www.tebe-trazim.com

sto, tri ruze i jedna pjesma malo? pa vis da je to postalo ovdje "imal koje zensko?" i slicno. ucite od strucnjaka...tuljani

..ma danasnji muškarci su "šonje"
..mediji su napravili od žene..komad mesa..
..koji se kupuju u supermarketu..

..pa se onda javljaju..ima li koje slobodno žensko...koji komad...da je kupi..
..ak ničim drugim ..onda pripadnosti istoj vjerskoj skupini...

..a one su samo željne...nježni riječi..i pažnje..

lijepo receno mislim da bi se trebao angazirati po pitanju preodgoja tj.pretvaranja tuljana u muskarce. ja budem nest slicno radila sa zene

Lol. Polako, smiri živac, da doista ne umreš. Doista ti je moje pisanje toliko iritantno?

Moram priznati da nikad nisan bio neki pobornik wikipedije, da citiram sam sebe;



Prvu listu čine poznati filozofi koji su ateisti ili agnostici, to mi je poznato. Filozofija mi je struka. Na toj listi nešto upada u oči- Immanuel Kant.

Meni Kant izgleda kao vjernik;

Potpuno je nužno vjerovati u Božje postojanje, no nije nužno to moći i dokazati. Immanuel Kant (cit. prema: Bryan Magee, Povijest filozofije)

..pošto je moralni propis u isto vreme (na taj način) i moja maksima (kao što to Um zahteva), ja ću neizostavno, bez kolebanja (unausbleiblich), verovati u egzistenciju Boga, i u neki budući Život, i siguran sam da ništa ne može pokolebati tu Veru, pošto bi inače [u protivnom slučaju] bila opovrgnuta moja moralna načela, kojih se ne mogu odreći a da u svojim rođenim očima ne izgledam dostojan prezira. Immanuel Kant "Kritika čistog uma"

Ništa naime bogu ne čini više časti nego ono što je najdragocjenije na svijetu, štovanje njegove zapovijedi, pridržavanje svete dužnosti, koje nam nalaže njegov zakon... Immanuel Kant "Kritika praktičnog uma"

The fundamental capability in the nature of things to raise themselves on their own to order and perfection is the most beautiful proof of the existence of God. Immanuel Kant "Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens"

There is a God for just this reason, that nature, even in a chaotic state, can develop only in an orderly and rule-governed manner. Immanuel Kant "Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens"


Druga lista je lista znanstvenika koji su ateisti ili agnostici. Moram priznati da je dugačka i impresivna. Ipak, malo tko mi je poznat sa te liste. Kad san spomenuo svjetski poznate znanstvenike, onda san i na takve mislio. Tipa; Einstein, Bolzano, Pasteur, Heisenberg, Newton, Kepler, Pascal i te fore. Naravno da postoji čitav niz ateista znanstvenika diljem svita, kao i čitav niz znanstvenika koji su vjernici. Ali ne postoji čitav niz znanstvenika koju su svjetski poznati. Dobro, sad se otvara pitanje šta je kome poznato. Moram priznati da san uvik pomalo "spor" kad je znanost u pitanju. Tako da tribam napomenuti da je tvoja kritika sasvim opravdana. Vidin da na tvojoj listi ima tipova koji su dobili nobelovu nagradu za znanost. Dakle, mora da su poznati. Kritika ti je na mistu. Ali ja i dalje ne virujen ništa šta na toj wikipediji piše, bez obzira o kojoj temi se radilo.



Tip piše;

Tokom dvije godine koliko se bavim promoviranjem ateizma i kritikom religije, mnogo puta je moja kompetentnost dovedena u pitanje...

