Importance of Religion in Poland

God forbid that words like 'empiricism' should sully the waters of internet debate.

Unless of course you imply the whole sentence is pinched unattributed. 'Fraid not - such as it is, I've got first dibs on this one :)

Seanus
Can you please calm down, take a deep breath, count to ten.

It's possible to disagree without attempting to be nasty or didnt you learn that at university. There has got to be an online video you could watch that could demonstrate the dangers of being overly competitive.

OK readers back to the point:)

Seanus you have wanted to discuss this "idea" of yours for a long time and as with everything you keep changing terms making it impossible to know what you want.

You cannot reduce something as beautiful as a belief system to bullet points but if that is how you comprehend the world you should become a train spotter.

"Krok za krokiem" to you too

Stay focused it will do you good.

I'm as calm as can be at the moment. You're hardly giving me anything to disagree with anyway. University taught me many things, the first of which was to argue critically and discuss while being open to the opinion of others. Given that you won't even give your opinion, what can I say? Are you a Catholic? If so, I see no evidence of it at all.

Changing terms??????? I am Catholic and not Protestant because......this has been my question for you time after time without any change. You seem to think it can't be answered but it very much can. You dodge better than Cassius Clay ;) ;)

You can keep it concise and say 'I believe in the Virgin Mother Mary' whilst Protestants walk over her picture on the church floor. See? Simple! Wasn't that hard, was it?

Oh, it's doing me very well, thanks! Can I recommend Nestea? It's doing the trick at the moment ;) Barney, I ain't having a go at you. I just want you to provide some insights into your faith. To say you believe in God means you can be affiliated with any number of churches or even sects/cults. To say you are Catholic, well, now that's a different story as you have attached yourself to sth that is readily identifiable. The question is, can you identify it?

- but religion indoctrinates, science does not. And now that you have your conscience and free will, you don't feel like rejecting the Church - but I bet there's a hge chance you wouldn't choose any, or not this one if you were brought up in a lay environment, or your parents didn't put you into this without asking.


- Touche!


- again, science can prove its existence, and if you keep your head under water for about 2 minutes you will stop questioning that you need it and that air exists:))). But you can live without religion perfectly well...

You are not doing that, you have decided to troll up several threads about religion to force a debate and in doing so demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of belief systems for example asking for concrete differences between two sects.

In order for you to argue critically in this area you need to understand at least one basic idea; Religious arguments need to be translated into secular terms not just for people to understand the jargon but to place them at one step remove from the belief system otherwise its an argument about preferences (I like blue you like red).

This may seem like a trainspotting point but it is critical in understanding the pointlessness of the attempted debate.

There is a certain degree of vanity attached to most posts so feel free to type away like a latter day pamphleteer but you will be indulging in a solo occupation.

Troll up? First off, it's my choice to opt for which threads come to the first page. There is no blocking mechanism other than the Mods who could merge those threads. If more people used the search facility then I wouldn't need to make my point again and again. It's actually a rule of the forum to check that nobody else has a thread of a highly similar nature.

Second, I "force" no debate. You choose to take it up. You could just as easily leave it alone and I would do likewise.

Two sects? I prefer to call them branches. There are concrete differences or are you saying that we can't differentiate a Catholic from a Protestant? Seriously, you see no dichotomy at all?

I think you are gibbering here, mate, I really do. I really don't see what you are trying to say.

So it's pointless to look at any differences between beliefs, is that what you are saying? Boy, you'd be a hit in a religious exchange program in Europe, LOL. Hello, I'm so and so from Lithuania. We are a largely Catholic country. We believe in x y z. Oh, hello. I'm Barney. You wear the same sticker as me, super. Now what do you believe in? :P

Pamphlets? Nah, I'm just 'flier' than you are, matey.

Not the strong point of a box ticker.


You are not and never will be a mod no matter how hard you try.

No, but quite relevant on a thread on religion, wouldn't you say? ;) ;)

I can be whoever I choose to be through free will and if that means moderating and alerting attention to rules then I will do just that. Rather be a mod than a punk ;) ;)

Anyway, Cassius, keep dodging. It's your character mark now :)

Not the best side you are showing, Barney. WHO is trolling? Seanus asks questions and thinks logically, so far - even on more than one thread. You see to be troubled by this...

Really? So nobody is indoctrinated that our forefathers were apes and that the world begun from a giant rock clashing into oblivion? Big bang?

Just because a red light comes up instead of a green one doesn't mean something is thousands years old...


Only here on earth :)

- sciecne indoctrinates? So do you put science on the same shelf as religions? Does science and facts need publicity and followers?? Now you are sounding like Mr Giertych - the professor who once tried to be a president in Poland. He said we definitely don't come from apes. Check Maciej Giertych (father of the LPR leader I guess).


- Where else? I am not hoping for anything more. Enough is enough and I'd be insane to think there is something after life. Ghosts? Holy afterlife? That is really rediculous, pleeeease. I know a lot of poeple need to hope for something better later, but the only thing I cans say is let them better focus on their lifes right now because there isn't any other, none, whatsoever and that is it. [that is my hope ;) ]

Don't anthropomorphise the fossil record.

You'll only make it angry.

I put science on the lower shelf. Because almost all "scientific facts" that were believed 100 years ago are now ridiculed. And most probably - today's science will be treated as such in a 100 years. Science is a game.


Oh come on - of course science needs publicity and followers. I know something about Physics. Up to XIX century the new conception wins simply because the supporters of the old ones died out and the new generation of scientist make their rule. Since XIX century its much more rely on a publicity. (like mr Einstein for example)


As we follow the scientific and disciplined way of thinking, I would like some arguments and fact to support the above mentioned statement.

I don’t do Merry-go-Round arguments, as I said above arguments about preferences are essentially a box ticking exercise.

