Athena

Good you are still here. Absolutely I meant what I said about math and being divine. The Greeks believed we are made in the image of the gods because we can reason (we have the power of speech). Chardin wrote, God is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. I think a problem in this thread is I am coming from Greek and Eastern philosophy and reasoning, and those who have not studied philosophy, are thinking only of God as the bible defines God. I chose math because math is a path to the idea that we are made in the image of the gods, and the path to understanding logos, reason, the controlling force of the universal. You know, as gravity is one of the laws that make our reality possible. It is the reason we do not fall off the ball we live on. With math comes ideas like a triangle is a triangle on earth, and on the moon, or any where else. A triangle is the power of the triad. "The triad is the form of completion of all things". Michomachus of Gerara. "A whole is that which has a beginning, middle and end". Aristotle. The book "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe, The Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science" by Michael S Schneider, gives us the concepts, for understanding logos, and Plato's forms, and later, what was picked by Christians as an understanding that perfection is not earthly, but is of another realm. Greek math is built upon Egyptian math, and you know it was used to divine the time of floods, the time to plant, and eclipses. In Egypt, the priest were thought to be divine because they could divine. I think when we contemplate God from the ancients point of view and Eastern philosophy, we have a different understanding than if all we know of God comes from the bible? I am doing my best to be as factual as I can be, but may be metaphysics is not just about facts. Like not all concepts are facts, but they speak of truth, right? Math is so much more than a fact. It is a "Mind Tool" that can be used in many ways, but is the traid a fact or a concept? God is not a fact, but a concept, right? I am tired and going to bed. Maybe in the morning I deal with your personal attacks substituting of logical arguments, but not tonight. I think you better do some research about animals and language. They make sounds and they respond to them, as mother responds to a crying baby or a child's giggles. However, these sounds are not language. Experiments with higher order primates pushes us believe animals are capable of language, however, they not be discussing politics any time soon. They do not the language necessary for contemplating if it is immoral to have sex before marriage.

I believe it is scientifically incorrect to say animals have morals. That is because they do not have language, so they can not think about morals, and make moral judgements. Keep in mind, it is unlikely we will ever give dogs voting rights, and yet native Americans saw wolves as an excellent example of family values. Dogs are loyal and that is a virtue. Careful breeding lead to domesticated dogs. The book "Science of Good and Evil", calls biological programming of social animals, the pre morals. The same biological programming that preconditions us for moral judgment, works fairly well for humans in small groups, but not in large groups. In small groups, informal agreements about how to behave, work just fine. In large groups where is impossible to have personal relationships with everyone, religion and government with formal codes of conduct become necessary. Why religion? Because religion unites abnormally large groups of people with a shared identity and code of conduct. Around the 20th century, secular education used literature to transmit cultural values, and this effectively replaces the need for religion as the source of culture, however, education stopped serving this purpose when liberal education was replaced with education for technology. Education for a technological society with unknown values, does not transmit culture, and the result is social break down. This is both good and bad. Whoo, how many science subjects do you discuss like an authority, without reading one book in that field of science? Yeah, right, go into the math or physics thread and tell everyone your ability to understand them is their responsibility. I think someone might tell you to take college class or at least read a book. What books have you read that prepare you for this discussion? How much have read about the history of education? Perhaps you read of zoology or psychology? How much have read of history of Germany? Perhaps you are ready to compare Greek and Rome philosophy with German philosophy? How many books on religion have you read? I don't think there is one science forum where a person would dare to argue without any back ground in the science. Ask questions yes, but argue no.

You said so many good things, it is hard to remember all of them. I didn't know there was something other than swearing on the bible. Of course swearing the bible has its problems, but it is akin to what I mean when I say I answer to God, not a group of people, and it is not the social norm that defines my decisions. I think someone objected to me saying that, and I have contemplated why anyone would object to that ever since yesterday. I am glad to approach this question from another angle. What is this ability to affirm? I assume this is a transition of morality that is needed, and it gets to the very crux of the problem of "why god". I will wait your explanation with great anticipation. As for transition of faith, this so much goes with scientific discovery and I here religion in England is perhaps doing a better job of adjusting to the demand for change. I know less of what is happening in England, that the impact of Newton. Too bad the church refused to look through Galileo's telescope and see for themselves the moon is not a perfect sphere. Oh my, the battle between religion and science is such a source of tension and confusion. However, when you have a classical or liberal education based on Greek and Roman classics, and Newton defines gravity as a law, this set off a fire storm of faith that science will reveal god. God, logos, universal laws, what a thrilling adventure into knowledge and meaning. I think the rejection of Galileo and the acceptance of Newton, was about the literacy of those who could afford education? Of course Darwin set off a new controversy and hearing what my Christian friends say about God, it is obvious they do not have adequate education in science. Without doubt the Texas Republican agenda is to keep evolution and education for independent thinking out of the school. This is a terrible thing, and I wish the church would get back on board with faith that science will reveal god. I think this would go much better if there were not so much strong insistence that is no god. This is so sad, but Christians and Muslims are pushing against those "godless people" and this increases the push against those religious people. Allegorically speaking Satan is the lie, and this fight over what is truth and what is the lie, manifest the anti Christ. I am not saying non believers are the anti Christ, but the energy that builds in this conflict is the anti Christ. This conflict can brings us to another terrible war, and whoops friend came to take to breakfast, have to run.

