# Get your GOD-damned idiocy out of my education! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 30, 2004, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358 "2004-11-30T17:58:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/101 "2004-12-01T09:06:23Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Just curious, and honestly, with respect (and a little bafflement): > > What _on earth_ would it take to disprove that there is a Magic Giant Invisible Panda which created reality but ‘hides’ somewhere outside of it? > > In other words, what could someone possibly do to prove to you that there was no God? God is, by definition, beyond proof, testing, and refutability. One cannot design an experiment to test for something which cannot be tested for. Honestly, there’s probably not much that could convince me either way. I just can’t discount the panda theory in the same way I can discount the geocentric universe–one of those things can be proven by looking at pictures and taking measurements, the other is designed to be non-provable. Really, can we prove anything concrete about the nature of reality? Can I prove that we’re not living in a computer simulation, or that everyone else around me isn’t a robot made out of flesh and bone that is indistinguishable from human flesh and bone, or that what I think of as “reality” isn’t just a massive drug-induced hallucination, and that the real world is full of 900-foot-tall sentient pandas? No, not really. I can say it’s far more likely that we’re living in a non-magically generated universe that’s not under any type of fate control, but there’s always going to be a shred of doubt. Don’t you (and I’m talking to atheists in general here, theists too I guess) ever have doubts about your beliefs? I don’t believe that the nature of reality (including whether or not there is a God) can be determined absolutely. All we can do is try to respect one another in this reality, with the same respect and empathy we wish to be treated. Anything we can say about the nature of reality is all speculation, because if there was an all-powerful deity (or a computer simulation, or intelligent creator aliens) it would be very easy for it to hide itself. So I guess what I’m saying is that there’s very little that could prove the non-existence of God to me, and that there’s equal doubt on the other side. I don’t see this situation changing anytime soon. Meh, this probably makes no sense. I really shouldn’t stay up until 3:30 talking about philosophy, I just totally go off. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/102 "2004-12-01T09:53:16Z")
> [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > As for the Zeus believer, I can only say he believes what he believes or NOT believes. I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Can you please rephrase that? Because, otherwise I get all confused and you ask things like > [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > Did I do such a thing? It seems to me that if you accept Zeus as a real and honest to God God (I couldn’t resist) then you could accept any of the modern ideas as well. What I do not understand is the logic that says "our current gods are cool, but Zeus, he’s just kerazey! Now, depending on what you believe about Zeus (and think good thoughts or he **will** send you to Hades…) I’ll be able to discuss that further. Right now I’m just confused. > [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > Both…Science and prayer. > I would plant seeds and pray for a successful crop to make bread with. Let me put this a different way. If I was to take away one or the other, which one would you have to be left with in order to survive? > [@continuity eror](#): > > Honestly, there’s probably not much that could convince me either way. I just can’t discount the panda theory in the same way I can discount the geocentric universe–one of those things can be proven by looking at pictures and taking measurements, the other is designed to be non-provable. Really? There’s no way you could discount the giant invisible panda? What if, say, I offered to sell my very own giant invisible panda to you. Now, you’ll get His favor, and all sorts of neat stuff will happen including immorality. But there is no way what-so-ever that you can ever see if He is working, because, ya know, He works in mysterious ways. I could tell you more about my giant invisible panda, about how wonderfully magic he is, and such, but I’m sure you’re already curious enough to consider investing hard earned dollars, right? (If you wouldn’t give money for the giant (and magic) invisible panda, why would you give the arguably much more valuable commodity, belief? ) (And, if you **are** going to give the giant (and magic!) invisible panda a whirl, I’ll give you a paypal link 😉 ) > [@continuity eror](#): > > Really, can we prove anything concrete about the nature of reality? The innability to attain perfect data points, as a result of forces ranging from Time’s Arrow to Uncertainty, is not to be confused with being unable