Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
I know you don't claim to know everything. I claim you're too scared to believe in something you are not certain of, which is sort of an oxymoron really - "you want to be certain about what you believe in". It's amazing how you're so proud of your inteligence and are stil not able to see how absurd that really is. Almost as absurd as your belief that universe is able to design and create itself - my personal favourite.
And yes, your belief systems are so vague that they almost qualify to be a system. You basically negate things one is impossible to be absolutely certain of and that actually is a so lame belief system that it almost isn't one, I give you that.
Indoctrination is not a religious subscription. You can see that e.g. from Charles Hill's posts. He wants to ban religion. That is absolutely the same behaviour pattern of religious fanatics who want to indoctrinate followers in stead of taking the more difficult way of exercising free will and reasoning as moderate normal people do and even manage.
Furthermore, you atheists keep insisting on some kind of natural sciences approach towards religion and annoy everyone understanding these issues with requests for "physical evidence and proof". If you want to apply science to religion, you cannot go any furhter than social sciences and their methods.
E.g. in legal science when you try to prove a claim, sometimes it's enough to have witnesses. If someone makes threats to kill someone for years and then violently kidnaps a person in front of 20 witnesses and then that person immediately disappears and we never find any proof or evidence about what happened to him/her, we would stil know who is responsible for that person's death even without a single physical evidence.
So, that "young physicist" approach of yours is really silly when it comes to religious issues. You even manage to claim that it is impossible to get proof on this subject and at the same time request it to be given in order to acknowledge the issue at all. Vague and absurd - that's what it is.
(editado)
And yes, your belief systems are so vague that they almost qualify to be a system. You basically negate things one is impossible to be absolutely certain of and that actually is a so lame belief system that it almost isn't one, I give you that.
Indoctrination is not a religious subscription. You can see that e.g. from Charles Hill's posts. He wants to ban religion. That is absolutely the same behaviour pattern of religious fanatics who want to indoctrinate followers in stead of taking the more difficult way of exercising free will and reasoning as moderate normal people do and even manage.
Furthermore, you atheists keep insisting on some kind of natural sciences approach towards religion and annoy everyone understanding these issues with requests for "physical evidence and proof". If you want to apply science to religion, you cannot go any furhter than social sciences and their methods.
E.g. in legal science when you try to prove a claim, sometimes it's enough to have witnesses. If someone makes threats to kill someone for years and then violently kidnaps a person in front of 20 witnesses and then that person immediately disappears and we never find any proof or evidence about what happened to him/her, we would stil know who is responsible for that person's death even without a single physical evidence.
So, that "young physicist" approach of yours is really silly when it comes to religious issues. You even manage to claim that it is impossible to get proof on this subject and at the same time request it to be given in order to acknowledge the issue at all. Vague and absurd - that's what it is.
(editado)
Almost as absurd as your belief that universe is able to design and create itself - my personal favourite.
First discoveries of the universe are done in ancient times by the Greeks, and in the early 20th century all became even more clear because of discoveries done by astronomer Edwin Hubble. In 1964 some astronomers found the echo of the Big Bang, another big step. The telescope 'Hubble' made it possible to do even more amazing discoveries, 1 of them, the universe dates back 13.7 billion years. And now they are looking at multiverse .... So what does this say about 'your personal favourite'?
Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (link)
Cosmic microwave background radiation (link)
Multiverses and the Big Bang (link)
>> Explained by Hiranya Peiris of University College London and Matt Johnson of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (link)
And don't even try to claim you know better as these people :P That would be the same as a child who just learned 1+1=2 (and stopped learning from that moment) saying he now knows mathematics better as a university math teacher ....
E.g. in legal science when you try to prove a claim, sometimes it's enough to have witnesses.
Liar! I can't find another word. Scientists do research and will publish the outcome of that research, if other scientists doubts the outcome they will do another research to prove the other was wrong (or right, if the outcome is the same) etc etc.
And even when it are researches done on theories, these theories are still based on facts, and not some random thoughts that are completely out of the blue.
(editado)
First discoveries of the universe are done in ancient times by the Greeks, and in the early 20th century all became even more clear because of discoveries done by astronomer Edwin Hubble. In 1964 some astronomers found the echo of the Big Bang, another big step. The telescope 'Hubble' made it possible to do even more amazing discoveries, 1 of them, the universe dates back 13.7 billion years. And now they are looking at multiverse .... So what does this say about 'your personal favourite'?
Discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation (link)
Cosmic microwave background radiation (link)
Multiverses and the Big Bang (link)
>> Explained by Hiranya Peiris of University College London and Matt Johnson of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (link)
And don't even try to claim you know better as these people :P That would be the same as a child who just learned 1+1=2 (and stopped learning from that moment) saying he now knows mathematics better as a university math teacher ....
E.g. in legal science when you try to prove a claim, sometimes it's enough to have witnesses.
Liar! I can't find another word. Scientists do research and will publish the outcome of that research, if other scientists doubts the outcome they will do another research to prove the other was wrong (or right, if the outcome is the same) etc etc.
And even when it are researches done on theories, these theories are still based on facts, and not some random thoughts that are completely out of the blue.
(editado)
The problem with the scientific theory of how the universe started, along with the development of everything in it, requires more imagination than religion itself. Complex structures over billions of years, and the human mind cannot comprehend that. But unlike religion, it is possible to prove it.
For example:
The universe has ~10^80 atoms. One followed by 80 zeroes. Your mind is not built to comprehend large numbers.
For example:
The universe has ~10^80 atoms. One followed by 80 zeroes. Your mind is not built to comprehend large numbers.
I know you don't claim to know everything. I claim you're too scared to believe in something you are not certain of, which is sort of an oxymoron really - "you want to be certain about what you believe in". It's amazing how you're so proud of your inteligence and are stil not able to see how absurd that really is. Almost as absurd as your belief that universe is able to design and create itself - my personal favourite.
Wait, let me rephrase: so you say I'm to scared to believe uncertain things. So you imply that believing uncertain things is good and not believing uncertain things is bad. Wait ... what?
And of course, what we cannot explain (yet) must be absurd. Why doesn't that surprise me?
And yes, your belief systems are so vague that they almost qualify to be a system. You basically negate things one is impossible to be absolutely certain of and that actually is a so lame belief system that it almost isn't one, I give you that.
It is NOT a belief system, even if you repeat it a thousand times. I accept things that are proven or for which there are clear indications (for instance, when gravity was discovered, it was not proven, but due to apples falling down and us coming back to the ground when we jump, it seemed - even at that time - the theory of gravity was right). I don't belief a book that is centuries old and that has no proof or indications of truth whatsoever. If you think that's a bad thing, okay, I beg to differ.
Indoctrination is not a religious subscription. You can see that e.g. from Charles Hill's posts. He wants to ban religion. That is absolutely the same behaviour pattern of religious fanatics who want to indoctrinate followers in stead of taking the more difficult way of exercising free will and reasoning as moderate normal people do and even manage.
Charles doesn't want to ban religion. He wants to ban religious education for children. I wouldn't go that far (I've gone to 'catholic' schools (because of history, they reach a higher level of education), and now I'm at the 'catholic' university, but there is nothing religious about it; they are even investigating if they could let the 'catholic' word away and change the name from Catholic University of Leuven to University of Leuven). What I do want to say is that grown ups shouldn't try to use their influence on children to make them believe the same things they (the grown ups) do. That is abuse of children in my opinion.
Furthermore, you atheists keep insisting on some kind of natural sciences approach towards religion and annoy everyone understanding these issues with requests for "physical evidence and proof". If you want to apply science to religion, you cannot go any furhter than social sciences and their methods.
We want proof, because you religious people pretend to know the truth. We say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, so we reject the idea that there is a god. You say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, but there is a book called the Bible, and we believe that. That's good for you, but don't pretend you have the truth then as long as you don't have proof or clear indications.
E.g. in legal science when you try to prove a claim, sometimes it's enough to have witnesses. If someone makes threats to kill someone for years and then violently kidnaps a person in front of 20 witnesses and then that person immediately disappears and we never find any proof or evidence about what happened to him/her, we would stil know who is responsible for that person's death even without a single physical evidence.
And still, in history, there have been people murdered who were threatened by people who did not murder the victim. For you, it would be clear, but you'd be wrong. For example: person A threatens person B. Person B is murdered. In your logic, it would be clear person A killed him. However, it is possible that a person C murdered person B. So no evidence or clear indication = no judgment. That's the basics of law itself.
