Right back atcha. It's good to find people that can keep the conversation civil without breaking into a Jerry Springer episode. Whatever I say is not meant to offend or anger. I'm just trying to learn. It's all good. It took place during my grandfather's time around the 20's and 30's. So, it's before Civil Rights kicked into gear. I don't know exactly how much info is actually written down about it, but I'll see if I can find some sort of link or something. I am basing that on my own personal experince and what my family and neighbors have said. They were being arrested and imprisoned (yes, imprisoned) during the same time as stated above. My grandmother was arrested (more harrassed than anything, but she did get arrested) for speaking to a grocery clerk in Indian (because she didn't know the English word) and someone overheard it and turned her in. That's when my grandfather changed our family name to avoid further persecution. He also made his family stop speaking cajun or indian in public. Granted a lot of this took place before more humane rights and civil rights were implemented, but, it did happen. That's fine. I completely understand. I was there whn it happened. Just about every time I saw a plane after that, it made me so nervous. I don't however, believe that it was just a Muslim thing. I would be curious to hear what some on this board think about it. That's cool. Ever do a sweatlodge? Boy, can they be helpful. BTW, I'm glad that we can have a good conversation without being idiots. I congratulate you too for being open minded and understanding. Play on!
Christians don't believe people who chose not to follow God have something wrong with them. But they do believe that something bad is going to happen. Part of Christianity is the belief in the choice of ever lasting life or ever lasting death. Part of Christianity is that if you choose Christ than you receive everlasting life and are saved from eternal damnation. It's not that they are trying to be mean or offend someone by believing it. It's just what they believe. If you truly believed that flying in an airplane would definitely kill me I wouldn't be offended that you believed this. I might be offended if you tried to force your belief onto me and keep me from flying in an airplane. But I wouldn't be bothered by your belief or use of words that might imply you have been saved from dieing in an airplane and I'm doomed. It's just your believe so I wouldn't care if you said it. Oh so true. My Czech atheist friends and family never get offended over my beliefs. It's only other Americans. Oh Christians have definately done their fair share of oppressing others in history. I don't deny that. I encourage others to stand up and say Christians are wrong. That is not my problem. My problem is that they are not just saying "you are wrong" instead they are saying "Shut-up you are wrong and since your wrong words offend me, you shouldn't be allowed to say them" All I'm saying is that let us continue to have freedom of speech without trying to muffle it in the name of "I'm offended". I'm not necessarily talking about you, but this is what many in American are doing to Christians. What scientific proof. It's a theory. They are both theories. So if you are going to teach a theory, something that has not been proven, at least teach as many theories as possible so the students can have an understanding of all of them and then decide for themselves to which THEORY they would like to adhere. Are you sure "THEY" made him? and if so, who are "They"? It seems more likely to me that he and/or his team chose to do it that way fearing a backlash from the voters if he hadn't. Still, that just proves that Americans aren't open minded to the Muslim faith but it is still different than being forced to do so by authorities. I'm not going to address your comments about Bush and the war because I've had too many debates about him with others and I know they go nowhere. We all believe what we want in the end anyhow. The debates about our President and the War end up exhausting me. I enjoy the debates we had because it simply is people stating their opinions and opening the minds of others to see things from another perspective. However, when one debates about the war and President Bush, it's more to prove who is right and who is wrong and that always winds up as a dead end with exhaustion as the side effect. If you care to have that debate, feel free but since it has nothing to do with CZ and Christ, it probably needs a new thread. Name it "Dzurisovak, stay out!" :wink: :lol:
What scientific proof? So the hundreds of books written on the very subject are all based on theory? The theory turned into proof as these scientific studies have gone on. There is substantial undebatable proof, or atleast it would extremely difficult to disprove their proof. Creationism is completely based on theory or belief. Not a shred of it can be proven. If there is some proof, let me know. I agree that multiple theories should be taught though. The schools should not be allowed to censor any scientific proof. I know I keep stating scientific proof, but let me tell you that I do not focus my whole world on it. I say that with the notion that school's base their classes on facts, not theories. Not until college anyway. You ask "who is they?". You answered it for the most part at the end of your statement. The autorities. They knew that there would be a wicked backlash if they let someone choose the Quran over the Bible for the swearing in. IF there is truely a freedom of religion in this country, then why would he have to do it in private? And, which religious groups would scream the loudest?