Now that is an excellent statement, and something I think we need to be very concern about. We all know how effective the church was in preventing freedom of speech and even freedom of thought. Some days I worry that we are experiencing the same reality, only the shoe is on a different foot. We are no longer liberal and this looks like a serious problem to me. Censoring for political correctness destroys the very meaning of freedom of speech.

I didn't mean this to be just entertainment. I had given up on these discussions, and then thought I conceived of a better way to talk about why God is important. I was inspired by another forum and the subject of language. It is language that separates us from all the other creatures and makes it possible for us to reason and to have rule by reason. It is language that makes us political creatures. It is our capacity for math that really makes us divine. Why God? Because we can imagine a God, and we can imagine a better life, and what we can image, we can manifest as long as our understanding of the cosmos, logos, God is correct, and we follow the laws created long before humans walked the earth. Is this a compliment or a personal attack that is against the rules? It sure is not on subject. If you disagree with my reasoning, copy and paste and state why you disagree.

You speak of the function of religion. Alain de Botton has created "Religion for Atheists" so that there is a religion that performs the functions of religion for atheist. http://www.alaindebo...om/Religion.asp Liberal education transmitted a culture, and we stopped doing this when we began educating for a technological society with unknown values. This destroys our social structure, and perhaps we can develop a better culture and better social structure, but this sure isn't going to happen if we do not talk about it. There are two ways to have social order, culture, or authority over the people. If the culture is destroyed, what is left? What is your understanding of God? Where does it come from? I ask because just the functions or religion are not enough. It is pretty important to have a workable concept of the cosmos as well. Having a workable understanding of cosmos is essential to good moral judgment. I would not say morals are not dependent on culture. I would say morals are dependent on understanding the cosmos. Cultures that have an incorrect understanding of the cosmos self destruct. What makes the difference between right and wrong is when things are right they go well, and when things are wrong, there is destruction. Morals can develop through cultural experience only if the young respect the elders and the elders pass on necessary information. Without this, there is the "Lord of Flies". We have thousands of years of human experience to learn from, and who is taken advantage of this? Education for technology brought Germany to the NAZI experience and the US replaced its liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology. What moral might we learn from this? What Hitler called the New World Order, Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex, and Bush once again called it the New World Order, and the Neo Cons acted on their plans for the New Century American Project. What morals have we learned? Acting to comply with group norms is what happened in Germany, and we had education that prevented that. I answer to God, not the group that sets the norms, and this was the American difference! Your understanding of morals worries me. As for my responsibility, how well do you understand Einstein? Without a background in science and math, who can understand him? Now was it his responsibility to communicate so that everyone could understand him, or do we have some responsibility for learning what we need to learn to understand him? Without liberal education you can not be expected to understand why God is important and what God has to do with our liberty. You do not know about Stoicism or logos, nor the difference between a fairy tale and a parable. Maybe if this discussion goes on for six years, enough well be said for people to understand what is being said. However, I am no more responsible for your ability to understand than Einstein.

Your reasoning is used by ancient people around the world, and is fundamental to democracy, rule by reason. However, for the Greeks and some Romans, this also goes with an understanding of logos, and with an understanding that we are not born knowing everything we need to know. Now liberal education had us thinking about such things, but education for technology does not. Socrates big concern was getting people to think about what they think and developing their conscience. Con- coming out of, and science- knowledge. The bible is largely parables, allegorical explanations of life. It is not the sole source of life lessons, but for sure we need those lessons. Children who grow up with abuse, tend to be abusive, how do you propose to deal with this? Romney answered a college student's question about he was to fund his college education and Romney said, "get a loan from your parents" as though all young people can do this. Romney may understand business transactions, but he understanding of life seems questionable. That is true for all of us. Our brains are really very limited, and for this reason only a handful of people will be really close to us. Once we get past 600 people in our life, we tend to objectify people, as extensions of cash registers, telephones, buses. We dehumanize them, because we can recognize them all as human beings. That is we do not personally come to know everyone, and how we treat people we know is different from how we treat people we don't know, and we are trying to have a democracy where we each make decisions that effect the lives of everyone else. We might want to know something besides our very limited person experience of life, before we go about making decisions that will effect everyone else. This is the main presidential debate today. Which runner up for president has the best your understanding of your families needs and how to meet them? How do these men understanding the cosmos and human nature and economics and world problems? What study is big enough to meet all our needs? How do we determine what is true and what is not? How do we develop and exercise good moral judgement? What happens if we do not? Our education is everyone's education problem, and I write because I am very afraid that unless we immediately return to liberal education, my great grandchildren will not have desirable lives. I have witnessed what the change in education has done to the country, and the 1970 youth crisis was not the fault of parents, but the result in the change in public education. The corruption of Enron and banking is intolerable! Some improvements in education have been made since then, but it is not enough and it is still corporate power that controls education, and this is not what is best for humans and democracy. As the author I am doing my very best to ensure my message comes across. How might I do better? I have to run, but I wanted to respond to what Essay said about the need for soil education. A farming community near to where I live, had a high school focused on farming. That is not what the government is funding, and for budget reasons, that education was dropped. Some of us think including Gaia in education would be a huge step forward, but I am afraid Christians would prevent this.

