Christian Groups Sue to Stop Schools from Adopting Science Standards

reply to post by BO XIAN

No, I didn't assume anything.

If you didn’t have a way of checking her blood alcohol level (which is fair enough 30 years ago), and at any point had made the assessment that she was severely intoxicated (which you stated you had), then the responsible action to take should have been not allowing her to drive at all for at least 12 hours.

Visual assessment of intoxication is completely unreliable. Reflex times, response rates, attention span, as well a swath of other fine skills are all seriously impaired even after one drink, and can not necessarily be easily measured... let alone being drunk.

If she was really as drunk as you are stating, then physiologically it will take many hours... at least 8-10 hours... to be safely able to control a vehicle... many people don't realise they are still technically drunk the morning after having a few too many, while driving to work... that hasn’t changed in 30-40 years. ;-j

Regardless of how long ago this was, this is a perfect example of where belief and faith can be dangerous when used to make decisions about events that effect peoples’ lives.

In the past, this incident was probably glossed over because of our lack of knowledge about the dangers of even one drink and driving, though today, doing what you did could almost lead to a negligence charge.

This is why, just because we don’t know something, we can’t replace it with faith... your praying may have had a psychological effect on the woman, but praying, categorically, 100% did not miraculously remove alcohol content form her blood-stream... meaning she was still drunk!

... even when you’re praying is full of good intentions... it can still set a really dangerous precedent and lead to uninformed decisions.

Sorry if it seems like I’m rather intense on this subject... drinking and driving really grinds my gears.

All good... just be aware of the best course of action for the future.

reply to post by Grimpachi


The scientific "doctrine" may be faulty but we can see from time to time scientists admitting their mistakes and ra-doing their calculations, taking another point of view, etc.. This, after all is what gives us progress and nothing else. My opinion? Those religious bigots are a bunch of ipocrits, jealous on the lives of their children. They see the science proving them wrong but wont admit that they lived a lie, On the other side, the religious leaders are only using the bigots and fanatics to fulfill their manipulative agendas, to keep the political power and to increase their wealth.

Science is faulty too but is giving us health, energy, perspective, evolution on the physical and social plan.

Religion sould take care of the spiritual side. Whithout interfering with people schientific choices. It should be an out of school thing.

Religion should teach morals, consciousness, ethics, etc. . Instead, they are trying to subside and teach SCIENTIFIC beliefs.

They are separate disciplines not mixed.

Yes i know science is used by the rich against the poor but religion is giving a help to the rich by keeping the poor dumb too!

What can i say, as science changes, religion should change.
The religious leaders should teach whoever wants to listen to them the real meaning of the facts described in the Bible, Quran or whatever religious work.
There are lots of good teachings in all the religious books and countless hints on how to reach god within you.

We are in 2013. We should not be alowed to think that milleniums old writtings should be taken LITERALLY and applied upon our social paradigm.

Not giving the chance to the young generation to choose its own religion after having seen the world from all the points of view offered by the society is a crime and should be punished.

And if you fear the corporate system indoctrinating the children more than the religion then you are wrong.
The corporate system IS in fact a religion and a weak one. It has only one god: the MONEY. This god is a scam and sooner or later, everyone sees that.
The religion is offering you a god that you cannot see, touch, understand, question or anything else. You can beg in humiliation however. Is a god that TELLS you to do things, punishes with everything wrong happening to you and rewards you with anything good. It owns you and everything and everyone around you. All you have is a little
ego that keeps upsetting god
If the religion would teach the REAL meaning of GOD, the REAL meaning of PRAYER and the REAL meaning of EXISTENCE then the corporate system wont stand a chance.

Alot more tobe said on bith sides but i think i made my point.

Sorry for the confusive style but english is my second language and i dont have alot of practice in expressing my thoughts in it.

BO XIAN
reply to post by winofiend

 

e.g. A counseling client virtually falling down drunk that seriously sobered instantly when I prayed so. I'd not have allowed her to drive home, otherwise.

Hi Bo, obviously others have already called into question the veracity and professionalism of what you have said above so perhaps i'm retreading ground that is covered; but making a statement such as you have really cannot be allowed to stand - your supervisor (let alone yourself) showed shockingly dangerous and unprofessional behaviour regardless of it being 40 years ago or otherwise and frankly you should have both been investigated and imo subject to some form of charge and loss of professional licence, if indeed this was done in a professional environment rather than some mud hut. Would you have let this person take your family for a long drive after your "assessment"? What about her driving a bus full of passengers or perhaps operating heavy plant equipment or performing surgery? You are of course aware that your actions knowingly enabled her to both break the law and recklessly put others in harm's way.
Disgustingly stupid behaviour

Christianity should have a wonderful impact on the world simply because its message of forgiving one's neighbour and treating people as you want to be treated is its gift to humanity.

The problem is once one includes the rest of the bible which isn't about Christianity in any case hyou open a can of worms.

