2013/12/8 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> > > On 07 Dec 2013, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/7/2013 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Dec 2013, at 20:16, meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/6/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 2013/12/5 Jason Resch <[email protected]> > >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> A religion is based on dogma, science is not, hence science is not a >>> religion. >>> >>> >>> >> Some religions may be, that doesn't mean they all are, however. >> >> How do you relate science to beliefs about the world and reality? Would >> you say science the collection of those beliefs, or the method for >> developing the beliefs? >> > > Science is a way to discover the world, nothing is certain, what you > believe now may be shown wrong tomorrow... that's not the case with > religion... > > > So if science is the way, the way to what? Where do the beliefs belong? > > I would say a more correct definition of religion is a collection if > beliefs, regardless of how you got them. > > > Another attempt to sweep everybody into the religion bin. > > > Some may rely on dogmas if old books, others on newer books and > articles, but either method, science or stake dogmas can provide the basis > of one's world view. > > Science never provides the final answer, and so to operate in this world > we must act in our own private beliefs. > > > And religion is always ready to provide a final answer, one never to be > questioned, > > > And that is bad, right, but that will continue as long as you forbid to > scientist to take a look on the spiritual questions. > > > What am I doing to forbid anything? I even cited with approval scientific > tests of "spritual theories". > > > Because you are a nice agnostic guy. Not an atheists like those I met on > my path. > > > > > > > > because if it's the right answer then it must always have been right. > > > That is just my take according to my own definitions. You may define > religion as dogma and come to different cinclusions. > > > I take 'religion' to mean what people refer to when they say they belong > to a religion. > > Brent > "Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe > things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of > a convenient means of feeling superior to others." > > > Again, that is agnosticism, not atheism. > > > It's a quip, not a serious definition. But I am an agnostic about many > things - but not about the God of theism, the Big Daddy in the sky > > > I am atheist too. Most of my Muslim and Christian friends are atheists > too. All theologians I read are agnostic too. The "big Daddy" is an image, > a poetical stance, like when Einstein invoke "the good lord". > May be billions of people believe literally in the big daddy (or pretend, > because I find hard to actually believe this), but billions of people have > believed that the sun moves around the earth, or are wrong on Galilee and > cannabis. That is not a reason to make them right by allowing the absence > of rigor in the fundamental question, nor to let the health in the politics > department. > Health is that last century following the fate of theology during that > last millennium. > > > > > that billions of people worship and give money to support a priesthood and > sometimes stone those who express doubt. So I'm an a-theist. You will > have to excuse me for holding to a definite meaning of the word "theist" so > that I can express this fact; everybody but you seems to understand me > quite well. > > > I understand you, but that atheism, which I share, has nothing to do with > the more insidious and violent form of atheism of the fundamentalists in > Europa. >
I live in the same country as you... I'm atheist like Brent is, I've never met the kind of fundamentalists atheist you're talking about. Quentin > They don't reject just god, they reject "consciousness", "mind", > spirituality, persons, and some are secretly sadist. They believe that > truth = money = power and that's all: they do what they want (including > very bad things, and using them manipulate people). They are active > revisionist, and despite what they pretend, they are the enemy of reason > and genuine free thinking/interrogation, and of course they are usually not > aware that they are believer, which would not be the case if Aristotle and > Plato theology were better taught. > > Bruno > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