to attain functioning bits of knowledge. Science, in all it’s flawed glory, gave us the information required to split the atom. This, is concrete enough. > [@continuity eror](#): > > Can I prove that we’re not living in a computer simulation, or that everyone else around me isn’t a robot made out of flesh and bone that is indistinguishable from human flesh and bone, or that what I think of as “reality” isn’t just a massive drug-induced hallucination, and that the real world is full of 900-foot-tall sentient pandas? No, not really. That is correct. You can’t prove anything that is ‘by design’ beyond testing. Hypotheses such as those are exceedlingly poor, having no means of replication, refutation, or evaluation for tha tmatter. As such, they must be treated as mere semantic noise. If there ‘is’ anything ‘beyond’ the ‘limits’ of our ‘reality’ even saying “we don’t know about it” is wasting words. On this subject, it is best to remain silent. (perhaps) > [@continuity eror](#): > > I can say it’s far more likely that we’re living in a non-magically generated universe that’s not under any type of fate control, but there’s always going to be a shred of doubt. A shred of doubt about the absolute veracity of all current data points should not be construed as possible support for a phenomona which exists in zero data points. > [@continuity eror](#): > > Don’t you (and I’m talking to atheists in general here, theists too I guess) ever have doubts about your beliefs? All the time. But unless I feel like indulging in pure flights of fancy, which yes, are useful and/or enjoyable at the right times, I don’t engage in wondering of believing anything about that which is beyond all reasonable and rational standards of belief, proof, even awe and wonder. Something that is, by definition, beyond defnition, is something we can never discuss. > [@continuity eror](#): > > I don’t believe that the nature of reality (including whether or not there is a God) can be determined absolutely. I hand you a basketball. You cannot determine exactly where ever subatomic particle is and what their velocity is at any given second. That does not mean it is reasonable to assume that that is a miniature invisible panda who lives inside the ball. Just because you leave the doggy-door unlocked on your house, tha doesn’t mean a giant invisible (and oh so magical) panda can squeeze on through (to butcher a metaphor) > [@continuity eror](#): > > All we can do is try to respect one another in this reality, with the same respect and empathy we wish to be treated. I disagree… I think the best we can do is to try to be true to ourselves. But then again, that’s discussion on the Reason We’re Here, and I don’t think there’s a Reason. > [@continuity eror](#): > > Anything we can say about the nature of reality is all speculation, because if there was an all-powerful deity (or a computer simulation, or intelligent creator aliens) it would be very easy for it to hide itself. No, not **all** speculation by any means. A large part _interpretation_, yes, but the data points are there. And yes, Valis, interesting bugger.Problem is if something can be hidden from detection, that means it does not influence reality at all What sort of relationship would you, could you, have with something that could not influence reality, at all? > [@continuity eror](#): > > So I guess what I’m saying is that there’s very little that could prove the non-existence of God to me, Well, using your standards, you cannot ‘prove the non existance’ of anything. Unless you elaborate on the seemingly arbitrary line between ‘absolutely ridiculous’ and ‘okay to give blind faith to.’ (I might add, it is also a fallacy in reasoning to ask someone to prove something’s non-existance. ) > [@continuity eror](#): > > and that there’s equal doubt on the other side. I don’t see this situation changing anytime soon. There is **not** equal doubt on both sides. I am a heck of a lot more sure that if I plant seeds one will germinate than if I pray to God one loaf of bread will come flying through my window. However, yes, I don’t see this changing any time soon in society at large. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/103 "2004-12-01T10:55:42Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > And yes, Valis, interesting bugger.Problem is if something can be hidden from detection, that means it does not influence reality at all > What sort of relationship would you, could you, have with something that could not influence reality, at all? Why would that be the case? Maybe it’s just good at hiding, and covering its tracks after it mucks up reality. And what if the deity didn’t want to influence reality, as opposed to not being able to? Think about the Deist view of God, as a force which set up the universe exactly the way it wanted it and then retreated into the background. Deists have no personal relationship with the deity, yet they believe in it. Does a force have to be sufficiently interventionist to be believable? This is a really interesting conversation, and I have more to say, but it’s way too late for philosophy talk. I’ll come post more tomorrow when my head is clearer. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/104 "2004-12-01T10:56:22Z")
