Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

How many private non religious schools are there ?

Not sure on numbers, but they are out there.

heres one not far from me.

http://www.hillsgrammar.nsw.edu.au/

Offcourse religious schools only option is to go private, So that's why alot of private ones are religious, but yes there are still very good non religious private schools also,

There is also the happy meal effect, Religions want to operate schools for the same reason mcdonalds has happy meals and playgrounds, and the commonwealth bank gets into schools with childrens accounts, if you can get the kids early, you will get some of them for life.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not sure on numbers, but they are out there.

heres one not far from me.

http://www.hillsgrammar.nsw.edu.au/

Offcourse religious schools only option is to go private, So that's why a of private ones are religious, but yes there are still very good non religious private schools also,

If I had been 9 years younger I could have gone to that school as I grew up in that area.

Good to see that there are some quality non religious schools out there.

 

[Hodgie]

Public Schools can also offer selective classes and programs, that's not exclusive to private schools.

The secondary school I went to had an academic excellence program which offered different classes to what the rest of the students could choose from. You had to pay a small fee (I think it was a few hundred from memory) and be selected after sitting an exam to be accepted into the program.

I don't have any statistics but I'm sure that the students in those public school programs would score just as well as those private religious schools.

Not really anything to do with religion, if you are able to pick the top students of course it will make a school look better.

 

[Tink]

Hello All

I followed a track-back from my webpage and ended up here, in Australia. Thanks for the link.

Interesting conversation about science, religion, and ultimate reality.

I don't typically involve Biosemiosis.org in social-political dialogue, and I do not wish to intrude. But if I may, I would offer a short paragraph from a page entitled “Why is this important”. I think it reflects some of the comments I’ve read on this thread.

On Biosemiosis.org, we counsel average citizens -- often weary of the constant culture war -- to learn as much as they can about the issues, and to simply be fair and wise:



If you'd like, you can read the entire article here: Why is this Important?


Again, thanks!

Hi Biosemiosis, and welcome to the forum.
That must have been me.

As you can see, this is a stock forum, but we also talk about political, social events etc in here.
Thank you for your input on science.

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

Back to the debate on schools, as we can see, the public schools are not so balanced, and in my view, are pushing their own political agenda and social engineering.

The public schools are dividing society with their agenda on identity politics as well,imo.
Political correctness is running the show, as well as all their other political rubbish.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851

Do the men have any say in these schools, they seem to be run by women.

As I have said before, I know of people that are flocking to Christian schools, as they don't like what they are seeing in the public schools.
They have long waiting lists, and word of mouth is spreading.

That is my opinion.

 

[Value Collector]

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

Back to the debate on schools, as we can see, the public schools are not so balanced, and in my view, are pushing their own political agenda and social engineering.


.

Such as???

Christian schools

when it comes to pushing political and social engineering, I doubt public schools come close to pushing as much crap as the Christian schools.


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

Out of interest here is a video of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Charlie Munger talking about education, at 2.50 minute mark Buffett brings up a great point in relation to public vs private schools.

 

[SirRumpole]

Out of interest here is a video of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Charlie Munger talking about education, at 2.50 minute mark Buffett brings up a great point in relation to public vs private schools.

Exactly, and it applies to most other areas as well.

The people in charge send their kids to private schools so they are less worried about public schools, they drive around in chauffer driven cars so they are less worried about public transport, they get treated in private hospitals so they are less worried about public hospitals.

30 years ago Yes Minister said exactly the same.

449
00:33:06,374 --> 00:33:10,970
When there's a Tory government, they say
it's the cheapest way to provide mass education.

450
00:33:11,134 --> 00:33:14,331
To Labour, we explain
that selective education is divisive

451
00:33:14,494 --> 00:33:17,930
and to the Tories we explain that it is expensive.

452
00:33:19,214 --> 00:33:25,210
That way, we have a happy relationship with the
NUT and we educate our own children privately.

453
00:33:27,214 --> 00:33:30,923
- But if the government wants change...
- The teaching unions don't.

454
00:33:31,094 --> 00:33:34,689
Isn't it our job to persuade unions
to accept government policy?

455
00:33:34,854 --> 00:33:39,006
No, it is our job to get the government
to accept union policy.

