2013/12/8 Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>

>
> 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 <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  2013/12/5 Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to