Does Getting Spanked Make You Dumber?

Yep they may learn to swim from reading a book too

You reading from a book?

I guess that little parenthetical i.e., "(inspired by God)" is expected to magically gloss over the fact that the passages quoted are attributed to a 3,000 year old human fellow (certainly not unlike most of the readers of this blog) as evidence that the statements should be given some status greater than contrary statements attributed to any other persons of all eras before or since.

Nevertheless, since Solomon has been touted as a child rearing expert, let's examine his bona fides...

1. He was a king who ruled with force and is traditionally known as a military leader who assembled a powerful army to subdue his enemies.

2. He was reputed to have had so many wives and concubines (some estimates are as high as a 1,000) and, I presume, so many offspring that he must certainly have been the one primarily responsible for directly rearing his own children and, thus, such an expert on child rearing that his sage recommendations in favor of rod wielding had to have come from those many 1st-hand, discriminating, empirical observations, a scholarly evaluation of the relevant cause-effect relationships, and an accurate assessment of the relative failures of alternative methods.

3. To have become so sage and solid himself, Solomon's rearing must have been guided by similar principles; yet, it it curious that he strayed so far from grace himself later in life. Obviously, he must not have been beaten vigorously enough as a youth.

4. As a king of a primitive, pre-science culture, Solomon was wise enough to discern the utility of religion and godspeak as an instrument of political hegemony...much like many other despots before and since.

Should Solomon be quoted as a child rearing expert in 2009?

Please...spare me the "rod quotation" in rationale discourse.

Such rhetoric unmoves me.

Can science assert any evidence pre-science peoples of Solomons era were different physically or mentally from 2009 peoples?

I would put the burden of proof on the person reaching for guidance far beyond the most obviously relevant context and time to demonstrate the usefulness and merit of the reach.

Which side of your thumb bears a lessened sensitivity?

It must be the backside, because everything under my thumb seems to be plenty sensitive. :)

Well said.

"everything under my thumb seems to be plenty sensitive"

So I ask you now, how is it that you are not sensitive to the things that you think you are in control of (under your thumb), such as your mind, your senses, your emotions, aspirations, your thoughts - all these things are telling you that you are here in this world for a purpose?

I borrow this thought from a line a read so long ago somewhere: "If a baby in its mother's womb could think and rationalize, about its crampled, dark and watery surroundings, it would say, 'this is what life is all about, and all there is to it', because it is not aware that it would be birthed soon, and be amazed at the light, the air, the bigger and real world out there. And so it is with man. He thinks 'this is what life is all about, and all there is to it', but this time, it's different because God has revealed to us that there is an afterlife, and one that will see no end."

So what is the whole purpose of life? It's about preparing to meet the Creator.

Whenever anyone says "God" with a capital "G," though there is an obvious difference in degree, they are referring to a concept that is indistinguishable in kind from Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, etc. It is a concept which has been invented and perpetuated to give humans comfort...in the absence of verifiable information. Just like a child's fervent belief in Santa Claus does not make Santa real, a billion adult's belief in a particular God does not make that God real. Though the universe is a vast mystery and whether or what may be beyond this life is unknowable and might be wonderful and grand...adult humans, like the baby in the womb metaphor, are not equipped by nature to assertively make any useful preparations for a subsequent, speculated phase. Rather, we are equipped to deal with the environment which controls. How can one distinguish between an existence whre there IS a purpose and an existence where nature has evolved us to invent a purpose?

Humans are animals with certain sensory inputs, which provide some feedback respecting the environment. This feedback is converted by the brain into information, which an individual uses to characterize the environment and react to it. The senses, rich though they are, are also limited and biased. The interpretation of that sensory input is also limited and biased. Thus, nature routinely corrects imperfect assessments which reduce survivability, while reinforcing incorrect assessments which happen to improve survivability.

Quite likely, humans have evolved and maintain a capacity to perceive a purpose in life, because that is likley more effective in supporting behavior conducive to survival. Humans have also evolved an impressive capacity to recognize cause and effect and to discern many of the underlying mechanisms. That capacity involves intellectual machinery well adapted to speculate. With the acquisition of knowledge re the mechanisms of nature, the wanton speculation is slowly replaced by understanding and unjustified speculation falls away.

