Good spot. Like I said, prejudice against religion almost always has racist undertones.
Is this new Hindu school funded by taxpayer's money?
- Thread starter Bes
- Start date
Good spot. Like I said, prejudice against religion almost always has racist undertones.
Permabanned
Can non-hindu people go to this school? And do they still teach the government set R.E. course? If so, then i guess there is no real issue. Schools regardless of what type is worth tax-payers money when you consider how much goes to the retarded MPs.
Comes back to the old argument of what you define it as. A lot of people like to class themselves as agnostic when in fact they shouldn't use the stupid weak/strong system and are in fact atheist and as such preach.
weak strong system?
i always see atheism as admitting you have no idea if a god exists, but can't really be arsed to follow a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism
It's all a load of rubbish, there's three categories and you fall into one of them.
It's all a load of rubbish, there's three categories and you fall into one of them.
it gets the same amount as every other school from the government
I think i fall into the lazy ******* category, dunno if theres a god, really couldn't be bothered going to church, all in all don't bother thinking about it
Permabanned
I'm atheist. I believe in Science. What group am i in?
well you're a theist, not an atheist then, as you believe in something.
Science does not side with a god nor against a god, it does however go against the writings of certain religions, but not a creator per say.
Well you say you are atheist so probably atheist. Just because you believe in science does not make you atheist.
The only group science can be used for is agnostic, in which case science can't prove or disprove in God/Gods.
so it ally depends what you believe.
Permabanned
I don't believe in any greater beings other than the tards in charge of the countries.
It seems even athiesm is split into strong and weak. I would appear to be a strong athiest, which probably says something about my character.
Wiki partially edited by me said:
Sounds like you're an atheist - but you'd need to investigate it further.
Personally I've gone through life with many different religious / theoretical opinions and it'll probably change as I get older. I don't plan on getting stuck on any particular branch of beliefs.
Tefal said:
Agnostics are generally condemned as being the weakest of the reglious thinkers - but I believe there are dedicated agnostic groups that like to leave religious thinking 'open'.
Strong atheist is basically the same as a theist.
Both believe in something without proof.
Permabanned
Yeh, as much as i don't like that being the case
I think atheism is the best route. I'm open to all religions and have never stuck my nose up at someone elses beliefs, but i can't but see a pattern in them. The majority all seem to have some form of after-life, where everything is OK regardless what you do. However, as i believe in no gods or afterlife, it means you really do only have 60ish years to do as best as possible. Jehovah Witnesses certainly annoy me with the way they would rather spend their living lives preparing for the afterlife.(Please bear in mind i said I'm open to all religions, not learned of them)As I said the weak/strong stuff should be ignored. It makes no sense and is only used to bulster atheist numbers
Yeh, as much as i don't like that being the case
how can it be the best route? You are denying the exist of any deity. which you can't do and as such requires a believe structure not so different to religion.
Permabanned
well in effect atheism is a belief of non-belief, as tefal said, there is no-proof either way, and as i am a scientist, you need proof for it not to be a theory/belief. Theory on human existence, the big bang etc, are no different to saying it is a belief, or reversing it and saying a god that created it is a 'theory'
Obviously a god creating stuff is not a theory, because theories are based on current facts, not books written by technologically disadvantaged people.
I've partially forgotten what my point was so I'll let others work out if there was one.
You're falling into the trap that the relgius books being disproven disproves a creator, the creator can be completely unacknowledged, and seperate from religion.
Which is what makes it so hard to say eithrer way a there is (currently) no way we can prove the universe wasn't created, and no way to prove that it wasn't.
Laziness is the new religion \o/
If you knew enough about it you wouldn't "believe" in it.