While We Still Can
next
>>
I see your point.
I mean religion is a mere opinion or belief (though being Agnostic *Agnostic Neutral to be more specific* I'm not 100% sure how it feels. Anyway the United States is one of the most diverse nations in the world and its time for it to start acting like it.
But I don't think the U.S. should be looking towards this when copying Canada as priority, no, no, no, no not this first...but free health care!
I mean religion is a mere opinion or belief (though being Agnostic *Agnostic Neutral to be more specific* I'm not 100% sure how it feels. Anyway the United States is one of the most diverse nations in the world and its time for it to start acting like it.
But I don't think the U.S. should be looking towards this when copying Canada as priority, no, no, no, no not this first...but free health care!
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
Religious semantics is really screwed up in informal usage. Formally, if you haven't accepted the claim of a god existing as true, you're atheist by definition.
Anyway, I'm actually talking about Canada copying the US in this case. Canada isn't having the problem with religious lobbying that the US does, but doesn't have legitimate constitutional protection if that starts happening. The will of the majority is what's holding it together.
Universal health care FTW
Anyway, I'm actually talking about Canada copying the US in this case. Canada isn't having the problem with religious lobbying that the US does, but doesn't have legitimate constitutional protection if that starts happening. The will of the majority is what's holding it together.
Universal health care FTW
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
I'm not sure about the Canadian Education system but this would surely be at the bottom end of the spectrum with problems with the education system and government.
Though as I said I know absolutely nothing about Canadian education so ignore what I said.
Though as I said I know absolutely nothing about Canadian education so ignore what I said.
I'd be the first to say that the Canadian school system is fundamentally flawed.
While this is focused heavily on the educational system, it's a governmental matter in all areas; right now it's just that publically funded Catholic and Protestant schools is the only example I know of that has the government subsidizing or promoting a religious position aside from "God keep our land" in the national anthem.
As a programmer, I see this as a security hole. While right now noone is attacking the system, there's still the danger of exploiting the flaw. What I'm suggesting is to install patch. It's not really realistic I understand, I was just making the point.
While this is focused heavily on the educational system, it's a governmental matter in all areas; right now it's just that publically funded Catholic and Protestant schools is the only example I know of that has the government subsidizing or promoting a religious position aside from "God keep our land" in the national anthem.
As a programmer, I see this as a security hole. While right now noone is attacking the system, there's still the danger of exploiting the flaw. What I'm suggesting is to install patch. It's not really realistic I understand, I was just making the point.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
So there's a lot of Irish in Canada? I'vs always thought it was mostly French.
There's a lot of everything in Canada. Some provinces don't have public catholic and protestant schools anymore, but Ontario does.
From what I've seen there's more background from Scotland and England than the Irelands, but I was referring somewhat simply on the origins of religious conflict. There's plenty of immigration from all over western Europe and more recently many from east asia.
I know less than I should about history to explain the French connection to Canada, but a very, very simplified version would be that there were English and French settlements that were separated by the British (since Canada was still a colony of Britain) into upper Canada (Ontario) and lower Canada (Québec) to resolve cultural conflict.
From what I've seen there's more background from Scotland and England than the Irelands, but I was referring somewhat simply on the origins of religious conflict. There's plenty of immigration from all over western Europe and more recently many from east asia.
I know less than I should about history to explain the French connection to Canada, but a very, very simplified version would be that there were English and French settlements that were separated by the British (since Canada was still a colony of Britain) into upper Canada (Ontario) and lower Canada (Québec) to resolve cultural conflict.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileAre there many Sri Lankans?
Yep it's better to prevent than to fix!
"Religious semantics is really screwed up in informal usage. Formally, if you haven't accepted the claim of a god existing as true, you're atheist by definition."
Yes that really is screwed up.
I am an agnostic (neutral) meaning that I'm not sure whether there is or isn't a God and as of now it is impossible to tell. (Yes I've looked up the Big Bang Theory *though there are some things I don't understand about it).
Yes that really is screwed up.
I am an agnostic (neutral) meaning that I'm not sure whether there is or isn't a God and as of now it is impossible to tell. (Yes I've looked up the Big Bang Theory *though there are some things I don't understand about it).
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
If you get into specifics,
atheist - without belief in a god or gods
agnostic - without knowledge thereof
They aren't mutually exclusive, and neither state a position, but rather reject presented evidence. Technically, I'd say everyone in the world is agnostic whether they admit it or not, because nobody actually has any knowledge of it. Atheist just means you aren't convinced that the claims are true (and NOT that you are stating definitively that there is no possible god.
And hopefully not beating it to death, the only reason there's a word "atheist" is due to the number of people believing a random claim. You don't have abigfootists, but if 90% of the world started believing in bigfoot, we might.
The main thing to understand about the Big Bang theory is that it isn't an explanation for the existence of the universe, but rather the origin of the current state of the universe from the singularity.
