Cyprus-Forum.com

[Atheist]

In all my years as a teacher, I have met noone who was excused from RI in any school in Cyprus. On top, evolution is still not part of the curriculum of the 6th form lyceum pupils who take biology for the Pancyprian exams that lead to university entrance. I think I have written this before, recently in a single classroom in Larnaca, I counted 16 icons of saints!

This seems more inline with my personal experience from when I was in school. I hope that by the time my children go to school that we will at least have what Get Real described, although I would prefer religious courses to be opt-in rather than opt-out. Does anybody know if the same rules are followed by the private schools?

[Maxx]

Atheism may not be a religion but it is a religious point of view.
I do not know whether or not there is any sort sort of alleged supreme being or creator (an agnostic position) but if there is I very much doubt it is anything like any god in any human religion as for the most part most such gods are probably made in Man's image. Gods were otherwise a very convenient way of explaining what man could not then explain, in particular natural phenomenon, or as a means of imposing power structures (the divine right of Kings) and/or thought control, eg as in Iran where disagrement with the government can be an offence against god punishable by death.

Any religion that has to impose itself by force (eg 16th century catholicism and the Inquisition) or certain verisons of islam are in my view religions with a problem.

That said if some one wants to worship one particular version of god, providing they do not try to force their views on others but are prepared to be tolerant of alternative religeous points of view , including Atheism, I am not going to try to argue with them.

I agree with you in general which is why I call myself "atheist/agnostic". Unfortunately the term "agnostic" on its own is interpreted by some to mean the belief that an existence of God, even one as described by religions, is equally possible as the non-existence of any God. What I believe is that religions have already been proven wrong by science and the existence of some vaguely defined "supreme being or creator", while it can not be disproved is just a theory that is no more possible than any other theory that people can imagine (for example the "Celestial Teapot" that Bill mentioned earlier)

I think you got it slightly wrong in my opinion.

Agnostic could mean, at least to some, that God probably does not exist, and as Science really has not been absolute as to God's existence or not, then for most there is at least a very small element of doubt that their could be a higher diety. In other words, an Agnostic is someone who is not absolute about the non existence God, but can be up to 99% Atheistic.

I think most people who call themselves Atheists, are probably Agnostic instead.

If how you defined Agnosticism was the standard definition then I would call myself agnostic. However that term has various interpretations (see link below) which is why I prefer to call myself "atheist/agnostic" as to leave no doubt about what my position is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I think this is an oversimplified definition in my view. There is much room for differing interpretations.

I have done much soul searching on such topics - to put myself into a silly box if you like, and studied some works from renowned Philosophers, Ethologists and evolutionary Biologists and tend to subscribe to the spectrum theory thesis - that there is a spectrum of Agnosticism culminating into Atheism. Conclusion is, even the most ardent critics against religiosity, and even the biggest supporters of evolution are probably better defined as Agnostic as none could say, and neither can I for that matter, that they believe 100% in the non existence of a Deity. Ergo, there is a small element of doubt. 99% Atheist, 1% Agnostic is still an Agnostic.

[Bananiot]

This is not how science works. We do not disprove the existence of anything, we merely provide evidence for the existence of something and stick to our beliefs as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. Science uses the natural laws to explain phenomena and as such it leaves no room for the supernatural. Science is not biased and in fact it stressed, on many occasions, the detrimental effects of bias on scientic issues. It provides the only reliable tool to understand the comlpex world we find ourselves in and frees us from simplistic approaches of the layman that have pestered, and in some parts of the world still pester, humanity.

[Maxx]

This is not how science works. We do not disprove the existence of anything, we merely provide evidence for the existence of something and stick to our beliefs as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. Science uses the natural laws to explain phenomena and as such it leaves no room for the supernatural. Science is not biased and in fact it stressed, on many occasions, the detrimental effects of bias on scientic issues. It provides the only reliable tool to understand the comlpex world we find ourselves in and frees us from simplistic approaches of the layman that have pestered, and in some parts of the world still pester, humanity.

Sure no problem. but evolution does not disprove the existence of a deity. Evolution has merely trashed all man made religions such as Christianity etc.

Science is no where near ruling out the supernatural. Not yet anyway. Perhaps it never will.

[Bananiot]

It is not the job of evolution to disprove of deity. Evolution merely (sic) explains changes in living forms from generation to generation and provides a most powerful tool to understand correctly this world.

[Maxx]

It is not the job of evolution to disprove of deity. Evolution merely (sic) explains changes in living forms from generation to generation and provides a most powerful tool to understand correctly this world.

Bananiot, I never insinuated otherwise, but our new friend stated that Science has pretty much proven the non existence of a supernatural deity.

[Bananiot]

Fair enough, perhaps a little bit of paraphrasing is needed here: Science has not proven the existence of deity and furthermore, one finds it curious to say the least, why god plays hide-and-seek with the products of his creation. A case of bad fatherhood (I presume is a male deity), perhaps?

[Atheist]

It is not the job of evolution to disprove of deity. Evolution merely (sic) explains changes in living forms from generation to generation and provides a most powerful tool to understand correctly this world.

Bananiot, I never insinuated otherwise, but our new friend stated that Science has pretty much proven the non existence of a supernatural deity.

I believe you misread what I wrote:

What I believe is that religions have already been proven wrong by science and the existence of some vaguely defined "supreme being or creator", while it can not be disproved is just a theory that is no more possible than any other theory that people can imagine

[Maxx]

It is not the job of evolution to disprove of deity. Evolution merely (sic) explains changes in living forms from generation to generation and provides a most powerful tool to understand correctly this world.

Bananiot, I never insinuated otherwise, but our new friend stated that Science has pretty much proven the non existence of a supernatural deity.

I believe you misread what I wrote:

What I believe is that religions have already been proven wrong by science and the existence of some vaguely defined "supreme being or creator", while it can not be disproved is just a theory that is no more possible than any other theory that people can imagine

Thanks for the clarification.

So you're an Agnostic.

[joe]

I may not be religious but i do know that religion in Cyprus is a alive and well, thank God. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that all measurements suggest the universe is too perfectly balanced for there not to be a hire power. Even a trillion "if's" and a big bang could not have possibly created it.