I was going to say that I am speechless over Jean's reply to her current lay-guilt-and-shame-on-your-kids post.
But I am not speechless, though. As bad as it was, it gets worse and I could write for the next hour all the ways that this is so wrong.
I could be naive, or have lead a sheltered life, but that is not the case. I've carried some burdens and been through the wringer a couple times in my life, but I have never seen anyone exhibit this type of crazy, and brag about it, concerning kids. People that operate on this level rarely brag about it in public.
After pondering her response I looked up to notice a picture hanging on the wall of my den of my two daughters when they were nine and ten, and my eyes welled up with tears thinking about the hell hole that that little four year old daughter is living in.
I know I sometimes get wound up and use some expetives for effect, but I do not dare in this case because I am so mad that I know I would end up coming off as a total idiot, but I retain the right to say what I really want to in the next post.
The Angry Frog
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
From the Richard Dawkins forum topic UK readers: child abuse alert:
ReplyDelete(You have to be registered and signed in to see the topic though. :( )
by Roxburgh on Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:37 pm
I am in the Uk. After speaking to someone on the NSPCC Helpline (National Society for the Protection of Children) I have forwarded the link to the blog , her email, her name and the names of the children, her location and a copy of the text of the blog to the NSPCC. This definitely comes under what the NSPCC and Lancashire District Council define as Emotional Abuse based on the Children's Act 1989.
I think there needs to be some restraint from people (from here and other places)in replying to the blog as she may twist it in her head that people are out to get her and this may be adverse to the welfare of the children, especially if she has been using physical punishment towards them. This is a bad bad situation, but not handled properly and through the right channels it could end up, as has happened in other similar cases, disastrously.
That woman scares me...but did she make a post about it and it's been deleted or was it her last comment that you're talking about (the one about her being vile and evil)? Either way I still feel terrible for that little girl. I know what it's like to live with someone who is emotionally abusive. I was able to leave, this girl is only four and doesn't have that option.
ReplyDeleteRev,
ReplyDelete"or was it her last comment that you're talking about (the one about her being vile and evil)?"
Yes, that one. In the comments she tries to justify her actions.
It is hideous.
Her post, and then the comment I am referring to is the "A four year old who knows she needs a saviour!"
ReplyDeleteI am libertarian enough to understand that it is, socially, a fine line where we intrude into the personal family life of people unlss they are showing signs of physical abuse, so sending the authorities after someone like Jean becomes a rather sticky wicket. just sayin'.
ReplyDeleteMrfreethinker said alot of inane nonsense.
ReplyDeletePlease provide a correlation between the tenants of secular humanism and emotional abuse.
Jean is teaching her daughter to hate herself and hold a low opinion of humanity in general. There are many documented cases of the emotional abuse that children are subjected to in such situations. Please show us a case of a child who has been deemed abused by medical professionals because of secular humanism.
"Please provide a correlation between the tenants of secular humanism and emotional abuse."
ReplyDeletePlease provide a correlation between the tenets of Christianity and emotional abuse.
"Jean is teaching her daughter to hate herself and hold a low opinion of humanity in general."
No she is teaching her daughter to realise that she is not perfect and is a sinner- and that most people are this way too.
("I'm also thinking of the time you told me that you were going to tell you children there was nothing objectively wrong with rape or torturing babies for fun")
As for what constitutes child abuse in humanistic philosophies. Does this count-
ReplyDelete[from Richard Dawkins talking about the responses of people who read his book]
"Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a PUPIL had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had PERSUADED HER THAT LIFE WAS EMPTY AND PURPOSELESS. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same NIHILISTIC PESSIMISM."
I would say that teaching children that they are purposeless is worse than getting them to acknowledge they are not perfect. What do you think?
"Please provide a correlation between the tenets of Christianity and emotional abuse."
ReplyDeleteAre you really so stupid, vapid and naive?
http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q40489p813183l15/fulltext.pdf?page=1
http://www.nospank.net/bottoms2.pdf
"No she is teaching her daughter to realise that she is not perfect and is a sinner- and that most people are this way too."
Are you deranged? She is teaching her daughter not to have any self-esteem and to believe that she can never do anything for herself without outside supernatural aid.
""I'm also thinking of the time you told me that you were going to tell you children there was nothing objectively wrong with rape or torturing babies for fun"
I'm also thinking of the time that I told you that I would teach them that this is subjectively wrong. Wow, it's so sad that you have to appeal to an outside standard to condemn rape and torture. Are you really so depraved that you couldn't make that decision on your own? You're a sick, sick, kid.
"I would say that teaching children that they are purposeless is worse than getting them to acknowledge they are not perfect. What do you think?"
ReplyDeleteShow me where it says that Richard Dawkins' ideas = the tenants of secular humanism.
Show me where in the tenants of secular humanism that it says that we are 'purposeless'.
Maragon said...
ReplyDeleteMrfreethinker said alot of inane nonsense.
I will stick my neck out here and say that I am operating on the same level of understanding as Maragon, on this issue, so I shall not repeat her most informative explanations.
I will say that I see that MFT is trying his best to justify the ethically unjustified emotional abuse that Jean is imposing on her daughter, and probably the other kids too, although she does not speak of them.
I'm not entirely sure I believe that MrFreethinker actually believes what he is saying.
ReplyDeleteI think he likes to make outrageous comments and look at everything he stirs up. He's probably in his late teens. I'm guessing he even took the screen name "mrfreethinker" as a troll. Either that or it's a parody of someone else. It's still all trolling.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteLet's look at what this woman is teaching her child shall we?
She wrote "I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not."
My question: In what way will such an attitude help the child to maintain [or obtain] a sense of self esteem?
Second question: Wouldn't such an attitude be more likely to engender a sense of worthlessness?
I gave several examples of adults who were raised like this. They thought of themselves as worthless dung.
She also wrote "Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own."
My question: Since you're such a big fan of parsimony please tell me which is the simpler explanation - that the child does good acts or that the child does good acts through the grace of God?
Ockham would say the first - but what does he know?
I've always wrestled with the idea that Jean could be a Poe, she's said some pretty wacky stuff in the past. I mean her post doesn't make any sense even on a fundie level.
ReplyDeleteFor example: "Yes my four year old daughter told me that the only person who would ever help her to be a good girl was Jesus Christ, because she could not do it on her own. I have never told her this." Jean is shocked by this? This is the main theme of christianity. Has this little girl ever read a christian children's book or been to Sunday school? She could easily get the idea there.
I also get the feeling that Jean may be confusing the difference between self esteem and the idea that one is perfect. Example: " have never said to her she has been a perfect little girl who has done nothing wrong all day, If I say that to her then I am a liar and I will be doing her more harm than good. I do not believe in teaching children self esteem or that they should feel good about themselves, because they should not." You can still give children self esteem and help them feel good about themselves without telling them they are perfect. Does she not understand this?
Like most everyone else posting here, I find this is all very disturbing. The way I see it, Jean is setting an unattainable standard for her child and most likely making her daughter feel guilty for not being flawless. What a terrible situation for the little girl. Hopefully she doesn't end up hating herself and/or giving up on being a good person because her mom's standards of a "good person" are unattainably high.
Well no-one answered my queston. Should have expected as much.
ReplyDelete"I will say that I see that MFT is trying his best to justify the ethically unjustified emotional abuse that Jean is imposing on her daughter"
And teaching children that there is no objective purpose or objective moral right isn't abuse?
Well no-one answered my queston. Should have expected as much.
ReplyDelete"I will say that I see that MFT is trying his best to justify the ethically unjustified emotional abuse that Jean is imposing on her daughter"
And teaching children that there is no objective purpose or objective moral right isn't abuse?
@ free
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "And teaching children that there is no objective purpose or objective moral right isn't abuse?"
That depends on several things. The age & intelligence of the child as well as the child's capacity to understand abstract thinking.
But let's take this child's age as an example.
Let's say I teach a 4 year old that there is no right or wrong.
Firstly at this age the kid is going to barely understand the terms but let's say I get them through. Several questions arise.
What effect will this have on a child? Well they'll probably think it means they can do anything they like. If they're a good kid that won't likely be much at all. But if they were a terror to start off with they will get worse. I would argue however that the kid will learn that, whether they like it or not, some people aren't going to put up with their nonsense & they will be punished accordingly.
Now what effect will such teaching have on a child's psyche? Hmmm apart from probably aheightened sense of rebeliousness I would say probably little to nothing.
Now how is ths abuse again? I'm not seeing it.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteNow that I've answered your question. How about answering mine?
Here it is again.
"Since you're such a big fan of parsimony Free please tell me which is the simpler explanation - that the child does good acts or that the child does good acts through the grace of God?
"And teaching children that there is no objective purpose or objective moral right isn't abuse?"
ReplyDeleteBy objective purpose do you mean telling my children a lie that there is for sure a specific god who had a son, ect? And by objective morals do you mean telling children they should be nice to others because and angry, jealous god (who has no problem making people suffer for eternity just because they doubted him) is watching? If so, then no I don't think refraining from telling kids that is abusive.
"Since you're such a big fan of parsimony Free please tell me which is the simpler explanation - that the child does good acts or that the child does good acts through the grace of God? "
ReplyDeleteThe question is heavily loaded.
It's like asking "Did you beat your wife today or yesterday?"
It presupposes things.
The question we should resolve before that is
"Do humans have libertarian free will?"
If yes then the former would be true. If no then the latter would be true
Chris wrote:
ReplyDelete""Since you're such a big fan of parsimony Free please tell me which is the simpler explanation - that the child does good acts or that the child does good acts through the grace of God? "
Mr Freethinker wrote:
The question is heavily loaded.
It's like asking "Did you beat your wife today or yesterday?"
Oh, he's so cute when he tries to use arguments he's heard other people use... and fails miserably.
@ free
ReplyDeleteI don't think you've thought this one through.
You wrote ""Do humans have libertarian free will?"
If yes then the former would be true. If no then the latter would be true."
Actually that is wrong Free.
Libertarianism is opposed by opposed by determinism, compatibilism & by indeterminism.
Either we have free will [libertarianism].
Or our actions are predetermined [determinism & compatibilism]
or our actions are random.
If our actions are determined then they ould be determined at the genetic or even atomic level. I would be unable to do good or evil since both implies choice.
Even if God intervened & chose for me I would still not have chosen & therefore still would NOT have done a good act.
What about if my actions are random? Then it follows once again that I cannever perform a good or evil act since I cannot control my actions.
So your argument fails Free.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteThe argument is actually moot when applied to training children. If our actions are predetermined then no human, no matter how good their instuctions, caninfluence my behaviour.
All child rearing assumes libertarianism or else it is a waste of time.
@ Everyone
ReplyDeleteThat last post should have read
"Either we have free will [libertarianism & some forms of compatibilism].
@ free
ReplyDeleteHere's something else to consider.
If we have no free will then God [if God exists] is a monster. Why?
Because if we have no free will then we have no choice but to sin. But God is going to punish us for sinning. Something about which we have no choice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMFT,
ReplyDeleteWe're not criticizing Jean just for being a Christian. I know many great Christian parents, and I'm sure that the other Raytractors would say the same.
Instead, we're criticizing Jean for saying that kids should not feel good about themselves or have self esteem. That's Jean's looney interpretation of Christian mythology. If an aethist parent did the same to her kids, whatever reason, it would be just as bad.
"MrFreeThinker said...
ReplyDeleteWell no-one answered my queston. Should have expected as much.
"I will say that I see that MFT is trying his best to justify the ethically unjustified emotional abuse that Jean is imposing on her daughter"
And teaching children that there is no objective purpose or objective moral right isn't abuse?"
I answered it, you irrational, lying little twit.
I showed you evidence that proved religion can, has and is used as child abuse. Then I asked you to do the same for secular humanism. Looks like you can't.
I repeat:
"Wow, it's so sad that you have to appeal to an outside standard to condemn rape and torture. Are you really so depraved that you couldn't make that decision on your own? You're a sick, sick, kid."
My question was ....
ReplyDelete"Would you think that was fair?Or would you think that the Christian trolls were overreacting?"
"Maragon I did provide examples of humanist literature inflicting mental anguish upon poor children. If that isn't abuse..."