Simplified, all matter was at one point densely compacted, then expanded. There is no supported theory on where that singularity came from. It's rather pointless and near impossible to go back any further, so for all intents and purposes, it's informally said to be the "beginning of the universe" but it's really the beginning of the universe as we know it.
/grammar and science lesson
atheist - without belief in a god or gods
agnostic - without knowledge thereof
They aren't mutually exclusive, and neither state a position, but rather reject presented evidence. Technically, I'd say everyone in the world is agnostic whether they admit it or not, because nobody actually has any knowledge of it. Atheist just means you aren't convinced that the claims are true (and NOT that you are stating definitively that there is no possible god.
And hopefully not beating it to death, the only reason there's a word "atheist" is due to the number of people believing a random claim. You don't have abigfootists, but if 90% of the world started believing in bigfoot, we might.
The main thing to understand about the Big Bang theory is that it isn't an explanation for the existence of the universe, but rather the origin of the current state of the universe from the singularity.
Simplified, all matter was at one point densely compacted, then expanded. There is no supported theory on where that singularity came from. It's rather pointless and near impossible to go back any further, so for all intents and purposes, it's informally said to be the "beginning of the universe" but it's really the beginning of the universe as we know it.
/grammar and science lesson
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile^^^Yeah that's what I was thinking when I read through it.
Though I have trouble of how confirm it is. I mean is it enough to claim that all of it happened for sure or is it still something that scientists are observing?
Though I have trouble of how confirm it is. I mean is it enough to claim that all of it happened for sure or is it still something that scientists are observing?
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
That all matter originates from a central point is well established as best I can research as someone who's not a cosmological physicist. In simple terms, you can measure the rate of expansion and direction and establish both a timeframe and general area.
Measurements such as those then collaborate with observations to make and test predictions, such as the oldest stars and where they should be found.
I'm not the best resource, though, obviously. My science is computer science, and even then you can do a lot better.
Measurements such as those then collaborate with observations to make and test predictions, such as the oldest stars and where they should be found.
I'm not the best resource, though, obviously. My science is computer science, and even then you can do a lot better.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileAhh okay. Thanks for the explanation I feel much more comfortable with it now. Hell if you think about it it could be numours of things. Possibly the big bang was just a Massive Explosion or possibly some Giant Black Hole that sucked everything up and then exploded or some such.
I could go on with other things I think but I will always say the craziest things about science is the things we don't know.
I could go on with other things I think but I will always say the craziest things about science is the things we don't know.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
What you mention is basically the big bounce hypothesis of a sequence of universes repeatedly collapsing on themselves then expanding (though not because of black holes 
).
As long we're willing to say, "we don't know" there's always room for progress.
).As long we're willing to say, "we don't know" there's always room for progress.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile^^^Yep. Personally I am more interested within the energy of mind, existence, or self-being (if that makes since).
But yeah that Black Hole thing was just a guess for me.
And thanks for clearing a lot of things up for me. It's just that most atheists (is that your belief?) on forums seem really hostile that I don't feel like asking them these questions.
But yeah that Black Hole thing was just a guess for me.
And thanks for clearing a lot of things up for me. It's just that most atheists (is that your belief?) on forums seem really hostile that I don't feel like asking them these questions.
One of the site's forefathers.
Play fighting games!
Actually the Big Bang created time and space. So it is silly to talk what happened "before", because the Big Bang created time itself, there is no before.
P.S. Yoda there is a third possibility, Ignoticism. Let's say you are raised in the wilderness alone. This could mean that you have no concept of God, because no one thought you to!
P.S. Yoda there is a third possibility, Ignoticism. Let's say you are raised in the wilderness alone. This could mean that you have no concept of God, because no one thought you to!
"is that your belief?"
Well, lack thereof (or belief that I don't have belief 0_o).
Most I think are hostile to stupidity and open to science, but you do get angry idiots on all sides, unfortunately.
--
"Actually the Big Bang created time and space."
Well, not really. At least, not in the way you're using it. Because of the implications of having all matter converted to energy on the general theory of relativity, our current understanding of space and time does not apply. It isn't necessarily something that doesn't exist, but you may as well start counting from there.
The reason there's a problem going back further isn't non-existence, it's actually getting things to measure and test. Having the universe to the point of collapse kind of destroys the evidence.
And ignosticism is still agnosticism, just with a background story attached. Either you have knowledge of the existence of gods or you don't, so you're either gnostic or agnostic, just as you either believe or don't and are atheist or theist. Anything more than that are specifying details.
Well, lack thereof (or belief that I don't have belief 0_o).
Most I think are hostile to stupidity and open to science, but you do get angry idiots on all sides, unfortunately.
--
"Actually the Big Bang created time and space."
