In the public school system a false philosophy is being taught to students by default known as positivism. This materialist philosophy basically offers that only physical evidence counts as evidence for what may be considered true. What is interesting is that even a majority of secular philosophers have labelled this philosophy as a "dead" unsupportable philosophy.[3] The reason why positivism is a dead philosophy is simple. Science does not have all the answers and never will. Positivism is considered a dead philosophy because even secular philosophers recognize that the laws of logic are superior to the laws of physics when it comes to deciding what is true and not true. The reality is that the top atheist apologists fear and shun debate with any theists who understand the basic laws of logic.[4] This is because atheists presuppose that the physical world is all there is, yet logical arguments show this is not so.[5]
Despite the fact that leading atheists cannot logically defend their views, the secular leaders of society and academia are determined to continue marching down a self-destructive road. It has been said that 'nature abhors a vacuum'. This is true for the physical world and it is also true for the spiritual world. The 2011 documentary film "IndoctriNation" displays a number of cases where public school teachers were told they could not even mention the word "God" or "Jesus" on school grounds, even if asked to discuss these subjects and themes by students. Teachers were fired for such reasons. An article, "11 Reasons To Get Your Kids Out Of The Government Schools"[6] outlines how low the standards of education and life in general have become in US public schools. Instead of offering philosophical choices for students to consider in their beliefs, students are forced to listen to one perspective only without asking any questions. This is the essence of indoctrination and totalitarianism. In researching and writing an article for Demand Media, I was a bit surprised to learn that even secular sources are recommending some type of religious class in public schools because the moral illiteracy is so appalling in society today.[7]
 |
| "Distinguished Professor" Peter Singer |
To help you get a picture of how much things have changed, consider that America’s oldest and most venerated colleges and universities, such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Dartmouth, were founded by the Puritans who had a desire to see students educated in the truth of scripture.[8] Often these institutions expressed an explicit goal of training men as pastors and missionaries.[9] Now, however, you'll find ideas of a different nature. Princeton University, for example, has named Peter Singer a "distinguished professor." What does he teach the students? He defends bestiality and post-birth abortions (infanticide). "Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present species bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual)."[10]
It's not as though our society is becoming sick. It seems it already is. As usual, Jesus' predictions about the future are shown to be right on track. A major reason for the great callousness in our world today is that people are throwing off all moral reason and restraint: "Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold."(Matthew 24.12, NLT). One more point. The Christian church in the US is also somewhat liable for the callousness of society today. At the close of WWII, Christians in the US were pretty much in agreement with the convictions of Japanese complicit in waterboarding prisoners. Today, however, many Christians in the US don't understand that the 'ends-justifies-the means' rationale of waterboarding is not justified by scripture.[11] And so the Church has largely been deceived by clever Neocon politicians and the mainstream media. So, to some extent, we as the Church at large have been complicit in helping to make this a dehumanizing, cold world.
References
[1] CNN, Onlookers jeer as man is beaten, stripped and robbed in Baltimore, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/09/us/maryland-beating/index.html
[2] Daily Mail, World War II veteran, 86, forced to crawl to gas station after carjackers broke his leg - and NO ONE stopped to help, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106503/War-veteran-86-forced-crawl-gas-station-carjackers-broke-leg--NO-ONE-stopped-help.html
[3] New World Encyclopedia, Positivism (philosophy), "Today, among most philosophers, positivism is dead, or at least as dead as a philosophical stance or movement ever becomes..." http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Positivism_%28philosophy%29
[4] Templestream, Why Atheists Fear Debate, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-atheists-fear-debate.html
[5] Templestream, Stephen Law Helps Reveal the Nature of Truth and Logic, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/stephen-law-helps-reveal-nature-of.html
[6] The American Dream, 11 Reasons To Get Your Kids Out Of The Government Schools, http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/11-reasons-to-get-your-kids-out-of-the-government-schools
[7] eHow, The Good of Teaching Religious Curriculum in Public Schools, http://www.ehow.com/info_8194357_good-religious-curriculum-public-schools.html
[8] WND, Harvard, the Ivy League and the forgotten Puritans, http://www.wnd.com/2007/06/42348/
[9] Conservapedia, Harvard University, http://www.conservapedia.com/Harvard_University
[10] Conservapedia, Atheism and bestiality, http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_bestiality, quoting Joe Carter's First Things article.