Hmm... Where to start? First of all, what exactly marks the transition from "theory" to "proof" or "fact?" As a scientist myself, I find it hard to draw a distinct line. Note before anyone gets on my case about this, let me just state that I'm trying to make a point about fact vs. theory, not trying to discredit the Big Bang Theory. I just get worked up about people trying to tell me how things are, often taking the latest in scientific theories as fact, when often new discoveries arise to challenge or even refute them (the medical community is full of perfect examples). So, consider that the facts in the "hundreds of books" which you mentioned mostly boil down to two major observations: 1) that the universe is expanding, a conclusion based on observation of cosmological red-shifting of light from distant galaxies; 2) that there is a cosmic microwave background (CMB), which was predicted to be a residual from a widescale cooling of matter from plasma states to atomic states. Both observations specifically point to an expansion of the universe, but do NOT directly prove anything about what initially caused that expansion. Let me explain: The first observation is connected to cosmic expansion via a prediction of general relativity, that in an expanding universe, cosmic light-emitting objects will have their light redshifted by varying amounts dependent on their distance from the observer. This is indeed what is seen. The second observation arises from a prediction that an early hot universe expanded and cooled, allowing atoms to form, allowing for the more or less free propagation of light through space. Note that by Big Bang theory, this cooling happened some 300,000+ years after the Bang. Any attempt to understand what happened beyond this time must be inferred through theoretical predictions of the structure of the CMB. The cooling which led to the CMB makes a strong case for a Big-Bang-like event, since the temperatures at which such atomic recombination occurs is about 3000 K (or abt. 5000 F), much hotter than than space is currently (abt. 2-3 K, or -450-ish F). That would indicate an enormous increase in the volume of the universe since that event (abt. a factor of 1000). The inference, then, is that the universe didn't just expand from a small volume to what it is today, but that it expanded from a singular point, the result of a cataclysmic explosion of mass. So while, the expansion of the universe can be quite well established by scientific observation, the rest is based on inference and theory. There are several theories of what may have happened in the early universe. I should note, however, that there is general consensus in the scientific community with regard to much (but not all) of the progression of states of matter prior to the CMB event. Also, many related experiments can and have been done to provide corroboration as to how matter might behave under such conditions. Of course, if one follows this line of reasoning, then the ultimate question regarding the birth of the universe is "What caused the Big Bang?" This is still an open question. So back to my original question (sorry for the rambling): When does theory become fact? I'll accept your initial statement: and add my own: "The Big Bang Theory is well-supported by scientific evidence." By the way, my real reason behind this posting is to try to get people to think more for themselves when it comes to science, to judge the merit of arguments based on the evidence rather than just accepted what is said at face value.
Actually Sova, I was going to ask geauxboy to show me the scientific proof, but you just did and you might as well have been speaking Czech because I understood it about that much. Actually, I only skimmed it because it simply reminded me of how much I hated science in High School. I never even took it in College. Hey I'm a social worker, we aren't suppose to like science. My major was psychology, you know, the pseudo-science :twisted: My continued distaste for science class is going to keep me from really looking into everything you just wrote. Not that looking into it isn't important. It's just that I should spend my time actually doing my Czech homework instead of playing on this board. :lol: Thank you though for your explanation. The point remains that since it's not proven, only based, it remains a theory and should not be the only theory taught in school. What authorities? I said in my post that I'd be more likely to believe it was his own campaign team that told him to swear on the bible. They aren't authorities, but advisors. It would have still been his decision. There was no law saying that he cannot do it so he was free to do it. He would choose to do it to avoid backlash. Which, like I said in my other post still proves that there is not complete freedom of religion here. You asked who would scream the loudest? I don't think Christians would throw a fit; not any of the ones I know. They wouldn't vote for him again as a personal choice of whom they vote for, but I don't think they would cry out and demand that he never do that again. I believe they would say to themselves, "He is free to do that, but I'm not voting for him." His campaign team would assume the same which is why they probably told him to swear on the bible in public and the other in private.
I just found this topic and have read a good percentage of the original posts. I have often wondered about Czechs and religion, especially at Christmas here in the Czech Republic when everyone sings carols and a favorite activity is to visit the hundreds of hand-made nativity scenes. On January 5, hundreds bring their children to see the Three Kings arrive on camels at the live "Bethlehem" near the Castle. Why then, do these very people say they are atheists? My best guess is that, because of history -- as explained so well before -- they are "allergic" to doctrine, to ideology in every form. They will NOT have anyone telling them what to believe "or else" as was true under Catholics, Nazis, and Communists. In my experience, they do not argue, they just maintain their own quiet opinions and beliefs, which they share with trusted friends.