ReplyDeleteNo, you didn't. You posed an idiotic question based on shit you made up about secular humanism that isn't true. I presented a whole blog full of the world's newspaper clippings about religious child abuse and two medical studies on the topic. I win, kiddo.
"I'm depraved because I use an objective basis to decide my actions?"
You're depraved because you're essentially telling all of us that you wouldn't be able to decide for yourself that child abuse and rape is wrong - you need an outside source to tell you so. That's so sick and so sad.
"For you saying "Hitler was evil for killing millions of Jews" isn't any more meaningful than saying "I don't like cherry pie".Both are the result of subjective opinion."
Just because they're both subjective doesn't mean that one doesn't hold more conviction or importance than the other. Don't be ridiculous.
Oh, MrFreeThinker! Yoo-hoo!
ReplyDeletejumps up and down, waves frantically
Over here!
Still here!
And still waiting for that evidence for the existence of your imaginary friend that you bragged you would have NO PROBLEM producing.
Before you ask -- yes, I've visited your profile page and your blog. You got nuthin' there. (Example: "The tomb was empty." -- Uh, no, sweetie. That's not evidence of anything except a hole in the ground.)
So where's the evidence?
Will it help if I say pretty please?
@ weemaryanne
ReplyDeleteIt's not only that te tmb was wmty. Its that there were appearances to many people (including skeptics too)
"I presented a whole blog full of the world's newspaper clippings about religious child abuse and two medical studies on the topic."
ReplyDeleteSo if some religious people engage in abuse, all of Christianity takes the flak, but humanism doesn't take any? Isn't humanism considered a religion too? (If you disagree tell that to all the tax-exempt secular humanist organizations in the U.S.)
"You're depraved because you're essentially telling all of us that you wouldn't be able to decide for yourself that child abuse and rape is wrong - you need an outside source to tell you so. That's so sick and so sad."
ReplyDeleteI'm telling you we need a meaning objective basis to judge morality. What if your neighbour says that its OK to torture babies for fun? You can't say he's wrong. that's just his opinion.
"Just because they're both subjective doesn't mean that one doesn't hold more conviction or importance than the other. Don't be ridiculous."
So what if my buddy said he admired Hitler and hoped to follow in his footsteps. Would that be ok?
"So if some religious people engage in abuse, all of Christianity takes the flak, but humanism doesn't take any? Isn't humanism considered a religion too? (If you disagree tell that to all the tax-exempt secular humanist organizations in the U.S.)"
ReplyDeleteYou haven't presented any documented abuse cases based on humanism. Do so, then try to make your point.
I don't give a shit what's tax exempt in the States - I don't live there. Perhaps they're classified as a charitable organization.
"I'm telling you we need a meaning objective basis to judge morality. What if your neighbour says that its OK to torture babies for fun? You can't say he's wrong. that's just his opinion."
No, you're telling me that you can't decide what is moral without someone else telling you what you should think.
You couldn't subjectively know that someone shouldn't torture and rape people without a guideline.
You're telling us that they only thing that keeps you from raping babies is your belief in god - so please, remain a chirstian. Personal responsibility isn't for everyone, and I wouldn't want you hurting others because you're deficient.
Whereas I need no guideline and can base my decisions of education, sympathy, empathy and a genuine concern for the welfare of others.
If my neighbor says that it's okay to torture babies, I can provide evidence to the contrary. Then, if he persists in his baby torture, he can be incarcerated by the rest of sane society who knows that torturing babies is subjectively wrong.
"So what if my buddy said he admired Hitler and hoped to follow in his footsteps. Would that be ok?"
Godwin's law. You lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law
Like I said earlier in this thread, you attempt to take examples that are so ridiculous and repulsive to the mentally stable that you invalidate your own arguments. Of course everyone who isn't insane will agree that baby torture is wrong, you fucking tool. Trying to pretend that morality must be objective because there are certain things that are almost unanimously agreed upon does nothing to advance your case and everything to showcase your blatant dishonesty and unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion. Let's apply your objective nonsense to something a little more reasonable - like gay marriage rights.
"You haven't presented any documented abuse cases based on humanism. "
ReplyDeleteI dod . Richard Dawkins' humanistic writings cause more mental anguish to a child thanb any religion can.
"I don't give a shit what's tax exempt in the States - I don't live there. Perhaps they're classified as a charitable organization."
Well in America Secular Humanism is considered a religion under law and so is tax-exeumpt, just as churches and temples and mosques are.
Maragon , you miss the point. If I meet a child molester I can tell that guys he is objectively immoral and what he is doing is wrong. All you have is your personal opinion. Telling someone that they are immoral in your opinion isn't meaningful. What right do you have to judge them? What right do you have to judge Hitler?
I know of an objective basis that both Hitler and the child molester are judged by.All you have is a subjective opinion.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"And teaching children that there is no objective purpose or objective moral right isn't abuse?"
Asa secular humanist I teach my kids the truth, that ethics and morals is how we have perpetuated our species. What could be more objective than that?
Empathy is the bedrock of morals and ethics. Early humans would have realized the value the ethic of reciprocity very quickley, or we wouldn't be here.
As far as you going over there and telling Jean she is doing the right thing, that makes you a party to the abuse and I hope the hell you are never in charge of raising any kids.
Mr. thinker,
ReplyDeleteNon-profit orgs. are tax exempt. Religion isn't the only criteria.
I just came up with a half-baked analogy. Just like Ray.
Some people discovered if they ate a few oranges they wouldn't get scurvy. Others discovered it was grapefruit, others strawberries and so on. Depending on what was available. Each group thought their particular food was magic. The orange eaters developed rituals around their orange eating and told anyone who deviated would get scurvy for eternity. If they followed they would live forever.
Then there were people who discovered it was the vitamin C in each food and there are multiple sources. It wasn't magic at all. Humans stayed healthier and survived longer when they got their vitamin C. Where it came from was irrelevant.
Most of the orange eaters began to realize this but still liked the idea of magic oranges and maybe living forever. So what the heck. Can't hurt to hold on to a little fantasy.
Then there are people like Jean who think the magic is really real and the way to save her daughters immortal soul is to whack her every night in the head with a bag of oranges. It's bound to leave some scars.
