in theory... :hmmm:

http://www.legilux.public.lu/rgl/1991/A/1345/1.html
Active Law.

at the age between 11 and 13/14 the child will strengthen his christian faith by studying the old and new testament, as well as taking a small insight into the human rights.

Fun, eh?

His relation to God (Capital Gee) his responsabilities to his next amd himself will find an evangelic base.
the teacher will present the christian community as a lived faith, give a full life inside a society that is not necessarily christian.


What i read:

You will be taught to know your bible, to follow its guides, and treat your next as a good christian would.
You will show the world what christianity is about, even though you might not live in a christian community (live in saudi arabia, live in china)



When the Kid gets older, between 14/15 to 18, the law reads this:
In the upper levels of secondary school, you will study religious effects in general, how they express themselves, and also see atheism, other ideologies and philosophies, sciences, how these put religion into question.

The couse will insist on the need to believe, to hope, and to love.

Yes...
see atheism and science, how they question your faith in God, but dismiss them, put the student back on the path of religion.
LOL.:hmm2:

Further studying of the events of the old and new testament will make the student discover the culture of the christian Religion.

The student will learn the fundamental truths of this faith, to know faith in God the creator, to have faith in jesuus christ, to have faith in the actions of the Holy spirit, and to recognize the value of these truths for his life.

:yeah:YESSS !
you on da right path now, Kid.
Bleepin ell?? :rock:

Teacher will incite, motivate the Kid to a critical and responsable reflection on ethic systems.
Based on a Christian anthropology, teacher will teach on where the student will stand on the realities of the world: mariage, family, work, social justice, human rights, ecology.

The world will appear under the light of Evangelism as well as human rights.


Summa summum:
Make the kid a good christian first.
Then show him other faiths and beliefs, but keep him on the christian path.
Then see Human rights, position of religion and why it is a need to believe.

Sum the course up, by teaching him how to live in (and the order is important!)
- marriage
- family
- work
- justice in society
- human rights
- ecology


Religion (marriage...) comes over social justice, comes over human rights, comes over ecology.



Tell me this is not indoctrination.
tell me this is a fair and unbiased view on the subject of religion and non religion.

The couse, the books and subjects treated by the teachers in our schools have to follow and respect these guidelines.

I love the fact that i gave my religion teacher a hard time.
when bullied into a corner by propaganda that is thicker than the nutella spread on my bread... even a dummie like me managed to yawn and dismiss his speeches. (their speeches - i had several teachers)

another interesting setup (oka, its statistics... i doubt them a bit)

http://www.religionslehrer.lu/statis..._2006-2011.pdf
is the numbers of students that take part in either
"morale chretienne" (MORCH) or "formation morale et sociale" (FOMOS)

In higher quality levels (the ones destined to become diploma-carrying dudes and dudettes, and study at an university) about 2/3 take the morale chretienne cousre.

same picture in the intermediate levels, (designers and ingeneersss:), accountants, managers...)

on the lower levels (service personnel, factory workers, mechanics...) the image is reversed, they mostly take the religion-neutral course.

Why that is so, and how that affects society, i do not know.
It might mean that lawmakers and judges will have a christian background, once they have a means to influence the rules of this country.

whis is... a big "HMMMMM" in my book.

but pure speculation.
maybe the lower levels of education are full of dim people that do not understand a thing on religion - too complicated. the religious-neutral course might be percieved as "easier to pass".

let s see how things turn out.

Simple - the parents are not together and one is the "custodial" parent. As the primary custodian of my son, I get to make decisions that his mother, while she may object, cannot overrule. Why? Because he lives with me, not her, and thus the responsibility for decisions must fall on me as the more informed and present party.

My son is in counseling - she wants him taken out, I continue to have him treated. She can take it to court if she wants. The non-custodial parent in the above case apparently did, and the judge ruled that the custodial parent has the deciding ability.

well then...

i am glad i wont be in their position. Ever.
:huh:

I honestly think you should reread my post as you totally missed the root point (and several other things), which is that proof does not exist and never has. Facts (aka evidence) cannot prove anything, if they did, theories would never be disproven as they were all 'proven' true with evidence. The burden of proof does not exist because proof itself does not exist.

