Who should set science curriculum ?

[McCulloch]

Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?

[McCulloch]

[…]they are spiritually blind, and morally blind, and blind to the truth and reality of God and blind to the Gospel.
[…]
A person is even more blind when they do have eyes but they refuse to see and they refuse to understand.
They refuse to look, refuse to investigate, and refuse to appreciate the reality of our Father God.

I fully admit to being spiritually blind. But unlike visual blindness, spiritual blindness has nothing verifiable behind it. We can describe light, measure its brightness, velocity and wavelengths. Nothing about spirit can be verified and measured in a similar way.

To claim that unbelievers must be morally blind is itself a form of blindness.

I disagree with describing a rejection of Gospel or the existence of God as a form of blindness. I, for example, have looked; I have investigated. My own lack of belief in the claims about Father God stem not from a refusal to see but the simple fact that the evidence is not compelling.

Now, back to the question in the OP: Who should be setting the science curriculum? Someone who respects the scientific principle and will only teach as fact that which can be supported by evidence? Or somebody who asserts without evidence that spiritual speculations are inarguably true?

[JP Cusick]

I fully admit to being spiritually blind. But unlike visual blindness, spiritual blindness has nothing verifiable behind it. We can describe light, measure its brightness, velocity and wavelengths. Nothing about spirit can be verified and measured in a similar way.

It is utterly misguided and misapplied to judge the spiritual under physical scientific terms.

Science is trying to just judge the physical world and thereby the spiritual is excluded.

I see that as a huge mistake, as goes the famous saying = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

And we might note that saying is an affront to religion as must as to science.

The spiritual is really more under the discipline of Psychiatry and Psychology, which are arguably just another branch of science.

Compare and view the spiritual with psychological terms and then it can become more clear.

As like we can judge a person's self esteem whether it is healthy or not but there is nothing physical as self esteem so it is viewed as spiritual.

A person's faith in psychology is a really important aspect of their health, but faith is not physical and yet it is real.

Other important aspects of the spiritual are as in courage, honor, character, virtue, humility, charisma, ego, and much more, which are not physical things to be seen with the eye but are real things to be seen by other means.

God can be seen by those who can see beyond the physical.

As such physical science is inadequate and it is inferior.

[Bust Nak]

Sir - I would never dismiss Helen Keller as she was a great historical figure whom I greatly admire.

That's the point - you don't dismiss Helen Keller because she was physically blind, and yet here you are dismissing us because we are "spiritually blind." Why the double standard?

You have eyes to see and yet you demand some evidence to be put in front of your seeing eyes as the only proof acceptable to you, and that is because you refuse to see anything otherwise - you refuse to see outside of your limited eyes.

You say that but what is it that we were suppose to see outside of our limited eyes? I can tell Helen Keller what exactly she is supposed to see outside of her limited senses. What's more I can meet her demand, had she asked me for some evidence to be put in front of your fingers as the only proof acceptable to her, given that she was physically blind.

You are refusing to use the vision demonstrated by the great Helen Keller who saw what you claim that you can not see.

So rub it in my face. What is it that I merely claim to not be able to see?

She was not spiritually blind, and she was not morally blind, and she was not blind to the truth and reality of God.

Right, and yet I can prove color to her despite her physical blindness. What's your excuse?

It was science that taught me that the sky is not blue and the grass is not green, and our eyes are only seeing an illusion, because the grass absorbs all the colors from the sun and the grass rejects the color green, so the reason we see the color green in grass is because the grass is rejecting the color green, and the sky is not really blue because it is just light reflecting off of the dust and light penetrating the atmosphere which gives an appearance of blue to our eyes...

And that's why they are green / blue.

That is because you and others are hung-up on your physical eyes and vision which are inadequate and in many cases just blind to the realities.

And that was the point - once again, we can prove color to the physically blind, but you can't prove the spiritual to the spiritually blind, what's your excuse?

Our vision has to go beyond or transcend the physical limitations of our human eyes.

That's doesn't help anyone who is spiritually blind. If Helen Keller asks me to prove color, I won't give her excuses as to how her senses has to go beyond touch or transcend the tactile limitations of her skin. I will not accuse her of stubbornness in refusing to see what she claims to not be able to see. Instead I will build her a machine that translate color to something that she can touch.

So no - it is not a matter of giving anything to look at - it is a matter of people's stubbornness and rebellion and their unwillingness to look beyond their petty perception.

Alternatively there is nothing beyond our so called petty perception.

[JP Cusick]

- you refuse to see outside of your limited eyes.

... but you can't prove the spiritual to the spiritually blind, what's your excuse?

Each person has to do our own proving for our self - no one can do your homework for you.

No one ever proved any thing for me, as I proved everything for my self.

You wanting to be proved is acting as if you are the student, and I have no intention of pretending to be the teacher which I am not.

Science pretends to be superior in physical matters because yes it can physically hold people down through the pretensions of science.

For a person to be wise then they must avoid that trap.

When we prove any such things to our self then we become both the teacher and the student to our self - thereby we do our own homework.

When you fail to prove the truth to your self then you are effectively dropping out of school.

[otseng]

Bollocks.

Moderator Comment

It's best to avoid using slang pejoratives.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

Each person has to do our own proving for our self - no one can do your homework for you.

Again, that is blatantly false, I can do your homework for you. Yet you won't, why not?

No one ever proved any thing for me, as I proved everything for my self.

I have proved things for you. I am doing it right now, watch as I demonstrate:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

You wanting to be proved is acting as if you are the student, and I have no intention of pretending to be the teacher which I am not.

I wanting to be proved is acting as if I am are the challenger, and it looks as though you have no intention of filling the role of the challengee.

