On 08 Dec 2013, at 12:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




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.

What can I say? You are lucky. I am born in an atheist (secret) fundamentalist sect.

Being atheist might have prevented you of seeing how some of them can treat non-atheists, or doubter of matter, interested in the fundamental subject, perhaps only because I dared to do a thesis on that very subject (although some "free-thinkers" were the first to encourage it, but also the first to "change" their mind when they saw that an influent part of the top (atheists) were quite "shocked", at least in appearance).

Since those events on my thesis, many have tried hard to hide even more that they have dogma, because that has been too clear and disturbing for many. You might have benefited of this, in case you did study in the same university.

I can't give name, and I prefer not to develop the "personal" aspects, which are fuzzily mixed to their atheism. Since then I have realized that such events would not exists if theology had not been separated from science, and too a great deal of time to understand the ending of neoplatonist in occident in 500 and in Orient in 1100 (about).

Scientists have never had any problem with comp or with me, but it is the atheist conviction by *professional philosophers* which made the thesis rejected, before hearing, and which made disappeared the price the thesis got, years later. Instead of the promotion promised, I get defamation (by atheists philosopher only).

Obviously, not all atheists are fundamentalist, and some can stay calm, especially if you don't do fund research on that subject.

And some atheists are just agnostic anticlerical, and I appreciate them very much for that, like Christopher Hitchen. They remain open to alternative theories, and when they know about the fundamentalists of atheism, they are genuinely disapproving them.

Keep in mind I distinguish [] ~p and ~[]p. I call atheist only those who *believe dogmatically* that the notion of God makes no sense at all, up to throwing not just the Abramanic Gods, but the whole mystics, spirituality, consciousness, and Platonist rational approach together, and all this in the name of "science" which they transform de facto into "authoritative religion". They are materialists in Plato but also in the marxist sense, although in a quite cynical way. They don't believe in truth research, only in opportunistic relativism.

Bruno








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.

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.

Reply via email to