Admittedly, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to tease the justified speculation from the fantastical. Throughout time, humans have invented powerful forces to explain the mysteries perceived by the senses and appreciated by the mind. In inventing those forces, humans have created them in familiar forms...animals, humans, super humans. The God of any religion, including whatever God you refer to, is no different. It is a fantastical construct fabricated from vast numbers of individual and communal efforts to speculate a master mechanism behind this existence that fulfills the human need to discern a purpose and to feel a sense of security, love, justice, meaning, grandeur, etc. When such a mechanism is stripped away, it would appear to leave a vacuum, wherein there remains no reason to place any more significance in a human life than in that of the lowest organisms which spring to life and are promptly quenched. That is, the choice is presented as between a God who gives meaning and an absolute nihilism. That dichotomy is an illusion, a false choice.

Believing in a Creator, a God, by itself is benign and not necessarily unjustified. The universe is vast and the mystery would appear to be ultimately impenetrable. I have no problem with that. The problem for me is when some fellow human, equipped with the same tools, seeks to characterize of define what that God is and to further develop the whys, hows, whens, shoulds, etc. I recognize no mechanisms, which might reliably distinguish accurate metaphysical statements from the wildest ramblings of a lunatic. Thus, though believing in nothing is just as unjustified as believing in something, it seems sensible to withhold believing in any particular thing.

There are infinite alternative views. If one has no reliable information about a Creator or its wishes, commands, preferences, etc., then one has no reliable information that one might use to guide one's behavior in accordance. For example, what if the Creator is evil? What if the Creator revels in horror and punishes good? Such a Creator could actually influence human subjects to believe in and seek to please a good Creator with good acts and lives. That way, the impact of the awful truth generates maximum horror/pleasure for that God.

There is no way to distinguish between an accurate message from a benevolent God and a deceptive message from a deceptive God. For that reason, and for a number of others, believing any particular thing about a God is tantamount to being deceived or actively deceiving oneself. Understandably, believing in a wonderful God would appear to have certain advantages over fearing the possibility of an evil God (i.e, sense of security, purpose, social fellowship with others similarly deceived, etc.). It might even have adavantages over an agnostic recognition that there is no reason to believe a particular thing. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the long term future of humanity needs to be or will remain grounded in such decption.

Rather, I believe that humans will evolve into beings which recognize that they are instruments of nature, that the decisions they make will affect the relationships they form, that certain relationships are preferable to others, that rules of behavior which bring about the preferred circumstances carry with them their own justification, and that no particular metaphysical deceptions need be accepted to achieve the best of all possible lives.

You could've simply said you're confused...

Granted, an agnostic POV involves a conscious decision to remain undecided or, as you put it "confused."

If, to avoid being "confused," one must wholly adopt --as FACT--a bunch of metaphysical assertions that cannot be tested for TRUTH, all made by fellow humans (many with highly coiffed hairdos and hands eagerly outstretched...palms up), I'll gladly remain "confused."

I prefer that to self-delusion...even if it potentially costs me some warm, fuzzy feelings.

I have one observation for you Tex. I am sure you have heard it before but I will state it again, just in case you haven't.

If there is no God, then when I die, I will be in the same place as you. nowhere, because I wil cease to exist. However If there is a God, then I will be in much better place than you, if I have been obedient to his commands.

I say this not to pursuade you to change your mind but to cause you to think about eternitity. It is a verry LONG time to be seperated from all love and everything that is good. But on the other hand if you are right, it wont make any difference. By the way, do you buy insurance?

That argument, as I addressed in my prior comment, completely fails.

It appears to require only that a God be a possibility, but it obviously also requires that a God be a certain type of benevolent God.

And, it necessarily assumes that one can know which sort of mortal behavior will please the God who controls the afterlife. If one can't know that, then one can only hope that the assumptions that adopts are close enough. In fact, however, those assumptions...any assumptions...could be the exact opposite of what please the God.

It's precisely just as likley that an agnostic who recognizes the limits of metaphysical knowledge and limits his beliefs accordingly will please an Almighty God, than anyone who faithfully, foolishly, studiously, righteously, or conceitedly assumes and follows a particular gnostic set of beliefs. In the complete absence of reliable information, any set of beliefs has the same proabability as any other of being correct (see argument below re why good mortal behavior may be logically wiser than evil mortal behavior).

