the schools. They are exempt from education taxes. Which is fair I suppose.

But in neighborhoods (towns, cities, counties) where property taxes are used for education, it is clear and provable that the parents that are willing to pay for education (through local taxes) get their money's worth. And in the areas that do not have the tax base to support a worthy educational system, they too get their money's worth, which isn't much. So the question becomes; do we ignore this problem or address it? To issue vouchers is to ignore the problem in public schools. Which would be disastrous. Why should inner city kids (for example) be deprived of a good public school education? If there is money for vouchers, why not put it where it will benefit everyone?

Or is it really a way of getting around the separation of church and state?

By the way, two of my kids did go to private religious schools because the alternative was to go to inadequate public schools. But I still feel it was not the the ideal solution. And then they went to public high school. And thrived. Because they had an advantage. They knew how to study. But this was due to parenting and small classes that did not allow them to get lost in the system. The teachers were not better. The books were not better. The curriculums were not better. The only thing that was better was class size. And parent involvement. The teachers were actually less qualified. But the parents demands were strong, so the teachers (and of course the students) responded.

Oh, and one side note. When I got out of college, I was able to get a draft deferment for a year (before the lottery) by teaching. I was not qualified to teach in a public school. But I got a job in a very expensive private school. I had not one single college credit in education. This was in New York State. I was totally unqualified. But the state only required teachers to have a college degree. My first wife was a teacher in the New York City school system. She had to have her Masters Degree to teach in the Bronx. What does this say about private schools?

:)Rs7
More...

Yes, parental involvement is the most important factor in a child's educational success. However, money thrown at a school system not only does not necessarily make for a good school system, it is not necessarily a prerequisite. In Japan, and many third world countries with better primary and secondary education for that matter, they spend a fraction of what we do on education. Closer to home, in this country there was a good education offered in the public schools of many poor or working class neighborhoods (such as where my dad grew up in Chicago) even when the schools didn't have much money. My dad, by the way, went on to become a top mathematician. It is likely that the problem is not with the money that some of these schools systems have, but rather the reflection of community and parental interest when taxes for schools are voted down. Moreover, many of these school systems HAVE a good deal of money and just waste it. In Milwaukee, the average salary, especially for the administrators (in their bloated bureaucracy), was more than for private schools, at least when I did a paper on this in the mid 90's.

As far as private schools being for profit, many fine private schools (especially many Catholic ones) are not-for profit. Granted, these schools are usually funded by a church with a good deal of money.

I still contend that more families could and would send their children to private schools with vouchers. I don't, however, pretend that this is an easy, straight forward issue given the dilemma of taking money out of the school system and given the importance of the separation of church and state.
 
Originally posted by I Missed Boat


Yes, parental involvement is the most important factor in a child's educational success......
More...

Hey, I agree with what you say almost down the line. Where your father went to school sounds like where I did. Got a great education because of parental concern. But it was a community concern too.

I agree there is waste in public school administration. Certainly this is an area that needs to be worked on. Of course like almost all public programs, the educational systems are inefficient. But the solution is not to abandon it. And I think that is a big danger of the voucher alternative. Add this to the church and state issue, which we seem to agree on, and there seems little validity in not spending that money in a better way if it really is available. And put strings on it.....require competency from teachers. Whatever works. But don't drain the public schools of what they have, and more importantly of what they have the potential to be. Take lessons from Japan. Do whatever is necessary. But don't give up.

:)Rs7
 
Originally posted by rs7


Hey, I agree with what you say almost down the line. Where your father went to school sounds like where I did. Got a great education because of parental concern. But it was a community concern too.

I agree there is waste in public school administration. Certainly this is an area that needs to be worked on. Of course like almost all public programs, the educational systems are inefficient. But the solution is not to abandon it. And I think that is a big danger of the voucher alternative. Add this to the church and state issue, which we seem to agree on, and there seems little validity in not spending that money in a better way if it really is available. And put strings on it.....require competency from teachers. Whatever works. But don't drain the public schools of what they have, and more importantly of what they have the potential to be. Take lessons from Japan. Do whatever is necessary. But don't give up.

:)Rs7
More...

I still am not totally against vouchers (I still have an open mind on them). But the reservations I have regarding vouchers you have described very well here. As with so many areas of public policy and community affairs, the profjected practical effects (as opposed to the very important but more philosophical ones such as church and state) of a proposed policy can only be debated up to a point, especially in the absense of a substantial record to go by. One thing that is for sure, however, is that any new policy should be implemented gradually so that its impact, structure and effectiveness can be studied and refined. This is not what Bush did with charter schools in Texas, and it caused very serious problems (read SHRUB By Molly Ivans).
 
I cannot believe I just spent the 3 minutes perusing this thread.