Nemojte reći da nisam kompetentan i nemojte reći kako nisam upućen. Vrlo dobro znam što je kršćanstvo i kršćanska poruka. Ne smatram da me je nekoliko kršćanskih kampova učinilo kompetentnim, ali mislim da čovjek može biti obrazovan i ako nije stekao certifikat. Jedan od programa portala ateizam.org je promocija znanosti i obrazovanja. Kada kažem obrazovanja, mislim na neograničene mogućnosti koje pruža internet. Neke programe koristim za osobno usavršavanje. Već sam pisao o Khan akademiji (Khan akademija video) koja ima potencijal postati vodeći obrazovni online program. No, to nije jedino mjesto obrazovanja, za svoje potrebe koristim MIT OpenCourseWare, lekture Princeton Univerziteta, te kurseve Berkeley i Yale Univerziteta. Pritom sam aplicirao pri jednom online teološkom koledžu koji u ovom trenutku, s obzirom da sam ateist te ne želim riskirati odbacivanje aplikacije, ne želim navoditi. Nikako ne želim reći da je to zamjena za klasično obrazovanje. Nikako ne želim reći da to čini moju srednju stručnu spremu važnijom. Nikako ne želim reći da neću u budućnosti pristupiti klasičnom obrazovanju. Ali nemojte reći kako ne znam o čemu govorim. Nemojte reći kako nisam kompetentan kritizirati religiju. Nisam niti prvi niti jedini koji se obrazuje samostalno. Ne želim sada navoditi nobelovce koji su se obrazovali na jednak način kao ja, jer to ne smatram relevantnim, ali nemojte podcjenjivati samostalno obrazovanje. Ne želim reći kako bi smo svakome tko se pojavi trebali izražavati poštovanje i uvažavanje (zamislimo samo smo homeopatske nadriliječnike, kreacioniste i astrologe). Mnogo je onih koji se predstavljaju kao autoritet ali zapravo nemaju čime taj autoritet poduprijeti. No, razlika između tih takozvanih autoriteta i mene jeste u tome što se ja ne pretstavljam kao autoritet nego želim postati autoritet. Znam da je dug put ka ostvarenju tog cilja, no on je ostvariv i bez formalne naobrazbe. Željko Tadić


E to je tvoja slabost prijatelju. Tu triba udariti. Šta je taj tip? Ne kužim đe je fora. I dalje kaže;

Na kraju bih rekao nešto o kompetentnosti. Problem je taj što se usmjeravamo na osobu koja iznosi argument, a ne na sam argument. Time u mnogome činimo ad hominem. Ako ćemo se tako odnositi i zaključiti da ne bi smo trebali obraćati pažnju na argumente “nestručne” osobe, onda bi smo trebali razmisliti o kompetentnosti građana koji odlučuju o tome tko će voditi državu. Željko Tadić

A je se pitam šta je argument? Zake bi njegovo pisanje bilo nekome argument? Na spornom tekstu o Ivančiću, taj tip Željko Tadić, pet se puta poziva na wikipediju, jednom na google, jednom na depresija.forum, jednom na neke novine i jednom na svoj vlastiti portal. Jaki argumenti nema šta. Dok se Ivančić kod hagioterapije poziva na ljude kao što su: Arthur Jores, Robert Spaemann, Viktor Emil Frankl, Eugen Biser, René Descartes, Nikolaj Berdjajev, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Søren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, Ivan Pavao II. To je taj Željko Tadić možda slučajno zaboravio spomenuti, a ja to znam jer u rukama držim knjigu: "Dijagnoza duše i hagioterapija".

I zake bi sad ja virovao tekstu koji je napisao tip pod imenom Željko Tadić? I da dokaže svoje tvrdnje pet se puta poziva na wikipediju, i po jednom na: google, depresija.forum, neke novine i vlastiti portal. Ljudi! Budimo ozbiljni. No, pustimo to. Vratimo se na tog tipa koji kaže;

Rečeni je kako su teologija i prirodne znanosti dva plućna krila na koja čovjek diše. Uz dužno poštovanje, ali ovo je omalovažavanje znanosti! Ovo je za mene isto kao da je rečeno da su prirodne znanosti i astrologija dva bubrega. Astrologija kao i astronomija, proučava svijezde i njihovo kretanje, ali temelji i zaključci jedne i druge discipline su toliko različiti da nikako ne možemo govoriti o srodnosti ta dva područja. Isto je i sa znanošću i teologijom. Teologija je zapravo kao rak na plućnom krilu znanosti. Željko Tadić


To kaže taj tip. Einstein kaže, citiram;

Znanost bez religije je šepava, religija bez znanosti je slijepa. Albert Einstein "Moj pogled na svijet"

Max Planck kaže, citiram;

Kamo god i koliko god možemo pogledati, između religije i prirodoslovne znanosti, ne nalazimo nigdje protuslovlja, ali zato upravo u odlučnim točkama nalazimo potpuno podudaranje. Religija i prirodoslovna znanost se ne isključuju,..., nego se međusobno dopunjuju i uvjetuju. Max Planck "Religion und Naturwissenschaft"


Triba li dalje raspravljati? Dajte mi pištolj da si propucam bubreg.

If you expected science to give all the answers to the wonderful questions about what we are, where are we going, what the meaning of the universe is, and so on -- then I think you can easily become disillusioned and look for some mystic answer to these problems.