That is a very good explanation Sova, but, like Dzurisovak it seemed to me to be written in a foreign language . I got the idea of what Sova is saying and I stand corrected. I do however really like the last paragraph. That's a very good way of putting it. I completely agree with that even though I may have come off thinking that science IS fact. The Earth is flat. The Sun revolves around the Earth. Etc. Very true that it isn't fact just because it's in the name of science. So, I guess I should rephrase myself this way (not to beat a dead horse). Big Bang and/or Evolution, compared to Creationism, seems to have more evidence to back it up. I'll leave it at that because we seem to be WAY off topic now (especially since I have been busted on my "knowledge" of things ) I had to reread your original quote and realized that I misread it. Nevermind. If I understand you, we are saying the same thing. The backlash is what I was pointing out. He knew it. His advisors knew it. That's why he did it in private. So, it seems we agree on that and that there isn't a true freedom of religion in this country. Just for the record, when I asked "who would scream the loudest?", it wasn't directed at Christians or anyone else for that matter. I was asking more for the point of seeing what others may have to think about that question. It was more of a curiosity than anything. After further thought, I would have to assume that the answers could be so far varied that it would render the question practically pointless. It's obvious that I'm not the coldest beer in the fridge, but I rather enjoy the way everyone is remaining civil and educated in these conversations (especially about religion). And, Sova, if you bust me again, I'm gonna have to go Springer on ya. Just kidding, bust away
Because they don't connect this scenes with God. Czech name for Christmas is Vánoce. In Japan are Christmas very popular, too and Christians are minority there.
DZ is an affricate. It begins as a stop [d] but releases as a fricative [z]. It is pronounced like ds in nods. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affricate_consonant The surname Dzuriš is roughly pronounced: DZOOH - rish Dzurišová is a feminine form.
"Because they don't connect this scenes with God. Czech name for Christmas is Vánoce." What do you mean? 1. What is the etymology of Vánoce? 2. Also, what do your mean that they don't connect the "betlem" scenes with God? Do you mean that the birth of Jesus is not connected with a feeling or concept of the Transcendent? I do think that Czechs, just as much as any other people, certainly just as much as Americans I know, do have a feeling and concept of the Transcendent. I also sense that many experience it in the rituals of Christmas, as well as in nature and in relationships and community. They just don't talk about it. Nor do they connect it with doctrine or ideology. Neither do I, actually. For example, I find the Christian creeds to be totally discontinuous with experiences of the Transcendent, either in nature or in love of others. Thus, if in fact any of this is an accurate perception of the "atheistic" Czechs, they do not seem at all unusual to me.
Zeisig did a good job of explaining it. However, Americans don't really understand how to say the dz sound, myself included, so I simply tell people the d is slient. When I say my name, I say it more like, "zurish". I don't use the feminine form of Dzurisova in the states because my husband's name is Dzuris and that would just confuse people. I plan to use it when or if we ever live in CR. My id name is dzurisovak because my first initial is K.
How wer said, it's from German Weihnachten (holy nights), but only minority of Czechs knows it. Czech Christmas customs are more pagan then Christian. What I want to say is, that I believe, that majority of Czechs doesn't connect Betlem scene with religion - it more attraction for them - "Look Johny to these color figurines!" Well I'm not so sure . Czechs are quite pragmatical and down-to-earth. They make fun of everything, too What exactly do you mean, when you talk about transcedent?
Along the same vein as what I was mentioning earlier, about theory vs. fact, here's a nice article from msnbc.com: Theory versus observation in astronomy. One quote in particular stood out to me: "A theory that explains the previously known might be plausible, ... but unless it can predict the unknown, it is of little value — and even then may eventually be proven incorrect by further observations."
Are there many czech people named Johny? :? :lol: One quote in particular stands out to me is by Edie Brickell, "choke me in the shallow water before I get too deep" The philosophy is getting quite deep here. :lol: But I'm loving it! Don't mind me, I'm on my 2nd glass of wine. And who doesn't like that song when your drinking. :wink:
No, but there are many boys named Honzík. Czech equivalent of John is Jan and Johny is Honzík. What variety of wine? I prefer Cabernet Sauvignon.
Jenom piju bílé víno. Včera, pila jsem bílé svařak. Dvě skleníce je moc za mě. Možna proto cukr. I figured I'd try to say it in Czech. Doufám že rozumíš.
I like some of those blends that are hot on the market these days. A Merlot and a Cabernet mixed. It's like the best of both worlds. Anyone try any good Hungarian wines? I brought one home with me and it was great. Sova, that was an interesting article. I wonder if those that believe we are the only beings in this Universe will entertain the idea that they may not. What or where are these new telescopes that are seeing what was unseen before? All these planets and moons are being discovered faster than they can be named. Is it just that the telescopes are more sensitive and are able to give a better picture of what these bodies are made of? Dzurisovak, you must be buzzed if you are listening to her . I got her newer album but I haven't heard it yet. As a band I like, I'll throw in a quote from The Radiators. "Let the red wine flow'. One more thing, I don't have to look at your name in order to spell it correctly now. The explanations that were provided helped me understand it better. You're right though, English speaking folk find that "DZ" kinda hard. I'm getting used to it though.
