Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
- Let's give an example of schizophrenic human... He suffers in his life dur to his psychiatric problem... But in his mind, the 2 characters that exists, exist really in him...
I just wanted to add that this is not schizophrenia. This is 'dissociative identity disorder'. I unfortunately know this because there is someone with schizophrenia in my close family.
I just wanted to add that this is not schizophrenia. This is 'dissociative identity disorder'. I unfortunately know this because there is someone with schizophrenia in my close family.
Yes, it was not a reply to my post. The point of my post was that I have no problem with scientific theories. Please, once more, stop elaborating them to me. I consider most of them to be true. Big Bang theory is most probably true for all I know but I am not an expert. I am neither a theologist so I cannot also give you all of the answers about religion.
But what I do know is that science cannot give all the answers people need. In fact, it deals with completely different types of issues than religion. And you don't even need the best of science to understand the difference.
What I wrote in my post to which you didn't reply was a simple example where I compared the question of "how universe was made" with the "largest number question". So even if you expain the whole sequence of events on how the universe was made in perfect detail, one can always stil "add 1" and ask another question "And how did that happen and who or what caused it?". Nothing can come from nothing. Nothing can create itself. That's an absurd belief comparable to the most absurd religious beliefs and there are quite a few of those also.
And replying to the genius of Einstein with Dawkins' extremist blunders. That's just silly. "Science vs Religion" - what an idiotic concept. What's the sequel to that? "Science vs Art"? LOL
But what I do know is that science cannot give all the answers people need. In fact, it deals with completely different types of issues than religion. And you don't even need the best of science to understand the difference.
What I wrote in my post to which you didn't reply was a simple example where I compared the question of "how universe was made" with the "largest number question". So even if you expain the whole sequence of events on how the universe was made in perfect detail, one can always stil "add 1" and ask another question "And how did that happen and who or what caused it?". Nothing can come from nothing. Nothing can create itself. That's an absurd belief comparable to the most absurd religious beliefs and there are quite a few of those also.
And replying to the genius of Einstein with Dawkins' extremist blunders. That's just silly. "Science vs Religion" - what an idiotic concept. What's the sequel to that? "Science vs Art"? LOL
Says who?
Common sense and even the laws of physics. When something comes from nothing, I believe we call that magic but it is in fact an illusion of magic.
But I didn't say you wanted to ban atheism; you did say that Charles wanted to ban religion. You were wrong there.
The point is that it's the same thing. Banning religion and banning religious education.
So you will use your power as parent to try to make them believe (in religion) what you want? I think that is wrong.
I use my power as parent to make them do certain sports I believe are good for them and my family. How is that any different?
One can say how he killed somebody, without really having killed him (for instance to protect a family members). Then you would lock up the wrong guy and leave the real killer free.
OK, please, stop nitpicking. You do agree that in legal processes we can make judgements without physical evidence based on testimonies, right?
If something is there (so you are 100% certain it is there), than there must be proof. Otherwise, you couldn't be certain. If something is there, there must be proof. That is pure logic.
I agree with you. There must be proof. That realy is pure logic. The problem is that necessary proof is not always at our disposition, right?
E.g. let's use legal proceedings again, if someone is killed, dissolved in acid and spilled in a river, the proof of him being killed is all over the world. So, all we have to do is find his atoms, rearrange them into his original DNA and we will have proof about what happened, right? There must be proof. Easier said than done. :)
Common sense and even the laws of physics. When something comes from nothing, I believe we call that magic but it is in fact an illusion of magic.
But I didn't say you wanted to ban atheism; you did say that Charles wanted to ban religion. You were wrong there.
The point is that it's the same thing. Banning religion and banning religious education.
So you will use your power as parent to try to make them believe (in religion) what you want? I think that is wrong.
I use my power as parent to make them do certain sports I believe are good for them and my family. How is that any different?
One can say how he killed somebody, without really having killed him (for instance to protect a family members). Then you would lock up the wrong guy and leave the real killer free.
OK, please, stop nitpicking. You do agree that in legal processes we can make judgements without physical evidence based on testimonies, right?
If something is there (so you are 100% certain it is there), than there must be proof. Otherwise, you couldn't be certain. If something is there, there must be proof. That is pure logic.