The 1958 National Defense Education Act, replaced liberal education the German model of education for technology, and that is why discussions of God go so poorly. If everyone had a liberal education that would thinking about this subject very differently and have no problem understanding parables are not fairy tells. A mod came down on me for mentioning this in this thread, but the understanding is crucial to the whole argument. People are interpreting the bible concretely and when this is done, what the bible says is absorb. To correctly understand the bible it must be interpreted abstractly, because it is not a book of facts. Much of it is allegorical. Now this change in education is a problem on both sides of the argument. Christians interpreting the bible concretely are like fundamentalist Muslims. They don't get the allegorical message, but take everything literally. Then like the Texas Republican 2012 agenda, they oppose education for independent thinking, the causes us to question what we are told and what we believe. Both sides of argument are less capable of seeing the other side and are more intolerant, such as not understanding parables are allegorical and are not to be taken as literally truth. In 1917 we were mobilizing for war and added vocational training for military reasons, and 1958 the Industrial Military Complex was being established. Here is an example of the education problem. My thread on logos went terribly, and this discussion is not doing much better, because we are not using an understanding of logos to interpret the word God, and if I use the word "logos", no one has a clue what that word means. In every discussion of God, the atheist focuses on the God of Abraham, to argue God does not exist. I believe the God of Abrahman is a false God, because this God violates the laws the nature. I have said, even the gods are subject to the laws of nature. For years of liberal education there was a thrill that science would reveal God, because Newton's explanations were telling us about logos. The universe is order by laws, as the ancient Greeks believed. This is to understand logos. Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe.

May I point out how the holy books are interpreted depends vary much on how one is educated, and one's culture, and if one is thinking concretely or abstractly. Does anyone understand what Peter said? "In metaphysics we find that my view is the only reasonable one. This does not make it true, but it makes it the most consistent with reason." Metaphysics means "after physics", and begins with Aristotle thoughts after exhausting his thoughts on physics. Is anyone working with this information? What is your understanding of metaphysics? What is your understand of logic and the process of reasoning? Seriously, this is fundamental to the whole debate! And we can not intellectually continue this discussion with poorly informed people disrupting it. Those fairy tells that some of you object to are not fairy tells. May I suggest we ignore arguments that do not meet a reasonable standard of accurate terminology? A more accurate term is parable. A parable is an allegorical representation of something real in life or nature, embodying a moral. Now do we discern between a parable and fact? I would hope we do. If you want to argue something, argue against John Adams and his reasoning that there is a problem with godless capitalism. Not only is there a problem with godless capitalism, but there is a problem with godless science, and I asked INow to suggest a solution after he announced there are many that do not include God or religion.

Oh my goodness, yes, discussion of God goes much better with people who are open minded and have a better understanding of the big issues. Now perhaps you can help me with a personal crisis. This morning I got why democracy can be the beast of the last days. Like these ideas have been in my head all along, but I didn't fully realize the problem can be democracy! This seriously is a crisis for me, because I have been devoted to defending democracy for decades. Have you ever become aware of something that is just too terrible to think about? That is where I am at the moment. This is like being a Christian and realizing the biblical God of Abraham can not be true. My world is shattered and I must figure out how to put it back together, and this means focusing more on God, logos, universal law, because clearly man without God- a Godless democracy- is fascism in the worst way. I am not sure how you interpreted -"Fitting workers for their calling." What beautiful words". Fundamental to Protestantism is a work ethic. Fundamental to a healthy democracy is everyone making their best contribution to the whole. I can so totally see how this leads to heaven on earth. What goes with this is an understanding of having a "calling". That means being born with a purpose, or as Buddhist might say, a place in the universe. When we step back and look at the bigger picture, where do we belong? What gifts of talents and interest do we come into this world with? My grandmother made sure the whole class was aware of the beautiful monkey a retarded student was craving out of pits. The point was, this student had a special gift that defines his place in life as a valuable human being with dignity. Everyone is to be thought of as what they can do, not what they can't do. And all to be included, not marginalized as we doing today. What is beautiful becomes ugly when education is about preparing products for industry. I have a shelf full of books, old text books, books about school policy and the psychology and philosophy and history of education. I swear to you, past education was about preparing our young to be well, rounded individuals, and was modeled after education in ancient Athens and Rome. It was not until Eisenhower and the Military Industrial Complex, that we started preparing students to serve the Military industrial Complex and narrowed education, to a narrow band IQ scores, deemed important to technology for military and industrial purpose. And here is the killing blow I realized this morning. Democracy and this modern purpose of education, without God, gives us the beast, or the anti Christ. The beast and anti Christ being metaphors for a dehumanizing order of the mass of humanity. What Tocqueville warned us of in 1835, in his book "Democracy in America". Why God, is this is what stands against the beast. Democracy without God is the beast. We have prepared for a technology society with unknown values, and this is the beast. Some people are aware of this, and they are searching for a new religion, because it is religion not government that meets our psychological human needs. Those needs that make us more than animals. If we do not connect with this, we are doomed. I like part of your post, and it seems more thoughtful than the one before. Please work on the countless ways to achieve the good of religion, because this is our task as we break into the New Age.