How a scientist can take a mystic answer I don't know because the whole spirit is to understand... Well never mind that, I don't understand that.

But anyhow, the way I think of what we are doing is; we are exploring, we are trying to find as much as we can about the world. People say to me: Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics? No I am not -- I am just looking to find out more about the world; and if it turns out that there is a simple ultimate law that explains everything, so be it -- that would be a very nice discovery. If it turns out it is like an onion with millions of layers and we are just sick and tired of looking at the layers -- then that is the way it is.

But whatever way it comes out; it is nature is there and she is going to come out the way she is. And therefore, when we go to investigate it, we should not predecide what is it we are trying to do -- except to find out more about it.

Your problem is; why do you find out more about it. If you thought that you were trying to find out more about it because you are going to get an answer to some deep philosophical question; you may be wrong, it may be that you cannot get an answer to that particular question by finding out more about the character of nature. But I do not look at it -- my interest in science is to simply find out about the world. And the more I find out, the better it is. I like to find out.

There are very remarkable mysteries about the fact that we are able to do so many more things than apparently animals can do -- and other questions like that. But those are mysteries I want to investigate without knowing the answer to them. And so all together; I cannot believe the special stories that have been made up about our relationship to the universe at large because they seem to be too simple, too connected, too local, too provincial. The Earth, he came to the Earth -- one of the aspects of God came to the Earth mind you. And look at what is out there, how can... It is not in proportion.

Anyway, it is no use arguing, I cannot argue it. I am just trying to tell you why the scientific views that I have do have some effect on my beliefs. And also another thing that has to with a question: How do you find out that something is true? And if you have all these theories of the different religions -- all different theories about the thing -- then you begin to wonder. Once you start doubting, just like you are supposed to doubt, you ask me is the science true. We say: No, no, we do not know what is true; we are trying to find out and everything is possibly wrong. Start out understanding religion by saying everything is possibly wrong -- let us see. As soon as you do that you start sliding down an edge which is hard to recover from. And so with the scientific view; or my father's view that we should look to see what is true or what may not be true. Once you star doubting, which I think to me is a very fundamental part of my soul -- to doubt and to ask. When you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe.

You see, one thing is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things; but I am not absolutely sure of anything and of many things I do not know anything about; such as whether it means anything to ask why we are here and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little, but if I cannot figure it out then I go to something else. But I do not have to know an answer; I do not feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell, possibly. It does not frighten me.

Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

Neee, nego ne mogu si pomoći ak ugledam grešku (barem IMO grešku ) pa moram ispraviti. a to ne volim, jer ja volim Petra Pana i izgubljene dječake



Tu ćemo se složiti, jer je Wikipedia shit, crap i trash, pardon my french
al oko ovakvih stvari zna ubosti

nadalje, hehe:

Kant's philosophy is generally designated as a system of transcendental criticism tending towards Agnosticism in theology, and favouring the view that Christianity is a non-dogmatic religion.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08603a.htm


You are here: Philosophy >> Learn More About Agnostics! >> Agnosticism

What is agnosticism?

The term agnosticism raises questions in many philosophy discussions. When the conversation turns to religion, many state their position with terms like “skeptic,” “atheist,” or “agnostic.” After reading this primer on agnosticism and examining what you believe, you’ll be better prepared to intelligently join the debate.

What does “agnostic” mean?
The term “agnostic” is derived from two Greek words: a, meaning “no,” and gnosis, meaning “knowledge.” Literally an agnostic is a person who claims to have no knowledge. Often agnostics apply this lack of knowledge to the existence of God. In this case, an agnostic is one who does not affirm or deny the existence of God.

What does an agnostic really believe?
There are two basic forms of agnosticism. The weak form claims that God is not known. This view holds onto the possibility that God may be known. The strong form of agnosticism claims that God is unknowable. This form says God cannot be known by anyone.

Two other types with respect to the ability to know God are limited and unlimited agnosticism. Limited agnosticism holds that God is partially unknowable. It is possible to know some things, but not everything, about God. Unlimited agnosticism, however, claims that God is completely unknowable. It says that it is impossible to know anything about God.

Foundations of agnosticism The two most influential thinkers to advance the philosophy of agnosticism were David Hume (1711-1976) and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). While Hume was technically a skeptic, his arguments inevitably lead to agnosticism.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnosticism-faq.htm

At the Collegium Fredericianum this concern developed into a regimented, regulated routine that impressed Kant as being
superficial and led to his total-and lifelong-rejection of religious practice in general. Though Kant retained a permanent
respect for Pietism, he consistently refused to attend church or take part in any sort of church activity...The existence of God is included in the list of what ought to be,
not of what, in fact, is.