I agree with you. There must be proof. That realy is pure logic. The problem is that necessary proof is not always at our disposition, right?
E.g. let's use legal proceedings again, if someone is killed, dissolved in acid and spilled in a river, the proof of him being killed is all over the world. So, all we have to do is find his atoms, rearrange them into his original DNA and we will have proof about what happened, right? There must be proof. Easier said than done. :)
But what I do know is that science cannot give all the answers people need.
What questions?
So even if you expain the whole sequence of events on how the universe was made in perfect detail, one can always stil "add 1" and ask another question
That's the great thing of life, we can always ask more questions. Humans are curious in nature, and for many of us an answer like 'because it is so' isn't accepted as a real answer. Also when an answer on a question is found (specially in science) it almost always raises new questions.
Nothing can come from nothing. Nothing can create itself.
This is absolutely true, it can't. So if you use this fact to explain the start of our universe the only conclusion can be: something was already there, matter (in some form). And that's why the theory of Multiverse is really interesting. But we have to have patience to hear the outcome of all the studies that will be done on this subject.
"Science vs Religion"
This isn't really silly. For some science this doesn't count, but for many other science, religion defiantly excludes science. For example: if someone believes the earth is 6000 years old, how can such a person be a real archaeologist or astronomer? Impossible. Ofcourse this doesn't count for Science vs Art, explaining this isn't even necessary as it is a completely different situation, and you already knew this when you wrote it down.
What questions?
So even if you expain the whole sequence of events on how the universe was made in perfect detail, one can always stil "add 1" and ask another question
That's the great thing of life, we can always ask more questions. Humans are curious in nature, and for many of us an answer like 'because it is so' isn't accepted as a real answer. Also when an answer on a question is found (specially in science) it almost always raises new questions.
Nothing can come from nothing. Nothing can create itself.
This is absolutely true, it can't. So if you use this fact to explain the start of our universe the only conclusion can be: something was already there, matter (in some form). And that's why the theory of Multiverse is really interesting. But we have to have patience to hear the outcome of all the studies that will be done on this subject.
"Science vs Religion"
This isn't really silly. For some science this doesn't count, but for many other science, religion defiantly excludes science. For example: if someone believes the earth is 6000 years old, how can such a person be a real archaeologist or astronomer? Impossible. Ofcourse this doesn't count for Science vs Art, explaining this isn't even necessary as it is a completely different situation, and you already knew this when you wrote it down.
What questions?
Well, e.g. the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. I mean, we all know that the answer is 42 but we just have to take Deep Thought's word for it. We stil don't know the formula. :D
Seriously, religion answers questions about spirituality and morality such as the meaning of life. Isn't it obvious to you that science doesn't deal with that kind of questions?
That's the great thing of life, we can always ask more questions. Humans are curious in nature, and for many of us an answer like 'because it is so' isn't accepted as a real answer. Also when an answer on a question is found (specially in science) it almost always raises new questions.
Yes, you are right but what I wanted to say is that science will never give us the ultimate answer of how and why was the universe was created. Religion does that but not scientifically as it is not a scientifical question really. If it was, then science would have the possibility of giving us an answer to that.
This isn't really silly. For some science this doesn't count, but for many other science, religion defiantly excludes science. For example: if someone believes the earth is 6000 years old, how can such a person be a real archaeologist or astronomer? Impossible. Ofcourse this doesn't count for Science vs Art, explaining this isn't even necessary as it is a completely different situation, and you already knew this when you wrote it down.
Now, this is pure manipulation. I can give you examples of science being silly as well but that wouldn't say much about what is good about science nor would it prove that there isn't anything good about it. I can give you also examples of poor art that also has messages negating scientifical facts but that also wouldn't say much about art in general, would it? Why do you have the need to name examples of silly religious beliefs? Do you really think that says anything about religion in general and that it is impossible to be a scientist and an atheist and stil have crazy beliefs or disbeliefs?
Why do you think that free thinking is an exculsive subscription of science? I also find myself coming out of the church thinking that the priest was talking nonsense that day. I am also thankful I live in a large city so I am able to choose who I am going to listen to in the church. Also, e.g. I have had 2 different physics teachers in high school. One of them I didn't understand a word he was saying and for one of them I am thankful that I was able to learn so much from. It all comes down to people in the end.
