"Fecioara" Maria - comic

O poveste mai realista:

continuarea aici

Optimism Bias - iluzia ca totul va fi bine

TedEd: Are we born to be optimistic, rather than realistic? Tali Sharot shares new research that suggests our brains are wired to look on the bright side -- and how that can be both dangerous and beneficial.


The optimism bias (also known as unrealistic or comparative optimism) is a bias that causes a person to believe that they are less at risk of experiencing a negative event compared to others. There are four factors that cause a person to be optimistically biased: their desired end state, their cognitive mechanisms, the information they have about themselves versus others, and overall mood.[1] The optimistic bias is seen in a number of situations. For example: people believing that they are less at risk of being a crime victim,[2] smokers believing that they are less likely to contract lung cancer or disease than other smokers, first-time bungee jumpers believing that they are less at risk of an injury than other jumpers,[3] or traders who think they are less exposed to losses in the markets.[4]



Va mai amintiti de discutiile despre clasa pregatitoare? ... se intampla.

Mentionez aici articolul pe care l-am scris in martie, 2012:

Clasa pregatitoare - o alta ocazie de indoctrinare crestina.

Si acum, primul caz mediatizat:

Fanatism în numele religiei. 18 părinţi refuză să-şi înscrie copiii la şcoală din cauza învăţătorului care vrea să „mântuiască satul”

si citez:

O situaţie nefirească privind înscrierile la clasa pregătitoare are loc la Şcoala Gimnazială din comuna Botoşana, motivul fiind constituit de refuzul vehement al părinţilor de a-şi înscrie copiii în învăţământul primar, atâta vreme cât la catedra clasei zero se va afla învăţătorul Teofil Creangă, acuzat de părinţi de fanatism religios.

Aceştia au povestit conducerii instituţiei despre traumele la care sunt supuşi zilnic elevii de către învăţătorul a cărei menire este „să educe copiii în credinţă, spre mântuirea păcatelor, să-i conducă pe calea cea dreaptă, urmând să devină mucenici”.

Totodată, potrivit acestora, „el pune pe planul al doilea materiile şcolare şi dă o mare importanţă religiei. Le spune copiilor că necuratul există peste tot în casă, în televizor, îi terorizează cu poveşti despre diavoli, despre păcatele părinţilor şi le interzice lucruri normale precum uitatul la televizor, participarea la serbări, la concursuri şcolare, purtatul cerceilor, jocurile copilăriei. De asemenea, elevii sunt sfătuiţi să nu se joace cu copii de o altă religie, chiar dacă sunt rude”.

„Copiii sunt stresaţi psihic, acestora vorbindu-li-se numai despre diavol, vrăji, avorturi, exorcizări şi alte lucruri de care ei se sperie. Elevii întâmpină multe greutăţi. Îi pedepseşte la colţ cu mâinile sus câte o oră, îi aşează cu genunchii pe grăunţe. În timpul orelor îi obligă să citească acatiste, iar dacă pe elevi îi doare capul, îi trimite în ultima bancă, dându-le rugăciuni de citit”, a mai afirmat un alt părinte.

Un alt părinte mai povesteşte că fiica ei a fost pedepsită pentru că a participat la concursul de matematică „Cangurul”, fiind scoasă în faţa clasei, unde i s-a explicat că astfel de competiţii sunt un păcat. „A fost o pedeapsă psihică pentru ea, mai ales că este o fire sensibilă şi emotivă. Venea acasă şi plângea că nu mai vrea să meargă la şcoală”, afirmă mama fetiţei.

Cititi restul (mai e ceva) pe pagina articolului.

Mentionez aici, din nou, articolul pe care l-am scris in martie, 2012:

Clasa pregatitoare - o alta ocazie de indoctrinare crestina.

Dumnezero G+ News - 14.05.2013

Dumnezero G+ News - 13.05.2013

Reshared post from ravi chandran subramaniam - murder in Bangladesh

Posted: 11 May 2013 06:27 AM PDT
Original Post from ravi chandran subramaniam:
Its not new that atheists have been persecuted by relegious zealots for power (vote, money or otherwise)

recent spate of news in bangladesh where they are asking for strong law against anti blasphemy is just one new way of trying to control the voice of liberals.

It took me more than half hour to search for a link where there was a news article where hacking of a blogger who spoke against islam was reported but hundreds of pages where the need for law has been spoken.


Since I joined late to google plus I might have missed any discussion which might have happened in the month of feb 2013.

well coming back to the reason for this thread.

Atheists have been persecuted for as long as their views have been present.

now that we have found freedom should we not be really talking about next steps.

1) Should we create noise like when journalists are killed so much of pressure is put on govts to take action..I havent heard any such voice when atheists have been killed.. should we not start using our vote for our cause
(Cause of free and liberal speech).. law against banning people asking for anti blasphemy law can be a starter.. not allowing such people to migrate to western coutnries cna be a start.

2) stopping economic goods from countries where there are relegious laws .. once it hurts them more they understand and act accordingly

3) work for creation of a country for atheists and free thinkers..though we call india a land of freedom and free speech it has been killed big time. small sect of relegious ppl have overtaken with their power of votes..

4) have regular conventions at some place where we brainstorm for the movement to grow further..

Its with a great dificulty of freedom that some of the most basic things been implemented in france (against hijab against gay oppression)

should we not be pressing for atheist rights at UN (Not just speak of atheism but do some thing about it)


This is why I have a problem with religion (partial response)


Christianity - just another religion based on non sequitur

What would evidence look like for Christianity? As an atheist, I'm open to evidence, so if Christians actually had some, I'd be obliged to accept the theory.