MrFreeThinker,
ReplyDeleteFourth-hand tales are not evidence.
People are sincere in their belief about alien abductions, too. That doesn't mean it actually happened.
STEEERIIIKE.
I repeat: Where's your evidence?
mft,
ReplyDelete"Does this count-
[from Richard Dawkins talking about the responses of people who read his book]
"Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country... "
Dawkins said this about his book 'The Selfish Gene', which is a book about science, not humanistic philosophy. In his 'Unweaving the Rainbow', from which's foreword the quote originates, he approaches science with a more poetic outlook, explaining the sense of awe and beauty to be found in gaining an understanding of the world.
You can't attack a philosophy by citing an anecdote about a book that is not about philosophy.
You missed, plain and simple.
"I dod . Richard Dawkins' humanistic writings cause more mental anguish to a child thanb any religion can."
ReplyDeleteYou provided anecdotal 'evidence' in the face of my medical studies? Are you joking? You really believe you've made some kind point? Show me MEDICAL studies published in peer reviewed journals as to the dangers of secular humanism or a positive correlation with child abuse.
"Well in America Secular Humanism is considered a religion under law and so is tax-exeumpt, just as churches and temples and mosques are."
Show evidence that it's considered religion and not simply non-profit.
"Maragon , you miss the point. If I meet a child molester I can tell that guys he is objectively immoral and what he is doing is wrong. All you have is your personal opinion."
I don't miss the point. I see your point very clearly. You're a monster of a human being who couldn't subjectively conclude that raping babies is wrong. You need to appeal to a higher power and have the fear of punishment hanging over your head to stop you from hurting others. You're a sick, sick kid.
No, I don't just have 'personal opinions', you fucking 'tard. I have EVIDENCE to provide to prove that child molestation is detrimental to children and society as a whole. That's not merely a personal opinion - it's a fact backed up with medical documentation.
"Telling someone that they are immoral in your opinion isn't meaningful."
Telling someone that in your opinion morals are objective isn't any more meaningful seeing as you have no evidence to back up your assertions. Who cares about your opinions in regards to the objectivity of morality?
"What right do you have to judge them? What right do you have to judge Hitler?
I know of an objective basis that both Hitler and the child molester are judged by.All you have is a subjective opinion."
I don't need a 'right' to judge people. Everyone judges everyone all the fucking time.
You don't of any objective standard - you claim to have one to prove your asinine point. You have never, not even once, not even a little provided any evidence to show that morality is anything BUT subjective.
ONCE-A_FUCKING_GAIN:
Like I said earlier in this thread, you attempt to take examples that are so ridiculous and repulsive to the mentally stable that you invalidate your own arguments. Of course everyone who isn't insane will agree that baby torture is wrong, you fucking tool. Trying to pretend that morality must be objective because there are certain things that are almost unanimously agreed upon does nothing to advance your case and everything to showcase your blatant dishonesty and unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion. Let's apply your objective nonsense to something a little more reasonable - like gay marriage rights.
I love watching Maragon kicking MR. freethinker's ignorant ass all over this blog.
ReplyDeleteMR.FT,
While admire your tenacity, I have to wonder why, first, and second, what the hell is the matter with you?
"I love watching Maragon kicking MR. freethinker's ignorant ass all over this blog."
ReplyDeleteNot as much as I enjoyed Scmike and Sye slaughtering her intellectually in that other thread.
"While admire your tenacity, I have to wonder why, first, and second, what the hell is the matter with you?"
First of all I'm really annoyed at the double standard that everyone supports here.Jean teaches her daughter a classical Christian doctrine like original sin or total depravity and a bunch of atheists troll her blog and call her abusive. But when atheists teach their children humanistic values it is A-Ok.(I personally find humanism abhorrent - but you don't see me calling anyone here abusive) I guess it annoys me.
Mr. Freethinker,
ReplyDeleteThe main problem I have with Jean is her idea that teaching children self esteem is wrong. For me it's not about christianity or atheism. Whatever you believe, help your kid have some self esteem and not beat themselves up for not being perfect. Everyone should just try to be the best that they can be, acknowledge when they have made mistakes and try to correct them/be better people. It doesn't have to be a hard complicated argument, just simple sesame street type values I think most people would agree with.
Mister,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"Not as much as I enjoyed Scmike and Sye slaughtering her [Maragon] intellectually in that other thread."
That is exactly my point, and I cannot conceive of the ignorance that would allow you to think that Sye "slaughtered" Maragon.
Where is Sye? Has he declared himself the victor? Crawled back into his cave?
Do you think Sye's argument is valid? Is it taking hold in the American conciousness? wtf
Too busy trolling?
sye's argument had a few flaws but he certainly did demolish Maragon and her claims to certainty and her views on logic
ReplyDelete"I cannot conceive of the ignorance "
You don't need ignorance. only a good objective critical thinking brain to see Maragon was defeated
Mister,
ReplyDeleteAaaand, just how do you justify that personal opinion?
Mister,
ReplyDeleteYou reached the apex of your flimsy arguments several weeks ago.
You have been smacked down repeatably. Masochist?
"Not as much as I enjoyed Scmike and Sye slaughtering her intellectually in that other thread."
ReplyDeleteI lol'ed in real life.
You're so pathetic, 'freethinker'.
I neutered both Sye and Mike - the only people who disagree are dishonest prats like yourself who base your worldview on the unproved premise of christian presupposistionalism.
Ok everyone calm down or I'm turning this car around and we're going home...Ok?
ReplyDeleteThere's a simple solution to this problem. Let's tae you're child torturer as the example Free.
Here I am cheerfully torturing a child & you come along & tell me its wrong.
"Wrong?" I say "Whyis it wrong?"
You reply "Because Jesus says it is!"
I reply "I don't believe in Jesus."
Now if your morality is OBJECTIVE this should not be a problem. You should be able to supply me with arguments that do not require the existence of God to make them valid.
Of course if you're morality is subjective - in this case dependent on the opinion of God - you'd be pretty stumped.
So I, as the cheerful child torturer, am waiting. Tell me why is what I am doing wrong?
Of course the hypothetical situation is more than a little artificial.
ReplyDeleteIf I went up to Ted Bundy as he was murdering some poor woman & said "listen here old chap. You shouldn't do that because Jesus said it was wrong". I'd get a knife in the chest for my troubles.
"I neutered both Sye and Mike"
ReplyDeleteAre you certain?
lol
I suppose that's why you left and stopped answering their questions.
@Weemaryanne
ReplyDelete"Fourth-hand tales are not evidence."
I used the letters of Paul which were 1st hand evidence.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteShould I repeat myself? There is no double standard. I would not feel so bad about some kid learning about Christian ideas of sin and such. What I would strongly be opposed to is to "teach" those ideas on a four year old by telling her that she is a sinner (deserving to be burn in hell?). Some maturity has to be necessary to even properly understand the Christian ideas without it being just scare tactics. Do you truly not see this?
As of Sye and scmike. Yes! they seem to "win" in the eyes of Christians (but not of all Christians, one said that scmike just wants people to run in circles to keep them away from Jesus, that his actions are evil, that he should meet Jesus and stop his nonsense). But these guys seem to win because they use intellectually dishonest trickery. It is all semantics and rhetoric. Those flaws in Sye's arguments that you noticed are not really flaws, they are part of the trickery. He does the "mistakes" on purpose. Some of those mistakes are very hard to explain, and he counts on it. It does not matter if Maragon uses an argument that completely invalidates their crap, they still will use some trick and charge back with the same stuff again and again, and claim victory.
I still think you do try to be honest, but your charging atheists with the extremist examples is dishonest MFT. As many of your arguments are. You might not notice it, but they are.
G.E.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteI suppose that's why you left and stopped answering their questions.
Come on! A some point you have to see the dishonesty and decide to stop. If I used every possible trick and you noticed, and you called me on it, and I used your calling me on it as example of your lack of answers, would you truly think I won the argument? This can be done again and again, and you would get nowhere just because I keep changing direction, and using the same dishonest tactics again and again. At some point you would stop answering me, right?
G.E.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "I used the letters of Paul which were 1st hand evidence."
First hand witness would be people who saw the actual ressurection - the apostles.
Paul got his information from others so at best his information is second hand. Otherwise known as hearsay & considered unreliable.
As for myself Free I left because SC wasn't engaging so much in a discussion but a propaganda campaign.
ReplyDeleteFor example SC would use the same logical fallacies over, & over, & over again. When this was pointed out to him he ignored the post.
What ended it for me was when he used his own definitions of words & then demanded that I answer his questions.
In reply I pointed out that I couldn't unless he supply the definitions of his words since he seems to use his own definitions.
What was his reply? mockery & repeated claims that i was refusing to answer his questions.
Let me ask you Free.
How can I, you, or anyone answer a question when the words are defined however the questioner likes?
"Are you certain?
ReplyDeletelol
I suppose that's why you left and stopped answering their questions."
I sure am, pal.
I guess that's why they never answered any of my questions before I stopped posting over there. It would be hard to answer much of anything when your entire worldview is based on the unproved premise that the bible is true because it says it is.
Actually, I think that morals based on empathy are as close to objective as you can get.
ReplyDeleteObviously you'll get some individuals who completely lack this emotion (this doesn't necessarily mean that they are insane killers: just that they don't care about others. Many of these individuals integrate well into society, mainly due to fear of consequences), but the vast majority of humanity has empathy, so empathy is a fairly objective emotion.
Basing your morals on it seems like a way to make said morals fairly close to "objective". Certainly there are more individuals in the world who believe in empathy than believe in God: thus, I posit that my morals are closer to objective than MrFreethinkers christian morals.
So to MrFreethinker I say: how do you like them bananas?
@quasar
ReplyDeleteThe thing is Quasar- On what objective basis can we say empathy is meaningful?
I mean why can't we just look out for ourselves and not care about anyone else.
I believe these things are objectively meaningful because there are transcendent moral laws that make thing morally right and wrong.
Sweet Jesus in a day-glo go-cart.
ReplyDeleteColor me dense, but I'm not even sure any more what a freakin' "objective standard" even is. Let's make it simple for a simian such as myself.
Here are the concepts that a theist is going to bring to the party.
My understanding is that by "objective standard" we mean something like "moral absolute"; that is, a code of behavior or set of eithical precepts that is immediately understandable regardless of any given individual's point of view. By such as standard, any human being would understand as an unarguable fact that a given act -- murder or theft, for example -- is wrong, regardless of his or her individual upbringing or culture, much as anyone would understand that 2 + 2 = 4. (Let's set aside special mathmatics or cases of the mentally deficient for the time being.)
My next assumption is that a theist believes that objective moral standards are only possible if they're in intrinsic attribute of the act under discussion, in the same way that mass is an intrinisic attribute of a physical object, or that wetness is in intrinsic attribute of liquid.
My final assumption about theistic beliefs is that such standards are only valid if they're imposed from without by some supernatural being. In other words, we don't make the rules; God does.
Do I have it right so far?
Well, I call Fail on multiple counts.
To cut through all the BS, it seems to me that:
A) The world is only understandable through perception, though our minds may all be wired to think in terms of certain logical constructs. In other words, we know, independently of any particular perception, that X cannot be both X and not X in the same manner and at the same time. (Christ, that's page one of Kant, people.)
B) While perception is strictly individual and thus subjective, nevertheless human beings are equiped with sensory equipment that is similar enough that we can share our perceptions and come to some agreement about things. In other words, we can agree not only that most of use have eyes that are sensitive to a certain spectrum of light by means of which we can perceive external objects, but also that we can look at the same thing and both call it green, rather one person saying it's not green but orange.
C) Likewise, we can agree on a common definition of an a thing or an action. Words mean something. Core meanings are clear, even if we can disagree about the finer shades of meaning. A bike is a bike. Cooking means cooking. It's intellectually perverse to argue that we can, like Humpty-Dumpty, make words mean whatever we want.