Wow, something intelligent has been said. I love the analogy of reducing the discussion of a tree to the discussion of electrons. For sure, I do NOT remember people speaking of God as they do now. One of my nephews is a preacher, and intent on the idea that we can "know God". The idea that we can "know God" effects me like an electric shock. Surely when we think we know God, we know God not. I thought, when we got into quantum physics surely we would give up the idea that can define matter and know reality, but instead of moving in the direction of spirituality we have gotten more materialistic, and more narrow minded. Stoicism dealt this issue of matter verses spirit. Morale is certainly a matter of spirit. It is the high spirited feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. Or love, which is also known to improve our health. People with heart problems, who feel loved, literally live longer than those in the same physical condition who do not feel loved. There is a connection between our minds and bodies, that is not just material in nature. Our nature is different from the animals, in that we have words and these words have power. We used to say, Sticks and stones can break bones, but names will never hurt me". That is not true for many people. Words can totally change how we feel and how we behave. Words can increase our physical strength and endurance, and this is what makes a good coach so important. Or words can demoralize us. The spirit of the word matters, and I worry about Atheism going too far in denying spiritual reality? Oh my goodness, "global concerns or considerations" represent the "God perspective" , yes! I am not sure if this is the meaning of AAA's higher power, but we are capable of thinking globally, and if we reduce our thinking to self interest, our families hurt, our civilizations are in trouble, and in today's world, the whole world is in danger. "Fitting workers for their calling." What beautiful words. How different it feels to believe perhaps a higher power has a purpose of us. Our nature is not equal to animal nature. If nothing else, human beings are far more diverse than any other species. We are born equal under the sun, but not the same. We are as different as the gods, and each one of us has a purpose. When my grandmother was teaching, it was the teachers purpose to help each child discover his or her unique talents and interest, and thereby, discover his or her place in the world. This education was the complete opposite of Germany education philosophy, the idea that we are all born with blank brains and anything can be written on them, providing the right technique is used. This assumes the state has the right to write on young brains. The former education is based on a notion of God and human nature, and later is based on a notion of the state and it is dehumanizing. The first manifest an organic democracy, and the later a mechanical society. I have concerns about where a godless civilization will go. Should we agree it is up to us to decide who should live and who should die, and perhaps start culling out those defective humans, who drag us down? Where does the highest authority rest?

If you already have this information, Just delete the thread. Thank you.

I just posted in the science education forum, the best education technology ever. I am sooo excited! My concern is about culture and trying to do something about that is this forum may be a total waste of my time. A new door has been opened and I am sure I should go through it. I am sure you mean well. Yes, I think I am wasting my time here.

Good, I can delete the post. While walking my dog, I realized a post that appears to be advertizing would be called spam, and I could be banned for spamming. Thanks CharonY for the effort of making something of good of this thread. This discussion is going better in another forum where the people come from a historical perspective. Personally, I think this new education technology is like putting wheels on a cart that has been dragged ever since the beginning of the twentieth century. I am very excited about the social ramifications, and the discussion I want isn't likely to happen here.

I love your question! Who did the doing, Hitler or those who followed him? If you can watch the movie "The Reader". It is a tragic movie because the woman punished for war crimes was only following orders, and could not comprehend not following orders, even though innocent people would die. She could not allow them to escape the burning church, because it was her duty to keep the Jewish prisoners under control, and this meant not letting run out of a burning building. This is why I speak of the change in education and culture change. Education for technology does not prepare individuals to think for themselves, but to rely on authority. This is wonderful for the rapid advancement of technology, but it does not manifest a society with good moral judgment. In the 1970's the US announced a youth crisis. We did not suddenly have a mass of mutant parents uninterested in raising their children. We had a major change in public education, and stopped transmitting our culture. We stopped educating for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church. Big mistake. If you can, watch the original Star Trek with Captain Kirk and then watch the Next Generation with Picard and compare the two. The Next Generation expressed the "group think" generation. Captain Kirk is from the generations that talked of virtues and honor and were educated for independent thinking. Kirk was the John Wayne of outer space. Now with the "group think" generation it seems being popular is more important than anything else. We have young people willing to kill, to prove they can be good gang members. We have bullying and suicide. My concern is, how many of them will follow orders without question? There were Germans who risked their lives to protect Jews, at a time when family and neighbors would report them to authority. When I experience how people react to what I am saying, I wonder how different are things today? If we don't like someone's post, we are not to deal with this person directly but are to report this person to authority. Gone are the days when we would chant "tattle tale tattle tale hanging from a bulls tail" when someone reported on someone else. A popular Star Trek theme was societies run by computers. These shows were not just entertainment. Like ancient Greek tragedies they were plays written to make us think about what we think and what we are doing. They go with "1984" and "The Brave New World", novels of excessively controlled societies. One of my favorite quotes is Aldous Huxley, "In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon government inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak. Progressive science and technology have changed all this completely." The US government did not have the organization for power that it has today. It made laws, but it did not rule with policies. Today, everything is subject to rule by policies made by committees that are disbanded after the policy is written, leaving no one to address when things go wrong. This is an impersonal, headless rule over the people, who have nothing to do but obey. Just like Tocqueville feared would happen to us when he wrote "Democracy in America", in 1830. It is what we defended our democracy against, but like the people in Star Trek shows, no one can imagine things being different, and like a Star Trek show, they will do all they can to prevent the Star Trek crew from disabling the computer. Fortunately for us, we have a different history than Germany, and there is hope we will continue to question a president and vice president who stand behind torturing war prisoners, and a war based on false information. But what happens to the memory of the past, when us old folks die? It really kills when the people I do business with have a policy change, and the young person I am speaking with, is sure things have always been as they are today.

