Rubbish - I know exactly what I am saying: religion has no place in education.
There may be a case for education inside religion, but if it complies with the best aspirations of education, then it could only lead to religion’s dissolution.
Which “christianity” do you refer to? Because the last time I checked Jesus Christ taught love and compassion. Could you be using a wrong argument here? Just wondering… Does someone who uses a nuclear bomb to kill children make science “wrong”? Does someone who uses religion for war make religion “wrong”? Come on…
And when you are just unlucky, you are either dumped in the streets or killed by the insurance companies. Compassion is good. Being absolute (either for or against something) is not.
I’ve no idea what you are driving at here.
I don;t see religion waiting to save people ‘dumped in the streets’. The state tends to take that role as a poor man is the responsibility of us all.
Compassion os often good.
Being absolutely against or for something is also mostly good.
What are you on about?
Governments are tied to science because science is today a money-generating business. And everybody wants money.
Yes, science IS the new religion since no one can question its causes or what they do. You give (unwillingly and unknowingly) money to scientific projects which study the PENISES OF DUCKS (incredible huh? see http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/dear-congress-why-are-you-so-anti-science) but you are yet unable to see anything bad or “weird” or suspicious about all these.
Because… the scientists told you so! It is good what we do, they said. And you agree. Not because you know what they do. Just because they told you. Just because they promised (remember religion also promised) something good will come out of this in the… future (again smells a lot like religion).
Logic and reason for what? To explain life? To explain why you are here? Are you sure you want to trust your life to a tool which is proved (Oh, my dear Godel) unworthy of its mission?
If I could put perspective on the whole religion has caused more wars than anything else in history, this is not actually true, religion has been used to justify more wars than anything else in history, but in actual fact what most wars boil down to is politics, ok sure the 100 years war was about religion, primarily but even that was more about land in Europe who had it and who wanted it. End of the day there is always a war going on, religion is not the prime mover in wars, our need to acquire things that we see others as having starts the conflict, we use means such as defending democracy (which is ironic when you are invading another country and forcing it on them) but you get the point, religion rests in the hands of the leaders of any country, and it is almost always politically motivated. Likewise anyone who believes the wars in the middle east are religious wars is missing the point, these are all politically motivated, Trans-Jordan Palestine what is now known as Israel was promised by the English to what was to become the Syrian leadership for help in the first world war (this is on record in our war cabinet files and the agreement is incontestable), they reneged on it starting with the Balfour treaty that secretly promised land on an equitable basis to the Jews who had begun to move on mass into Israel, when the Arabs of various nations found out about this, it started the whole conflict. Religion is of course involved but primarily it is a land dispute.
Cherries on cakes are, well they immolate their first born son, they are worshipping false Gods, they believe x, they done gone believe y. This is just the air that gets veneered over the top of greed and a means to seek resources you do not have, or in fact land you believe you were entitled to or whatever it is you want to be taken as a political expedient act, for what ultimately you want. It is the same now as it ever was, very few wars are seeded or start only because of religion. Now whilst I think religion has gone on to exacerbate wars, extend them, and even herald them as just, and clerics have even advocated them to political leaders, as ironic as that should seem to some faiths. The final decision always rested in the hands of a leadership and it’s councils, and that was always a political matter. Even the crusades was done to protect trade interests and stop an ingress of Saracens into European land, it was not primarily religious it was a defensive war, carried out by offensive means. It failed of course and probably only lead to make Non Christian ingress into Europe worse. But the actual reasons were more to do with fear of foreign interest in European soil than religion itself. Religion has done some pretty out and out heinous things in its past but be the reason for most wars: no. I am afraid it has always been politics that is the main culprit.
Honestly what the hell was that all about, does this even address the sheer magnitude of useful research done in science that enables you to even write this stuff, from the transistor to the computer, to the internet; are you trying to use the idea that some studies that are seemingly useless make all science funding useless. I mean for all we know they really haven’t done their research on anyway has any meaningful case to make? Have all funds used for any purpose ever been useful in any endeavour of human thought? Have they? So what is it you are trying to say here? That the millions of studies done in science that have lead to practical use are superseded by one example, because this is not an argument it is a waste of our time. This sounds like Tea Party nonsense, it’s not even remotely reasonable, it does not remotely address anything and it’s about as useful as a canard.
Maybe I’m just kind of old fashioned. Technology takes a lot of energy to produce, and so much of it is throw-away. Take the proliferation of electronics, for instance. Everything has to be controlled electronically these days. You can’t get a kitchen stove anymore, without an electronic panel. What this means is that stoves don’t last more than, what - 5-6 years? A little more? It’s not the stove that fails, it’s the electronics. But it’s too expensive to fix or replace just the electronics, so you just buy a new stove.
I’ve got this kind of rule I use. If some product isn’t going to last long, you make it out of natural materials that don’t last long. If the product is meant to last a long time, it should be made out of materials that last a long time, whether natural or manmade. Also, a product only lasts as long as its weakest part lasts. Most products… Ah, screw it. It’s a rant without end.
This is how the world is. Younger people don’t even know the difference. Don’t even get me started on iTunes.
The thing about good religion, is that there the answer isn’t “Christianity”, or “Buddhism”, or whatever. It’s about understanding the healthiest way to approach any religion. I mean good religion, not a good religion.
Ideas are cheap, yes, though even the generation of these can be helped through Resources. But to determine which ideas are good and how to apply those ideas, that takes Money, often.
True and the fundamental questions of science are not immediately profitable, and thus it requires funding from the State to pursue.
The answers thereof are of benefit to all.
World wide web was originally an american military idea, which now has trillion of users, yearh, bad statefunded research!
How about time dialation, used for GPS, now a step further we look at Quantum Entanglement.
Many projects may seem totally waste of time, but maybe in 100 years, we may have great use of it.