So, that "young physicist" approach of yours is really silly when it comes to religious issues. You even manage to claim that it is impossible to get proof on this subject and at the same time request it to be given in order to acknowledge the issue at all. Vague and absurd - that's what it is.
No. I say:
- it IS possible to have proof of the existence of a god if that god really exists
- it IS NOT possible to have proof that there is no god if there is no god
So I cannot give you proof that there are no gods, but if you're god exists, there should be proof that he exists. At least from a logical point of view. Not vague, not absurd.
Wait, let me rephrase: so you say I'm to scared to believe uncertain things. So you imply that believing uncertain things is good and not believing uncertain things is bad. Wait ... what?
And of course, what we cannot explain (yet) must be absurd. Why doesn't that surprise me?
And yes, your belief systems are so vague that they almost qualify to be a system. You basically negate things one is impossible to be absolutely certain of and that actually is a so lame belief system that it almost isn't one, I give you that.
It is NOT a belief system, even if you repeat it a thousand times. I accept things that are proven or for which there are clear indications (for instance, when gravity was discovered, it was not proven, but due to apples falling down and us coming back to the ground when we jump, it seemed - even at that time - the theory of gravity was right). I don't belief a book that is centuries old and that has no proof or indications of truth whatsoever. If you think that's a bad thing, okay, I beg to differ.
Indoctrination is not a religious subscription. You can see that e.g. from Charles Hill's posts. He wants to ban religion. That is absolutely the same behaviour pattern of religious fanatics who want to indoctrinate followers in stead of taking the more difficult way of exercising free will and reasoning as moderate normal people do and even manage.
Charles doesn't want to ban religion. He wants to ban religious education for children. I wouldn't go that far (I've gone to 'catholic' schools (because of history, they reach a higher level of education), and now I'm at the 'catholic' university, but there is nothing religious about it; they are even investigating if they could let the 'catholic' word away and change the name from Catholic University of Leuven to University of Leuven). What I do want to say is that grown ups shouldn't try to use their influence on children to make them believe the same things they (the grown ups) do. That is abuse of children in my opinion.
Furthermore, you atheists keep insisting on some kind of natural sciences approach towards religion and annoy everyone understanding these issues with requests for "physical evidence and proof". If you want to apply science to religion, you cannot go any furhter than social sciences and their methods.
We want proof, because you religious people pretend to know the truth. We say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, so we reject the idea that there is a god. You say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, but there is a book called the Bible, and we believe that. That's good for you, but don't pretend you have the truth then as long as you don't have proof or clear indications.
E.g. in legal science when you try to prove a claim, sometimes it's enough to have witnesses. If someone makes threats to kill someone for years and then violently kidnaps a person in front of 20 witnesses and then that person immediately disappears and we never find any proof or evidence about what happened to him/her, we would stil know who is responsible for that person's death even without a single physical evidence.
And still, in history, there have been people murdered who were threatened by people who did not murder the victim. For you, it would be clear, but you'd be wrong. For example: person A threatens person B. Person B is murdered. In your logic, it would be clear person A killed him. However, it is possible that a person C murdered person B. So no evidence or clear indication = no judgment. That's the basics of law itself.
So, that "young physicist" approach of yours is really silly when it comes to religious issues. You even manage to claim that it is impossible to get proof on this subject and at the same time request it to be given in order to acknowledge the issue at all. Vague and absurd - that's what it is.
No. I say:
- it IS possible to have proof of the existence of a god if that god really exists
- it IS NOT possible to have proof that there is no god if there is no god
So I cannot give you proof that there are no gods, but if you're god exists, there should be proof that he exists. At least from a logical point of view. Not vague, not absurd.
You're being silly again. Please, stop pasting links to scientific theories. Some people were stupid enough to think that the discovery of heliocentric system (btw, discovered by a Catholic monk) is a final proof against God and religion. The Bible is not about science. Stop pretending that I am one of those idiots that don't believe in dinosaurs because the Bible says nothing about them.
I know all these theories and I am not disputing them. But each and every one of them can only go as far as the moment the universe was created. Each and every scientific theory eventually always faces the same question: "And before that? Where did that come from?" It's like the question of which is the highest number. Even kindergarden kids can explain to you that there is no such thing as the highest number because you can always add 1. It's the same with the question "How was universe created?". The answer is not within the materialistic world.
And it's really amazing how you didn't get my simple example about the legal science. You can make a judgment (not a theory) without a single physical evidence. So, you can reasonably believe something true without physical evidence too. Stop pretending that I wrote something else or please read again.
