zloubida

I hate Google and try not use it anymore but there's still one thing I can't do without : Google Maps.

This journal is cool!

The fact that I have a PhD while I knew that I wouldn't use it quickly after I begun, thus loosing years of my life is the proof that I'm dumb as a rock. Fitting for ChatGPT.

But you can't act only when you know all the parameters, that was the sense of my love metaphor.

Some people are more happy without religion. Some other are more happy with a good religion. I do not live in America, I live in a country where religions, all religions combined, are followed by a minority of the population. So most children has no religious ties and teachings at all. A lot are happy like that, but others suffer without knowing why. Religion should be a freedom.

I wouldn't say “blind”, but yes it's about acting on ideas that may be wrong. But you do that when you marry someone (does they actually love you? You can't know), or everytime you trust someone. Life is taking decisions without knowing. It's the same with the existence of a God: the only purely rational position is agnosticism. But for me, to be agnostic is like refusing to accept the love of someone because they may betray you. It's a rational decision, it may be enough for you and it's okay, but for me it's not enough.

1. It's not q question of moderate or fundamentalist. I'm an extremist. An extremist of love, acceptance and solidarity because that's what I understand when I read the Bible. I fight the fundamentalists, both in the outside and in the inside. And I'm far from alone.

2. Religion is not based on belief in the untrue. It's based on belief in the unknowable. Used rightly, religion is on the opposite a way to fight superstition as it helps people thinking rationally on these subjects. I emphasize “used rightly”: of course what you said is true of fundamentalisms.

Je suis pas du tout dans l'informatique, mais je crois que c'est un équilibre à trouver.

Prenons l'exemple de Valentine. Valentine cherche à se syndiquer, et travaille à Superjordan, une société qui fabrique des superbes.

Elle regarde le site de différents syndicats, et assez vite se rend compte qu'elle est totalement alignée sur la CNT, syndicat anarchiste. Problème : personne à Superjordan n'est à la CNT, son adhésion ne changera donc rien à son quotidien au travail.

Elle regarde alors quels syndicats sont bien implantés à Superjordan. Le plus gros syndicat c'est le Syndicat indépendant des employés de Superjordan (SIES), un syndicat jaune qui approuve toutes les décisions de la hiérarchie et sert de planque aux copains du patron (ça existe pour de vrai à plein d'endroits). Problème : ben là non plus ses conditions de travail ne changeront pas.

Les autres syndicats sont quasi inexistants, ça serait comme d'adhérer à la CNT, l'accord total en moins.

Faut-il donc qu'elle adhère à un syndicat qu'elle aime, mais il faut qu'elle construise sa présence dans son entreprise, ce qui va être long et difficile ? Ou faut-il qu'elle adhère à un syndicat avec qui elle est en désaccord mais bien implanté, avec l'idée de le changer de l'intérieur ? Il n'y a qu'elle qui peut décider.

La situation est pas aussi caricaturale dans la vraie vie, mais c'est la même dynamique. À chacun·e de choisir.

American evangelicalism is like that, radical Islamism is like that, a few other religious schools are like that. But the common religious form is not specially intolerant, not much than a philosophical school or a political party. Do you want to fight all people who have opinions in the name of tolerance?

Some people are proud of their ignorance, that's true of some religious people and some non-religious people.

Things you don't like should be forbidden. Is that how you advocate for a free society?

As a new moderator of [email protected], yes, of course :-)

Thanks!