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/v ... r_fac_pubs

dobar je ovaj zadnji članak. prevest ću ga ovih dana, pa postaviti, ok?




A zašto ne? hehe moram opet pročitati pa ti javim triba li. nije valjda sve što je čovjek napisao shit. pokušat ću pronaći i nešto što stoji ili barem pitanja koja su ispravno postavljena - žao mi ga

In other words, you think that all the scientists are disillusioned? Well OK, but I really doubt they would agree.



I must say, I don't see a point in doing something like this. We should do things just for the sake of doing things? isn't it better not to anything at all that to do meaningless things?



OK, you like to find out. But why wont you allow other people to make some higher, metaphysical, if you like it, meaning out of the obtained results? Why do you want to limit all the people to your “finding out”?



I think you’re wrong here.



Wait a minute; haven’t you said that you’re trying to find out?! I mean, to find out means to remove any doubt, uncertainty and not knowing. Or?



OK dude, what are trying to say here? Well, let’s apply this theory of yours: you say it is much more interesting to live not knowing than have answers which might be wrong. I say, lets all quit the school. For all I know, things we learn there might be completely wrong. We don't need no education!! Its much more better to live not knowing – anything.



OK, why are you here, on this forum? or you are not sure of that either?



Talk about consistency.



Oh, blissful ignorance!
As for me: A mind, once stretched, has a difficult time going back to its original form.
~ Joe Maddon



But thanks for this interesting text. I don't agree with whats written, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't read something like this, from time to time Btw, I don't really see a consistency in your words: you're an atheist at times, then an agnostic, then I see parts of nihilism there... not that it matters really, but sometimes it feels like you just cant make up your mind. or you're trying to make a statement about something but you're not really sure what about? kinda like Don Quixote, struggling with windmills... sorry if I have offended you somehow

@ thom: kad smo već kod RICHARD P. FEYNMAN, ovaj text mi je puno zanimljiviji, ne?

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm

u svakom slučaju, dosta objašnjava ateizam, jer:

I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions. This attitude of mind – this attitude of uncertainty – is vital to the scientist, and it is this attitude of mind which the student must first acquire. It becomes a habit of thought. Once acquired, one cannot retreat from it any more.

I would have to agree with this statement.

however, I am not sure whether he is right when he says: "That is quite different from saying, "I know that there is a God." I do not believe that a scientist can ever obtain that view – that really religious understanding, that real knowledge that there is a God – that absolute certainty which religious people have."

What about Einstein, Pascal, Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, John Napier..to name a few

btw, ne znam zašto pišem na engl. neću više

Ponadao sam se da će ovakva Fran-diskusija uspjeti, ali ne ide. Odgovor na svako tvoje pitanje se nalazi malo dalje u tekstu. Komentare ne razumijem.

Ok, evo reći ću iskreno: svaki od tvojih odgovora me u potpunosti zbunjuje. Ne razumijem koja je tu logika i kako tvoje rečenice imaju ikakvog smisla. Ne znam niti šališ li se ili ozbiljno pišeš. Isto tako je i sa Franom i njegovim citatima. Neću nikad razumjeti kako ikoja od rečenica ima smisla. A puno sam čitao po forumu. Nazovite me kretenom ako želite, ali ja to neću nikad moći shvatiti.

U svakom slučaju, sada čak više ni ja nemam volje za ovo.
Ali svejedno hvala na odgovorima.

Evo samo još jedan primjer. Pogledao sam većinu ovog "genijalnog" filma. Ne mogu vjerovati koliko je amaterski (ta užasna glazba i katastrofalne animacije). Kad već volite kreacionizam, barem ste mogli naći nešto kvalitetno.
Svi argumenti u filmu su isti kao i na forumu. Nevjerojatno mi je kako to itko može prihvatiti kao nešto logično. Na apsolutno svaku rečenicu koju ekipa izgovori sam bez riječi. I još ti znanstvenici... znam da vi volite kreacioniste kršćanine znanstvenike poput ovih "znanstvenika" tu. Još ćete nakon gledanja tog "dokumentarca" reći da su većina znanstvenika vjernici.
Jedina stvar u koju sam 100% siguran je da ovdje nema nitko tko se imalo bavio znanošću.

Ako se ne slažete s ovim, nemamo o čemu pričati. Siguran sam da bi skoro svaki kršćanin-znanstvenik prasnuo u smijeh na ovaj film.