456
00:33:39,174 --> 00:33:44,965
Since government change policy all the time
and unions never change their policy at all,

457
00:33:45,134 --> 00:33:49,605
common sense requires that the government
be brought in line with the unions.

http://www.yes-minister.com/ypm2x06-2x08.srt

 

[bellenuit]

Interesting Q & A session following a talk by Richard Dawkins where he addresses several topics: political correctness, laws of physics, multiverse, what would make him a believer in a deity etc.

 

[Tink]

I noticed an old post by Julia,about the psychiatrist 'Bible'.

One in three children medicated, and it should be a concern.
I would say a lot more than just children medicated, we would be looking at adults also.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...t=17844&page=3&p=800029&viewfull=1#post800029

I agree with that statement, and where there needs to be a balance between religion and science.

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

Materialism, is not a word I thought of, but makes perfect sense now with what I have been saying.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...11201&page=210&p=896267&viewfull=1#post896267

We are being reduced to mere blobs, robots, atoms in this world, where men can become women or children, if they wish, and vice versa.

No gender, no age, no family, no values, no judgement etc.

Reality is being thrown out the window.

 

[Value Collector]

We are being reduced to mere blobs, robots, atoms in this world, where men can become women or children, if they wish, and vice versa.

No gender, no age, no family, no values, no judgement etc.

Reality is being thrown out the window.

Nope, I haven't heard anyone saying stuff like that.

If you can't value human life without having an imaginary friend command you to, that says more about you than anyone else.

 

[SirRumpole]

Interesting Q & A session following a talk by Richard Dawkins where he addresses several topics: political correctness, laws of physics, multiverse, what would make him a believer in a deity etc.

In this video Dawkins posed the question "how do we know we are not dreaming right now ?"

Any answers ?

Maybe if two people or more people agree on the same sequence of events they are unlikely to be dreaming the same dream.

 

[bellenuit]

In this video Dawkins posed the question "how do we know we are not dreaming right now ?"

Any answers ?

Maybe if two people or more people agree on the same sequence of events they are unlikely to be dreaming the same dream.

I don't think that would work as the other person might just be part of your dream and the events that he describes could then be said to be what you are dreaming he is relating.

I think proving you are not dreaming is a bit like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Since there always is the possibility that there is a God, then there must be the possibility that that God simply implanted in your mind the story that you think you are observing. Perhaps there is no one else other than you and him/her.

As well as proving that it all isn't a dream, other alternatives include us being just part of a computer game. Again probably impossible to disprove.

 

[Tisme]

What is Stigmata?

http://www.livescience.com/42822-stigmata.html

hypnosis?

 

[pixel]

I don't think that would work as the other person might just be part of your dream and the events that he describes could then be said to be what you are dreaming he is relating.

I think proving you are not dreaming is a bit like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Since there always is the possibility that there is a God, then there must be the possibility that that God simply implanted in your mind the story that you think you are observing. Perhaps there is no one else other than you and him/her.

As well as proving that it all isn't a dream, other alternatives include us being just part of a computer game. Again probably impossible to disprove.

IMHO it's not so much the question whether some Superior Being exists, but which of the many conflicting attributes invented by different cults, sects, shamans might apply.

Would you want to worship a god that goes to such trouble, just to withhold proof from you? Who demands you take his/her existence "on faith"? And damn you for eternity if you have doubts?

“The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

 

[SirRumpole]

Would you want to worship a god that goes to such trouble, just to withhold proof from you? Who demands you take his/her existence "on faith"? And damn you for eternity if you have doubts?

You are talking about a religious God, but there are other possibilities, such the simulation designer that designs the rules then observes what happens.

Religions claim to "own" God, but that's just convenient for them to do so.

 

[pixel]

You are talking about a religious God, but there are other possibilities, such the simulation designer that designs the rules then observes what happens.

Religions claim to "own" God, but that's just convenient for them to do so.

You make a valid point, and that possibility exists indeed.
I do, however, have a problem with applying the "God" label to a hypothetical simulation designer. In such a scenario, the "Rules of the Game" become synonymous with "Laws of Nature", as in E=mc ² and everything else that Scientists have found out.

