Polytheish vs. Monotheism , Capitalism vs. Communism

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What is this something?

Is this a supernatural being similar to the Judeo-Christianity YHWH or is this an ordinary coin? I am not sure if you can call the former "something" either, since it is most likely "nothing."

Lets consider the famous Pascal's Wager. If you don't know what it is, click on the link for some info. The objections to it are many, the one that has to do with what you wrote is as follows.

Pascal assumed if there is a god, it has to be the Christian YHWH. Thus, he assigned a 50% chance to such a god's existence, and went from there. However, this is far from the truth. There are many religions in this world, some still exist, many vanished. Suppose there are 99 different religions. So your chance of getting it right falls to 1% - 1 out of 100 (99 religions plus atheism, making it a nice 100). Or is this so?

Consider that, for each religion, you can either accept it or reject it. IOW, you can either choose to believe this religion or not. Applying your logic here, we assign a 50% chance to each. Now do this for every one of them. We end up having atheism on one side with a 50% chance, and the rest of the 99 religions sharing the other 50%.

You may say, "Well, even if there's a 0.0001% chance of getting it right, I rather believe so I can be in heaven instead of hell."


Again, this is not so simple. Many religions, including Christianity, forbids you from believing in another god. So getting it wrong here is just as bad as rejecting all of them.

Have you been listening to what I was saying at all? I would assign every religion I have ever heard off an almost zero percent probability of being true. This is because they all makes assertions about events occurring after the creation of the universe, which in most cases _are_ disprovable.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why would you bother to guess if you can't find out the answer?

Well, as I said before, it is hard not to speculate about the origin of the universe even if you are not getting anywhere. Also, in my case, I live in an area of rampant fundamentalism, so when the topic of religion inevitably comes up, it is nice to have thought about the issue a little.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Please - don't make a baseless assertion and ask the other side to disprove it.

Can you show that there are no dancing elves on electrons?

Since we don't have evidence of anything, logic dictates that we choose the position of there's nothing.

Well, if you defined the elves as undetectable by any means, I would concede there is some possibility you might be correct. In the case of saying something could have influenced the creation of the universe, it is such a vague assertion that it seems much more likely that it may have happened.

Originally posted by molly bloom
As opposed to the 'non-fictional' gods coming to a high street promotional appearance near us any time soon, I suppose ?

That is pretty much the point, I would not expect a non fictional god to care particularly about our obscure little corner of the universe. That is assuming it would be sentient (i.e., I define anything influencing the creation of the universe as a 'god'), and that if it was, it had not simply moved on after creating the universe.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom

You can't follow the logic of your own posts .

Definitely nothing new under the sun there.

I sort of expected this kind of answer, for I haven't seen You admitting any mistake here in these forums.
Still, it takes a lot of your self-confidence to claim You know better than I what I think.


I've written

education is always a form of indoctrination. You can not raise children without giving them any moral code "until they grow up and will be able to chose one". It's fantasy.

I've quoted You here, because You seem to have a strange concept that without being taught religion, children will be free from indoctrination. In reply to this, I've stated that You have to teach children some moral code (religious or not).
There's nothing here that could make You think I believe atheists have no moral code. Au contraire, I've stated by these words that they do, for You can not go without it these days.
Az was able to understand it, but You were not.
I guess it's the fault of your bias: You want to correct me so badly, that not finding a mistake, You have to make it up. It's not the first time You do this.

[Japher]

I believe that it is not ok to eat whatever you want whenever you want. Like, you can't have a BBQ pulled pork sandwhich in a oriental rug shop. Or, you can't eat only pork rinds without getting fat. You have to have a diet, it doesn't matter what kind of diet, just have one.

Still, you can't have a high fat diet and complain when you have a heart attack at age 27. Nor can you eat everything you see and get mad that they don't let you use the freight elevator at Macy's. Your diet has to suit not only you, but the society you live in.

Schooling is just that, it is a diet of knowledge that society has deemed necessary for you to fill the roll you wish to fill. Education are those things outside of, and may include schooling. Indoctrination will always occur with schooling, wether it is schooling of religion or science. The ability to recognize this is like getting desert because you finished your plate.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So? Half the people in the world are below average.

Who says its a normal distribution?

[Japher]

nerd

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I always found it helped me score with the chicks. Or was that the dream I had last night?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Who says its a normal distribution?

Of course it is. Don't you know anything?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson


I sort of expected this kind of answer, for I haven't seen You admitting any mistake here in these forums.

I use you as my model.

What you wrote:

...education is always a form of indoctrination. You can not raise children without giving them any moral code "until they grow up and will be able to chose one". It's fantasy.

Notice what you put in quotation marks- clearly paraphrased from my post:

...then let them choose what religion (if any) they'd like.

Perhaps you should have written that 'religious education' is always a form of 'indoctrination'.

I should think you could follow your logic of the necessary linking of religious instruction with the inculcation of a moral code.

Indoctrination is teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically; education is not.

You can inform and educate children about moral codes of behaviour without their having to have religious instruction, or be brought up in a religious faith.

So they could, indeed, 'choose' to follow a religious faith, or none at all, if they so wished, and still have the benefit of knowing right from wrong, ethics, moral codes, and so forth.

Az was able to understand it, but You were not.

Really? You mean the bit where you say:

education is always a form of indoctrination.

and he replies:

I disagree. It's a BAM, really. Everyone says this, but isn't really true. My parents educated me through discussion, never through indoctrination.

Oh deary me, how I laughed.

You seem to have a strange concept that without being taught religion, children will be free from indoctrination.

There must be some kind of comprehension block in your mind when you read or mis-read, rather, my posts.
I neither said, nor do I think, anything of the sort.

How did you put it?

...it takes a lot of your self-confidence to claim You know better than I what I think.

Still, it's clear you know how your own mind works from time to time:

You have to make it up. It's not the first time You do this.

[Az]

Oh deary me, how I laughed.

You disagree?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az

Oh deary me, how I laughed.

You disagree?

Not with you, sweetie. With the chap who can't tell the difference between 'indoctrination' and 'education', and has opined in the past, that the Holy Inquisition has had a bad press.


It's understandable- he appears nostalgic for the rigid certainties of Cold War Warsaw Pact life, and has transferred his allegiance to the church- probably the similarity in styles and methods of indoctrination attracted him.

[Az]

Harsh

[Spiffor]

Now, that was brutal

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Az
Harsh

But fair.

"Give me the child until the age of seven and I will give you the man."

Yes, not Lavrenti Beria, not OGPU, nor Trotsky, nor the KGB, not China's Cultural Revolution, nor even the Red Guard, but...

the Jesuits.

A candle is lit, the curtains closed and the five-year-olds begin a session of "prayer meditation".

This is an English state school in 2004.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200408020016

[Az]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Now, that was brutal

GMTA

[Spiffor]

what