Can/Should we make "believeing" Illegal

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Given that All religions are philosophies, and the teaching of Any and/or all religions is the teaching of a philosophy, how then can the manners and ways of one philosophy be used to BAN outright the teaching of another philosophy?

It is also known as "Shooting yourself in the foot" wherein one philosophy or philosophical practice is being used to decide that another philosophy, philosophical practice, should NOT be Taught!

That a System of Beliefs (law) should be used to Suppress the teaching of another System of beliefs, (religion) well, your "System of beliefs" is no more valid then any others "System of beliefs" practical applications can be used to demonstrate differentiations in the truths that the systems are based upon, yet, in Both, law, and in Religion, the same Truths are used as Base, the Ultimate Nature of Truth and the Ultimate Nature of God, work out as equal...God equals the Truth, and the Truth (the Entirety of it) equals God...the only difference is that the Entirety of it is circumspectfully respected, without evidence, in the case of Religions V Law......whereas, in Law, the Evidence must make the proper associations with accepted 'Legal truths' as to be seen as following the proper application of/to the philosophical rules.

So why is it that the philosophy of Law can be used to Annul the Rights to the teaching(s) of the philosophy of Religion(s) as it is analogous to Book Burning, Impedance to Knowledge, Banning a Philosophy, making the public teaching of Religion a position of a State imposing it's will, upon the masses, without their prior consent in full disclosure of the very fact that the manner of there basis of practice (philosophy) is the same/identical as/to that which they attempt to ban the teaching of....simply another Branch of philosophy.

Anyone got any 'good' responses? to that?

Better yet, anyone understand what "I" am telling you?

(sorry....)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

More *Here* (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?p=701#post701)

Funny My horocscope yesterday(?) told me to "Start Keeping Your (My) Opinions to Your(my)self" .....'whom' do you think is leading? Not the Horoscope, that's is for/by God's Grace CERTAIN....Right? O?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Jeez, not a sound, not a response, not anything, what do you figure, no one knows?

And still Not a Peep....


.....I hear nothing, too.

[cckeiser]

I believe the real question here is what do we wish to teach our children?
Do we wish to teach them What to think, or do we wish to teach them How to think?
We all would like to teach our children nothing but The Truth, but no one really knows what The Truth really is. All we know is that part of the truth that we each perceive.

Through my own philosophy I have come to embrace our diversity and cherish the smorgasbord of choices spread before us. All is Information, and rather than censor any information, we should celebrate its diversity!

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics supports Intelligent Design. It maintains we are the Id in the I.D.
Buddhism is an Intelligent Design philosophy that requires no gods.

A mind exposed to only one dogma stagnates, and is ill equipped to function when confronted with opposing ideologies.
Reality is Information processed by an Observer. So what are we afraid of? Why are we so afraid of Information?
What do we wish to teach our children?
First teach them how to think, and then allow them to choose their own universe.
I was raised Roman Catholic. I am now an Atheist. I have no fear of information. I welcome it.
Regards
C.C.Keiser

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

Nice responce, 'free will' is endorsed by such notions, the choices available in/of/by Free Will.

There is also the simplistic notion that the Idea of Intelligent design, or the absence of it, comes from Human Intelligence, so where does that come from?

If we use "our" intelligence to deny intelligence as the basis of all, even when we struggle to find that intelligence as arising from within us as to find the/our intelligent answers to all things, what does that really say about us?

It says we are misled, and by ourselves.

All of the truth is God, just that, that is MORE then Just this Entire Universe, it includes all of the intelligence in all of us, plus, more!

[cckeiser]

Greetings © Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV


I agree, we are all misled by our own minds.
We are all fundamentally Solipsist in our own minds. We all believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe.

We exist, all else is Philosophy! :)

Chuck

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Have you ever been in a Place where the Silence ROARS?

It's Beautiful to hear, not unlike the truth, itself, beauty/beautiful/beautifully.

We are the metaphysical connection, we just 'think' it's philsophy.

[cckeiser]

Have you ever been in a Place where the Silence ROARS?

It's Beautiful to hear, not unlike the truth, itself, beauty/beautiful/beautifully.
Yes! It may be an oxymoron, but it's true none the less!

We are the metaphysical connection, we just 'think' it's philsophy.
Glad to meet you. :)

Chuck

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

you too.

(Adds extra characters to satify the Computer of the go'ds)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

8:54 PM 06/11/2005

Prove there is, or isn't, a God?

Given that the Answer is 'Scientifically' un-resolvable, then the Right to Believe in a Creator, is equal to the Right to NOT! believe in a Creator, that is simply sound 'Scientific' PRACTISE wherein no one gets (prejudicially) Harmed.

Teaching that is 'Scientific' in it's approach of Honesty, admission to unresolvability of the Truth as soley 'demonstrable' (Ergo "Physical" or energy~matter) evidence may, or may not, (as Cumulative proof) prove as sufficient to one, but not to another, and the entirety of that truth, is still, yet, left unseen, Hence it is the Most Honest of Observational Attestaments that is available for pretty much the rest of Knowable (to Future people) Time.


As for what Religions actually are, well, they are a Sorta 'Science' unto themselves, seeking to find self, then the Proper reflector in self from the reflector of Self....Seek God, the Obviousness of the Harmonic of the truth of it will appear to you, too ....Just be Careful, "The Beginning of Wisdom is the Fear of the Lord" ....There is a 'Good' reason for that, truly Good.

Moral Codes.

[Epsilon=One]

Better yet, anyone understand what "I" am telling you?No!. Much appears convoluted and specious.

[Epsilon=One]

I believe the real question here is what do we wish to teach our children?
Do we wish to teach them What to think, or do we wish to teach them How to think?
We all would like to teach our children nothing but The Truth, but no one really knows what The Truth really is. All we know is that part of the truth that we each perceive.Few of us are capable of perceiving a "truth." If you doubt this, just ask anyone what is "truth." I doubt if many answers will jibe or qualify as a "great truth."

You can not "teach" "What to think"; it can only be impressed.

Through my own philosophy I have come to embrace our diversity and cherish the smorgasbord of choices spread before us. All is Information, and rather than censor any information, we should celebrate its diversity!I find it difficult to celebrate the disease and evil of others in the name of diversity.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics supports Intelligent Design.Relying upon the fallacious Copenhagen Interpretation, which is theory that does not, at its extremes, reconcile with Reality, or other standard models. Relying upon the Copenhagen Interpretaion is no better than relying upon an anthropic god.

It maintains we are the Id in the I.D.
Buddhism is an Intelligent Design philosophy that requires no gods.Not quite. Buddhism does celebrate a god; just not an anthropic god.

A mind exposed to only one dogma stagnates, and is ill equipped to function when confronted with opposing ideologies.Quite true. However, most "mind"s when confronted with multiple ideologies are only more apt to be swayed from that which is "truth."

Reality is Information processed by an Observer.Not even close. An "observer" connotes an anthropoid. Anthropoids are not required for "Reality." Reality existed long before "observers"; and, will exist long after. Such is the qaint, hubristic view of a Solipsist.

I was raised Roman Catholic. I am now an Atheist.I see little difference between Roman Catholics and atheists. They are both followers of creeds that are ludicrous.

I have no fear of information. I welcome it.It is of little consequence that "information" is welcomed. What is important is that it is evaluated and, then, assimilated.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No!. Much appears convoluted and specious.
DOES NOT SURPRISE ME, NOT AT ALL!!