[11] Templestream, Why Christians Oppose Torture and the NDAA, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-ethical-christians-oppose-torture.html
Tags: man beaten up on street in Baltimore, Man stripped on Baltimore street, car stolen - none helped WWII vet who crawled to get help, law of cause and effect, sowing and reaping, 2011 documentary film IndoctriNation, fall of Western Civilization, positivism is a dead, education and atheist hegemony, indoctrination and totalitarianism in public schools, Ivy League Schools mainly trained pastors, distinguished professor at Princeton defends bestiality and infanticide, moral decay - sick society
Related
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
ReplyDeleteYour assertion that science will never have all the answers needs to be backed up
Rus Anon
I'm not sure what the connection is between your statement and the linked video. It seems to be a non sequitur.
DeletePinker's thesis is that violence is historically decreasing. He states that genocides such as Stalin#s are insignificant. But I did not see an actual logical argument presented to back up his opinion. He simply made an assertion.
If he did present a logical argument as to why genocides such as Stalins are insignificant, can you summarize the main points of his argument?
Thank you in advance.
You seem to imply that violence has been rising in human society, which is false according to the information we have. Pinker does show it using statistics. Are numbers good enough as an argument for you?
DeletePinker has violence statistics dating back to biblical times? He has implied violence has been decreasing since then.
DeleteI personally believe societies are more cyclical than Pinker believes. If you research US history, you will see that society was fairly violent and decadent in the mid 1700s just prior to the First Great Awakening. This spiritual awakening occurred just prior to the American Revolution. After the revolution, The US had become a model of democracy, civility and prosperity.
As far as I have read, violence has steadily risen in the US since the 1960s when prayer and other such mentions of Christianity were forbidden. Some claim that the Vietnam War indirectly helped boost violent attitudes in the US, but no one seems to deny that violence began increasing in society at that time.
In 1962 when the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Engel v. Vitale, and in 1963 with the Murray v. Curlett case and Abington v. Schempp. These cases struck down the practice of prayer and Bible reading in public schools.
statistics show the following...
*SAT scores declined sharply
*American students often place last in international scholastic competitions
* When attention focused on teachers to find the reasons for students' failure, many teachers failed certification tests.
*Dramatic increase in school violence
*Student suicides up 253%
*Students lack basic information - poor skills - bad for the business community
*Military forced to provide remedial education for recruits
http://www.squidoo.com/banning-prayer-public-school-decline-morality-america
These statistics don't have to be analyzed in a library - just look at any movies from the 1950s to the 1960s and it's not very difficult to tell that violence and dysfunction in society have dramatically increased since then.
Rick: I personally believe societies are more cyclical than Pinker believes.
DeleteIt seems rather hypocritical of you to require Pinker to provide evidence and arguments for his claims (which I believe he does actually provide in the book), and yet you are happy to simply assert things.
Rick: If you research US history, you will see that society was fairly violent and decadent in the mid 1700s just prior to the First Great Awakening. This spiritual awakening occurred just prior to the American Revolution. After the revolution, The US had become a model of democracy, civility and prosperity.
Correlation does not equal causation Rick.
You seem to be implying that the "First Great Awakening" was somehow responsible for the civility you claim held after the revolutionary war. Yet since the FGA didn't prevent the war, wouldn't it make far more sense to think that it was the war which was responsible for the subsequent civility?
Rick: As far as I have read, violence has steadily risen in the US since the 1960s
Then you've been reading biased statistics and/or rubbish.
The stats which I believe Pinker cites indicate that violence has gone up in absolute terms, but it has not nearly kept pace with population growth, and violence relative to the number of people has been fairly steadily declining.
Rick: when prayer and other such mentions of Christianity were forbidden.
Oh, I see you live in a fantasy land, where ceasing state sanctioned religious observance, as the US constitution requires, equates to forbidding individual prayer and belief.
This one admission says so very much about your state of knowledge Rick.
Rick: Some claim that the Vietnam War indirectly helped boost violent attitudes in the US, but no one seems to deny that violence began increasing in society at that time.
The statistics indicate that violence has not been increasing, which seems to be a rather objective indication that your claim is false.
Rick: These cases struck down the practice of prayer and Bible reading in public schools.
No they did not. They stopped state sanction and enforced prayer and bible reading. Students are free to say prayers and read their bibles, which is completely in accordance with the US constitution.