However, the evidence and the proof is really bad, and because it gets compared to other poor evidence, few people realize the fallacy.

The entire religion is based on non sequitur arguments. It doesn't follow.

- If ghosts existed, it wouldn't follow that there's a God

- If zombies existed, --//--

- If JESUS existed, --//--

- if Jesus did actually perform miracles, --//--; since for all we know he could have been a false prophet, a demon, a witch or some extraterestrial, among many other possibilities which are just as likely

- if the world was flooded entirely from outer-space water, it wouldn't prove that there was a Christian God (how many other gods deal with nature?)

- healings and small time "miracles" don't mean that there's a Christian God

- etc.

Similarly, apologists often make appeals to "suspicious complexity" or "intelligent design" or to the "who made the Universe" idea. NONE of those are evidence for their own gods; even if they do prove these theories to be valid (such as having evidence that life is indeed engineered by some sophisticated intellect or that the entire Universe seems to be similarly designed, produced), (which they haven't so far) it only proves some type of Deism; not their personal theism; which is where they start making really idiotic non sequitur arguments by trying to create a story-line or a linage from that deism to a certain type of Christianity or whatever other religion (Jews and Muslims do it too).

The possibilities are very many and very improbable. Believers simply pick the ones they like and link them with feelings and intuitions and traditional certitude.

If you want such a theist to stop trying so stupidly to bring evidence, try this:

If your God exists, he made me, he knows what I'm thinking, he knows very well what is the evidence I need to believe. And if there's no evidence to be found, he either doesn't exist, which is more likely, or he's a unjust asshole who blames his own faulty creations instead of taking responsibility.

That should make the discussion more interesting.


Christians vs the environment

Now, there are some Christians and other abrahamists who find some quotes in support of environmentalism. But...

Their god has many wishes, rules and such for them. Disregarding, sorting and prioritizing them is a common way of life, since it's basically impossible to be perfect (the rules often contradict each other - see "killing").

Even without the rules, ideologies that provide postmortem rewards just make people narrowly concerned and usually passive (with the exception of fanatical martyrs).

Essentially, you get people who just "ride the planet" and only mind their narrow interests, personal and family. And that's something which is very difficult to change, as I'm sure you know. You know how Bill Hicks said that nice bit of his... "it's just a ride", well - that idea has a terrible darkside.

The most common investment in long term in this case runs along wealth, which is wise by ancient standards, but simplistic by modern ones. We need to leave something better for younger and future generations - in general, not just for your own descendants.

The Escathology aspects are quite interesting, in the sense that they're the extreme application of the religious ideology. It's appealing to people who live under high stress and anxiety, real (like poor and sick people) or imaginary (imagining conspiracies and various paranoid delusions) - because of the desire to transcend an inescapable shitty situation and overcome an oppressing power. This is all linked to the just world fallacy or psychology.

I admit to feeling such things too, even after I stopped being Christian, that feeling of wanting to watch the world burn... still, I'm less pessimistic now, but I do work in media (i.e. literally watching the world).

Look at Jesus, for example. Now, I'm pretty left-leaning, but I detest Jesus for his teachings, which are not long-term. He was an end-times prophet (which was not uncommon in those parts). He told his followers to renounce all their material possessions (and their families), and share them with the poor (which doesn't sound terribly bad), and what's next is what people forget: in order to be ready for the incoming Kingdom of God which coincides with the Final Judgment. Jesus promised his followers that this would happen within their lifetimes (which be would in 1st century). The failure is even stranger, as people sacrifice so much that they suffer powerful cognitive dissonance and do not come to their senses properly.

Here's a fellow redditor explaining this (to me), since he's a specialist and I'm an amateur: [discussion about cognitive dissonance]


The sanctity of life? No such thing.

Is a fetus a "human"?

It's not the same. Basically, the fetal stage is of obligate parasitism.

The umbilical cord represents the parasitic bond which ties a fetus to its host, the woman. Once that's cut, his body is "inaugurated" and switches to actual eating, which is what the rest of us do.

Is an embryo a person?

If embryos could be grown in incubators from the start, this discussion would be a lot simpler. But thing is that the fetus is inside a woman, physically, and that territory is simply off limits to legislation; it is the right to self ownership, the thing which separates you and me from slaves. If that right is broken, in the case of defense of fetuses, you're essentially transforming women into slaves specialized in incubating unwanted humans.

Imagine if sperm were considered people, as they were considered for ages, even without the microscope.

Men would carry the miniature humans in their testicles and women were the fertile grounds to plant the seeds in (we're talking about agricultural civilizations). That's why women were seen as inferior for so much time and why they were treated like property (like land). Well, at least one of the big reasons.

This homunculus was considered a tiny human, just like you see the embryo now. Which is why wasting sperm was seen as a crime... since you were wasting humans, you were doing genocide simply by masturbation. Anal sex and gay sex was also seen as a crime because of this, as was oral sex. All waste of "seed" was murder.

This belief ran so deep that the word itself, "sperm", the one we use today, is technically wrong. Sperm carry just 50% of the genetic material of a person; the other half is in the woman's egg, but the word "sperm" means "seed", which it certainly is not. Sperm is the equivalent of pollen in plants, not the equivalent of seeds.


Cristos a inv... nevermind. E greu de explicat in cuvinte

Pagina autorilor: Explosm


Dumnezero G+ News - 20.04.2013 19:52

Dumnezero G+ News - 19.04.2013 20:20

Ceva asemanator:

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Cele mai citite articole

Original design by Six Shooter Media. To Blogger by Template-Godown