She is single and quite nice too, there are four of us that get together for nights out, pictures, bowling, the odd meal or just for a few beers, the other two are a married couple Sarah n me are both single.
I would say its anti-theists who are reactionary. What about theists who aren't religious? Where do they fit in? The problem is religion. Religion isn't belief, its the politicisation of belief. I can understand anti-religion because religions are not abstract concepts but mass movements formed around leadership cults - just like fascism. (Religious fundamentalism is fascism). Its the cult fervour of religion that is pernicious not the abstract concept of intelligent creation. If only the two could be separated. But science based atheism insists on equating the consideration of an abstract concept with belief in religious mythology and thus rational scepticism transmutes into anti-theism, a doctrine as dogmatic as any religion.
What's your definition of "reactionary"? Atheism seems more revolutionary, in that it has no institutionalised following at all. All governing institutions are theist.
Theism run along the lines of a religion is indeed a political phenomenon. It made sense during pre-history and in more primitive, unenlightened times but mankind has outgrown this need, or should have done so. Theism as a pseudo-science, to explain the how and why of the Universe, and whilst not as pernicious as its religious sibling, is anti-science in nature. It says, "We don't know 'why' and with this 'explanation', we need look no further.". You could argue that belief in something like Intelligent Design is a suitable place-holder for knowledge which we one day hope to hold but that approach is a mistake. The only place-holder for a block of knowledge we lack is an attitude of "We don't know yet but we are looking". As soon as you come up with self-referential arguments for an explanation, you don't need to go looking for answers.
Its simple really. something created everything, decided several of those 'realms' would be an experiment and Earth was one of them so had a little extra help, now sits back and watches how those realms peogress. When we need a little push, a little push or clue is given. We now see that as the big bang and can see into universes beyond our own. Of all the realms, who knows, maybe we have evolved the most, maybe we havent. The facts of science back this up. You cannot create things from fresh air, yet we seem to accept you can. No one to worship to, no one to take us anywhere after death, no where to spend with the 13 vigins
There maybe The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries: Section IV. Modern Science and the Fairy Faith; and Conclusions: Chapter XI. Science and Fairies
Because we can do experiments with them. Because they are getting this computer to run and keep the light on. But if you want to send some helpful fairies round, I won't show them the door (depending on what sort of fairies they are).
Crikey. Talk about muddying waters. Maybe I should create a website that sets up my thought as something useful to be quoted.
My mind is completely open. Someone shows me some evidence about things, I'll believe it. I find no more evidence of fairies than of Santa Claus. I'd quite like both of them to exist, but I think it's pretty unlikely. I'd quite like world peace to break out in 2015 - and I'd give it roughly the same odds.
No you wouldn't.. Switzerland along with many other cash-hiding countries would be bankrupt without war funds
Are the Swiss still very protective with citizenship? I mean, if not born in Switzerland, you get no rights, votes etc?