I know all these theories and I am not disputing them. But each and every one of them can only go as far as the moment the universe was created. Each and every scientific theory eventually always faces the same question: "And before that? Where did that come from?" It's like the question of which is the highest number. Even kindergarden kids can explain to you that there is no such thing as the highest number because you can always add 1. It's the same with the question "How was universe created?". The answer is not within the materialistic world.
And it's really amazing how you didn't get my simple example about the legal science. You can make a judgment (not a theory) without a single physical evidence. So, you can reasonably believe something true without physical evidence too. Stop pretending that I wrote something else or please read again.
Wait, let me rephrase: so you say I'm to scared to believe uncertain things. So you imply that believing uncertain things is good and not believing uncertain things is bad. Wait ... what?
That's a black and white world you live in. If you don't get what I wrote, then I really can't help you. It can't be more simple. Saying "I want to be certain about what I believe in" is an oxymoron. What we are certain about, we know. We don't have to believe that. If we rely only on what we know, then we don't believe anything.
And of course, what we cannot explain (yet) must be absurd. Why doesn't that surprise me?
Nothing comes from nothing. Look up what I wrote to Charles about science always facing the same question.
Charles doesn't want to ban religion. He wants to ban religious education for children.
Same thing. "I don't want to ban atheism. I only want to ban teaching atheism to children."
I wouldn't go that far (I've gone to 'catholic' schools (because of history, they reach a higher level of education), and now I'm at the 'catholic' university, but there is nothing religious about it; they are even investigating if they could let the 'catholic' word away and change the name from Catholic University of Leuven to University of Leuven).
Now that's sad. Catholics founded that university and now its "child" will rennounce them. Really sad...
What I do want to say is that grown ups shouldn't try to use their influence on children to make them believe the same things they (the grown ups) do. That is abuse of children in my opinion.
That's atheistic fundamentalism. I will teach my children what I think is right and will do good to them. You will never accomplish that goal. Communism already tried and failed.
We want proof, because you religious people pretend to know the truth. We say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, so we reject the idea that there is a god. You say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, but there is a book called the Bible, and we believe that. That's good for you, but don't pretend you have the truth then as long as you don't have proof or clear indications.
And atheists think that the right answer is: "I don't believe anything" and then pretend that it is them who know the truth. Extremists even want to force their (non)belief on other people.
And still, in history, there have been people murdered who were threatened by people who did not murder the victim. For you, it would be clear, but you'd be wrong. For example: person A threatens person B. Person B is murdered. In your logic, it would be clear person A killed him. However, it is possible that a person C murdered person B. So no evidence or clear indication = no judgment. That's the basics of law itself.
You twisted my example. It is possible to know what happened without a single phyiscal evidence. My example shows it quite well. I can even elaborate it. It could be that the killer even bragged about it to everyone how he did it and managed to avoid having physical evidence. There have been examples of indictments without a single physical evidence. The only evidence was that enough of reliable people knew what happened. It's the same about religious issues. Please, stop pretending religion is a subject matter of natural sciences.
No. I say:
- it IS possible to have proof of the existence of a god if that god really exists
Do you just like thinking that way or you have some proof for that claim? :P
(editado)
That's a black and white world you live in. If you don't get what I wrote, then I really can't help you. It can't be more simple. Saying "I want to be certain about what I believe in" is an oxymoron. What we are certain about, we know. We don't have to believe that. If we rely only on what we know, then we don't believe anything.
And of course, what we cannot explain (yet) must be absurd. Why doesn't that surprise me?
Nothing comes from nothing. Look up what I wrote to Charles about science always facing the same question.
Charles doesn't want to ban religion. He wants to ban religious education for children.
Same thing. "I don't want to ban atheism. I only want to ban teaching atheism to children."
I wouldn't go that far (I've gone to 'catholic' schools (because of history, they reach a higher level of education), and now I'm at the 'catholic' university, but there is nothing religious about it; they are even investigating if they could let the 'catholic' word away and change the name from Catholic University of Leuven to University of Leuven).
Now that's sad. Catholics founded that university and now its "child" will rennounce them. Really sad...
What I do want to say is that grown ups shouldn't try to use their influence on children to make them believe the same things they (the grown ups) do. That is abuse of children in my opinion.