You have asked a very interesting question and I will fall back on what I say about culture. There was a time when the church controlled what people talk about. That is switching to a materialistic dogma, that prevents discussion of spiritual matters and morality and values. I gave perhaps a better reply to your question in the original thread. Again it is about culture. Liberal education manifest a very different culture, and I argue the subjects of God and liberty, and freedom of speech and matters of justice so persistently, because I have lived long enough, and known enough people who are now dead, to know how much education for technology has change our culture. When I use the word NAZI I am speaking of that change and I am saying that change comes through public education. Repeatedly I have said, the science forums are not that much different. People in all the forums make the same arguments that made here, and lack the same information that is lacking here, because education was changed, and the past culture is not being transmitted, and this changes the meaning of words and values. Instead of it just being the poor folk in the back woods, without the education to understanding the meanings of words, and philosophical reasoning of democracy, it is everyone. We have become technological smart and lost our wisdom. As censorship at the forum level, reflects the culture, and the culture seems to be moving to in the direction of a police state, this can be turned around by the internet. I would not be spending my time this way if I didn't believe it is possible to use the Internet to transition to the New Age, which must be a completely different consciousness. This transition is activated by democracy, and education for the Military Industrial Complex is the enemy of it, because it makes people dependent on authority, instead of internalizing authority, and it makes people intolerant, instead of tolerant. This what happened to Germany when the Prussians turned it into a military machine, so has the US been turned into a military machine. Do you think the forefathers of the US would be making the same arguments for the moderators control of the forums? Patrick Henry would be screaming give me liberty or give me death. Those who attacked my character are not the mods, but the peasants under their authority and feeling a need to defend it. I find this psychologically curious, and wonder to what degree this strange defensiveness of the peasants, explains history? But when this turns around, it will be huge! The Occupy movement will look small, compared to the potential of changed consciousness that is possible because of the Internet, as long as moderators do not prevent that from happening, by preventing the use of the words such as "God" and "NAZI". Not in this single forum, but all of them! I said before, this forum is better than many, and that is why I am here and not there. There is more hope of the necessary change of consciousness, in this forum, and once the change takes root, it will spread. When education for technology is understood as education for a military machine, and liberal education is education for liberty, we have hope of making all other necessary changes. But this isn't going to happen if people remain defensive and see the problem as my bad character, rather than what happened to Germany. I want keep this on a higher level. It has been said foreigners entering with their customs, is causing problems, and out of fear, censorship is being used as a means of social control. Liberal education uses education for a culture, instead of trying to police people. The conflict between religious groups is really bad, and I think especially the people of Europe are aware of these religious conflicts threaten civil wars and wars between nations! Before the human population was so large, we could avoid each other and all the conflicts we are having today. Religion didn't exactly bring peace to earth, unless extermination is a legitimate way to bring peace to earth. Democracy is the path to peace, and especially Christianity and Islam have a problem with democracy. I think Judaism does okay with democracy, until they have their own land, and then the Zionist Jews don't do well at all, because Zionism is not about democracy. Zionism is about having a home for Jews. Now all these people have to live together, and as our populations increase, this is like living a pressure cooker. Terrorism is a big fear for everyone. Check out the activities of the CIA if we think the US is innocent of terrorism. I am loosing my point- we can not just advance technology and ignore the importance of culture. Democracy is about discovering truth and rule by reason. It is a very intellectual matter.

I had to read my opening post because I had forgotten why I said I was blown away by the censorship. At least twice someone reacted to my post without good understanding. If I remember correctly, the second time someone reacted without careful reading, was corrected after I opened this thread. I am saying, I believe discussion like this is necessary for the correction of mistakes. Humans make mistakes and it is important to have systems for correcting them. I was suspended and so I know this happens with no communication, except warnings in a thread that the poster might not even be aware of. May be you all have all day to read post, but I don't. Often I have only enough time to read and respond to one post, and the next day a person can find him or her self suspended or banned, because s/he didn't see the warning. Those warnings need to be PMed and possibly emailed and there needs to be an opportunity to respond. It should not be just assumed a person got a communication and ignored it, because there is a chance the person didn't know of a warning. And with this action, it needs to be taken into consideration that a mistake was made or there is a misunderstanding. Did the moderator carefully read everything, or is s/he just reacting to part of the communication? Does the moderator have enough information to make a decision? People are having a bad reaction to my use of the word "NAZI" and I keep thinking when my explanation is understood what I am saying will be appreciated. This is a serious matter of freedom of speech. I am talking about different purposes of education and how they get different results and changes if how government is organized and changes in philosophy, that is not what people are thinking about when they react to the word. Now this is kind of like trying to explain why the water is making people sick, when they find things too small to see, completely unbelievable. Without an understanding of what I am saying, I am being judged, but that does not make me wrong. Please, can we avoid being too focused on this one example, because it can apply to so many others, especially when people are discussing God. We come to these discussions with different back grounds and different points of view, and judging another without understanding where this person is coming from, can be a misjudgment. Now we get into the bigger picture and a matter of values. When we value freedom of speech, with a desire to know truth, and are comfortable with how much we don't know, our judgments might be different, than if we are focused on finding those trolls and getting rid of them, or finding people speaking superstition and getting rid of them, because they are not being scientifically correct. That is a focus on policing the forum, kind of like hurting for deer to shoot. I have concern that education for technology leads to policing, more than a desire to explore truth? This has much to do with philosophy. Who do you follow, Nietzsche or Socrates? Are you predominately a left brain thinker or a right brain thinker? Is your mind open or closed? When we had liberal education, teachers asked open ended questions, meaning there was no right or wrong answer, but a need to demonstrate understanding of a concept. As we move into education for technology, there are right or wrong answers. These different focuses on education train our minds differently and activate different values. Are we exploring truth, or are we policing for trolls, and being sure the students know the right answers for the test, because their wrong answers could get us fired? My heart aches, as I fear people will become defensive, instead of understanding what I am saying. We have experienced cultural change, and the young can not compare the present culture with a past one they did not experience. At best they can compare the present, with the explanations they are given for why change was necessary and how this is much better, excuse me- exactly what happened to Germany when the Prussians took over. Are we exploring truth, or determined to judge right from wrong? In the past and present, there are both good and bad things. This is not a right or wrong issue. What do we value? And Swansont, what would change if you replaced the gun in your hand with flowers?

