Should the oneness of humanity be taught in all schools worldwide

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

We are not a racist or religious supremacist country. O

You destroyed west Asia by forcibly creating israel. Destroyed south asia by dividing india and pakistan. Exploited rhe world as colonial empire.

 

[Rival]

You destroyed west Asia by forcibly creating israel. Destroyed south asia by dividing india and pakistan. Exploited rhe world as colonial empire.

Like nearly 100 years ago.

Really?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Cool. Can we toss out the Baha'i faith and its conceptions of the oneness of humanity and just go with our current course?

The majority of the world are already doing that, so best of luck, all, including the Baha'i, will need all the help that only God can give.

Regards Tony

 

[Eddi]

You

Really?????

I think not

 

[Audie]

Like nearly 100 years ago.

Really?

It's destroyed. Go see for yourself.
Nothing there.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Like nearly 100 years ago.

Continues. Gaza. Ukraine. Minerals from africa.

 

[ppp]

The majority of the world are already doing that, so best of luck, all, including the Baha'i, will need all the help that only God can give.

Regards Tony

There is no reason to conclude that you know, or are capable of knowing that there is a god to give anything.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There is no reason to conclude that you know, or are capable of knowing that there is a god to give anything.

You can go with that, I am not here to change your choices.

Regards Tony

 

[ppp]

You can go with that, I am not here to change your choices.

Regards Tony

You don't have the power to give or grant what I can or cannot go with, Tony.

 

[Audie]

You can go with that, I am not here to change your choices.

Regards Tony

You seem happy to go with just saying things.

 

[Audie]

Continues. Gaza. Ukraine. Minerals from africa.

What point are you attempting to make

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

There is no reason to conclude that you know, or are capable of knowing that there is a god to give anything.

There is no reason to conclude otherwise either.

 

[ppp]

There is no reason to conclude otherwise either.

What line of reasoning makes you conclude that? Or is that just an perfunctory gainsay.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

There is no reason to conclude that you know, or are capable of knowing that there is a god to give anything.

What line of reasoning makes you conclude that? Or is that just an perfunctory gainsay

Exactly the point. No reason either way.

 

[ppp]

Exactly the point. No reason either way.

I didn't make a point. I asked two questions. Saying "exactly the point" to questions is nonsensical.

 

[Audie]

There is no reason to conclude otherwise either.

Not a conclusion. Just an evident
extreme improbability.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no reason to conclude that you know, or are capable of knowing that there is a god to give anything.

There is no reason to conclude otherwise either.

I agree with both of you. There is no way to rule the existence of a god in or out. The critical thinker understands that that means to remain agnostic on the matter and not guess either way. So how shall he life his life - with religion or without it?

Now substitute a vampire for a god and the superstitions surrounding them (garlic, stakes through the heart, can become bats, are nocturnal, sleep in coffins in the daytime) for religion. Since we can't rule them in or out, how shall we live? Shall we hang garlic on our doors? We have no reason apart from not being able to find a vampire to believe they don't exist. Is that enough? No, as your answer affirms: "There is no reason to conclude otherwise," since we have no test or observation or algorithm that can do that. So, vampires remain a logical possibility. Should that matter to us?

In case you can't tell, I'm an agnostic avampirist, meaning that I answer no to the question of whether I believe in vampires, but don't claim to know that they do or don't exist. And I treat the matter of gods in the same way.

 

[Valjean]

There is no reason to conclude otherwise either.

But does one seriously entertain the possibility of every conceivable thing? Wouldn't your brain explode?

For practical purposes, I accept the reality of that which is evidenced, defer belief for mere claims -- pending evidence, and generally ignore unevidenced/unclaimed/unreferenced things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But does one seriously entertain the possibility of every conceivable thing? Wouldn't your brain explode?

For practical purposes, I accept the reality of that which is evidenced, defer belief for mere claims -- pending evidence, and generally ignore unevidenced/unclaimed/unreferenced things.

Yeah a combination of different norms in other words for how to behave.

 

[Audie]

I agree with both of you. There is no way to rule the existence of a god in or out. The critical thinker understands that that means to remain agnostic on the matter and not guess either way. So how shall he life his life - with religion or without it?

Now substitute a vampire for a god and the superstitions surrounding them (garlic, stakes through the heart, can become bats, are nocturnal, sleep in coffins in the daytime) for religion. Since we can't rule them in or out, how shall we live? Shall we hang garlic on our doors? We have no reason apart from not being able to find a vampire to believe they don't exist. Is that enough? No, as your answer affirms: "There is no reason to conclude otherwise," since we have no test or observation or algorithm that can do that. So, vampires remain a logical possibility. Should that matter to us?

In case you can't tell, I'm an agnostic avampirist, meaning that I answer no to the question of whether I believe in vampires, but don't claim to know that they do or don't exist. And I treat the matter of gods in the same way.

Again, vanishing dim odds.