For example, it is not unusual for two competing theories to point to the same facts as proving each theory correct, do the facts prove both theories are true? Or is it just a failure to prove either wrong, as I am proposing. In a sense in science, proof is useless, it is disproof that gets you someplace.

Where did I ever say that you had to accept a theory simply because it is proposed (I guarantee I never suggested such a thing, particularly as I am by nature a skeptic). I am saying that if you disagree with it, you need to offer evidence to show it is false. Once again you cannot prove things, only show them false.

FYI I tend to use the experimental science meanings when using the words theory and hypothesis. A theory is the overarching concept, and a hypothesis is a part of the theory that has been made directly testable (ie the heart of an experiment). It is really hard for me not to smirk at the more general use of the word theory, which indicates there is some evidence behind it (see my root argument).

That line makes me smile as it reminds me of a tale about a kingdom trying to make a map of the kingdom containing everything within the kingdom, and the map ends up being the size of the kingdom. Yes you could compile 'facts' (another term I have a problem with also as I don't think facts are really facts, but we can save that for another time), but it won't accomplish anything. The problem though is trying to assemble facts into a theory. It is kind of magical really, there is no logical progression from facts to a theory, only from a theory to a hypothesis. Facts also in of of themselves are not theories.

That said, I fail to see your point with this.


Again I honestly think you should read what I wrote more closely. In all cases I said very clearly I was talking about scientific theory, and even demonstrated why religious theory is generally not scientific (many religious theories have no way of being disproven). Also my reasoning is very well grounded in the philosophy of science (which is all about how science really works), something, which sadly, so very many scientists are woefully ignorant about.

Again for clarity. The burden of proof does not exist as proof does not exist. This is not a logical fallacy it is well grounded in philosophy (which like mathematics, is pure logic). As a paraphrase of what my mentor likes to say (and he is a very well respected theoretician in AI and the human brain), I can boldly theorize about what ever I want, no matter how ridiculous it may sound, and offer no evidence for it, so long as these theories are refutable. The refutability is all that matters, and is what makes a theory scientific - nothing else does.

Atheism is belief based as you are dealing with something that is not knowable, and totally outside the realm of science. This has been the other prong of my argument, as I said both theism and anti-theism are belief (or faith based), both sides believe their position is correct, without any proof or disproof of any kind from either side.

The logical answer is "I don't know" as no one has any idea about this question, even though many like to think they do.

Check definition 2 of my quote.

Using your dictionary, definition #2 is "belief that is not based on proof". Is that not what atheism is? The only aspects of Atheism which are logical, are the parts which attempt to logically refute claims made by organized religions. The base argument, however, that god(s) cannot exist is not logical as there is no logical point to argue from as it is totally unknowable.


Ultimately if you choose a side in such cases, it is because of belief. You still have no way of knowing if you are right. These things may go against your own experiences, or how you construct the image of your world. but it does not mean they are false.

Most of those claims you used as examples are by in large disprovable, or possible (the sky may be green to you) . There have also been piles of theories about things which at the time were not tangible or observable, but predicted their existence. A smart person will try to refute claims if it is possible, though. But like I said, this requires that the theory be testable, your invisible intelligent marshmallows theory is not at the moment testable.

While I agree though that some sort of evidence is nice, you cannot claim absolutely that something is wrong, without having some evidence to show it is wrong. But there is nothing to show that in fact there are invisible intelligent marshmallows floating around, and it is not impossible per say.

No offense meant, but sometimes I wish you would put a little more care into your writing, it gets very hard to decipher your meaning(s) at times.

See my above refutation of the concepts of proof.

Which is right where I really roll my eyes at Dawkins. Forming probabilities from those arguments... really? How is he calculating these things? Furthermore isn't the basis of his argument that the universe itself is logical, with everything ordered and having logical purpose?

Except you can't form a hypothesis without a theory to base the hypothesis from.

Also like I said again, scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven. Plus many scientific theories (like physics and astronomy) rely on really wild speculation. Many of these theories have little in supporting evidence

Theory and hypothesis are often abused words and seem to have multiple meanings depending on the perspective you are coming from. As I said above I go by the meaning as used in theoretical/experimental science. A theory is an overarching concept that in of itself is not directly testable (it has no specific criteria of its own). A hypothesis is a portion of the theory made predictive (if the theory is not false then this should happen or be observable), and therefore testable and refutable. The hypothesis is directly tied to the theory, and invalidating the hypothesis will probably invalidate the theory (unless there are confounds or other flaws in the hypothesis or experiment).