Science pretends to be superior... When you fail to prove the truth to your self then you are effectively dropping out of school.

Was Helen Keller effectively dropping out of school for failing to see that the sky is blue?

[JP Cusick]

Each person has to do our own proving for our self - no one can do your homework for you.

Again, that is blatantly false, I can do your homework for you. Yet you won't, why not?

I do get it that you do not understand the point.

I have had lots of people teach me things just as I learn through their books and their ideas, but I have always been skeptical so that I never accept anything based on what anyone tells me as I always do my own research or investigation to see for myself whatever is true or accurate and whatever is not, and thereby I prove everything to myself, and thereafter I gain full confidence to live by it and to preach it to others.

So no - you can not do my homework for me.

And as such then I can not do your homework for you.

This does seem to hit onto this thread topic because schools teach children to believe as they are taught, instead of teaching children how to learn for their self, and in that way the schools' brainwashing and indoctrination is very effective, but it is debilitating and subjugating at the same time, which does thereby create the best form of employees and servants out of each generation.

[Bust Nak]

I do get it that you do not understand the point.

Please, your point wasn't complicated, you were asked to prove the spiritual and you want to paint that as some sort of learning exercise. That won't work here, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, at least not in the way you envisage. Instead we are in a debate, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.

I have had lots of people teach me things just as I learn through their books and their ideas, but I have always been skeptical so that I never accept anything based on what anyone tells me as I always do my own research or investigation to see for myself whatever is true or accurate and whatever is not, and thereby I prove everything to myself, and thereafter I gain full confidence to live by it and to preach it to others.

Well I've proven to myself that you have nothing to back up what you are saying. I have full confidence to state that there no reason to believe your claims, but to say your claims are likely false.

This does seem to hit onto this thread topic because schools teach children to believe as they are taught, instead of teaching children how to learn for their self, and in that way the schools' brainwashing and indoctrination is very effective, but it is debilitating and subjugating at the same time, which does thereby create the best form of employees and servants out of each generation.

That's ironic given you couldn't meet the challenge from this skeptic, who will not just believe as I was being told. I have learnt for myself through this conversation that those who speak of the spirituals, have nothing to show.

Schools don't just teach children to believe as they are taught, instead they teach children how to learn for themselves. It is churches that does the brainwashing and indoctrination, debilitating and subjugating their participants, which does thereby create the best tithe paying servants out of each generation.

[micatala]

Explaining the growing of grass does not require a god. Would we conclude that the biological explanations of grass growing are thereby atheistic?

There are two (2) sentences quoted above.

The first sentence above is Atheistic, the second sentence is not.

The problem is that those two sentences are put together as if the first is irrelevant to the question in the second sentence, and it is not irrelevant.

Atheism is not just no-God, because Atheism is anti-God.

The saying that "God is not needed", that "God is not required", these sayings are anti God.

This is nonsensical. I can explain how grass grows without mentioning god. You are equating that to a conscious disbelief in god.

Newton wrote Principia Mathematica and explained the motions of the planets, the tides, the speed of sound, and many other things without once mentioning god. Newton was also a believer and thought of his work as uncovering the mind of god. But his explanations did not posit god as a force of nature or in any other way.

To suggest Newton's explanations are atheistic is, as above, ridiculous.

If it were true Atheism as no-God then the biological explanations of grass would be neutral without any reference to God.


If it were the no-God of Atheism then the first sentence would not be attached nor included with the second sentence.
.

Either sentence could be stated separately or together. Your first statement here seems to be agreeing with me that explanations that do not mention god should not be considered atheistic.

It also seems odd to refer to "no-God" as if it is some kind of entity, but perhaps I am just having a hard time parsing your statements here.

And this distinction is why the aggressive Atheism against God (anti God) is just brainwashing and indoctrinating the minor children in schools and thereby creating an immoral and uncivil society progressing today.

Such indoctrination is not occurring. If you think the teaching of evolution amounts to brainwashing, then you are making a nonsensical statement, basically equivalent to saying "grass grows from seeds" is some kind of conspiratorial anti-god falsehood.
[/img]

[JP Cusick]

Please, your point wasn't complicated, you were asked to prove the spiritual and you want to paint that as some sort of learning exercise. That won't work here, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, at least not in the way you envisage. Instead we are in a debate, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.

Well I've proven to myself that you have nothing to back up what you are saying. I have full confidence to state that there no reason to believe your claims, but to say your claims are likely false.

That's ironic given you couldn't meet the challenge from this skeptic, who will not just believe as I was being told. I have learnt for myself through this conversation that those who speak of the spirituals, have nothing to show.

Schools don't just teach children to believe as they are taught, instead they teach children how to learn for themselves. It is churches that does the brainwashing and indoctrination, debilitating and subjugating their participants, which does thereby create the best tithe paying servants out of each generation.

Clearly you enjoy this kind of rhetoric for attacking comments but I see through the tactic.

What you are doing is just attacking the messenger (myself) instead of addressing the message, as like HERE and this one too, HERE.

I am the messenger but I am not the message.

That you do not believe me is irrelevant because my message is not about myself.

If we discuss the message or this OP topic then it is not about me nor about believing me, because I am not the message.

To attack the messenger is an old and crude way of avoiding the message, and it simply destroys any basis for an adult conversation to be maintained.



---------------------------------------------------------

I can explain how grass grows without mentioning god. You are equating that to a conscious disbelief in god.

Yes of course you can, and Atheist could explain things without any reference to God but they always do include the comments against God because Atheism is anti-God.

There is a famous comment that goes like this: "God was not needed to create the Universe." Stephen Hawkins

If God was not needed then why bring up God? ~ Answer = because Atheism is always anti-God.