D) Words convey concepts that are bound up in their meaning, including moral judgements. For example, if I use the word "murder" to describe an act, then the agreed-upon definition of murder conveys the idea that murder is a bad thing. Get it? The morality of the act is bound up in the very definiton of the word. However, we can disagree about whether it's appropriate to apply a given word to a particular act. We may want to call the taking of a given life in a given situation murder or if we may want to call it something else. To one person, chickens in a slaughterhouse are being murdered, while to someone else they're simply on their way to becoming dinner. But if we call it murder, then we know that it's wrong. The judgement is subjective, while the term we use is not.
D) Ah-ha, you say, so where does the concept of right action and wrong action come from? Don't you need God to endow us with such knowledge? Fuck no, no more than we need God to tell us what anger is, or loyalty, or fear. Evolution in social animals favors altruistic behavior. Society then takes those basic behavior patterns and overlays more complex social concepts upon them. Thus, morals are both biologically determined and learned behaviors.
E) Or you can define right behavior and right thought, etc. as that which is accord with the Dao, and leave it at that. Sit under a tree and think/don't think about it and see what happens.
So there it is. One can indeed have moral standards that mean something without invoking the Big Sky Daddy. In fact, as Maragon has pointed out, moral acts of altruism and kindness are more meaningful if we're not doing it because Daddy says no, but because we're aware of the value of these brief moments of life that we have, and that we're better people for treasuring them and treating each other well.
MFT,
ReplyDelete"The thing is Quasar- On what objective basis can we say empathy is meaningful?"
Perpetuation of our species is quite meaningful.
"I mean why can't we just look out for ourselves and not care about anyone else."
You continue to ignore the obvious.
Humans are animals that must cooperate to survive or chaos would result.
MFT has now joined the ranks of Sye and SCMike.
ReplyDeleteAnd he seems to be proud of it.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteI see that you are lying again.
Paul never met Jesus. If there was a Jesus, Paul hijacked Christianity from him by writing almost half of the new testament.
Long thread, I don't have the time to respond to everything (including the original intent).
ReplyDeleteMFT wrote I would say that teaching children that they are purposeless is worse than getting them to acknowledge they are not perfect. What do you think?
You spin the situation quite deftly. I'm going to deconstruct it, so that the question can be answered:
Much of what Dawkins writes is a reaction to religion. Insofar as his book denies the purpose(s) religious tradition ascribes to human existence, he does not, per se, claim we have no purpose for existing.
Criticism of religion either overreaches, or is perceived to overreach (probably both, to be honest). This does not invalidate most of the criticism, however - it's a fact that there are dozens (hundreds?) of modern sects all making contradictory claims as to where the Path To Truth lies, and who can best illuminate it.
Critique of this absurdity is ignored by the dogmatically faithful, and as such, is often mischaracterized by said believers.
Dawkins no more claims that "we have no purpose" (as an absolute) than Christianity can be said to have supported the Nazis.
---
To answer directly, there's a difference between rejecting the purpose ascribed by religion, and claiming there's no purpose whatsoever. Secular humanism is an excellent example of why this is true.
I think I want to follow-up with a general comment on the OP.
ReplyDeleteJean's said stuff in the past that I thought fairly crazy. But unlike most of her contemporaries in these blogs, she expresses Doubt on occasion; she's admitted that she doesn't always know what the right choice is.
For this reason alone, I've always considered her "lost" but someone I can actually talk to (at times).
It might be this context that leads me to ask the following: even if I disagree with her opinions on how she should be raising her children, is there a difference between criticizing her for these opinions, and forwarding her address to some regulatory agency?
At some point, adults must have the right to raise their children in spite of societal standards (if need be). Where that point is, of course, is the subject of much opinion :)
WEM,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
"It might be this context that leads me to ask the following: even if I disagree with her opinions on how she should be raising her children, is there a difference between criticizing her for these opinions, and forwarding her address to some regulatory agency?"
Very good point and I alluded to it being a "sticky wickett" in an earlier comment.
Laws on this very greatly from country to country and state to state and I am not familiar with them.
My #2 daughter works in human development and she says religious issues are very touchy, indeed.
I don't know if someone actually reported Jean, but they have their conscience to deal with. Someone very close to the situation may have a good reason to have the authorities check this out.
In this forum though, Jean has chosen to take this public and we have responded publicly IMO.
Froggie ended with In this forum though, Jean has chosen to take this public and we have responded publicly IMO.
ReplyDeleteTrue, and yes it's definitely a situation difficult to figure out "right" from "wrong" in.
Public discourse, and the fact that "freedom of speech" is neither universal nor absolute, and the fact that many of us disagreed with Jean long before this issue - all of these have to be taken into account.
I'll be honest: I'm reacting here solely on instinct. I think Jean has the right to raise her kids the way she sees fit, but I also think her kids deserve the right to grow up healthily (if possible). Somewhere between these two positions, there's a little red flag waving in front of me when I consider Criticism and Reporting Her Speech as both being equally justifiable.
I can't quite put my finger on why, honestly. It's just a hunch that something inconsistent is happening.
Anyhoo, I was asking the question to have it tested, rather than critiquing the situation.
I think....
I see Jean has removed her surname from her profile...worried about the fuzz, I imagine.
ReplyDeleteI'm having a hard time with this one too. It is very easy for us to criticize, but clearly she thinks she's doing the right thing.
She's stated that she had an abortion prior to her current 3 kids and I think that that is a major catalyst for the way she is raising her kids now.
This is a really tricky one. It's one thing to read Bible stories and educate a child into the faith that you have. It's another thing entirely to actively deny them positive emotions. It can only back-fire. However, is it really child abuse worthy of calling the RSPCC?
I just don't know...
If she has removed her surname to avoid unconstructive harassment by visitors of her blog, that's a reasonable move.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, three youth protection organizations have been notified by readers already. It's now up to the experts to decide whether and how to act. I hope there's no need to take children away from her, and it's not our place to call for that.
Taking kids away from parents is usually th very last option, and in this case, I would bet the authorities will see no need to do that.
ReplyDeleteI ran onto a log just yesterday that had a Utube inbed of the "Jesus Camp" nine min. video.
This is the one where they are cying and asking help from the Lord, breaking glasses, with the word "Government" wriiten on them.
I absolutely abhor the technique these people use to create a highly charged emotional experience in these kids. They have no idea what is atually happening to them.