> [@ultrafilter](#): > > You might not want to base any arguments on the lack of a proof for induction, know what I’m saying? No might about it. I categorically would not. But then, I’m not the one who said, “And I think ‘idiot’ is being used to refer to those who place blind faith in something that can’t possibly be tested for, yet alone proven.” That was FinnAgain. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/105 "2004-12-01T10:59:54Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Lib: I fail to see the explicit connection you are trying to make. Or perhaps I should say I fail to see the tacit connection and I would appreciate it if you’d make it explicit. I’d rather not launch into a discussion of godel’s incompleteness theorem, the primacy of logic or mathatmatics, etc… until I’m sure exactly what plane we’re debating on. You stated that an idiot is someone who places “blind faith in something that can’t possibly be tested for, yet alone proven”. If you cannot prove Peano’s Fifth Axiom, and yet believe it, then you are by your own definition an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/106 "2004-12-01T11:03:32Z")
> [@Dio](#): > > Kids have a fundamental right to a sound education and their ignorant-ass parents don’t have a right to deprive them of that. So long as I can draw breath and raise up my arms, you will not tell me how to educate my children. You will not define for me what is sound. You will not impose your ignorance of my consciousness upon me. If you’re so smart, go feed the third world. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/107 "2004-12-01T11:11:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No might about it. I categorically would not. But then, I’m not the one who said, “And I think ‘idiot’ is being used to refer to those who place blind faith in something that can’t possibly be tested for, yet alone proven.” That was FinnAgain. Yes, that was me, and I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on your position rather than making these odd cryptic statements. I do not understand your reaction to my paraphrasing of what I believed another Doper said. What exactly are you trying to say? In addition, in what way do you believe mathamatical paradoxes are in the same leage as deities? Is it conceivable that systems which we create will be subject to [Godel’s incompleteness theorem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del's_incompleteness_theorem), but that mathamatical systems are one’s which we created, we wrote the rules, we wrote the language. Arguing that math has certain limitations of set, identity, etc… does not imply that you can sneak God in through the side door. In other words, I’m nort > [@continuity eror](#): > > Why would that be the case? Maybe it’s just good at hiding, and covering its tracks after it mucks up reality. How would this ‘hiding’ be accomplished? If it changes anything, that can be detected. Unless of course it somehow muddles perception itself, but then you begin doubting the senses themselves… and while that too is an interesting and fun lil’ experiment for an hour or a day, you don’t want to walk out into traffic while you seriously doubt your senses. > [@continuity eror](#): > > And what if the deity didn’t want to influence reality, as opposed to not being able to? The result is the same. Something which does not influence reality. Thus, something to be ignored for the most part. > [@continuity eror](#): > > Think about the Deist view of God, as a force which set up the universe exactly the way it wanted it and then retreated into the background. I wouldn’t be so hasty with that paintbrush. Deists believe in the literal existance of a God or Gods. Amongst them there is variation on what exactly they believe that a God is, does, wants, etc… > [@continuity eror](#): > > Deists have no personal relationship with the deity, yet they believe in it. Gnostics on the other hand have a very personal realionship with deity. Just as an aside and to introduce another paradigm as gnostics are certianly deists. > [@continuity eror](#): > > Does a force have to be sufficiently interventionist to be believable? Sufficiently observable, yes. [quote=continuity eror] This is a really interesting conversation, and I have more to say, but it’s way too late for philosophy talk. I’ll come post more tomorrow when my head is clearer. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/108 "2004-12-01T11:15:02Z")