I believe that I should be a good, ethical person--not because I'm trying to gain benefits in an afterlife--but because I believe that doing so yields an interesting and honorable mortal life and rewarding mortal relationships. If there is a God, and it's a benevolent God, being a good agnostic is just as wise a way to live as any other. If, however, the God is evil, I'm probably just as screwed as any Faith-follower who assumes that there is particular type of benevolent God.

I have thought about these issues a great deal and have often debated the matter with many who seriously follow, on faith, a set of beliefs which they believe to be the correct set. The problem is that there is zero reliable evidence--not 1 iota--that any particular set of beliefs has the tineiest smidgen of merit over any others, with respect to the eternal life issue. Many faiths, when followed, promote mortal lives that are generally good mortal lives. For that reason, it is not necessarily bad for anyone to follow a faith, as long as the followers remain tolerant of other views and don't try too hard to extend the faith logic beyond its realm.

There is a compelling argument in support of good mortal bahavior, even in a state of complete ignorance re whether there is a God or what type of God there may be.

It would appear more likley that a benevolent God would prepare a pleasant afterlife for favored mortals. The more benevolent that God is, the more inclusive the afterlife opportunity would apper to be. Thus, even a good person, regardless of which particular gnostic beliefs he held, might have a shot at a pleasant afterlife. It would not appear so likely that an evil God would be motivated to prepare a pleasant afterlife for anyone, much less for anyone who had lived good mortal lives. Thus, a good mortal has a shot at pleasing a good God, but it is unclear how a bad mortal might sufficiently please an evil God to win anything pleasant in an afterlife.

I do buy certain kinds of insurance, but, only when there is a written policy describing a set of conditions describing remedies for important mortal needs (needs of mine, loved ones, employees, clients, visitors, etc.) under specific circumstances, which have some rational probability of occurring.

Would I buy afterlife insurance? No, not in the absence of some guarantees re the range of afterlife options, because I'd fear it would make me an easier target for an evil God (or eternal telemarketer). Any faith follower should not buy afterlife insurance either, as its purchase would be evidence of an imperfect faith.

These issues will likley be debated for as long as there are beings with curiousity, passion, and imperfect knowledge...faith and reason are inherently less than fully compatible. I'm glad, though, that I live in circumstances and in a time and place where I can call BS when a faith follower asserts a faith argument in a dialogue based on reason...without being stoned for heresy.

And, it necessarily assumes that one can know which sort of mortal behavior will please the God who controls the afterlife. If one can't know that, then one can only hope that the assumptions that adopts are close enough. In fact, however, those assumptions...any assumptions...could be the exact opposite of what please the God.

In order to comprehend one must read the directions, the Bible is where these directions for the God of the Bible are found. It would seem unnecessary to explain such to an intelligent individual?? Does not believing in God make you dumber?

Once more time..."in order to comprehend one must read" (and think)...

You've heard of circular reasoning? Does your failure to acknowledge the circularity of your own argument reveal a) a lack of intelligence (because the flaw in reasoning is so obvious), or b) a lack of faith (because you feel compelled to prove something that your own source instructs you to swallow on faith)?

Your position is patently circular and your problem (assuming you wish to demonstrate that your faith is rational) is that there is no escape from it.

A mortal's faith in any source for the correct rules is strictly that...a strong belief in something which has not been or cannot be proven.

I posited that it is impossible to know what a God expects because there is no direct evidence that there is a God, much less what sort of behavior the God may desire from a mortal. Your response is that the Bible is that evidence.

While the Bible is a significant collection of stories dealing with the supernatural through a limited period of a limited segment of human history (though neither the oldest nor most recent), all of the evidence pegs it as a strictly, solely, uniquely human product. Hallucinations, histories, dreams, nightmares, fabrications, rhetoric, dogmatic justifications, adaptations, myths, stories, fables, homilies, anecdotes, and innumerable retellings of same, all eventually written down, selected, compiled, assembled, translated, retranslated...by pre-science humans...is evidence of nothing more than that humans can assemble, publish, base, and sustain a (constantly evolving and endlessly fragmenting) religion around a set of stories re the supernatural.