Trolling up an old thread to crow over a supposed toasting doesn’t strike me as logical.
Asking the same question umpteen times is not logical its pathological.

You don't answer simple questions and that's that. I wasn't looking for a thesis, just a few insights from you. You are just as I surmised, a label slapper :) 'You are a Catholic, son, remember that'. 'Yes, mother, thank you' :)

Trolling up? Look, old threads can be highly refreshing after some of the nonsense that pops up. Besides, they were the originals and should be explored before similar new things emerge.

Well, call Jeremy Paxman pathological then. Sometimes you have to push for answers as some either prevaricate or do a monumental sidestep like you. Here,

youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI
you are like Michael Howard, LOL. This is hilarous and sums you up!!

Did you threaten to overrule him x14 I think :)

Sorry,
youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk

I have no idea about physics besides trusting Newton that apples do fall from trees due to some strange force, so I cannot argue in any intelligent way here about the modern physicists discord, but it can't be based on the basic physics laws I assume. They may disagree on Black holes or some pulsating bodies (what is that???!!), but nobody argues with apples. The same with religion: when we talk about general philosophy, we more or less agree on its principles, but when it comes to Black holes and pulsating bodies of the afterlife, we show the fangs and spit the venom :)

Actually - history of science is a fascinating topic. Some theories become fashionable over the time, some other forgotten for years. There is everything in this story - opposite fractions, friendship, betrayal, love, emotions, politics.

As for the apple and the law of gravity - of course there are arguments over it! At least 4 major theories and a couple of minor ones. There is no such thing as a "law of phisics". The apple doesn't know any laws. All we've got is a way to describe some process. And you can describe it in many ways. More or less - the science is a matter of language.

It's not only the Black Holes that arise controversy. The scientist are arguing over nature of light. There are two theories - it's called a "dualism". Or other thing - they can't explain how the elements heavier than Silicone could exist. Or how a water flows. The great Unknown - that's why it's so interesting.

If you take a look on the Nobel Prize winners in Physics and their theories you would found out that most of these theories has been already ridiculed.

I wonder if anybody will be interested in a dialogue.
I can start a first point for a discussion if you don't mind.

1). "Protestants do not pray to "pictures" of saints, because a Bible says that Christians should not to portrait God."
Protestents charges Catholics that hey "pray" to pictures of Jesus.

So, my question for protestants is:
How do you imagine God?

He is not like a portrait or a picture, because they are just visions of artists.

Good question! I think the standard conception across the board is that he that he has a beard and long hair. Oh, that's Jesus :)

God is possibly like some entity in Star Trek, a divine force that is feared for his awesome 'presence'. That's actually quite a poser you put there, noreenb. I'd scratch my beard if I had one :)

I can't speak for everyone but I think there is an appeal from the inner spirit to God without a clear picture. He is felt around us and guides us when we most need Him.

There is only one episode in the Bible, when the God was close to show himself. It was in that story with Moses and the Burning Bush. I mean - on other occasions the voice of God comes from Heaven or the message was announced by the angels.

This Moses story was the only one in the Bible when someone was able to say: "The God speaks to me and the voice comes from that" - and point out at something.

Taking this under consideration I think I can say that the God has got some branches, some sticks here and there, probably some leafs and a lot of fire. More-or-less it resembles a burning bush.

Of course there is also the story of Jacob aka Israel, who has fought a stranger on the road for some time and asked for a blessing. Stranger when asked for a name responded: "You asking for my name? Don't you know who I am?" Some scholars interpreted this as a "I am your God, dammit. Leave me alone". But this matter is still discussed.

George W is in the Bible? Burning Bush seems like an apt metaphor to me :)

Obviously - that was a prophecy. Only God knows what does it means.

I wouldn't want some crazy men to get stupid ideas for their women ;) ;) ;)

I loved that 'No More Bush' campaign where women shaved their bits :) :)

Please, I beg, never let me see the day when the mohair beret brigade do the same :) This is where religion can be positive in preserving moral standards and avoiding the corruption of the masses :)

Let say it clear and loudly:
The Scripture says about burned bush. Not about the shaved one.
I know - it sounds painful. But it is necessary for some very important religious reason.
Otherwise - something tragic will happen to the whole world.
Or something very good will happen.
Or it it wont.
I am not sure.

Dammit! First burn your bush and the we'll see ok?
It's important.

never in my life have i encountered such blind hypocrisy as i have in Poland. they don't seem to understand, eg, that if you are Catholic YOU DON'T DO ABORTION. ????

they all go and pray and kneel, etc, then go home and have abortions.
am not joking.
or talk about how children (who are running around, delightful children) should have been aborted but got lucky. (while conceived within stable marriages)

wtf?

sorry, but am not being nice now. am being direct and Polish about this. it is utter bollocks. who can say it isn't??

If you are protestant you do abortion??? In other words, are you allowed to do abortion if you are an atheist?
Because being an atheist allows to do abortion?

Why do you care for hipocritical Catholics?
I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.
Sth wrong is with logic in here.

Plenty Poles could answer you this way: I don't do abortion because I am a Catholic. I don't do abortion because of reasons which have nothing to do with being Catholic.

Why do you mix religion and abortion?

Hypocrisy?
Actually the most hipocritical and nasty person I met in my life was a strong catholic.

Methinks the Church also needs Feminism.

xD

Shesus Christina!

Thanks, enkidu. This is really interesting.

Sarcasm?
If not - And if you really interested in this subject, I recommend this.

Absolutely not. I am really interested. The story of DNA discovery I read a bit in my bio class. But it would be worth reading in more depth, that's for sure. Thank you, enkidu. Btw, they say that it was actually Rosalind Franklin who discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, but her partner gave the info to Watson and Crick and they completed practically finished job.