You are hardly the sunshine of atheist peace and happiness on these forums.
And you don't mean the certain reckless country who actually used nuclear weapons?
What would you say?
If somebody came out here to say "religious differences are the big problem of the world in the 21st century", the answer would be: "you must be kidding!".
China holds the promise of what future government could be. Given an evolution towards democracy. Policies to combat corruption or control religion wouldn't be so taboo inside a pseudo-communist state and the level of efficiency could be hard to compete with.
if China did become more democratic that would of course be a constructive thing and I do hope it rubs of on America
The Chinese government will not likely accept religious freedom in our lifetime: The remnants of Confucianism are difficult enough to deal with. Any theology that would vie with the State will be suppressed -- of necessity!
You are heading for a polce Stae in the future or mind control Oakdale so they can practice well on you!Meanwhile I must say that religion is active in China and that churches have been built. An interesting side to this is Hong Kong where The Boys' Brigade a church-based youth movement has reached 300 units and aiming for evn more. Started small under British rule but still expanding. In the rest of China there are of course rules and I came across an incident a couple of years ago wher a church was demolished as they had not got permission to build the thing!
Of course, you know that the ceding of Hong Kong back to China was a mistake...?
But if you'd not feel so bad about it: We ceded the Panama Canal back to Panama -- which is to say, China! So, you can laugh.
Why and how?
Why can't imperialists simply keep their fingers off things? Stealing [...]
Because Hong Kong under China's control will have to lose most of the liberty, political and economic, before its example "infects" the rest of the country... Repression and bureaucratization -with its tendency to corruption- are the two most obvious means available to China.
Do you "observe" that they won't be used? And ruthlessly, if it comes to that?
(Those that can keep their "fingers off" as you call it are feeble lotus eaters.)
Do you think the people of Panama could have or would have built the canal? Or do you merely think that the trade it facilitated was unnecessary?
Can't argue with someone else's ideals, a feeble lotus eater as I am.
We cannot neglect the training of men who will employ the weapons of the Technological war in actual combat; however, in the Technological War the pressing need is for strategy and strategic thought.It is tempting to allow the scientist to dominate the field of strategic analysis and the management of the Technological War. He is the chief weapon in the war, and without him nothing could be accomplished. However, to give the scientist control of the process is an error of grave consequence.The qualities that make a good scientist are not those that produce a good engineer, let alone a strategic analyst.The scientist understands technology; indeed, he creates technology. However, he is often a specialist who is quite helpless outside of his own field. In general, he must be a specialist to make a reputation as a scientist, and without that reputation he will never achieve a position of management.There is a major difference in mental attitude between a scientist and a strategist. The scientist must deal with facts and scientific laws. By contrast, the strategist must deal with futures which cannot possibly be factual because the events have not occurred.The scientist deals with repetitive events and laws of nature; the strategist is virtually always confronted by a unique situation in which the opponent will try to do the unexpected. The strategist must always make decisions based on inadequate data; scientists must not jump to conclusions. The strategist's primary skill is to be able to reason like the opponent and stay ahead of him, while the primary skill of the scientist is to produce and package knowledge.Just as men can be divided into athletes and non-athletes, they can be divided into scientists andnon-scientists.But if a man is an athlete, he is not necessarily a good athlete; if he is a good one, he may only be good at baseball or boxing. Scientists, too, have very pronounced qualitative differences. There are broad distinctions between creative scientists, scientists who work best assistants and experimenters, and scientific administrators. Many a scientific reputation rests upon one particular discovery. Other reputations are derived from a long series of creative contributions. When we are talking about scientists it is quite important to keep these distinctions in mind.But this is not the end of the story. The history of science is replete with examples of scientists who were grievously wrong. Scientists have believed firmly in weird theories and have instituted veritable inquisitions against nonbelievers. Scientists often refuse to accept evidence, and they sometimes go to rather comical lengths to defend their own theories.There is no such thing as a fully rational scientist. There are only men who have scientific training, and this scientific training has not eliminated their emotions, hopes, and other human features as indeed it should not. The trouble is, however, that scientists are often inclined to transfer to themselves as individuals the objectivity of the scientific approach and to consider themselves to be far more objective than they are.They tend to identify their brain with a computer and become emotional if the security of an established theory is threatened.[emphasis added, and the paragraphing is my doing...](the source seems to be unavailable, now... Let me know if you'd want to read it.)
Your view of science seems to reject the mere fact that scientists are men... How do you counter this obvious deficiency in your arguments for "scientism" and atheism?
We don't need a new religion...
Atheists are wrong not because their faith in Science, a construction of Man based on a gift of God - Reason.
I am not a theist, Belfrager...I am a rationalist, which places my principles much closer to -say- the Catholic church than most Imams. (The various protesters don't offer anything of value, that I can see.) The object of my derision is not James himself... It is the anti-religious, who would make "Science" a new religion.We don't need a new religion...
Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-06-04, 23:07:41Atheists are wrong not because their faith in Science, a construction of Man based on a gift of God - Reason.Why is man's ability to reason only applicable in science and not religion?
Ecklund, director of Rice University's Religion and Public Life Program, presented preliminary results of the study, "Religious Understandings of Science," based on a survey of 10,000 U.S. adults including scientists, evangelical Protestants and the general public including 300 in-depth interviews with Christians (more than 140 of whom were evangelicals) Jews and Muslims.Among the findings:Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God's existence18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services (compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population15 percent of scientists consider themselves very religious (19 percent)13.5 percent of scientists read religious texts weekly (17 percent)But research also shows where the threads of suspicion run. A 2009 study by Pew Research found a wider gap between scientists and the general public on religion. And Ecklund's new study also found:22 percent of scientists and 20 percent of the general population think most religious people are hostile to science22 percent of the general population thinks scientists are hostile to religion27 percent of Americans feel that science and religion are in conflictOf those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion- See more at: http://cathylynngrossman.religionnews.com/2014/02/16/science-religion-aaas-hamonnye-evangelical/#sthash.m7AWOkcw.dpuf
Page created in 0.096 seconds with 42 queries.