Even the Bible, itself, undermines your rational position by acknowledging the "evil God" problem...in its warnings against Satan, false prophets, antichrist, etc. The point is, that only by entirely suspending reason and accepting, instead, a particular set of beliefs through faith alone, can one adopt a set of rules hoping to achieve a benefit in a post mortal existence. In doing so, it is not irrational (relatively speaking) to adopt one of the common sets of rules (e.g., some flavor of Bible-based Christianity), especially, if it a set common to one's family and peers. Certainly, adopting a set of rules in common with one's family and peers may yield certain mortal benefits, even if the rules adopted are meaningless or worse re a post mortal existence. Nothing about the enterprise, however, is demonstrably superior...moral or otherwise...to a well reasoned refusal to suspend reason in lieu of a lifetime spent choking the impulse to call BS on the rationally absurb cloaked, however well, in the popular.

You've heard of circular reasoning?

That unreasonably acrid stuff at the bottom of the shit-can.........

It has nothing to do with being a Good person. It has everything to do with eternal life being a free gift from God, through Jesus Christ.

Your faith in Nature or Evolution is faith just like faith in God is faith. Yours is just misplaced. You are a thoughtful, intelligent person as exampled in your posts. Perhaps a thoughtful re-review of the Bible would merit you further insights?

Thanks for the compliment. I really do try to be thoughtful and my goal is not to undermine the faith of any believer. I am willing, however, to challenge faith-based assertions to the extent they are asserted beyond their natural parameters. For example, I began doing so in this thread in response to someone citing the Bible and King Solomon as "evidence" of what "God" has to say on the issue of spanking.

I just responded to another post re the faith in the Bible position. I'm sure it will not surprise you to learn that I do not find the Bible persuasive re the truth of even one of its supernatural claims.

I don't recall mentioning evolution, so I gather you concluded that an agnostic necessarily ends up there. Not true. An agnostic purposefully refrains from assuming the truth of anything which cannot be addressed through examination. Thus, I have no "faith" in nature or in evolution and don't feel a need to have "faith" in either. I'm perfectly comfortable acknolwedging that my understanding of real truth is too limited to adopt a position. Evolution seems to provide a rational and fairly robust explanation for the development of ever more complicated systems through the myriad interactions permitted by extant physical properties. Thus, I prefer discourse in those terms, for the same reason I prefer science fiction to fantasy.

Re your suggestion that I rereview the Bible... I hope that I will have numerous additional opportunities to rereview that book. However, I'm not much compelled to spend a lot more time with the Bible, as there are so many other matters of which I'm fairly ignorant. For example, though I'm familiar enough with Biblical traditions to form a variety of opinions, I have very little direct familiarity with the teachings of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, etc. Learning more about each of those collected, evolved faiths should yield additional insight into the human ability to create a supernatural explanation..an admittedly significant area of study. However, I'm much more interested in and excited by the human effort to tease information from experience. Thus, the rational efforts of scientists and engineers are more appealing to me than are the supernatural musings of pre-science storytellers and charlatans of a more recent vintage.

We get it, you don't believe in a god after all your long windedness, no one cares what you think about it. I don't see anything in your rantings about whether spanking makes you dumber or did it.

So you don't believe in GOD, big deal, what does your tirade have to do about spanking or not spanking.

If you traced back through the thread (which I designated from the get go as "off topic" re the spanking topic), you'd find that I initially objected to the introduction of a bible quote into the dialogue as evidence of God's word on the value of spanking. That quote was the "spare the rod" statement attributed to King Solomon. Perhaps I allowed a bit of sarcasm, but I did try to remain true to the purpose of demonstrating that faith-based justifications were of limited utility in the debate of something that can be scientifically analyzed.

You can analyze it all you want, but look at schools today compared to the time in school when there was corporal punishment, you didn't have Columbines then nor did you have the drop out rate and kids for the most part were behaved and followed instruction. Was that out of fear of the paddle, well yea, but you also get out of the way of a moving train. Sometimes fear is a healthy motivator. All though your quote was religious theology it still rings true in application. No pun intended.

"Rather, I believe that humans will evolve into beings which recognize that they are instruments of nature,..."

Instruments of nature? And what form will such recognition take?

The recognition that nature is itself the end result of a quantum 'fluctuation' in something - Science doesn't tell us what, exactly - some thirteen or so billion years ago?