I feel that I can now say that they were the most wasted 3 minutes of my life.
 
You mean to tell me you have NEVER wasted 3 minutes worse than this? So you have never watched the Drew Carey show? You didn't watch any of the MLB all-star game? You never watched the market on a Friday afternoon this last month? I bet your wife could think of some wasted 2 minute periods, but we won't go there! :) C'mon dude, I'm sure you can think of something!
 
RS-7 ,family.....;

Never did like it when the religious right blamed public education-education is the responsibility of the family. I went private,public learned at home,library,synagog,church and with an Arab businessman.

The wise pattern follows;

Called my Senators-we want all taxes off dividends.


It's a great trend private sector trend like Chile private pension. [Argentina good neighbor]the big trend which has started up again,private sector. Private sector competition ,schools also.

Interesting many in national news ignore or MOCK conservative blacks or conservative anyone. I like that black fighter pilot[not a ''victim merchant'',like many in NAACP] Said I'm not a Afro-American. Said Iam an American!.

_________________________
PS. I like to look at the bid price''yesterday,today'';charts also.
''Jesus Christ the same yesterday,today..''...Hebrews13;8A

:cool:
 
Back once again, again surprising how much I missed.

For any of you haven't been to BC, I highly recommend it.
Victoria is on my top ten list of beautiful cities.

First off I want to apologize. Then I want to say thanks.

My apologies go to those on this board who rightly pointed out that I acted like a hypocritical jerk on this thread and on many other threads as well. Going back over old responses has made me realized that in a significant way I was defending my own ego here more than I have been defending God or my beliefs. I gave in to the temptation of 'revenge posting' in a significant way, and I regret that. Looking back, I regret a lot of my conduct on this board. As a man speaketh from his heart, so is he. Between my not so subtle bragging and self promoting and evisceration of those who disagree with me, I have revealed that I, in many ways, am still a seriously immature jerk. I said 'you are your own judge and jury' in reference to those I was opposing on this thread, and thinking about it recently I realized that phrase applies to me more than anyone else. This is not a retraction of my beliefs, but it is definitely a retraction of the manner in which I presented them here. Am I pompous? Yes I am. Am I hypocritical? Definitely. Do I have growing up to do? Without a doubt.

But at the same time that I look back I see that I am happy and grateful for this place- for the chance to disappoint myself in a venue where it doesn't mean a whole lot ultimately, but where I can still get real knowledge and experience from it. These conflicts have given me the chance to see my own glaring weaknesses and to better address them. One of my favorite saying is that it is good to learn from wise men and fools alike. It's easy to convince yourself you are the wise man and that your opponents are the fools. But sometimes you are a bigger fool than anyone else, and there is bigger gain to be found in discovering your own foolishness. This whole ET thing has been a very interesting experience for me. The 'road rage' phenomenon on the highway comes from the strange combination of interacting with others via extension of your car while being cocooned within the shell of your car at the same time. Your car is an extension of you, but it also protects you and shields you- so you don't act the way you normally would in a confrontational situation. I think there is a similar phenomenon on message boards as well, and everyone is influenced by it to some degree. Just imagine if some of the stuff that was said on these boards was actually said face to face, in a bar or at a party or in a classroom. There would be literal fistfights every single day. People would get their teeth knocked in, people would get taken to the hospital. Of course I am just as guilty of 'post rage' as anyone else if not more- I'm just maybe a little more eloquent and thus better able to hide it when my long knives come out. This sucks. But it's also cool because it's taught me more about what I am really about.

The face we put on for society doesn't really matter, the way we act in mixed company doesn't matter, the feelings we put on display don't matter. What matters is what we keep hidden. If I go around smiling and being polite but inside I am hateful, then I am a hateful person. Period. Same thing with message boards vs. reality. If I am cool and easy going in real life but then I get furiously angry when people provoke me on a message board, that shows I have a deep down issue to work with no matter how well I appear to have it under control in normal situations. This board has exposed an ugly, ugly part of me. I want to be humble because I know it's the right thing, but I give in to bragging and self promotion. I want to defend God because I love him, and I end up defending myself and sounding like an a__hole instead. But odd as it sounds, I am grateful to this board for drawing out this part of me. I am grateful to you guys, merciless as you have been in your mocking, for helping me to realize this about myself. Those of you who have said 'darkhorse you are a hypocrite,' you know you are absolutely right. But I'm a determined hypocrite who is forever seeking to straighten up and fly right.
 
I am not an authority on anything except to the degree that my arguments make sense. I am an english and philosophy major who read a lot of books, was a commodity broker for a while, and is now a trader. Does that make me an authority? On anything? No it doesn't. I think quality of ideas is independent of any endowed authority anyway, but that's another ball of wax. I articulate my ideas and I try not to speak up about something unless I really believe in it. The temptation for myself or anyone else to think that I've got a credibility that I don't have is a bad idea. I am a guy who has done a lot of thinking and thus has a lot to say on different subjects. And since I have some writing skills, I can say it decently well. That's about it.