Rick: statistics show the following...
Repeat after me Rick - "Correlation does not equal causation"
Rick: These statistics don't have to be analyzed in a library - just look at any movies from the 1950s to the 1960s and it's not very difficult to tell that violence and dysfunction in society have dramatically increased since then.
And yet the statistics actually show nothing of the sort. Per capita, violence is down. No amount of special pleading will change that Rick. No amount of asserting that following the constitution, and ceasing state sponsored prayer in public schools will change that.
I see a problem here Rick - movies ARE NOT real, and to rely upon them as indicators of the state of a society, while completely ignoring the actual statistics of violent crime, says volumes about you.
This is a Hayok Spam Reply,
DeleteFor the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Hovok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of article, How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence. But Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist I am lying about Richard Dawkins by pointing out the simple implications of grammar, as noted in an article:
"Firstly, consider Dawkins use of the word "though" as opposed to "but" leading off the parenthetical phrase. It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."
In addition, Havok stands by his ridiculous claim that the laws of physics are not a part of the physical environment, but are merely human explanatory tools and that's it.
Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, he demonstrates the frustration atheists often feel when they have a lack of answers. Second, Havok demonstrates that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will deny that it exists.
Hahaha. Rick you are just too precious!
DeleteInstead of justifying your own claims, and answering critiques against your position, your going to put your head in the sand and ignore it?
Fantastic stuff! :-P
This is a Hayok Spam Reply,
DeleteFor the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Hovok.
Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He claimed, for example, I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of article, How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence. But Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example.
Instead of apologizing, he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.
Havok also continues to insist I am lying about Richard Dawkins by pointing out the simple implications of grammar, as noted in an article:
"Firstly, consider Dawkins use of the word "though" as opposed to "but" leading off the parenthetical phrase. It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."
In addition, Havok stands by his ridiculous claim that the laws of physics are not a part of the physical environment, but are merely human explanatory tools and that's it.
Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, he demonstrates the frustration atheists often feel when they have a lack of answers. Second, Havok demonstrates that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will deny that it exists.
Havok already addressed the point. I see no need to repeat the argunments
DeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDelete>Havok already addressed the point. I see no need to repeat the argunments
Anonymous, you wrote,
"Pinker does show it using statistics. Are numbers good enough as an argument for you?"
And I pointed out Pinker's claim that violence has decreased since biblical times.
So... please explain what "statistics" you and Pinker are supposedly referring to.
I am being hypocritical, as Havok claims. I pointed out some statistics, though my point does not rely on them. Simply watching movies from the 1950's - 1960#s are sufficient, as I mentioned.
R:So... please explain what "statistics" you and Pinker are supposedly referring to.
ReplyDeleteWatch the video once again. Pinker explains clearly where he gets his numbers.
1. Yes, ancient war records are not perfect, the count of casualties was not done very carefully in the old times. Hpowever, the wars were much more bloody back then. A city wich resisted would usually be completely destroyed in biblical times. Read some ancient history about how things wre done back then. You do the math... One conquered city = one population killed and enslaved.
Nowadays, we do not fight to the death. Furthermore, the more or less adequate war records (starting from the 19th century) do show a decrease in casualties.
2. The homicidal rate has dropped dramatically. And here we have exact numbers since municipal records even in the middle ages were done very thoroughly. Besides, the customs and laws of the time were much more violent in the past. And we know that people did follow these laws and customs.
3. Your source for statistics is incredibly faulty and clearly biased. It makes some rubbish statements like prayers in school were banned or that the literacy rate in the USA has dropped. That is not the case. Hence, your source is either incompetent or lying. Provide something more substantial.
4. Besides, you cannot single out one country, you need show statistics for the whole world. If violence has increased in Afghanistan, this does not mean that violence has increased in the whole world.
R:I am being hypocritical, as Havok claims. I pointed out some statistics, though my point does not rely on them. Simply watching movies from the 1950's - 1960#s are sufficient, as I mentioned.
News flash! No study has been able to prove a direct link between violence on TV and in real life. The point still stands, violence has decreased per capita.
No surprise really - Rick is taking his own beliefs and anecdotal observations above far more objective evidence.
DeleteRick simply knows that he is correct, therefore the objective evidence is mistaken, while the beliefs and observations Rick has which agree with his unjustified conclusion are obviously correct.