The recognition that we, as human beings, are nothing more (or less) than the latest installment in a four-billion-year-old series of complex, self-perpetuating chemical reactions having their origins in a chance configuration of a few molecules in a primordial sea?

The recognition that we, as chemical reactions, are fundamentally no different than rust forming on a piece of metal or a piece of wood burning in open air? That the difference is one of complexity only?

The recognition that all our hopes, dreams, needs, plans, loves, hates, beliefs, relationships, behaviors, rights, actions, every single thing we think, see, feel and do - our lives - are nothing more than byproducts of countless reactions among countless others; all of which are doomed grind to an eternal halt in a cold, dead universe strangled by its own unstoppable entropy?

The recognition that our very existence is nothing more than a product of Chance and Probability?

This, my friend, is your worldview, stripped of its patina of respectability.

If you think this vision of yours for humanity's future holds out any hope at all, then you're kidding yourself. Bereft of God, this universe and in everything in it is completely and utterly meaningless. Why? Because in such a universe meaning itself is nothing more than aberration, a side-effect, a byproduct of an equally meaningless sequence of processes, and nothing more. How could it be otherwise? In such a universe, you and I and everything else are merely the end products of an ancient, random quantum fluctuation, and nothing more.

That's what Science is telling us. So please, let's cut this 'evolved beings' crap and all that other bull-caca your no-God visionary friends spout and let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

You do serve a god, you know. Just not the one I do.

Damnit! I wrote a brilliant, lengthy, well-reasoned response and lost it before I was able to submit it. The following ais a mere shell...

I have enjoyed many of your posts on CR4.

"Rather, I believe that humans will evolve into beings which recognize that they are instruments of nature,..."

Instruments of nature? And what form will such recognition take?

The recognition that nature is itself the end result of a quantum 'fluctuation' in something - Science doesn't tell us what, exactly - some thirteen or so billion years ago?

1. If there is a limit to science (including everything a human can do to derive valid information), and it certainly seems unlikely that science is capable of revealing all (the incompleteness problem), any speculation beyond that is fantasy. As humanity increases its knowledge of the knowable, I expect that it will yield persons who less and less feel obliged to fill in the unknown and the unknowable with specific versions of the fabricated…even versions fabricated and perpetuated by others and adopted by fractions of the masses. That is, I predict an increase in the fraction of the population who qualify as agnostics, choosing not to form specific metaphysical beliefs or adopt regimented behavior patterns based on them.

The recognition that we, as human beings, are nothing more (or less) than the latest installment in a four-billion-year-old series of complex, self-perpetuating chemical reactions having their origins in a chance configuration of a few molecules in a primordial sea?

The recognition that we, as chemical reactions, are fundamentally no different than rust forming on a piece of metal or a piece of wood burning in open air? That the difference is one of complexity only?

2. Comparing humans to rust disregards many, many levels and many of nature's tools. We are not described by our chemistry, just as the meaning in Hamlet is not captured by the chemicals involved in the manufacture of the pigments used to make the ink which Shakespeare used to make the pen strokes which formed the letters of the words of the clauses of the sentences of the statements which communicated the subtle and sublime messages, images, meanings, and connections grasped by the audience. Nature has many tools and is constantly evolving new ones. Chemistry evolved early on from the more basic laws of quantum physics and, of course, remains. Many other tools evolved from the physical laws. When organic bits which could persist and replicate themselves in particular circumstances appeared, Nature had a new tool, still grounded in the physical laws, but capable of amazing new things. When those organic bits began acquiring the capability to respond to their environment, amazing new things occurred. When Nature evolved human speech, again, amazing new things. Now that humans are decoding and modifying themselves, watch for a whole slew of unimaginably amazing new things. We are agents of Nature and we are inventing new tools at an ever increasing pace. If that process it not cut short by disaster or permanent regression and continues for millions or billions of years…maybe God will be discovered and confirmed somewhere along the line.

The recognition that all our hopes, dreams, needs, plans, loves, hates, beliefs, relationships, behaviors, rights, actions, every single thing we think, see, feel and do - our lives - are nothing more than byproducts of countless reactions among countless others; all of which are doomed grind to an eternal halt in a cold, dead universe strangled by its own unstoppable entropy?

The recognition that our very existence is nothing more than a product of Chance and Probability?

This, my friend, is your worldview, stripped of its patina of respectability.