If Christians thought about their religion's simple message and let the other religions dream up whatever they wish, hate each other as they do and play with their weird ideas of fashion and rituals etc Christians would be far happier and contented IMHO. To involve yourself in ignorance and try to influence other to do so also shows little respect. Also one needs to accept that not everyone who professes to be Christian actually is which is a part of unavoidable life as TPTB within Christian country's daily demonstrate.

reply to post by skalla


Rushing off to the big city today . . .

1. More I've pondered that evening--the more I think hubby was there. I tended to insist they appear together because that was where the work was. He'd have driven both ways. She was a large lady and tended not to drive much. I was so angry with her for lying to me on the phone and getting me out of bed to deal with her drunk, . . . and her hubby was his mousey self, I didn't pay much attention to him that session, IIRC.

2. IF I'd had occasion, I'd have been comfortable riding with her in her state after prayer. I was trained by the retired head of the Navy's alcohol center. She was stone sober after prayer. Y'all may disbelieve that all you wish.

Anyway--believe what ya will. I was there.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I was there.

You weren't.

That doesn't change the fact that one cannot make alcohol vanish from the body by praying. You were there and could have stopped her from driving. But no, you let her drive drunk.

So yeah, either lying, hallucinating or....

reply to post by Grimpachi


Although I'm all for teaching science in schools, I think your article is strongly biased. Some of the wording used made me think of all those racecentric (i.e. Afrocentric, White Nationalist etc.) websites that's supposed to have me believe that what they're writing is true, simply because they wrote it.

reply to post by hknudzkknexnt


The images on the Ica stones and the Cambodian temples aren't fake, they were simply large reptiles that lived with man, there may be a few alive today.

"it's an egregious violation of the rights of Americans to subject students—as young as five—to an authoritative figure such as a teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong." -

This article is hilarious. But it's ok to tell anyone who's not a Christian that their faith is wrong, as long as the Christian faith is able to be taught kids at a public school?
and

If Christians want their kids to learn Christianity then SEND them to a Christian school but don't expect a PUBLIC school to teach your kids your religious beliefs.

BO XIAN

 

1. More I've pondered that evening--the more I think hubby was there. I tended to insist they appear together because that was where the work was. He'd have driven both ways. She was a large lady and tended not to drive much. I was so angry with her for lying to me on the phone and getting me out of bed to deal with her drunk, . . . and her hubby was his mousey self, I didn't pay much attention to him that session, IIRC.

2. IF I'd had occasion, I'd have been comfortable riding with her in her state after prayer. I was trained by the retired head of the Navy's alcohol center. She was stone sober after prayer. Y'all may disbelieve that all you wish.

Anyway--believe what ya will. I was there.

... and here's the crux of the biscuit.

Belief is fine for a warm fuzzy feeling, but "belief" is inaccurate. Belief is based on our perceptions and
memories, and are prone to error. With time, details fade, and our minds are very good at filling in the gaps with our perceptions... which almost always are inaccurate. (eg. finding an old letter that you thought you remembered well... and on re-reading realise you have most of the details wrong in your head).

You originally used the example of the drunk woman as "proof" of the divine. On further analysis, it is clear that your memory of the event is foggy at best, meaning it is only your perception of the event that you are actually using to affirm your religious beliefs... the facts appear to be much different than your religious affirmation would suggest.

You should base your responses on facts... belief/faith is a very dangerous pedestal to base your future actions upon... as can be seen from your drunk woman example.

Go back a couple hundred years ago, and you can find this exact same modus operandi used to accuse people of witchcraft... ie. tie rocks to a suspected witch, throw her in the river, and if she sinks, she is a witch!... ahhh self-fulfilling... wonderful.

This is exactly why religion should not be taught as foundational knowledge in schools, for teaching children reasoning skills.

In the past we didn't have specialised detailed referable information about most subjects, so religion was a convenient catch-all for anything we didn't know, and was a way of managing irrational fears in a community.

These days, we have specialised industries, and mountains of data about almost every subject you can imagine.

Professionals that know facts and have actual knowledge can never be replaced by the religiously well-meaning.

reply to post by NiNjABackflip


. . . . . . ACCORDING . . . drum roll . . .

to YOUR construction on reality.

Evidently based on grossly inadequate EXPERIENCE as well as extremely narrow and extremely rigid biases piled on top of such an inadequate experience set.

It just so happens that all the physiological cues:

--eyes,
--face,
--speech,
--fine motor coordination,
--posture,
--walking,
etc.

BEFORE vs AFTER the prayer affirmed that God had worked . . . drum roll . . .

a miracle.

Of course those who deny miracles automatically from the git-go, will never be able to properly assess any such phenomena.

Just please keep in mind that those who have an EXPERIENCE need never feel they've lost ANYTHING of any significance or substance to those who

merely have a tired old rigid, narrow, unaware, uninformed, inexperience, pathetic

argument.

reply to post by puzzlesphere


You are welcome to maintain your death grip on that perspective as long as you wish.

imho, you will live to see the day when the evidence on many street corners and even in the globalist controlled media will leave that perspective in shredded tatters.

As even Stephen Hawkings asserts . . . reality is

far, far, far, far stranger than most folks CAN imagine . . .