That is an excellent argument. Now is there any reason be concerned about having a culture that argues in favor of censorship instead of in favor of freedom of speech? As I said to Moontanman, this is a matter of culture, and as I said to Iggy, it is not the moderates who scare me but everyone else. Agreed the forum has a good user list, but sometimes I get really nervous about this being an exclusive club that prevents awareness of knowledge vital to humanity. Discussions of a spiritual and moral nature have not gone so well, and this boils down to my concern about our liberty and what is happening to it. Discussion of traditional values go as badly as discussions of God which are almost impossible, because of the very negative reaction to the word "God". We went from believing duty is a central element of our self worth, to no discussion of duty, and this is really frightening to me, because I think adults have a sense of duty, and children do not and are dependent. We have gone from virtue being synonomous with strength, to loosing a concept of virtues. Like I am talking about a culture that is forgotten, and how doing so has been a very unpleasant experience. I might as well be from a foreign country that has values different from western culture. I often feel like public enemy number 1 in these discussions. If it were not knowledge of Socrates and others who dared to stand alone against the angry mob, I would not be able to continue. Like the Ku Klux Clan was very popular but isn't the model of social ideals I want to follow. There is something more important than being popular, and I worry that our culture is forgetting that. I am out of time, but yes! you have moved this discussion to the level I am interested it. What you have said goes with "only highly moral people can have liberty". I argue the religion thing because I believe we must consider God, as an abstract, and must pull away from the popular religious movement in the US of believing we can know God or define God, because this has everything to do with how we understand morality, which has everything to do with liberty. We can leave our children alone with when we can trust they understand the rules and have accepted them as good and necessary, but we can't leave our children along when they don't. The king or government is father to the people, when liberal education doesn't internalize this authority. We can teach good moral judgment, or have authority over the people. Education for technology is not teaching for good moral judgment, and we are falling back on trying to control people with laws and police force, and higher level discussions are very difficult to have. This destroys liberty and really makes a mess of things. Got to run.... thanks for raising the level of discussion.

Dear Moontanman, yes, our ideas of freedom are defined by our cultures. The culture of the US has radically changed and that is why I write. I want to believe everyone would be writing about censorship very differently if they weren't feeling defensive of the right of mods to exercise censorship with unquestioned judgment. How about this, let us expend this discussion so it is about real issues the effect all of us. I googled censorship in America hoping to find a site that explains how censorship increases during times of war, and how it was applied to communist, and how the movie industry black balled anyone suspect of being communist. I grew up in Hollywood and my family had friends who were black balled. My family and the discussions we had around the dinner table, have everything to do with what I write. Freedom of speech, and freedom to think for ourselves, is not just an abstract idea to me, because I have experienced the reality of power that can take our freedoms, and if we all agree power of authority does have that unquestioned right, then what happens to our freedoms? I stopped looking for information when I found this legislation about the internet. It might be a better start for discussion about censorship. http://americancensorship.org/ It is not the moderators who concern me, because they have proven to be pretty cool. It is you all who scare me.

Whoops, I replied to post before seeing the mod's message. I hope I managed this okay. Please note, I am not the one who brought up the abortion issue. I am accused of many things, and don't want this one added to them. I do not understand your question, and this thread might not be the place to discuss our opinions about abortion. Also rereading what I wrote, I can see how someone could take me very wrong! This thread questions if Hitler was evil or psychotic? Then we have to ask what is normal? I think everyone is compelled by nature to believe s/he is doing the right thing, or is at least justified in taking the action that was taken. Normal is justifying the rightness of wrong. That does not make the wrong right. It is just what we do. Secondly, war situations get out of hand. Has there ever been a sane war? Recently someone wrote what sounds like an excellent book about the difficulty of coming from a culture where it is taboo to kill another, into a war situation, and then back into the culture where it is once again taboo to kill. He was interviewed on TV. People adjust to doing terrible things when they are in a war situation. What happened to the Jews was not all about Hitler, and we should not think of NAZI Germany as a one man show. People loved hated Jews and loved Hitler and this was not just in Germany. Plenty of the evil began in the US. Eugenics began in the US and goes with unrealistic expectations of technology. Concentration camps, were created by the British and US long before Jews were put in them. Henry Ford, the man to started the Ford auto industry, hated Jews and his book was translated in 16 languages, spreading this hate around the world. The Bush family was very involved in the banking that backed NAZI Germany. Many in the US thought fascism was the answer to our economic troubles, and as I keep pointing out we adopted Germany models of education and bureaucracy. Focusing too tightly on Hitler seems to lead us away from truth. Focusing too tightly on NAZI Germany, also prevents us from seeing the bigger picture.