I know I am subject to those Laws, therefore I won't step off the ledge of a 20th-storey balcony or put my hand into a camp fire. Knowing those Laws does not require hypothesizing about their creator/s, let alone the purpose and motives behind the design. The "motives" - if any - of a sentient entity - if any - that plays games lasting many Billions of years, are as irrelevant to my existence as is the question of its existence or shape.

If such an entity exists and wants to keep me from knowing, it does a mighty fine job of it; that suits me fine. If anybody wishes to speculate and write poetry or prose about them, that's okay with me as well. If it's written interestingly enough, I'll even read it; but I put it only in the genre "Fiction".

 

[SirRumpole]

The "motives" - if any - of a sentient entity - if any - that plays games lasting many Billions of years, are as irrelevant to my existence as is the question of its existence or shape.

Sure, but the problem is religion, and if people can be satisfied with an answer to the question of where everything came from without the need for destructive religions then I think that it is worthwhile to put forward alternative explanations to the Gods of the Bible and Koran.

 

[SirRumpole]

I know I am subject to those Laws, therefore I won't step off the ledge of a 20th-storey balcony or put my hand into a camp fire. Knowing those Laws does not require hypothesizing about their creator/s, let alone the purpose and motives behind the design.

No,nothing requires hypothesizing about the Nature of existence, but humans and I believe other intelligent life will hypothesize because we have a need to explain things in order to prove how intelligent we are.

That's why we spend billions on Large Hadron Colliders instead of just being satisfied with our roast lamb and veg on Sundays.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think that would work as the other person might just be part of your dream and the events that he describes could then be said to be what you are dreaming he is relating.

I think proving you are not dreaming is a bit like trying to prove God doesn't exist. Since there always is the possibility that there is a God, then there must be the possibility that that God simply implanted in your mind the story that you think you are observing. Perhaps there is no one else other than you and him/her.

As well as proving that it all isn't a dream, other alternatives include us being just part of a computer game. Again probably impossible to disprove.

It may be possible to prove that you were dreaming by taking a loaded gun and shooting yourself, and if you were dreaming then you would wake up later and remember shooting yourself.

 

[pixel]

No,nothing requires hypothesizing about the Nature of existence, but humans and I believe other intelligent life will hypothesize because we have a need to explain things in order to prove how intelligent we are.

That's why we spend billions on Large Hadron Colliders instead of just being satisfied with our roast lamb and veg on Sundays.

We're on the same page, Rumpy.

I'm all in favour of the Hadron Collider, Hubble telescope, and supercomputers analysing the first Billion years post-Big Bang. I also follow with great fascination the advances in Cosmology, including models of Multiverses with dimensions exceeding our paltry four.

However, all that those models can give us is an accurate description of our environment - maybe extended by googolplexes in higher dimensions beyond our little planet. I'm happy to look for a key to that model, but I also believe it will take much longer than our kind of humanity is likely to survive.

Looking for a sentient being outside that Multiverse is an entirely different matter. I like Richard Dawkins' comment where he says, even if a booming voice were heard out of a cloud, proclaiming "I exist", he would rather consider it a hoax or mass hypnosis than proof of a divine existence.
Religious doctrine may well fantasize about a Creator and picture him/her "just like us, only more so". To me, that assumption is presumptuous in the extreme, as if the ultimate goal of innumerable worlds were the evolution of a mass of 7 Billion bipedal organisms with a carbon-based biochemistry, growing at exponential rates and nearing the tipping point on the yeast growth curve. Scientists have known all that for decades; scientists also know remedies to combat the lethal effects of anthropogenic pollution on all levels. Yet the religious nuts prevail, valuing quantity over quality ("Every sperm is Sacred...") denouncing science as a conspiracy and sound logic as hysteria.

If that were the result of the "Rules of the Game", then the entire experiment must be rated a "Fail".

 

[SirRumpole]

I like Richard Dawkins' comment where he says, even if a booming voice were heard out of a cloud, proclaiming "I exist", he would rather consider it a hoax or mass hypnosis than proof of a divine existence.

Unfortunately a scientist says he would rather ignore evidence than test it.

That's a sad state of affairs imo.

If he thinks such a thing is a hoax, it's up to him to prove it unless he knows that he can't.