@Guest01:
I. Thank you for the book.
II. Please read a latin dictionary (and grammar book) or stop using a language you apparently have no clue of.
(i)It's vae vict-is or vae vict-o. Simple declination.
(ii)propaganda derives from propagare (to spread) and means "to be spread".
(iii)factum (basically) means "something that has been done or has happened" or "deed". In that sense there are non-scientific facts, or is every deed scientific? That A was indeed the murderer of B is not so much of scientific importance but rather imortant for justice and jurisdiction.
III. As far as I know atheism means "not believing in god". I don't know ancient Greek, but a- is there for negation and theos means "god". That means atheism is just not believing in god. It does NOT (necessarily) imply believing in scientific reasoning. And scientific reasoning does not necessarily imply that you have to be an atheist.
IV. I agree that demystification is not necessarily a loss. But what I actually meant (I'm sorry for my ambigious post) is that poeple long much more for food, drinkable water, fresh air, sunshine, etc to keep their body alive and love, friendship, appreciation, etc for their soul/psyche than they do for the study of science.
And opinions, prejudices, biases, experience, emotions, intuition, etc are often enough the basis for our decisions, or do poeple really refer to scientific data first?
And more often than not we do NOT know why we really did something. (That is also partly analizes by the theory of mind.)
And most people really do not care how their magical gadgets work and read pseudo-scientific explanations/books/magazines at best.
And if you you have read your Feynman well, you'll already know that if you know that 10 people will die in a certain event, you do not arlready know wether that's good or bad.
Ethics or morality have their irritional components. And ethics and morality are important, too. And they are often enough indoctrinated by religion.
V. Science decribes the universe and the guiding principles behind it, yes. That's the ideal and we don't really know THAT much, yet.
"Science enclose as a subject of research whole universe in all of its forms. There’s nothing left behind a science."
But the way you put it is very close to how some creationists describe theology though.
VI. Science is about approximation and proveable (mathematical) models and not so much about facts. Many scientific theories have been proven wrong or just way to inaccurate. Not just in physics, but also in medicine. Of course the great thing in science is that you can (with a little luck
) prove that your theory is right even if it is contrary to common sense.
VII. I hope you know the difference between mathematical facts that can be undoubtedly proven, scientific
approximations and mathematical definitions/conventions.
Your favorite "2*2" example is in the form you present it complete nonsens.
2*2=4 v 2*2=5 => 4=5
You give the same element of a field to different names. You can do that, but you have to find a new symbol for 2+3. Your example is only right if you state explicitly that 4!=5. Mathematics is about being exact, but I guess you know that already.
VIII. "If people aren't longing for «hard-proven mathematical or scientific facts» then advanced culture of all that incredible machinery simply will not stay for long." You're completely wrong on that. Only a sufficient minority of people actually has to know the facts, the rest just has to pay for it or allow it to happen. And that's the great thing about reductionism: if you do it right you can add all the small pieces (that can be understood) up to a product (that can not be completely understood by one person). That you depend on something does not imply that you do or want to understand it.
IX. Because religion is tied to morals and established religious authorities have worldly power,too , some regimes want to break away from these authorities if they cannot use them. The Reformation or Henry VIII if England are examples for replacing an established christian authority with a new one (and of course of transferring clerical terretories and possessions to the state). And some regimes do that without defining a new religious authority or believe. If it's right to call that [state enforced] atheism can be debated. You can always redifine words the way you want it. Connotations are important for languages. Language is not as exact as mathematic formulae but our world is more fuzzy or grey than pure black and white.
So what is your point in not calling certain regimes atheistic? Your definition is NOT the only one possible.
By the way the NS-Regime was not really atheistic. Hitler was a member of the church until his death and he and others used a whole lot of religious language. ("Die göttliche Vorsehung hat mich dazu bestimmt...", "unsere heilige Pflicht").
@fearuin: The SPD did not change the constitution, they just changed the interpretation. When the Bundeswehr was created it was under the condition of pure self-defense comperable to Japan. Only after the German reunification the problem of "out of area" (=Germany) came up. Schröder just decided to publicly go against the US government, because he knew he could gain some voters that way. Until then Germany always supported the US but AFAIK without fighting troops. So the FRG/BRD can be regarded as a pacifist vassal.