Mostly though, I found that well managed emotion responses are far more productive in life as opposed to emotional displays and decisions based on them. But that's just me.
As bad as that was, no autorities ever investigated (overtly) the parents, mostly because emotional abuse, in the pursuit of religion is much tolerated. The dividing line is whether physical evidence is seen.
That's why I asked Jean if her husband disciplines her and if he/she discipline their kids with corporal punishment. She has not responded in any way to the questions. Deep breath....having said that and knowing of her acceptance of slavery, & et., I must fear the worst.
I have to wonder if her husband is a mediating factor, or an aggravating factor.
From James White (http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aomin.org/aoblog/)
"I am truly left wondering at the atheist internet network. Do people truly live their lives in such a fashion as to sit around behind keyboards waiting to be told where to run to so as to spew their hatred of God on this blog or that combox? Is this life? My, how utterly sad, and yet how utterly instructive of the mindset of atheism and secularism.
Notice the refrain: "child abuse!" I will tell you what child abuse it. When you do not discipline your children, that is child abuse. When you rob your children of the dignity of being made in the image of God, that is child abuse. When you tell your children they are the chance result of the toss of the cosmic dice, animals with no purpose, no transcendent value, that is child abuse. When you do not model for them the true roles of father and mother, man and woman, related properly and acknowledging God's rulership in all of life, that is child abuse. When you do not call sin evil, and give confused definitions of what is good, honorable, just, and beautiful, that is child abuse.
I was a similar age when I came to know what sin was, that God was just, and that Jesus took my place. I firmly believe I was changed at that age, born again, and to this day I am thankful for the teaching of my parents' and their proclamation to me of truth.
But get used to the kind of harangues one sees in this thread. As Western culture comes more and more under God's wrath, and as He lifts His hand of restraint, we will see more clearly than ever the truth of the total depravity of the human race. May God make us strong in the face of such hatred. "
My sentiments exactly (and total pwnage)
My sentiments exactly (and total pwnage)
ReplyDeleteOther than it being a typical fundamentalist Christian screed against a society that rejects his version of the truth, I don't see that It and Pwnage were even in the same solar system...
Tell me, MFT, what exactly did it have to do with the topic at hand?
@Charles
ReplyDeleteI agree that we can try to use evolution to explain why people have moral feelings. however what i am claiming is that there is no objective basis for morality without theism.
"Tell me, MFT, what exactly did it have to do with the topic at hand?"
ReplyDeleteJames white certainly showed us what the correct definition of child abuse was and showed that it was normal for a 4 year old to realise their sin and become changed by Jesus. Perhaps she might grow up to be a respected and insightful intellectual like James White someday.
James White also did a good job of showing us in whose camp the real child abuse lies in.
Whateverman: "Tell me, MFT, what exactly did it have to do with the topic at hand?"
ReplyDeleteMFT wrote James white certainly showed us what the correct definition of child abuse was Considering that James White has done ZERO to ensure that people guilty of beating their kids are defined as abusive (and are thus removed from the abusive situation), I don't see that his purely subjective definition is anything society as a whole should find compelling.
MFT continued with and showed that it was normal for a 4 year old to realise their sin and become changed by Jesus. If by "showing that it's normal" (sic) is taken to mean "acceptable to Christians", then we agree. If this normalcy is applied to humanity as a whole, then I suspect your statement would be considered laughable.
MFT consluded with James White also did a good job of showing us in whose camp the real child abuse lies in.
Now you're just being silly. Christianity likes to portray "lack of Jesus" as "The end of the free world as we know it!", but it's convincing only to the psychologically vulnerable, Christians, and those lacking intellect.
Without appealing to faith, care to substantiate your opinion?
If the latter requires said faith, then don't bother. I'm tired of hearing "The Christian God" as the answer to every ill humanity suffers from...
"Perpetuation of our species is quite meaningful."
ReplyDeleteYou see Froggie , you may believe that but others don't. Htler's opinion was that he should just preserve the well-being of the master race. Still other people like Jack the ripper only care about satisfying their perersions and killing people and didn't really care about perpetuating the secies. You need some kind of objective basis
Froggie wrote "Perpetuation of our species is quite meaningful."
ReplyDeleteMFT responded with You see Froggie, you may believe that but others don't {...} You need some kind of objective basis
Considering that the same could be said of the Bible, I don't see that you've made a compelling point here..
Robbing children of transcendant meaning purpose and morality is abuse
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMFT wrote Robbing children of transcendant meaning purpose and morality is abuse
ReplyDeleteForcing that transcendenant meaning, purpose or morality to be the one YOU choose for society is fascism.
So, where do we go from here?
OH, well,
ReplyDeleteIn the end MFT, it does not matter if there is no absolute moral giver. What matters is whether we can agree on basic ethics. If we can, we survive as a species, if we can't, then we are toast. Time will tell.
G.E.
OK MFT,
ReplyDelete1. Let us agree, for the sake of argument, that there is no "objective morals" without theism.
Does that mean there is a god, or that we need to invent one so that people keep a high moral standard?
2. We know that people have had several different levels of standards for what "perpetuation of the species" mean. This is why we need good education MFT, because the only way to have "higher standards" is if we realize that we are all the same humans. The development of cooperation is a complex thing. Pay close attention and you will see that we humans have this tendency to define ourselves within certain groups, and that we tend to either not care, or to even detest "others." (note again that I said "tend to") This is what evolution did because for survival group trust had to be developed, while perception of otherness helped keep competitors away. This is why chimps help members of their group, but have no problem killing (chimp) members of other groups. Take a look and you will notice this has happened in human history a lot (also in the bible, the moral standards changed with times and with perception of human groups as same or not same). So, there is no such thing as god-given anything. Our more inclusive ethics, and moral standards, have developed with the realization that we are all human beings, that we belong to the same species. Also note that none of these tendencies is perfect, and that it does not always make sense. We do not expect evolution to produce anything with clear cut perfection.
G.E.
MrFreeThinker said...
ReplyDelete"Robbing children of transcendant meaning purpose and morality is abuse."
Don't forget to tell them about the transcendentance of astrology, psychic and my favorite- throw salt over you shoulder for good luck.. Yup... gotta love that transcenendant stuff.