God does indeed work in mysterious ways, allowing a drunk to sober up at your request so that they can drive home - or not depending on which post of yours we believe. Did the alcohol transubstantiate into red blood cells and why is a prayer for the sobriety of an annoying client answered and yet the starving, endangered or threatened ignored? Is it your own bias, or did the the drunk experience a shock and (temporary) moment of clarity and then not drive home in the way that you hyped it to make a point on an online forum? Either way, your story is just BS coloured by your faith-driven need to make a point. No miracle, just old events mixed with exaggeration and it's a shame you felt the need to do that as it was quite unneccessary for the purpose of the discussion, but meh

Anyhow, it's a great shame about the Christian groups in the OP; they misrepresent a great many other people of faith with their medieval mistreatment of testable phenomena and inability to recognise that science and religion are not infact mutually exclusive. It really is not a war between the two (as many athiests should also learn), it just requires a little thought and a loss of the siege mentality and ego-driven opposition from both sides.

If only.

reply to post by Grimpachi

According to a statement on the Pacific Justice Institute’s website, the teaching of science in all of the state’s public schools could create “a hostile learning environment for those of faith.” The institute — which purports to defend “religious freedom, parental rights and other civil liberties” — is challenging the fact that the new science standards do not give equal weight to the Christian creation myth.

Don't you just love it when these people are so interested in preserving the Constitution as written by the founding fathers, and yet they forget about the commentaries which directly calls for the separation of church and state.

reply to post by skalla


Well in this thread a study says that 35% of Americans believe they can pray mental illness away.Link

Is it any wonder that there are those who think they can pray away being drunk.

After a hard night of drinking once in the military I was praying over the porcelain throne. Eventualy my prayers were answered and I stopped throwing up but I have no doubt that would have happened anyway because I was empty.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Up until your post, i thought i had not prayed since i was knee high to a grasshopper. Thanks for the reminder

"please God, stop me puking through my nose"

BO XIAN
Basically . . . I gather you've not tried to publish anything that was solidly built on solid evidence but which disagreed significantly or at all with the cardinal doctrines of the religion of scientism as represented in the peer reviewed professional journals.

There's a ton of stuff about scientism that reeks of religion--and the worst aspects of religion, at that.

Have you tried to have a paper published with all these criteria? Judging by you inability to craft paragraphs correctly, I'm going to say no. So bringing this argument up against that poster is moot since you cannot relate to this experience either. Instead what you can do is provide some proof to back up these claims that papers published by scientists which disagree with mainstream theories and are backed up by solid evidence are being ignored.

Also to compare science to a religion is completely idiotic. Scientists don't worship something or pray to some theoretical concept. They just read peer reviewed articles and come to conclusions on their own or form their own experiments to test hypothesis's and theories. Again you make a claim about something in this thread yet provide no proof of this. Show us how Science is being treated as a religion.

reply to post by skalla


1. The discussion is roughly about faith based and religious based perspectives vs non such.

2. In that CONTEXT a brazenly narrow and rigid bias was asserted about prayer.

3. I have several experiences that, in my EXPERIENCE, proved that assertion grossly false. I offered my experience as an example regarding the differences in the two perspectives presented for discussion in the OP.

4. I DON'T recall all the details of that session with certain clarity. I DO recall the critical issues with sufficient clarity for the points under discussion vis a vis the OP.

5. The perspective that prayer changes things is part and parcel of the Christian perspective that is at odds with the 'super rationalist' exclusively materialist perspective.

6. It can be documented that both sides appear to demonstrate plenty of incongruences in their perspectives.

7. YOUR rigid, narrow, wholesale materialist biases are still showing.

8. I don't have near all the answers as to why God answers some earnest prayers and not others. I was shocked to observe myself praying as I did. I was more shocked as were all in the room when the prayer was emphatically answered. I have noticed that praying with emphatic faith and declaration, more such prayers are answered than when not praying in that fashion.

9. Your perspective will have to change in the future--IF--you allow evidence to influence you at all--because the quality and quantity of evidence on the miracles side is going to escalate off the charts.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


www.cbn.com...

creationwiki.org...


www.seminaryondemand.com...

www.ashgate.com...

www.claremont.org...


scientism + science as religion

en.wikipedia.org...

THE POWER OF SCIENCE AND THE DANGER OF SCIENTISM:

www.npr.org...



www.encyclopedia.com...

www.debunkingskeptics.com...


www.barnesandnoble.com...

reply to post by BO XIAN

BO XIAN
As even Stephen Hawkings asserts . . . reality is far, far, far, far stranger than most folks CAN imagine . . .

Stephen Hawking is a great thinker... much respect.

I agree about reality (I also think there are ways of viewing segments of reality that makes everything seem extraodinarily simple), it is why I explore as many paths of inqury as I can, including theoligical thought, and don't limit myself to a single dogma.

BO XIAN
imho, you will live to see the day when the evidence on many street corners and even in the globalist controlled media will leave that perspective in shredded tatters.

... is that a threat?

BO XIAN
You are welcome to maintain your death grip on that perspective as long as you wish.

I presented quite a few different perspectives in my last post. Could you clarify which perpsective you think I am holding a deathgrip onto please?

Cheers