Who decides who is trolling? I know my motive is being a citizen of the US, who had a grandmother who devoted her life to defending democracy in the classroom. My father served in Germany during WWII, and my mother sang for USO shows. So I speak with a deep sense of meaning. I know public education in the US stopped transmitting the culture of the democracy we defended in two world wars, and for me this is a terrible, terrible thing that means my grandchildren and their children will not have the good life that we defended in two world wars, and those who died and suffered, it may have all been for nothing, because their democracy is dying with them. Our young have no memory of when it was evil Europe that made people carry ID, not our great democracy with liberty. They have no memory of the privacy we had, before employers and property managers started judging people on what is written in a file. We now marginalize people, and turn them into worse than second class citizens, and gloat about how superior we are to those undeserving people, if we are not one of them; with no memory of when our country was very different, because extremely few people had affluence, and no matter how many times we failed we could start anew without a bad record locking us out of another chance. You all may hate religion, but I love when we thought "there but for the grace of God go I" and we practiced forgiveness and charity, and accepted youth are apt to have bad judgment, and deserve another chance. To me the change is like a police state swallowing up the friendly culture we had. I am very concerned about this. I devoted many years to studying the history of education, and all history related to democracy, including the first monotheism in Egypt, that I believe later became the Hebrew faith. I have a large personal library, and listen to college lectures daily, and I am here for intellectual reasons, and because I care deeply about the future my great children will have when us old folks are no longer here to protect their liberty and justice. However, almost every other post in this thread seems to about getting attention and being popular by taking the side that is popular. Captain Panic, gave a sincere reply, because he questioned my meaning. That was a thoughtful and mature reply. He questions how I would make decisions. His question is vital to opening up the discussion of the subject. If everyone did as Captain Panic, this would be a great discussion with much intellectual satisfaction. Instead of looking like bull fight. About the question of being like a NAZI, why would you think this is about getting attention? Perhaps we should talk about projection. You know- figuring out what someone's motives are because that is your motive would be. When you do not the know the person you are judging, the judgment can not be based on knowledge of that person, and I am saying this to everyone who has attacked my character. If we think about it, isn't it really stupid to try to attention doing something that will lead to being disliked? Why would anyone do this? I assume everyone knows of Socrates? He was perhaps one of the most disliked men in history, and he didn't get there out of a desire to get attention. He got there because he wanted people to think about what they think, so they would make better moral decisions, and I have said, this about the future that my great grandchildren will live. Try this, okay? Go to where I said "that's just like a NAZI" and explain why what I am referring is not like a NAZI. Keep in mind this about thinking, and you have the opportunity to argue my logical is wrong. Focus the thinking as math and science requires us to focus our thinking. If people engaged each other with real arguments, we all have a chance of realizing greater truths, and isn't that what these forums are about? Other people's arguments often enough turn a light on in my head, and I realize something I had not realized before. The pleasure of this, is worth the beating I take, while looking for that reply that is intellectually stimulating. As Captain Panics post pushes the point to the next level. You might have noticed, when this does not happen, I stop returning to a thread, and I may even stop coming to the forum for long periods of time. How long I stay gone depends on how things are going in other forums. Sometimes the discussions in other forums holds me for a long time. I cruise the internet looking for the people I want to be with, not looking to get attention by making enemies. It is disappointing when I think, at least I have found the discussion I was hoping to have, and everyone quits the thread. It seems often when people create arguments they think they can, by attacking someone's character, and or may be asking a few sincere questions, when they realize they are not going to win an argument, they just drop out. That means, there are no new revelations for me too. If people want me to go away, all they need do is ignore me, and I will move on to a forum that gives me the intellectual stimulation I desire. If you want someone to go away, don't poke them like bull fighter in the ring, poking at a bull until he can thrust the sword in for the kill. Who is getting the benefit of these bull fights? Not the bull. Threads that are like bull fights, ending with a mod killing the thread, and or banning the person, can not be manifest without everyone's participation. I am not knocking the mods for taking action, but I am raising awareness that it is not one person causing the problem, because ignoring someone ends the problem too. The bull fight type discussions are not what I want, so I will engage in it, and we should all have the liberty to decide if we are going to ignore someone or not. Okay, instead of waiting for someone to quote me and explain my error in logic. I will bring up the quotes. There is the quote and my reply. It appears my comparison between the democracy we once had, with the my understanding of being like NAZI's is under attack? What is the important difference between the two? As I understand the difference, in the US liberal education internalized authority. Education for technology holds authority external. Ecoli says these forums are a dictorship, and seems to think we should follow the rules without question. I hold this is the thinking we defended our democracy against, and all those people died for nothing if we accept this reasoning. Is something wrong with my logic? What protects our liberty if it is not all of us? What keeps us from being as NAZI Germany if we are to submit to unquestioned authority? If no one answers this question, I do not think I have an obligation to continue with this thread.

Read the post just above yours. They already are.