As for Dawkins, he was trying to make something intangible, tangible so that he could try argue against it. But as I see It, he created a number of logical flaws of his own.

And where I take umbrage with that statement is how does he even begin to calculate the probability that god does not exist, particularly once we strip away all the human concepts (which I agree are deeply flawed and probably are not overly probable)?


With some of the arguments I see from them, yes I do not consider them very knowledgeable about the roots of science. As I said above, there is a huge number of scientists out there, who have no idea how science works, or where all the numerous flaws are in it. I can't count the number of scientists I have met, who were convinced they had the truth, and that science was nigh infallible. They also failed to understand that "proving" things in science is both irrelevant and a false concept, and that the best thing you can do in science is to show theories false, as that is how progress is made.

Ah I was not quite sure where you were going with it. The problem with creationist theories, is that they frequently have elements that are refutable (and generally have been thoroughly refuted), and elements which are not refutable/scientific (intelligent design specifically). This camp also loves to engage in pseudoscience, by cherry picking, and trying to present supposition as fact.

My negative argument as you put it only works with scientific endeavors, IE stuff that can be refuted. As for theist and atheist behavior, sure most will ask for proof, but from my experience, many will follow up with "god doesn't exist" because the theist couldn't offer proof. My response is that neither position is logical.

I am an agnostic as I doubt virtually everything, so much so that I doubt even all of my experiences. The only thing I do not doubt, is that I have consciousness, I experience. Everything else is unsure. As my mentor loves to say "If I have a brain, then I can't have a brain, as the brain operates by interpretation". As such everything is an interpretation if true, including the interpretation of the brain, by the brain, therefore I can't have a brain. :D

I guess maybe my wife was right about me not having a brain, but at least by your method it's not so insulting.

Sorry to cut so much out, but I wanted to address this specific point. First, let me thank you for reiterating that one point until I can finally begin to understand what you're talking about, if only a little. I think I'm also starting to see what the problem that I and some others are having. When we use terms like "burden of proof" we're thinking in legal terms, not scientific, and there is a huge difference between the two in the definitions of terms like "proof" and "evidence". I know I tend to think in terms of what would stand up in a court of law, not in how scientific theory is validate. I suspect that others do the same, whether they realize it or not. In that regard a claim certainly does have to be backed up if it is to be accepted. I mention this mainly in regard to the earlier discussion of different types of dictionaries.

I think I'm beginning to get a glimmer of where you are coming from on this. Just a glimmer, I suspect.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time now. Perhaps not as well.

I think this really hammers home the earlier question of definitions. There seems to be a vast difference between the scientific, the legal, and in this case the philosophical concept of "belief"; and yet they are all tied together at their core.

Again I think we're seeing the difference between how science works and how law works. Most of us tend to think the way we are used to thinking, and don't realize how foreign some concepts actually are to us.

Per se. And I can prove you're wrong here. :O:

Again I think that Sammi, like myself, tends to think in legal terms, not scientific. Of course I don't know if either of us truly understands the legal definitions either, but that's the way we've been taught to think.

Okay, I'm beginning to understand your distaste for the way he works. Maybe I'm blinded by the fact that I agree with him, or that the way he says it sounds good to me. I need to learn more about what you're talking about, but I think I'm starting to get it.

This seems to be in line with my thoughts on scientific versus legalistic versus philosophical thinking. It's hard to understand one when your framework is alien to that concept.

And again you help me understand why you feel the way you do about him. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I see that at the core we are very alike in that. People get argumentative when I say I don't know anything, but I really do feel that way. As for questioning our own experience, I think one of the most overused quotes in existence is actually one of the best in this case. I mean, of course, Rene Descartes' summation of his own self-doubts, "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am").

Neon,

I recommend you read his book again. And maybe this time more carefully.

@NeonSamurai,

:yep: Your post is informative, thank you. I think we have somewhat crossed wires however, as far as I can tell our views are not so different. Bear with me and I'll try to explain the problems I have with your definitions of proof, facts, theories, and atheism. I think you likewise have missed my points and I urge you to take apart and show me the fallacy in any statement I have made.