3. Fair enough, but of what is the gnostic's patina of respectability comprised? Acceptance on faith that there is reliable information respecting THE GOD, that one can tell which information is the correct information from amongst a morass of conflicting views, that one has chosen correctly, that one knows the correct rules, that one chooses to live according to those rules, etc. The gnostic's patina of respectability is maintained only by exhibiting adoption of a belief system that is close enough to that shared by enough others that he will not be deemed goofy, too often.

If you think this vision of yours for humanity's future holds out any hope at all, then you're kidding yourself. Bereft of God, this universe and in everything in it is completely and utterly meaningless. Why? Because in such a universe meaning itself is nothing more than aberration, a side-effect, a byproduct of an equally meaningless sequence of processes, and nothing more. How could it be otherwise? In such a universe, you and I and everything else are merely the end products of an ancient, random quantum fluctuation, and nothing more.

4. Hope, belief, and meaning are spoken of but experienced only by individual minds. To feel hope, to believe, and to sense meaning, one need only feel, believe, and sense. Access to ultimate, eternal truths is not required. False hope, false beliefs, and false meanings need not and often do not lead necessarily to anything negative. I can hope that a fairy will visit, I can believe that a fairy exists, and I can fabricate a mechanism in which a visit by a fairy has meaning. If the fairy never visits, there are all sorts of apparently meaningful things that I can fabricate to explain it all. As long as I feed myself and live my life, the absolute falseness of those efforts can be of little consequence. The same is true if I believe it possible that the universe is a machine and that my life is purely an accident. Even if I believe it possible that everything will eventually end, that nobody will remember, that there will be no record, that everything which has ever been or will be done, imagined, experienced, created, etc., will vanish without a trace…I will still set my alarm, I will still wake my children, I will still feed myself, I will still seek pleasure and avoid pain, I will still go to work, I will still service my debt, I will still read and reconsider, I will still hope, I will still wonder and feel awe at the mysteries of this existence, I will still mourn the demise of loved ones, I will still hold some beliefs, I will still seek and perceive meaning…not because I have a belief or a faith that there is a God, but because I am a human and that is what we do. We have a robust capacity to avoid being destroyed by nihilism, even though we may belief that "nothing" is possible.

That's what Science is telling us. So please, let's cut this 'evolved beings' crap and all that other bull-caca your no-God visionary friends spout and let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

5. A scientist may speculate about what science may or not prove with respect to ultimate truths and matters of a metaphysical nature, but Science has told us very little beyond what has been gleaned from investigating the world around us and its basic mechanisms. Science doesn't deny that God exists, but it does tend to eliminate certain ways that God may likely express himself. That would appear to be no more egregious than other human enterprises which ascribe to God particular characteristics. My friends represent many perspectives and most profess some belief in a God and some profess very specific beliefs about a relatively specific god. My oldest daughter is a United Pentecostal Christian. Also, I am no visionary or utopian, but I do like analyzing the past, present, and future and find the theories and explanations which do not require the interposition of a "genie" to be the more compelling. As far as the "bull-caca"…however, in your real experience in virtually every other facet of your life, how persuaded are you by some assertion of another that some event occurred magically? I'd sooner believe the ancient's stories of God and miracles were the result of visits from unknown advanced terrestrial or extraterrestrial beings than magic performed by the Almighty described in the books. It seems much more plausible that any real "miraculous" events were the product of powers unknown to the observers, which were derived from the physical laws, rather than willed usurpations of them. By the way, when I said that I was willing to "call BS"…I was not stating that it was BS to believe and I didn't say that the religious POV was irrelevant or invalid. I only meant that it was BS to introduce religious "evidence" in a science discussion as PROOF.

You do serve a god, you know. Just not the one I do.

6. Is that a subtle allegation that I serve the devil? Or, is it a more general statement that there is a God and we all serve in our own way? Perhaps, but I'm not inclined to pretend that I see the fabulous clothes if I don't see them. And, I'm not inclined to accept that anyone who claims to see what I do not has a keener access to the mystery than I do. I'd rather withhold belief than adopt a convenient one, when I am certain that I do not know.

7. The concept of "GOD" is so vast, so big, so personal, and so amorphous…that no two people likely have the same precise belief. Thus, there will be tremendous variability, even among those who profess to "believe" in the same God, respecting the attributes, etc.