Shit shit shit, I am up way too late. And getting sloppy. Should read: "In other words I’m not sure what the exact substance and direction of your argument is. Would you please make it plain to me? " And with that, I’m off to get a few scraps of sleep. Gods, I love finals :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/109 "2004-12-01T11:26:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > So long as I can draw breath and raise up my arms, you will not tell me how to educate my children. You will not define for me what is sound. You will not impose your ignorance of my consciousness upon me. If you’re so smart, go feed the third world. Okay, okay, I’m really going to sleep now. Just wanted to say real quick: You’ve really only got a right to determine the religious content of your child’s education in non-public-school hours. In a public school, educators are expected, and have a responsibility to teach facts, truth, and wisest-practices for viewing the world. A biology teacher’s function, as per his job, is to teach his students everything about biology. It is also worth pointing out that there is nothing in biology about ‘genesis’. As such, it is right to say that biology teachers should teach biology and religious teachers should teach religion. Or: The public schools decide how to educate your children, and individual teachers decide how to impliment pedagogical axioms. If you don’t like that, there is always homeschooling. Or: Children’s parents do not have a right to compromise the sound education of students. If parents want a teacher to question evolution, they should take their children to their local place of worship. It is, however, the job of a biology teacher to teach biology. And with that, I wish all a good night, er, morning, fuck it. A good morning whatever time of you day you read this. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/110 "2004-12-01T11:40:05Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You’ve really only got a right to determine the religious content of your child’s education in non-public-school hours. In a public school, educators are expected, and have a responsibility to teach facts, truth, and wisest-practices for viewing the world. A biology teacher’s function, as per his job, is to teach his students everything about biology. It is also worth pointing out that there is nothing in biology about ‘genesis’. Indeed, and again, the argument against a purely Christian influence on science education is that there are hundreds of religions, and lots of them conflict! To be genuinely intellectually inclusive, you’d have to spend all your time showing how current scientific theories differ from all the other religions. Or, for purely practical reasons, you could keep religion out of science. Nothing to do with “you will not tell me how to educate my children”. Educate them how you like! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/111 "2004-12-01T11:41:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > What exactly are you trying to say? I’m not _trying_ to say _anything_. I have unambiguously stated that your definition of “idiot” hoists you by your own petard. If an idiot is someone who believes something he cannot prove, and if you believe Peano’s Fifth Axiom, then you are an idiot. > [@](#): > > In addition, in what way do you believe mathamatical paradoxes are in the same leage as deities? The aforementioned axiom is not a paradox. > [@](#): > > You’ve really only got a right to determine the religious content of your child’s education in non-public-school hours. Dio was talking about _home_ schooling. > [@](#): > > Okay, okay, I’m really going to sleep now. I think that’s for the best overall. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/112 "2004-12-01T12:23:26Z")
> [@Corner Case](#): > > Note, however that a San Francisco school has recently [barred](http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883) the Declaration of Independence from being presented. Actually, no evidence has been presented that this is true. From the linked story (emphasis mine): > [@](#): > > Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams, _ **are excerpts** _ from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington’s journal, John Adams’ diary, Samuel Adams’ “The Rights of the Colonists” and William Penn’s “The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania.” Now it is entirely possible that some run-amok secular humanist school administrator is purging all references to God/gods from the classroom. However, given the tenor of the story and the lack of substantive information, I would guess that it is at least as likely that the teacher in question has been cutting out little snippets of various documents tailored to “prove” that the U.S. is a “Christian” country and the principal has decided to eliminate the proselytizing that the teacher had been carrying out in the classroom. If the principal is barring the Declaration on SoCaS grounds, then she is completely out of line. However, the presentation of this story has not established that that is the case. This is similar to the situation where various Christian Right web sites frequently run horrid examples of governmental (and judicial) persecution of Christians–and when one follows up on the facts of the stories, one tends to find that either a low-level administrator made a bad decision that was _reversed_ by the courts or the story as presented leaves out salient points that demonstrate that the so-called Christians were imposing their specific brand of religion on others who did not share their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/113 "2004-12-01T12:55:54Z")