That's atheistic fundamentalism. I will teach my children what I think is right and will do good to them. You will never accomplish that goal. Communism already tried and failed.
We want proof, because you religious people pretend to know the truth. We say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, so we reject the idea that there is a god. You say: there hasn't been a proof or clear indication for the existence of a god, but there is a book called the Bible, and we believe that. That's good for you, but don't pretend you have the truth then as long as you don't have proof or clear indications.
And atheists think that the right answer is: "I don't believe anything" and then pretend that it is them who know the truth. Extremists even want to force their (non)belief on other people.
And still, in history, there have been people murdered who were threatened by people who did not murder the victim. For you, it would be clear, but you'd be wrong. For example: person A threatens person B. Person B is murdered. In your logic, it would be clear person A killed him. However, it is possible that a person C murdered person B. So no evidence or clear indication = no judgment. That's the basics of law itself.
You twisted my example. It is possible to know what happened without a single phyiscal evidence. My example shows it quite well. I can even elaborate it. It could be that the killer even bragged about it to everyone how he did it and managed to avoid having physical evidence. There have been examples of indictments without a single physical evidence. The only evidence was that enough of reliable people knew what happened. It's the same about religious issues. Please, stop pretending religion is a subject matter of natural sciences.
No. I say:
- it IS possible to have proof of the existence of a god if that god really exists
Do you just like thinking that way or you have some proof for that claim? :P
(editado)
Charles doesn't want to ban religion. He wants to ban religious education for children.
Same thing. "I don't want to ban atheism. I only want to ban teaching atheism to children."
This is a silly argument. From the beginning of school, you are taught about religion. But not, as I noted, in a tolerance to all religions way as it should be (in my opinion). They, for the first year, speak about God and Christianity and the Bible in a way insinuating 'this IS what happened. No free choice on how they interpret it. It only got worse when I visited Catholic schools, where all parts of their teaching involved a form of religion.
And you cannot teach atheism. It is the part of man that decides that he can make his own decisions of wrong and right. It, like zero is not a number, but an absence of one, is the absence of religion. It therefore cannot be taught to a young child, as he/she had no religion to start with.
An agnostic approach can be taught, where the child is allowed to make up his own mind.
Same thing. "I don't want to ban atheism. I only want to ban teaching atheism to children."
This is a silly argument. From the beginning of school, you are taught about religion. But not, as I noted, in a tolerance to all religions way as it should be (in my opinion). They, for the first year, speak about God and Christianity and the Bible in a way insinuating 'this IS what happened. No free choice on how they interpret it. It only got worse when I visited Catholic schools, where all parts of their teaching involved a form of religion.
And you cannot teach atheism. It is the part of man that decides that he can make his own decisions of wrong and right. It, like zero is not a number, but an absence of one, is the absence of religion. It therefore cannot be taught to a young child, as he/she had no religion to start with.
An agnostic approach can be taught, where the child is allowed to make up his own mind.
What is silly? That banning religious education is the same as banning religion? It is completely the same thing.
I do not advocate religious education for all children. I want it for my children and I am not alone and nobody has the right to ban religious education for our children. My sentences in quotes were just examples how banning religion (or atheism) and religious (or atheistic) education are basically the same things.
You can teach atheism to children. I don't speak to my children about religion on a schedule like a preacher. I speak about it because and when they have questions. I can reply to these questions based on atheistic (non)beliefs or Catholic beliefs. So, actually, I am well aware that I can teach my children atheism and I absolutely do not want to because I don't believe in what it is teaching or, if you want, I do not disbelieve what it is disbelieving which is basically the same thing but Rubinho doesn't understand if I tell it only positively. :P
(editado)
I do not advocate religious education for all children. I want it for my children and I am not alone and nobody has the right to ban religious education for our children. My sentences in quotes were just examples how banning religion (or atheism) and religious (or atheistic) education are basically the same things.
You can teach atheism to children. I don't speak to my children about religion on a schedule like a preacher. I speak about it because and when they have questions. I can reply to these questions based on atheistic (non)beliefs or Catholic beliefs. So, actually, I am well aware that I can teach my children atheism and I absolutely do not want to because I don't believe in what it is teaching or, if you want, I do not disbelieve what it is disbelieving which is basically the same thing but Rubinho doesn't understand if I tell it only positively. :P
(editado)
Oh, all are scientific theories .. yeh, I forgot, that's how you call scientific facts :P And dinosaurs .... didn't know I wrote about them, but ok.
The question "How was universe created?" is your question, the scientific question is "How did our universe started?" ... it is clear our universe started at 1 point, and how do they know, because it is still expanding outwards from that 1 point. By using the Doppler Effect for light they can even measure the speed our universe is expanding (Doppler Effect: Redshift and the Expanding Universe). Also we can still detect the cosmic microwave background radiation of this event, the Big Bang. Stars, planets, galaxies, black wholes etc didn't just magically appeared in 6 days and started to move. Besides, it's ridicules to think something that needs to be measured in light years (the universe) is made just for a tiny planet with a circumference of 40,075 km (equatorial) :P
And your simple example about the legal science just don't make sense. A kidnapping example has nothing to do with science, and also science doesn't work that way. Science is not about believe, it's based on facts. Scientists don't 'believe' option C could be a possibility without option A and B proving option C could be a possibility, and still option C needs to be proven and that is often a lot of work. For example, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) isn't build because scientists believed there could be even smaller particles, but because older experiments always showed there was something even smaller as they already knew, and theoretically these even smaller particles had to exist. And surprise surprise, they do exist.
(editado)
The question "How was universe created?" is your question, the scientific question is "How did our universe started?" ... it is clear our universe started at 1 point, and how do they know, because it is still expanding outwards from that 1 point. By using the Doppler Effect for light they can even measure the speed our universe is expanding (Doppler Effect: Redshift and the Expanding Universe). Also we can still detect the cosmic microwave background radiation of this event, the Big Bang. Stars, planets, galaxies, black wholes etc didn't just magically appeared in 6 days and started to move. Besides, it's ridicules to think something that needs to be measured in light years (the universe) is made just for a tiny planet with a circumference of 40,075 km (equatorial) :P
And your simple example about the legal science just don't make sense. A kidnapping example has nothing to do with science, and also science doesn't work that way. Science is not about believe, it's based on facts. Scientists don't 'believe' option C could be a possibility without option A and B proving option C could be a possibility, and still option C needs to be proven and that is often a lot of work. For example, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) isn't build because scientists believed there could be even smaller particles, but because older experiments always showed there was something even smaller as they already knew, and theoretically these even smaller particles had to exist. And surprise surprise, they do exist.
(editado)
I'd like with pleasure add my pointof view about all these ideas.
For me, i always extraordinary to see a believer and a non-believer talking for nothing... A belief or faith has completely nothing to do with logical science and has no need to be proven.
I'd like to give two examples :
- in France, but maybe in some other countries, all children believe in their earlier years about the "Père Noël" or Santa Claus, a sort of St Nicolas... He is a magical in the children's minds. Each child don't need to prove anything about this character because in their mind, he obligatory exists.
- Let's give an example of schizophrenic human... He suffers in his life dur to his psychiatric problem... But in his mind, the 2 characters that exists, exist really in him...
I don't know how to consider myself as i don't need to think about any god, religion or belief or faith of anything to live my life as better as i can. Any god exists for some human beings, i say it is good for them. Some others humans don't think any exists as it is not proven, i say it is good for them.
But as there are billion of people on Earth who still are faithfull... Thus to have my children the most integrated into their world, i give thme some knowledges about any religions... They are inside our culture (i especially give christian and bouddhist and shintoist ideas) and to avoid them will not give them the max culture... They are very interested in it. We often talk about god idea. If they decide to be faithfull, i'll be happy for their choice, if they decide to be as their father and mother, i'd be happy too because they will find their way.
The lonely thing that let me see religions with a bad eye is when they use the failure of humans to take them into their hand... They act as marketing, advertising is using failure of human beings... I prefer to see a human going to a religion by choice that to see religion trying to find the failure of human nature to get him.
I hope that my english is enough clear to be well understood from my views.
Thx for having read me :-)
For me, i always extraordinary to see a believer and a non-believer talking for nothing... A belief or faith has completely nothing to do with logical science and has no need to be proven.
I'd like to give two examples :
- in France, but maybe in some other countries, all children believe in their earlier years about the "Père Noël" or Santa Claus, a sort of St Nicolas... He is a magical in the children's minds. Each child don't need to prove anything about this character because in their mind, he obligatory exists.