So what I'm saying in my long winded way is, in a lot of ways I have been a dick and I'm grateful to you guys for pointing it out. I'm grateful for the interaction, even the hostile hateful parts. Having rotten tomatoes thrown at me has been a beneficial experience. Just as the markets have been a trial by fire of my trading ideas and market knowledge, ET has been a trial by fire of my ability to walk my talk of humility and wisdom under great temptation to chuck it out the window. I've done a piss poor job of conducting myself. But the cool thing about always being a beginner is that you always have plenty of room to grow. I used to think that having total anonymity was a good idea. Now I know it is, on an even deeper level. I used to think that pride and arrogance were heavy weights of oppression to be avoided at all costs. Now I know they are on an even deeper level, because I have seen what they have done to me from the inside out.

And I DON'T mean to suggest that I take a puffed up view of 'me' on this thread versus others on this thread either. My posts are long because I talk a lot, but maybe that's a mental defect on my part more than an advantage. My apology goes to other Christians on this thread as well as atheists, who were probably slightly appalled that another Christian could sound so haughty and vicious. My redeeming quality is that I'm young, LOL- so I can take all these lessons and build on them. I'm still 26, when I'm 52 I'll hopefully know twice as much as I do now.

Back to the God question, I realized something else there as well. All the questions about the bible, the technical questions about science and origins and probabilities, etc. etc. etc....I have personal answers in all those areas, but I realized those answers are secondary when it comes to my faith. In coming on this board and behaving as if my faith were based in a set of facts and observations, I was being completely misleading. And for that I have to apologize again. Yes I've studied, yes I have philosophical and technical and scientific answers, yes I am confident I can answer any question you throw at me, in time if not on the spur of the moment. But ultimately I realized, all that pales in comparison to the fact that I know God personally. The thought that it was all intellectual was just another pride thing. Always goes back to sick, needless pride it seems.

I have arguments, you have arguments, we all have arguments. But for me, my ultimate foundation is that I have met God and I continue to meet with him. I feel his presence in my life on a regular basis- not daily, but close. He moves me, guides me, comforts me, opens my eyes to things. How do you deny the existence of someone when you are near them almost every day? He has made himself known to me in the most real way possible, in a way that I could not refute even if I tried. He is not an 'invention' or a 'necessity' because even if I told him to go away, he would not. His presence would still be felt, good or bad. God is not an abstract for me- he is not a lifestyle choice or an ideological choice, like libertarian over republican or capitalist over communist. He is a sentient, intelligent being who has chosen to make himself known to me. How do you run from that? You can't. If Charles Schulz wanted to make himself known to Charlie Brown, could Charlie Brown do anything about it? No, he would just have to accept it.

This is not to lessen the quality of intellectual debate. The questions of reality are interesting and important. It is just to point out an area where I was giving a false focus before. In framing everything within the context of this question or that question, playing whack a mole with an endless sea of technical objections, I was more trying to defend my own intellectual prowess than anything else. The questions are important, and there are answers for them. But the questions don't cut the mustard. I have to admit that if God had not revealed himself to me, pure intellectual assertions would not have been enough for me either. They got me down the road but didn't get me home. My years of studying and searching and probing the deep questions put me in a state of readiness, that's all. I was in a position where my ears could hear when God spoke. But if he hadn't have spoken, would I be a Christian today? Probably not- maybe I would be another agnostic scratching his head.

Do I sound like a wacko here? Perhaps I do. But if I'm crazy, what am I going to do, pretend I'm sane? I know I'm not, of course (read that how you want). But then all crazy people know they are sane I suppose. Getting back to my point- to deny that my relationship is the true anchor would be to offer my intellectual case as a dishonest foundation. You guys deserve better than I gave you- and God deserves better representation than what I offered up. There are powerful arguments for why God is the creator of all things, and why a God centered life is better than any other life bar none. Want peace of mind? Want to get rid of that nagging ego? Want to enjoy 'accomplishments' and 'stuff' but not feel any burdensome attachment to accomplishments and stuff? No way to go like centering your focus on the one who created you and casting the other baggage aside. So yes, I will always have a lot to say there. But I wouldn't be honest if I didn't reveal that my deepest reason for following God is because He has revealed himself to me. Period. This is not 'quaking in my boots' or 'taking back my arguments' or anything of the kind- it's just an attempt to right some wrongs and put things in proper perspective. I came off wrong and offered the wrong focus, so I wanted to try and reflect on that and also give you atheists some insight into why many 'true believers' are so hard headed- they have no other way to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top