**Ghanima** , I started out agreeing with you in principle. I am a firm supporter of keeping religion out of science classes. I respect the rights of atheists. I don’t think that God should be trivialized by being on our money. In my opinion, mention of God shouldn’t have been added to the Pledge – it was okay without it and just as meaningful. “God Bless America” sung at ballgames is not my preference, but at least it is not a government sponsored occasion. But for you to lump all religious people or even all Christians in together as if all promote such intrusions is truly ignorant. It is the equivalent of someone saying that all atheists are immoral. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/114 "2004-12-01T13:18:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’m not _trying_ to say _anything_. I have unambiguously stated that your definition of “idiot” hoists you by your own petard. If an idiot is someone who believes something he cannot prove, and if you believe Peano’s Fifth Axiom, then you are an idiot. Again. You are attempting to claim that my paraphrase of **someone else’s** statement makes it ‘my definition.’ That is simply false. As I have called nobody an idiot, you have unambiguously stated a falsehood. Further, you’ve only been cryptic and oh-so-superior up to now, we have not discussed the nature of belief or how it relates to so called axiomatic knowledge and how axiomatic knoweldge is different when dealing with observed laws of nature than when stating rules of systems human create. Now, if you would like to discuss those things I would be happy to, but it’s hard to hold a discussion when you claiming that I hold definitions which I do not while taking certain ‘axioms’ ‘views’ ‘paradigms’ as givens. > [@Liberal](#): > > The aforementioned axiom is not a paradox. The aforementioned axiom sure seems paradoxical.A limited, rule-governed pattern of addition results in limitless and unquantifiable results? [Yep, fits the bill](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox) > [@Liberal](#): > > Dio was talking about _home_ schooling. And in many cases, _home_ schooling must be in accord with district or collegiate guidelines. That’s where a process of accreditation comes in. And I, for one, would have no problem with college admissions officers making sure that chldren who were home schooled are fully proficient in all aspects of modern biology. So let me elaborate, you really only have the ability to decide the religious content of your child’s education in non-public school hours and as long as you aren’t concerned about colleges judging the curriculum of a particular homeschooled child lacking. > [@Liberal](#): > > I think that’s for the best overall. And I assure you that I take your kind consideration in the spirit it is given. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/115 "2004-12-01T14:15:28Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No might about it. I categorically would not. But then, I’m not the one who said, “And I think ‘idiot’ is being used to refer to those who place blind faith in something that can’t possibly be tested for, yet alone proven.” That was FinnAgain. Your children are not your property. They have their own rights independent of yours which the US governmemnt is bound to protect. One of those rights is to a sound education. You do not have the right to deprive them of that fundamental right any more than you have a right to deprive them of food or shelter. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/116 "2004-12-01T14:29:20Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Your children are not your property. They have their own rights independent of yours which the US governmemnt is bound to protect. One of those rights is to a sound education. You do not have the right to deprive them of that fundamental right any more than you have a right to deprive them of food or shelter. I didn’t say anything about any of that. My children are none of your business. And you have no business telling me what is sound and what is not sound in education. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/117 "2004-12-01T14:37:04Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Again. You are attempting to claim that my paraphrase of **someone else’s** statement makes it ‘my definition.’ That is simply false. As I have called nobody an idiot, you have unambiguously stated a falsehood. > Further, you’ve only been cryptic and oh-so-superior up to now, we have not discussed the nature of belief or how it relates to so called axiomatic knowledge and how axiomatic knoweldge is different when dealing with observed laws of nature than when stating rules of systems human create. > Now, if you would like to discuss those things I would be happy to, but it’s hard to hold a discussion when you claiming that I hold definitions which I do not while taking certain ‘axioms’ ‘views’ ‘paradigms’ as givens. Stop tap-dancing. Do you or do you not _yourself_ define an idiot as someone who accepts premises without proof? > [@](#): > > The aforementioned axiom sure seems paradoxical.A limited, rule-governed pattern of addition results in limitless and unquantifiable results? [Yep, fits the bill](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox) What the hell are you talking about? There is no resemblance between the Induction Axiom (Peano’s 5th) and the rambling in which you just engaged. > [@](#): > > And in many cases, _home_ schooling must be in accord with district or collegiate guidelines. That’s where a process of accreditation comes in. And I, for one, would have no problem with college admissions officers making sure that chldren who were home schooled are fully proficient in all aspects of modern biology. Who said anything about college admissions officers? > [@](#): > > So let me elaborate, you really only have the ability to decide the religious content of your child’s education in non-public school hours and as long as you aren’t concerned about colleges judging the curriculum of a particular homeschooled child lacking. I’m afraid you underestimate my abilities. > [@](#): > > And I assure you that I take your kind consideration in the spirit it is given. The spirit it in which it is given is resentment — resentment at being called an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/118 "2004-12-01T15:01:32Z")
Well Lib, if it is any consolation, I don’t think you are an idiot. Just a stark raving lunatic. Pretty close though. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/119 "2004-12-01T15:03:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Stop tap-dancing. Do you or do you not _yourself_ define an idiot as someone who accepts premises without proof? I am not ‘tapdancing’. I never made the definition that you are questioning, and up till now you’ve only hinted and “unambiguously stated” things. I’ve been asking for clarification for the last few posts between us. And finally you make (some of) your premises and questions explicit. So if either of us could be accused of ‘tapdancing’… Now, if you are asking me what my definition of ‘an idiot’ is, I suppose I don’t have one. It’s rough and ready, mostly it’s a slur, something to be used as short hand for “I believe this person is stupid.” > [@Liberal](#): > > What the hell are you talking about? There is no resemblance between the Induction Axiom (Peano’s 5th) and the rambling in which you just engaged. You’re too kind. **A limited, rule governed pattern:** If a set S of numbers contains _zero and also the successor of every number in S_. In other words the set starts with zero, the sucessive number is 1, the next sucessive number is 2, etc… In other words, this limited, rule governed pattern is ‘take the last number, add one.’ This **limited, rule governed pattern** results in the **limitless and unquantifiable** result of an infinite set. A mathamatical infinite is beyond limit, and cannot be [quantified](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quantified) > [@Liberal](#): > > Who said anything about college admissions officers? Me. There are varying means of ensuring proper academic rigor is present in homeschooling curriculum. I was suggesting that “I, for one, would have no problem with college admissions officers making sure that chldren who were home schooled are fully proficient in all aspects of modern biology.” > [@Liberal](#): > > I’m afraid you underestimate my abilities. Your abilities will not nullify the fact that, I said: “…as long as you aren’t concerned about colleges judging the curriculum of a particular homeschooled child lacking.” I’m sure there are enough loopholes in various state laws that one could get away with an almost entirely ‘faith based’ homeschooling curriculum. Accountability, partially, comes in at the college level. And if you are concerned about how your homeschooled children will be viewed by admissions officers, I suggest that your abilities are not up to the challenge of clouding men’s minds. > [@Liberal](#): > > The spirit it in which it is given is resentment — resentment at being called an idiot. **Being that I’ve not called you an idiot** Your resentment is pretty damn lame. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358/120 "2004-12-01T15:33:21Z")
**Finn Again** , if I may jump into your conversation with **continuity error** , I think the piece that’s missing is the explicit assertion that No proof something is not the same as disproving something. Given that God, by definition, is all-knowing and all-powerful, it’s _impossible_ to disprove it. God could do _anything_ to hide, be outside existence, plant ideas in your head, etc. So **continuity error** expects to remain agnostic forever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-your-god-damned-idiocy-out-of-my-education/277358.md?page=7)