Thank you for asking. For sure, where to draw the line is a difficult judgment. And it is really complicated because when we know someone, we begin judging what was said in the context of our knowledge of that person, and how we feel about that person, so a curse word maybe totally ignored, or totally blown out of portion, condemning that person to hell. It depends on our thoughts of that person, and how we feel. However, this is such an important subject, can we think seriously of it? When I was considering buying a forum, I did some research and the stories of people getting sued, turned me away form buying a forum. Obviously anything that can result in a law suit must be avoided. Secondly, it is really great that school youth sometimes get involved, and schools have rules. Obviously forums need to comply with school rules if a forum has educational ambitions. I have left forums where people attack others. It seems tolerance of such attacks was much greater when these forums began. I was pleasantly surprised when I found forums where this is not allowed. However, I have often felt attacked for what I think and this is not cool. Critical thinking is a good thing, and requires a statement of disagreement with what was said statement, how, ever I will accept not everyone has this skill. I think I would put more emphasis on reminding people to clarify their objection to what is being said. This is where things get really messy. For example my understanding of God requires knowledge of education and abstract thinking that is no longer common. I didn't realize how much of a problem this would be, but I am discovering people are concerned about me violating forum rules. For example, God is not to be defined, and someone thought I was violating a rule because I refuse to define God. In another thread, because it became necessary to address the meaning of saying abstract thinking needs to be taught, I was accused of derailing my own thread. I am dealing with these communication problems, and for awhile was very concerned I would banned before anyone understood what I am saying. However, I began talk of freedom of speech when a mod came down on someone else. I have a problem with the word trolling. Exactly what is it and why is wrong? I write with a purpose, and forbidding people to engage in their sense of purpose, is one of the worst violations of humanity. I don't care if the person is a religious fanatic. We have two choices in this case. Engage this person or ignore this person. When people want to engage this person, in my opinion, a mod should not step in. Culture is more effective than laws and law enforcers. You all have created a pretty civil culture here, but this should not be just up to the mods. It should be everyone's responsibility to maintain a civil culture, in forums and real life. If I were a mod, and I thought someone was being a problem, but not a serious one, I might PM the people who are engaging this person and mention my concern. If we decided not to engage in with someone, it is like not putting gas a car. As a mother would say, "don't play with that little boy, because he is not being nice". A mother can not drive an unpleasant child out of the neighborhood school, but she can teach her child how to avoid a problem with the child. My granddaughter is here- quickly the bottom line is morality. We respect all people because we are respectful people. We protect the dignity of others. We do all things with integrity. I think if we agree to live by those rules, the world be a pretty nice place. This includes using them when dealing with a troll. If we agree to this, we have a culture and that is very powerful.

You are too focused on NAZI Germany, because what became the New World Order was the Prussian take over Germany, that made Germany a war machine, and preconditioned the people for war. The first thing the Prussians did was centralize German education, something our constitution prevented but has been completely by passed. I hope someone with knowledge of our constitution and the reasoning for it, steps in. Education for technology begins with the philosophy that we are all born with blank brains and anything can be written on them, providing the right technique is used. Some of our favorite philosophers argued we are born with blank brains. There is nothing particularly wrong with this philosophy, but when it is assumed the state has a right to write on those blank brains, a serious problem can develop. Britain and the US focused education on transitioning young to adulthood and good citizenship. What protects our liberty is culture. I am really frustrated that this is not understood. The Prussians focused German education on technology. When adopted this for military reasons, we stopped transmitting our culture. Only when our liberty is defended in the classroom is it defended and we stopped doing this. Do not tell me my reasoning is flawed, because I know better. We know longer have the reasoning that protected our liberty. I just dealt with this in the thread about censorship. Freedom of speech does not mean tolerance of immorality, and in a democracy morality is determined by reason, by who understands this reasoning today? I got a guy seriously defending the violation of freedom of speech, because it is not okay to enter a church and argue the churches belief system, when people are gathered for their Sunday ritual, so these forums can function like a dictatorship, and this is not violating the meaning of freedom of speech. How many people reasoning like this, does it take to have a majority and NAZI rule? I am horrified by the arguments I am getting, and you telling me there is a problem with comparing the education models? People argue against morality without a clue of what it has to do with liberty or reason and democracy. How long can we maintain our liberty under this condition? When the Prussians took control of the Germany, they destroyed Germany's heroes and praised efficiency. We did the same when replaced our liberal education with education for technology, and there are social and political ramifications. How is wrong to compare? To maintain the purity of race? Interestingly education for technology has destroyed the social order we once maintained. There are some good things and bad things about this.

Of course there is a difference, but if all we see is the difference, we fail to see a truth. The truth is, we kill each other and disrespect life. The concern is a matter of our awareness. Under what condition do we exterminate other human beings, and under what condition is this taboo? I am reflecting on Socrates and his purpose of raising awareness and developing conscience. As he saw the most important purpose of education it is to develop good human judgment, and truly this is essential to democracy. The US had education for this purpose until 1958. I will stop discussing this, when I believe everyone is aware of the social and political ramifications of that change. The Germans were not by nature bad people. Hitler did not begin as any more of a monster than Martin Luther and Henry Ford, both men who hated Jews and were very influential in what happened in Germany. As for abortion, when the USSR destroyed traditional values and "liberated women", the divorce and abortion rates began to rise. There are similarities between killing unborn babies and killing Jews. One of them is a matter of resources and another is responsibility for the life another. What is a mother without resources to do if she can not take responsibility for another life that is dependent on her? What were those responsible for the lives of native Americans, war prisoners, and Jews to do when they had responsibility for the lives of others but not the resources needed?