The topic of proof that God exists (or doesn't exist) got me to thinking about a book I read years ago titled "Flatland" by Edwin Abbott written in the 1884. Here is a link that gives a decent description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland. Basically it's about a 3 dimensional being who enters a two dimensional world and interacts with an inhabitant. Much of the story is describing Flatland and the social hierarchy (3 sided beings with one very small angle are lower class than 3 sided beings with a larger angle, 3 sided beings are lower class than 4 sided, 4 sided are lower than 5 sided, etc. oh and woman are lines). It delves into the difficulties of how does a complex (3 dimensional) being try to communicate with a simple being (2 dimensional)? And how does a simple being attempt to understand the world outside his own (and I don't necessarily mean like the moon or Jupiter).

More like the characters in a novel debating the existence of the author...

Read that in my teens and again in my 20s. It was tedious reading and would have worked better as a shorter story. But, I've alwasy thought the concept was brilliant.

I agree it was sometimes difficult to follow due to the older language style and word usage. I didn't view it as being that long. As a matter of fact, I thought it was rather short. I just looked at the Table of Contents for it on Amazon's web site and the last chapter begins on page 79 and one of the reviewers mentions the story only taking 82 pages.

Your position on the (non-)existence of God is like so many, many others I have heard over the years: half-assed. It shifts and changes, like a chameleon, to suit the moment - and the audience. It ducks here and covers there and, in the final analysis, doesn't know what the hell it believes nor where it is going. It is afraid to wade in deeper waters because it is afraid of what it will find there; and well it should be. Believe or don't believe, but don't bail when the road starts getting ugly. Take it to the bitter end or don't take it at all.

Until then...

I recognize pure rhetoric when I see it. Your reply makes not a single reference to a single point I made and includes not a single defense to a single point you've previously made which anything I have argued may have undermined. You can do better.

telex give it up, out of all your posts, you only have two good answers and most of yours are howlings at the moon. This subject is about does getting spanked make you dumber.

Note: I, too, enjoy sarcasm and wordplay (plus, my wife insists I'm quite arrogant) and responding in kind. Accordingly, though righteously penned, the following reply is written mostly in fun. :)

Fine with me. The record will reflect that I did not start the dialogue as an attack on FAITH. Rather, I initially participated with an on-topic objection to the insertion of a faith-based position statement as PROOF in a discussion that deserved better.

That objection lead, as it inevitably does, to a number of unfocused, poorly argued, circular retorts sprayed shotgun style with more interest in the discharge than in whether they could hit a legitimate target.

I will give it up because the issue of faith vs. reason, though philosohpically very interesting when the debate is of good quality, rapidly gets tedious and banal when it is not.

Before I go, however, I will respond to the three gratuitous cheap shots that you ended with.

First, you criticize my "howlings at the moon." If the "howlings" you refer to are the ones in the current forum, again, each was a direct response to a critique offered by another forum member...including a number by you. I didn't howl first, but I think I did howl best.

Next, you criticize my low number of "good answers." I'm confident I could have scored some "good answers" points in this current forum, by merely inserting an AMEN in conjunction with a purely anecdotal support for spanking plus some pithy references to the obviously Marxist politics of those who conducted the spanking studies. This forum was more than amply represented by that position (review the responses that got "good answers" points in this topic), however, it seemed to need a "devil's advocate" and I have no problem playing that role...even at the expense of popularity points. I noted that you do have more "good answers" points than I do...an obvious indication of superiority, which I do not discount. So, I reviewed them and found it interesting that they were each earned in the spanking discussion. Though your comment numbers 44, 85, and 192 won you three separate points, they were all quite similar, principly anecdotal stories from your personal experience (by the way, sincere congrats on your success as a person and as a parent and choice of residence...I love Austin) coupled with an unspported proposition directly correlating a decline in the quality of education with the elimination of corporal punishment (certainly a gross oversimplification). Though each of those posts contributed to the debate of the topic, I think the "good answers" points were given as endorsements of the surprisingly popular position favoring spanking. I don't, however, begrudge you those points. In fact, I'll help you get another point by seconding the gemlike quality of your comment #146 to advance it beyond the "almost good answer" stage. Certainly, keep up the good work. I'll keave up to you where to put the asterisks.