First of all, the dictionary definitions are not inclusive - the word can mean any or all of the definitions, or it can mean one exclusively. Therefore - I have no problem being called an atheist, as defined as one who refuses to believe in god(s). I do not claim to know they do or do not exist, and as such I am also agnostic. It is possible to be an agnostic theist, in my experience Muslims are more open to this idea than Christians - the knowledge that whatever you think you know [about god(s)] you might be wrong, though you may still believe that it is more likely that god(s) exist. I just happen to think it more likely that they don't.

Now if I break it down logically, to explain the burden of proof in more detail (it is neither scientific nor legal, it is a burden that you give yourself every time you make a claim of truth or statement of fact, it is part of the rules concerning logic, reason and rhetoric as defined in classical education.

Consider a debate between a (1)theist and an (2)atheist like myself.

(1) states that a god exists as either truth or fact, then to fulfill his burden of proof offers arguments a,b,c

(2) makes no counter claim, but points out the flaws in (1)s arguments a,b,c

What is the result of this debate?

(2) although having offered no counter claim, has shown all of (1)s arguments to be flawed. Crucially (2) has no reason to change position, nor offer any arguments against (1)s claim.

(1) has been shown to have no case (without the arguments the claim has no support), and must either offer more arguments, retract his claim, or change his position. (If he is playing fair of course)

I hope that is clearer now - If I disagree with your claim that does not mean I have made or must make a counter claim. If I can show good reason why the arguments your claim stands upon are fallacious, and you cannot offer any non fallacious arguments then I have no reason to take your claim seriously until you can, and neither does anyone else.

Ok, now onto the facts and Theories. A fact is true as far as we know. Facts are like tiny binary pieces, 0 or 1. On their own they do not mean a great deal. This is where the (Scientific) theories come in. A scientific theory explains a whole bundle of facts in a way that is falsifiable, in the same way the facts are falsifiable. A theory is much greater than the sum of its facts. Just to be clear - falsifiable is what you mean when you say what science does is disprove things. In order for facts or theories to be accepted as true or proven, they must logically be open to tests that could disprove them. This is exactly why the hypothesis of gods and afterlives are irrelevant, they are not open in this way, so without making any claims of my own, I will not accept them until they are, and neither should anyone else. At least if they care about the truth.

If I may add another point about the probabilities you mentioned. Simply because there is no proof either way does not mean the probability must remain 50/50, and I will give you an example: Imagine a jar full of marbles, and you do not know how many. Far from being unable to define how many in any way, there are a great many numerical values you can discount immediately. There are more than 2. There are less than 1000. Of these facts you can be absolutely certain, even if you never count the marbles one by one by removing them from the jar.

Finally the word atheist. As well as the dictionary definitions we should not ignore the root - 'without theism' As a negative it is slightly nonsensical in itself, as we do not need negatives for all the other things that cannot be disproven - like an Afairyist, an Aunicornist, etc. However if one is needed to distinguish between believers and un/non/disbelievers then I am fine with that label.

I will reiterate, disbelief is dissimilar to belief. disbelief is not belief in the negative - that would be the same as belief. As an agnostic you do not believe either way, does that mean you are certain of the negative in both or either?

regards,
Sam.

Hmm...have you any proof or evidence... :)

<O>

No, youi are just confused. An agnostic actually believes something. He believes the existence or non-existence of God or gods is not known and cannot be known. "Agnostic theist" is a word game. I am neither Theist nor Atheist, and am neither Gnostic or Agnostic. I don't claim to know one way or the other, nor do I claim that we can or cannot know. All I know for certain is that I myself don't know, and if someone wants me to believe they need to show me some evidence. I don't care what anyone else believes in that regard, and I don't deny that any of them may or may not have the truth. I also don't trust any of their claims, as I don't trust anyone who claims to have any definitive answers. The closest I can come to a description of my state is "Skeptic", but I don't really even like that, as most self-proclaimed skeptics are actually atheists.

On what basis do you think that? Is there any reason at all, or is it just your belief?

You seem to have missed Neon's point entirely, as well as mine, which is that every field of study has its own rules and its own terminology. The rules of logic, reason and rhetoric don't apply to science and they barely apply to law. Neon demonstrated that claims made in science don't work the same way as other fields. He actually brought science into a scientific debate, and showed why the claims in this case are not what you or I thought they were. You are now trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges.