- Let's give an example of schizophrenic human... He suffers in his life dur to his psychiatric problem... But in his mind, the 2 characters that exists, exist really in him...
I don't know how to consider myself as i don't need to think about any god, religion or belief or faith of anything to live my life as better as i can. Any god exists for some human beings, i say it is good for them. Some others humans don't think any exists as it is not proven, i say it is good for them.
But as there are billion of people on Earth who still are faithfull... Thus to have my children the most integrated into their world, i give thme some knowledges about any religions... They are inside our culture (i especially give christian and bouddhist and shintoist ideas) and to avoid them will not give them the max culture... They are very interested in it. We often talk about god idea. If they decide to be faithfull, i'll be happy for their choice, if they decide to be as their father and mother, i'd be happy too because they will find their way.
The lonely thing that let me see religions with a bad eye is when they use the failure of humans to take them into their hand... They act as marketing, advertising is using failure of human beings... I prefer to see a human going to a religion by choice that to see religion trying to find the failure of human nature to get him.
I hope that my english is enough clear to be well understood from my views.
Thx for having read me :-)
LOL. It's really funny to see someone so passionately talking with himself. What you just wrote here is certainly not a reply to my post.
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind." - Albert Einstein
Once you realise this, what you have to say about science might have a chance of being relevant.
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind." - Albert Einstein
Once you realise this, what you have to say about science might have a chance of being relevant.
Stef, thanx for sharing your ideas on this. I generally like your approach. This kind of attitude makes it possible for multicultural communities to live together in harmony. I personally like much more structure in this area than you and I even find that such structure is necessary in general but I can accept that not all people feel and think the same way.
I would like for my children to also understand well ideas of different religions and worldviews but I must admit that I would not like them leaving Catholicism. I am also aware that they might eventually take on a much different worldview than their parents but I think it is also normal in that case that their parents are disapointed by such decisions that distance children from their parents. I would compare that to them deciding to leave our country and live elsewhere far away from us. It's something that can happen but it's also normal to try to motivate them as much as possible to take the choices that we would like them to take.
The lonely thing that let me see religions with a bad eye is when they use the failure of humans to take them into their hand... They act as marketing, advertising is using failure of human beings... I prefer to see a human going to a religion by choice that to see religion trying to find the failure of human nature to get him.
I must admit I didn't quite understand this part but I totally agree that religion should always be a matter of choice.
I would like for my children to also understand well ideas of different religions and worldviews but I must admit that I would not like them leaving Catholicism. I am also aware that they might eventually take on a much different worldview than their parents but I think it is also normal in that case that their parents are disapointed by such decisions that distance children from their parents. I would compare that to them deciding to leave our country and live elsewhere far away from us. It's something that can happen but it's also normal to try to motivate them as much as possible to take the choices that we would like them to take.
The lonely thing that let me see religions with a bad eye is when they use the failure of humans to take them into their hand... They act as marketing, advertising is using failure of human beings... I prefer to see a human going to a religion by choice that to see religion trying to find the failure of human nature to get him.
I must admit I didn't quite understand this part but I totally agree that religion should always be a matter of choice.
What you just wrote here is certainly not a reply to my post.
Sasha76 to Charles Hill
2011-11-03 08:59:33
Please, stop pasting links to scientific theories.
I know all these theories and I am not disputing them. >>>> It's the same with the question "How was universe created?". The answer is not within the materialistic world.
So, you can reasonably believe something true without physical evidence too.
And now 1 of my favorites as an answer to your Albert Einstein quote, and yes it is 1 of your so called extremist:
“...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.” - Richard Dawkins
(editado)
Sasha76 to Charles Hill
2011-11-03 08:59:33
Please, stop pasting links to scientific theories.
I know all these theories and I am not disputing them. >>>> It's the same with the question "How was universe created?". The answer is not within the materialistic world.
So, you can reasonably believe something true without physical evidence too.
And now 1 of my favorites as an answer to your Albert Einstein quote, and yes it is 1 of your so called extremist:
“...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.” - Richard Dawkins
(editado)
That's a black and white world you live in. If you don't get what I wrote, then I really can't help you. It can't be more simple. Saying "I want to be certain about what I believe in" is an oxymoron. What we are certain about, we know. We don't have to believe that. If we rely only on what we know, then we don't believe anything.
That's the reason I don't believe.
Nothing comes from nothing. Look up what I wrote to Charles about science always facing the same question.