Stuff you made up out of nothing. You are perpetuating grief.
@Maragon
ReplyDeleteThe thing about using extreme examples is a standard tactic in discussion.
I heard this story about a Professor Schaeffer who was talking to an ethics student who had decided that there was no objective difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. His classmate heard this got a kettle of scalding hot water and threatened to pour it is his face. The student had to get up and leave because he knew he could offer no meaningful objection.
The point being that your moral intuition contradicts your ideas on morality and you can't live consistently with your views on ethics.You are being a hypocrite.there is something wwrong with the person who doesn't feel that there is something objectively wrong with torturing babies for fun.
"Does that mean there is a god, or that we need to invent one so that people keep a high moral standard?'
ReplyDeleteIf objective morality exists , naturally there would be a god.
It doesn't mean that we should invent one. But if we take relativism to its natural conclusion we will be pretty much screwed.
MFT wrote If objective morality exists, naturally there would be a god.
ReplyDeleteIt's not obvious as to why this conclusion is self-evident. Why do objective morals presuppose the existence of a creator deity?
(Note, I'm placing the words "creator deity" in your mouth, only because this is what I've assumed you're saying; please correct me if I'm wrong).
---
I cant quite follow your point to Maragon, but your ending comment is more approachable:
there is something wwrong with the person who doesn't feel that there is something objectively wrong with torturing babies for fun.
I don't think anyone is suggesting torturing babies is fun for the whole family; I hesitate to even suggest that people in this blog (atheists, deists or theists) should react without emotion to the idea.
In the context of this discussion, however, lack of objective morals does not prevent a reaction from happening. At the very least, I would find it as repugnant as torturing kittens (though probably from pure instinct, I would react violently if done to one of my own species).
I find it odd when dogmatic theists are unable to conceive of morality without their theism being taken as truth...
It does not necessarily presuppose a creator but it does logically imply a transcendent mind.
ReplyDeleteIf such a mind isn't responsible for creating us, what right does he/she/it have in determining standards of morality for us?
ReplyDeleteI can guarantee that if this being were Satan, you wouldn't be suggesting that he's the source for objective standards which humanity should adhere to.
MFT:It does not necessarily presuppose a creator but it does logically imply a transcendent mind.
ReplyDeleteHow?
I think I might be able to see the connection if I was a theist. That is, if I already believed in a transcendent mind... But at the moment it sounds a bit like "unexplained = magic"
ReplyDeleteNo, 'freethinker' there's something wrong with the kid who claims he couldn't come to the conclusion that baby torture is wrong all on his own and requires a 'high power' to tell him as much.
ReplyDeleteThat's terrifying, kid.
Trying to pretend that morality must be objective because there are certain things that are almost unanimously agreed upon does nothing to advance your case and everything to showcase your blatant dishonesty and unwillingness to have a reasonable discussion.
MFT,
ReplyDelete"But if we take relativism to its natural conclusion we will be pretty much screwed."
No. Relativism has already trumped the bible in many areas; slavery, subjugation of women, and child beatings.
Even Jesus words "treat your neighbor as you want to be treated," the Golden Rule has been trumped by the Platinum Rule. "Treat people how they want to be treated."
You get a lot further with people that way.
Jesus was wrong there too.
MFT,
ReplyDeleteYou would be better off not getting into it with Maragon. She's eating you alive.
Next,
If you want to see how ethics evolved, merely step into a kintergarten class for a few weeks.
The ethic of reciprocity is a very powerful motivator.
In fact, it might be best if you would enroll in the kintergarten class and catch up with reality.
ReplyDeleteSigh. Sorry I'm late getting back to you, MrFreeThinker. The letters of Paul are not first-hand evidence of anything. Paul never knew Jesus, and if he ever met anyone who allegedly knew Jesus then it was years (or even decades) after the alleged crucifixion. That makes Paul's letters hearsay, nothing more.
ReplyDeletefroggie,
ReplyDeletethanks for pointing out the Platinum Rule, this comes up quite rarely.
I would propose a less serious alternative formulation: "Regard empathy over navel-gazing".
Of course, this is not more than a general guideline, for instance not helpful when dealing with aberrant personalities.
For general information, here are several statements of the Golden Rule from history:
"This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you."
-- Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India, circa 3000 BC
"What is hateful to you, do not to our fellow man. That is entire Law, all the rest is commentary."
-- Talmud, Shabbat 31a, from the Judaic tradition, circa 1300 BC
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself."
-- Avesta, Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5, from the Zoroastrian tradition, circa 600 BC
"Hurt not others in ways that you find hurtful."
-- Tripitaka, Udanga-varga 5,18 , from the Buddhist tradition, circa 525 BC
"Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness, do not unto others that which you would not have done unto you."
-- Analects, Lun-yu XV,23, from the Confucian tradition, circa 500 BC
"One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated."
-- Agamas, Sutrakrtanga 1.10, 1-3, from the Jain tradition, circa 500 BC
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain and your neighbor's loss as your loss."
-- Tai-shang Kang-ying P'ien, from the Taoist tradition, circa 500 BC
"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you."
-- Socrates (the Greek philosopher), circa 470-399 BC
"Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors."
-- Epistle XLVII,11, from the Seneca tradition, circa 5-65 AD
@Weemaryanne
ReplyDeleteI looked up the definition of hearsay @ dictionary.com
"2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony."
But you see Paul did know and preach together with the disciples , who were eyewitnesses so he did have personal knowledge. I do not think this qualifies as hearsay.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteAs usual, well done.
I am filing our comment for further reference.
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "I looked up the definition of hearsay @ dictionary.com
"2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony."
But you see Paul did know and preach together with the disciples , who were eyewitnesses so he did have personal knowledge. I do not think this qualifies as hearsay."
All that is irrelevant. Let's examine the definition of hearsay again shall we?
Heresay "Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony."
Did Paul base histestimony upon the reports of others? Yes. Therefore it is heresay. How well he knew those others is irrelevant. It is still hearsay since he is merely repeating what he has been told. He was NOT an eyewitness so therefore Paul's testimony was 2nd hand.
Good lord a 10 year old should have been able to work this out free.