Your hypothetical was based entirely on rules of logic. All Neon tried to do was show us that the rules of science are different, and you didn't hear a word he said. You've constructed a huge counterargument that works with law and works with logic as you know it, but as he has shown has nothing whatsoever to do with science.

All that is good math, but has nothing to do with the scientific method, which is what this was about.

Again, good math, and good statistics as far as I understand it, but an irrelevant hypothetical and nothing at all to do with the reason Neon objected to Dawkins' stated probabilities. Neon's point, as I think I begin to understand it, is that the probability of God existing or not existing is not 50/50, it is 0/0. Don't take that to mean I think there is no chance. What it means is that a probablility requires a basis to start from, and if there is no evidence one way or the other then there is no basis to begin a calculation. It's easy to say there is no likelihood of God existing, or that there is every likelihood, or anything in between, but in fact there is no likelihood of having a basis for the claim one way or the other. There is nothing, evidence-wise, so there is nothing to base any claim on.

Actually the Greek word 'atheos' means "without god", and it is used to describe someone who denies the existence of any deity.

It means what he reiterated several times: I Don't Know.

Of course, or I wouldn't have said it. On the other hand, since I'm so much smarter than you, you'll just have to take my word for it. :O:

Hmm...have you any proof or evidence... :D

<O>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV8x5WWDcNg

I am making an effort to be nice, so whatever comedy you want, you are just gonna have to use your imagination, and envision the vile mockery I would impose on this.

I like cuss words alot, and mocking religious morons who ignore science and truth when it makes your book of fables look bad.

Religion is a great oppression tool.

Tool....


Yeah tools...

You can love your lord, without being societys tool.

Treat each other good, is the main tenant of any religion, yet the one most ignored by any firebrand.
(of any religion)
See why I call religeo-tards out?

Disclaimer: I like Jesus, Heck of a guy, but he would treat most of todays Christians as he did the money changers in the temple.

No, I am quite clear, I am an agnostic atheist. It is not that hard to grasp; agnostic describes my position on knowledge (that knowledge about absolute reality or knowledge of absolute truth are unachievable from an individual experience), and atheist describes my disbelief in the truth of claims regarding theistic god(s). I have explained the chosen definitions of my words and provided the dictionary sources - so if you dispute that then please show me my error.

It is the science regarding our physical nature that makes me firmly agnostic - the way our brain interprets the electrochemical signals from our senses. We are forever removed from absolute reality. The illusion that we experience is compelling and we must play along with it. To make any judgement about reality at all we need first make some assumptions. Science relies on its axioms, and god(s) cannot be (dis)proven. Nether the less, we must have some kind of value judgement when it comes to pursuing the truth, no matter if it can never quite be caught, and it is the theists who pose the question.

Because I see no reason why there should be god(s) that fit human imaginations of untestable deities (supernatural beings with magical powers), along with all the paradoxes they bring. Were it true and I was to somehow to become aware of this unknowable truth, I would be somewhat disappointed that reality was so contrived. Moreover if no human imagined god(s) exist I see no reason why any others should either.

I disagree. Logic and reason are fundamental to the scientific method, and claims are the same in science as in all fields; they are simply claims - that require proving before they are to be considered to have anything to do with truth. What Neon is talking about is falsifiability as I outlined before.

Well I don't see it as a huge counter argument, just a small one to a statement he made about the burden of proof. The positive proposition is that of the theists, and the word atheist does not necessarily mean one who denies the proposition, but simply one who is unconvinced by the theists claim that sinks by the weight of its own burden of proof. I only disbelieve as a result of the fact that people affirm it to be true. If you relieve your idea from its burden of proof, you relieve me from the burden of giving it any appreciation at all.

0/0. Yeah I can see your point. But like I said, If no one had ever claimed it was true, I would never have been compelled to assign it any value either. In terms of (possibly wrongly) making a value judgement I would lump a lot more things than theistic belief in to it. Take anything supernatural, full stop. There is evidence for the natural in nature. There is no evidence for the supernatural in nature. There is no evidence for the natural outside nature. There is no evidence for the supernatural outside nature. I think in terms of behaving properly and responsibly as a human being, it is healthier to be truly skeptical on almost all metaphysical matters.