Says who?
Same thing. "I don't want to ban atheism. I only want to ban teaching atheism to children."
But I didn't say you wanted to ban atheism; you did say that Charles wanted to ban religion. You were wrong there.
Now that's sad. Catholics founded that university and now its "child" will rennounce them. Really sad...
I don't care if it is catholic university or university. As long as religion is not involved, I'm okay with it. If religion was really involved, I would have chosen another university. They want to remove it because abroad, a lot of people think the Catholic Church has power within our university, they think we cannot investigate certain things because of the Vatican. To avoid this misinterpretation, they want to remove it. I understand that. Nothing sad here.
That's atheistic fundamentalism. I will teach my children what I think is right and will do good to them. You will never accomplish that goal. Communism already tried and failed.
So you will use your power as parent to try to make them believe (in religion) what you want? I think that is wrong.
And atheists think that the right answer is: "I don't believe anything" and then pretend that it is them who know the truth. Extremists even want to force their (non)belief on other people.
I say that I base my worldview on what we know, where we have evidence for, and not on a book that is centuries old.
And extremism is always bad, whatever form (religious or atheist, left or right) it takes. Let's agree on that.
You twisted my example. It is possible to know what happened without a single phyiscal evidence. My example shows it quite well. I can even elaborate it. It could be that the killer even bragged about it to everyone how he did it and managed to avoid having physical evidence. There have been examples of indictments without a single physical evidence. The only evidence was that enough of reliable people knew what happened. It's the same about religious issues. Please, stop pretending religion is a subject matter of natural sciences.
One can say how he killed somebody, without really having killed him (for instance to protect a family members). Then you would lock up the wrong guy and leave the real killer free.
Do you just like thinking that way or you have some proof for that claim? :P
If something is there (so you are 100% certain it is there), than there must be proof. Otherwise, you couldn't be certain. If something is there, there must be proof. That is pure logic.
That's the reason I don't believe.
Nothing comes from nothing. Look up what I wrote to Charles about science always facing the same question.
Says who?
Same thing. "I don't want to ban atheism. I only want to ban teaching atheism to children."
But I didn't say you wanted to ban atheism; you did say that Charles wanted to ban religion. You were wrong there.
Now that's sad. Catholics founded that university and now its "child" will rennounce them. Really sad...
I don't care if it is catholic university or university. As long as religion is not involved, I'm okay with it. If religion was really involved, I would have chosen another university. They want to remove it because abroad, a lot of people think the Catholic Church has power within our university, they think we cannot investigate certain things because of the Vatican. To avoid this misinterpretation, they want to remove it. I understand that. Nothing sad here.
That's atheistic fundamentalism. I will teach my children what I think is right and will do good to them. You will never accomplish that goal. Communism already tried and failed.
So you will use your power as parent to try to make them believe (in religion) what you want? I think that is wrong.
And atheists think that the right answer is: "I don't believe anything" and then pretend that it is them who know the truth. Extremists even want to force their (non)belief on other people.
I say that I base my worldview on what we know, where we have evidence for, and not on a book that is centuries old.
And extremism is always bad, whatever form (religious or atheist, left or right) it takes. Let's agree on that.
You twisted my example. It is possible to know what happened without a single phyiscal evidence. My example shows it quite well. I can even elaborate it. It could be that the killer even bragged about it to everyone how he did it and managed to avoid having physical evidence. There have been examples of indictments without a single physical evidence. The only evidence was that enough of reliable people knew what happened. It's the same about religious issues. Please, stop pretending religion is a subject matter of natural sciences.
One can say how he killed somebody, without really having killed him (for instance to protect a family members). Then you would lock up the wrong guy and leave the real killer free.
Do you just like thinking that way or you have some proof for that claim? :P
If something is there (so you are 100% certain it is there), than there must be proof. Otherwise, you couldn't be certain. If something is there, there must be proof. That is pure logic.
- Let's give an example of schizophrenic human... He suffers in his life dur to his psychiatric problem... But in his mind, the 2 characters that exists, exist really in him...
I just wanted to add that this is not schizophrenia. This is 'dissociative identity disorder'. I unfortunately know this because there is someone with schizophrenia in my close family.
I just wanted to add that this is not schizophrenia. This is 'dissociative identity disorder'. I unfortunately know this because there is someone with schizophrenia in my close family.