Well, not really. At least, not in the way you're using it. Because of the implications of having all matter converted to energy on the general theory of relativity, our current understanding of space and time does not apply. It isn't necessarily something that doesn't exist, but you may as well start counting from there.
The reason there's a problem going back further isn't non-existence, it's actually getting things to measure and test. Having the universe to the point of collapse kind of destroys the evidence.
And ignosticism is still agnosticism, just with a background story attached. Either you have knowledge of the existence of gods or you don't, so you're either gnostic or agnostic, just as you either believe or don't and are atheist or theist. Anything more than that are specifying details.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileThere is a key difference though. Most Atheist have an concept of a God and choose not to believe in it. But if you are Ignostic and you ask him do you believe in God he would ask what is God. So you can't believe or not believe if you did not even know what it is.
And yes I am apparantly Ignostic, because I find the Question do you believe in God to be irrelevant. Unless you means Fedor = God than I agree.
And yes I am apparantly Ignostic, because I find the Question do you believe in God to be irrelevant. Unless you means Fedor = God than I agree.
Belief as a matter of do you accept it as true or not is relevant insofar as people do believe it. I'd say it's on par with how relevant believing in Leprechauns, so I guess we're even there.
I don't agree that you "choose not to believe." (or to believe). You couldn't just choose to believe that cows are purple because desire alone won't convince you on whether it's true.
I'll speak on the part of the definition of atheist and not individual views. The only view of a god an atheist has are the ones presented. If you call just natural trees "god," alright, but it's kind of pointless.
As I said earlier, the only reason the word atheist even exists is due to so many people saying that their particular concept of god exists. It's for expressing a position on a claim, not for philosophical structure.
If we go the route of "most atheists" and don't get too hung up on definition, we could look at it this way,
By defining "god" as something natural, you defeat the purpose of the word, which you can do for anything. "Unicorns exist, they're just ugly horses," for example. People have their own interpretations of what they think "god" is and what they believe are properties attributed to it, but it's pretty much universal that it's supernatural and has super powers.
"Do you believe a supernatural being with super powers exists?" it's a silly question, yes, but people are asking it. I don't have a problem just saying no.
I don't agree that you "choose not to believe." (or to believe). You couldn't just choose to believe that cows are purple because desire alone won't convince you on whether it's true.
I'll speak on the part of the definition of atheist and not individual views. The only view of a god an atheist has are the ones presented. If you call just natural trees "god," alright, but it's kind of pointless.
As I said earlier, the only reason the word atheist even exists is due to so many people saying that their particular concept of god exists. It's for expressing a position on a claim, not for philosophical structure.
If we go the route of "most atheists" and don't get too hung up on definition, we could look at it this way,
- Under a reasonable definition, no natural thing is considered "god"
- Thereby "god" must fall under supernatural
- No supernatural occurrence has been empirically demonstrated
- Thereby, no concept of "god" has been demonstrated
By defining "god" as something natural, you defeat the purpose of the word, which you can do for anything. "Unicorns exist, they're just ugly horses," for example. People have their own interpretations of what they think "god" is and what they believe are properties attributed to it, but it's pretty much universal that it's supernatural and has super powers.
"Do you believe a supernatural being with super powers exists?" it's a silly question, yes, but people are asking it. I don't have a problem just saying no.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
SupremeAC (4m)
The early settlers of Canada brought with them the religious feuding of Ireland leading to a divide between the majority Protestants and incoming minority Catholics. Like hockey players seething in the penalty box, the two sects were segregated into independent religious schools. This was prior to even the writing of the Canadian constitution and forming of the country itself, and thereby it was written with the allotment for this school system.
That system persists to this day, having survived a supreme court decision upholding the right of government funds biasedly towards a religious sect or sects, despite the updated Canadian rights as formulated in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So obviously it is legally permitted.
Canada is fortunate in its current religious climate. While boasting similar religiosity demographics as the United States, with ~70-80% Christian and 10-20% non-religious, it's much more of a pacified faith than what is seen south of the border. There is a war in the US, fought not with guns but with legislature and propaganda with science education and minority rights at risk. This all with the establishment clause demanding freedom of and from religion right there in the Constitution preventing favourable treatment towards Christianity or any other religion.
The situation in Canada with regard to religious schools is not in violation of our legal rights, but that should not be the end of it. While I would prefer it, I am not calling for the suspension of government funds to these schools (yet). What is needed--however needless as it may seem right now--is a constitutional amendment providing freedom of and from religion and the separation of church and state--while we still can.
The consitutional freedoms in the United States constitution is the only thing holding their school systems together right now. While Canada's are doing relatively fine, the constitutional rights aren't meant for the easy times; they're meant for the worst of times. We have the opportunity in the time of peace and tolerance to properly protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.
The multimedia lobbyists are already pounding at Canada's door, leading to a fight for our rights with regard to digital media; let's close the door on the religious lobby that could well follow.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobile