On 01 Jun 2014, at 02:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/31/2014 2:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 May 2014, at 10:30, LizR wrote:
Evidence for what? Without telling us, and making clear it is an
assumption, this is still a "pseudo-religion" which indeed corrodes
science, as I have experience at the front.
Religion per se is a too large word. Only institutionalized
religion asks for authoritative arguments, and revelation.
And what religion is not institutional?
Taoism, many branch of buddhism, neoplatonism, personal religion by
people who does not talk about it, etc.
Of course you have always risk of misunderstanding, and local con
using crduclity with false magic, but some religion/practice ask you
get the understanding by yourself, a bit like in math.
The word itself means "to bind together". A religion is an
institution.
It happens that the religious experience binds together. But again,
dome fall in the theological trap, talk too much, and then it is
exploited by "politicians". It is no more religion: it is the
sempiternal abuse of humans by humans.
Like institutionalized materialism (cf genetics by Lyssenko in the
USSR).
To oppose religion and science transforms science into a religion.
On the contrary, non confessional theology has to come back in the
academy, that's all. The problem is not religion, it is the
authoritative arguments. Some atheists club are worst than
catholics is the way they dismiss evidences.
A loose accusation. Can you cite examples?
Yes. But only if my lawyer is OK. I prosecute those people as there
are witnesses of long term defamation and lies on persons and ideas.
Some people, when they have no arguments, just use violence.
But frankly, I think this is out of topic, and we might better focus
on the substantial points.
They confirmed my felling that atheism is just, like Christianism,
a variant of the Aristotelian theology.
Science per se is agnostic, on the existence of a primitive
physical universe or any other god-like notion.
Not on the god-like notion of a judgemental creator
But we don't know that. Show me the paper defining God and showing
that he is not judgmental. We just don't know.
It looks uou believe in a god, and in your religion, he or it is not
judgmental.
To me, I don't know, and in machine's theology it can only be an open
problem.
who provides revelations to prophets
Like to alcoholic. God does that. But sometimes people misunderstand
the prophets, and sometimes the prophets are fake, and so the true
mystic, in some religion, just stay mute.
about how people must behave to avoid eternal torture, aka "theism".
It is not theism, it is christo-theism. It might not even been christo-
theism, but Romano-christo theism, which might be to christianism as
similar to theology than Lyssenko was for genetics.
The use of "hell" by religious people is sometimes just the ultimate
authoritarian argument. Again, that does not mean that the notion has
not some value, and again, we should not dismiss notions because some
misunderstand them, or abuse them for special interest.
Bruno
Brent
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