Last, you criticize the off-topicness of my contributions. My defenses of the various attacks on my initial contribution were definitely off-topic. That's why I consistently tagged them as such. Isn't that how you're supposed to do it? If you're going to criticize me for it, however, do you wish to be the pot or the kettle? WWJD?

So, you admit that Solomon's rod-raising was inadequate to keep him corrected in the sinngle most significant aspect of his existence? Actually, as the "Bible" is a formal collection of prior works that was not established until about a 1,000 years after his time, it could not have informed him on what God expected of a king. Rather, he would have obtained such information from the collective written and verbal stories and traditions that were available at the time...only some of which ended up in the Old Testament.

Certainly, without a comparable wealth of viewpoints and research, he was in a much more primitive position respecting an issue like child rearing, than are today's thinkers. We can stand on the shoulders of giants. He had the disadvantage of having to figure out how to be a giant.

I'm too conceited to concede that he could regularly "debate me under the table." Admittedly, he was quite likely a master of conventional rhetoric and well versed in the parables, psalms, and other forms of folkloric wisdom. However, most of the points made by those stories have ready counterpoints that are equally terse and commonsensical. Plus, I would expect Solomon to rely heavily on the God arguments that fail entirely outside a debate framework which does not grant them unqualified deference.

No child rearing system will yield a well-adjusted child every time.

So, you admit that Solomon's rod-raising was inadequate to keep him corrected in the single most significant aspect of his existence?

the "Bible" is a formal collection of prior works that was not established until about a 1,000 years after his time

??

You're not getting it eh, what is wisdom and where does one find it?

No child rearing system will yield a well-adjusted child every time. That's a no-brainer too...

Solomon had the book of the law the Torah, the five books of Moses. He also had divinely inspired wisdom. But even with that he fell into sin. As we all do.

I counted 5 assertions and only take issue with the one in the middle.

Ah so you openly admit the spanking is acceptable at times. In your statement"

No child rearing system will yield a well-adjusted child every time." you believe that a non spanking form of dicipline to a child will not yeild a "well-adjusted child every time". therefore it begs the question what other form off dicipline do you use.

I think spanking should be acceptable enough that parents are forgiven and can forgive themselves when they run out of patience and resort to an occasional smack or a spanking...

The point I intended in the "no child rearing system will yield a well-adjusted child every time" statement is that child rearing is far too complex an interaction between an individual and an environment for any strategy to achieve an optimum result in every case. Some children will become evil people despite the best of upbringings.

Why off-topic? It is a superb comment...

Thanks for the compliment.

The "off topic" designation followed the thread that started with my challenge to the introduction of the "spare the rod" quote from Solomon. Certainly, that reference sums up and supports a certain of view in the dialogue re the pros/cons of spanking and made a useful sound bite in the intellectual discourse. However, as the offending comment seemed to suggest, citing it as the Great Almighty's indisputable word on the topic went too far for my comfort.

It should make you uncomfortable. But children, like adults, have to have boundaries and a good old fashion ass whipping (especially at school) is what some most kids understand. We should start with the parents first there is no manual that comes with kids when they are born and all children are different. Different forms of the carrot and the stick should be used designed to that child's behavior along with much love and understanding of the child's needs.

The guest is still immature, give it time and those dumb people will magically become near genius...

dora the explorer said so...

Gratefully that is one topic I'druther leave to the so-so-ologists.

Besides, as a grandfather I'm chuckling at their demise-to-come.....

^{I'm too young to be a grandfather....damn}

"I'm too young to be a grandfather....damn"

<hands sternly on hips> Well, then, you should've considered behaving yourself better when you were too young to be a father!

Hmph!

But I feel for you, Mr. Duck, truly I do. And as I simply cannot bear to see an old man cry, how's about I send you this very nice faux-walnut-burl cane for your daily walk around the coffee table? It's supposed to come with a user manual, I think, but I can't find it (can't find my glasses, either), but not to worry; if you take off those gloves and look real close you can see that the instructions are printed in Braille right here on the cheap plastic handle. See?

By the way, your paparazzi stopped by again this morning - this time with pix of you in the park. My personal fave:

Say, we're all wondering down here how you keep from freezing your ass off up there in that gawdawful Canadian cold. Is it the booze? (psst: you can tell us. It's okay)