Well, e.g. the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. I mean, we all know that the answer is 42 but we just have to take Deep Thought's word for it. We stil don't know the formula. :D
Seriously, religion answers questions about spirituality and morality such as the meaning of life. Isn't it obvious to you that science doesn't deal with that kind of questions?
That's the great thing of life, we can always ask more questions. Humans are curious in nature, and for many of us an answer like 'because it is so' isn't accepted as a real answer. Also when an answer on a question is found (specially in science) it almost always raises new questions.
Yes, you are right but what I wanted to say is that science will never give us the ultimate answer of how and why was the universe was created. Religion does that but not scientifically as it is not a scientifical question really. If it was, then science would have the possibility of giving us an answer to that.
This isn't really silly. For some science this doesn't count, but for many other science, religion defiantly excludes science. For example: if someone believes the earth is 6000 years old, how can such a person be a real archaeologist or astronomer? Impossible. Ofcourse this doesn't count for Science vs Art, explaining this isn't even necessary as it is a completely different situation, and you already knew this when you wrote it down.
Now, this is pure manipulation. I can give you examples of science being silly as well but that wouldn't say much about what is good about science nor would it prove that there isn't anything good about it. I can give you also examples of poor art that also has messages negating scientifical facts but that also wouldn't say much about art in general, would it? Why do you have the need to name examples of silly religious beliefs? Do you really think that says anything about religion in general and that it is impossible to be a scientist and an atheist and stil have crazy beliefs or disbeliefs?
Why do you think that free thinking is an exculsive subscription of science? I also find myself coming out of the church thinking that the priest was talking nonsense that day. I am also thankful I live in a large city so I am able to choose who I am going to listen to in the church. Also, e.g. I have had 2 different physics teachers in high school. One of them I didn't understand a word he was saying and for one of them I am thankful that I was able to learn so much from. It all comes down to people in the end.
Nothing can come from nothing. Nothing can create itself.
the same can be said for a God, no?
:P
I think you are right!
What is truely religion is simply out of science interest.
And I think everybody must choose what to teache to his children..
But not in public school!
Public school, just has to teach science and culture. It would be perfect to teach the history of all religion in school, so children would know something more when they get man.
And I think public money must never go to religious institution, there's no way it can lead to something good.
the same can be said for a God, no?
:P
I think you are right!
What is truely religion is simply out of science interest.
And I think everybody must choose what to teache to his children..
But not in public school!
Public school, just has to teach science and culture. It would be perfect to teach the history of all religion in school, so children would know something more when they get man.
And I think public money must never go to religious institution, there's no way it can lead to something good.
the same can be said for a God, no?
:P
No, because "nothing can come from nothing" is a logic applied within our world. If there is a God and he created the universe, how can we apply to him the logic of His universe. From our perspective, He is eternal (time is a concept within this universe) and almighty (if He designed and created it, He must also surely be able to intervene within it).
I think you are right!
What is truely religion is simply out of science interest.
And I think everybody must choose what to teache to his children..
But not in public school!
Public school, just has to teach science and culture. It would be perfect to teach the history of all religion in school, so children would know something more when they get man.
And I think public money must never go to religious institution, there's no way it can lead to something good.
I don't see why not in public school. It only must remain absolutely voluntary and not come into the total grade average.
Also, why not finance religion or any non-profit organisation from the government budget? It just needs to be transparent. Some countries have a part of income tax for financing your chosen organisations. Why not have such a system where you finance your favourite NGOs directly? We might even choose more than one of them or by default leave that portion of income tax to the government budget. Leave it to the tax payers to decide. It's their money after all.
:P
No, because "nothing can come from nothing" is a logic applied within our world. If there is a God and he created the universe, how can we apply to him the logic of His universe. From our perspective, He is eternal (time is a concept within this universe) and almighty (if He designed and created it, He must also surely be able to intervene within it).
I think you are right!
What is truely religion is simply out of science interest.
And I think everybody must choose what to teache to his children..
But not in public school!
Public school, just has to teach science and culture. It would be perfect to teach the history of all religion in school, so children would know something more when they get man.
And I think public money must never go to religious institution, there's no way it can lead to something good.
I don't see why not in public school. It only must remain absolutely voluntary and not come into the total grade average.
Also, why not finance religion or any non-profit organisation from the government budget? It just needs to be transparent. Some countries have a part of income tax for financing your chosen organisations. Why not have such a system where you finance your favourite NGOs directly? We might even choose more than one of them or by default leave that portion of income tax to the government budget. Leave it to the tax payers to decide. It's their money after all.
If your god created the universe, where did he come from? He must be made by something else then, because 'nothing can come from nothing'. Or is he not real?
No, because "nothing can come from nothing" is a logic applied within our world. If there is a God and he created the universe, how can we apply to him the logic of His universe. From our perspective, He is eternal (time is a concept within this universe) and almighty (if He designed and created it, He must also surely be able to intervene within it).
we can imagine the same for another casual scientific explanation..
I mean that the argument you use for can be used against..
It is easier to understand religion is not something where to use those categories of thought.
I don't see why not in public school. It only must remain absolutely voluntary and not come into the total grade average.
because public must not give any kind of indoctrination in religion matters (implicitly intending them good), that are private stuff..
because public must not spend a cent on religion, it is something anyone must pay for himself..
Also, why not finance religion or any non-profit organisation from the government budget?
Because they do nothing that everybody can accept, I find it good, you wrong. What if my religion tell to kill redhead people? What if your tells not to use condoms?
I can't accept my tax money to go to such a shame..
If you believe in something, just support it with your private money!
we can imagine the same for another casual scientific explanation..
I mean that the argument you use for can be used against..
It is easier to understand religion is not something where to use those categories of thought.
I don't see why not in public school. It only must remain absolutely voluntary and not come into the total grade average.
because public must not give any kind of indoctrination in religion matters (implicitly intending them good), that are private stuff..
because public must not spend a cent on religion, it is something anyone must pay for himself..
Also, why not finance religion or any non-profit organisation from the government budget?
Because they do nothing that everybody can accept, I find it good, you wrong. What if my religion tell to kill redhead people? What if your tells not to use condoms?
I can't accept my tax money to go to such a shame..
If you believe in something, just support it with your private money!
As God is relied to Infinity or Eternity, there is no need to be created. God was always there here and for ever. Why because the act of creation need a beginning, the eternity no.
Then why wouldn't it be possible that the matter of the universe was here, just like their god was?
They say: "nothing comes from nothing, except our god". Seems like an internal twist to me.
(editado)
They say: "nothing comes from nothing, except our god". Seems like an internal twist to me.
(editado)
God doesn't follow rules, that's why you won't get it ;)
If your god created the universe, where did he come from?
We don't know. We are not equipped with senses that enable us to perceive what is outside of this universe we exist in.
He must be made by something else then, because 'nothing can come from nothing'.
Exactly.
Or is he not real?
He is real but exists mainly outside the scope of our senses.
We don't know. We are not equipped with senses that enable us to perceive what is outside of this universe we exist in.
He must be made by something else then, because 'nothing can come from nothing'.
Exactly.
Or is he not real?
He is real but exists mainly outside the scope of our senses.
God is very real
in minds of people who believe in him
and it's more than enough to state that he is real
that's all story
in minds of people who believe in him
and it's more than enough to state that he is real
that's all story
that is just bullshit.
Belief is enough for sth to be real?
This is just to funny...
Belief is enough for sth to be real?
This is just to funny...
We don't know. We are not equipped with senses that enable us to perceive what is outside of this universe we exist in.
And you don't know how our universe was created (as for the moment, nobody in world knows), but still, you posit to know it (your god made it according to you).
He is real but exists mainly outside the scope of our senses.
Something can only be real when it is observable in our universe. As your god is apparently not in our universe (then where is he?) and he is mainly (so not exclusively, see further) outside our scope, he is not real.
What do you mean by 'mainly', so more particular, where is he inside our scope? Where can we get in touch (not litterally of course) with him (as he is inside the scope of our senses)?
And you don't know how our universe was created (as for the moment, nobody in world knows), but still, you posit to know it (your god made it according to you).
He is real but exists mainly outside the scope of our senses.
Something can only be real when it is observable in our universe. As your god is apparently not in our universe (then where is he?) and he is mainly (so not exclusively, see further) outside our scope, he is not real.
What do you mean by 'mainly', so more particular, where is he inside our scope? Where can we get in touch (not litterally of course) with him (as he is inside the scope of our senses)?