Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

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)?

Was there any Santa Claus into your childhood ? If yes, i'm sure you believed in him ? Yes... He was completelty real in your mind, right ? That's exactly the same for believers... It is anyway a talk with no end... Faith is no relied on material and proof of anything... And Belief is not relied at all with reality of non-believer... Belief and Faith are relied to consciousness's exchange with itself...

He is as real as the imaginations of mentally ill people, is that what you're saying? Because mentally ill people can see things that are not there, but as they see them, they believe those imaginations. And that is enough to state those imaginations are real, according to your argumentation.

And no, I am not saying religion is a mental illness. I am just following grzesbe's argumentation.

In my opinion, the imaginations of mentally ill people are there, but they are not real, the content of the imaginations are not really there, as they are imaginations. Let me make this clear with an example: when someone has an imagination of a unicorn, the imagination is there, the imagination is real. The unicorn (= content of imagination) however is not there, is not real. Imaginations and reality exclude each other.
(editado)

He seems real to the kids, but he is not real. Perception and reality are two different things.

Yes, I believed, the point is, he is NOT real, although I thought he was.
You just proved my point lol.

Ok, you use a certain définition of reality... Let's take an exmaple : the red colour... It is real for your world, yes ?

I did not proove anything ;-)

There is somehow a scientific approach of what is red, and red is defined as such. However, how red looks like is pure perception. How red looks for me can be totally different from how red looks for you.
(editado)

that is philosophy.
Perception and definition of perception is different for everybody.
But you're dragging it if you say the same about people existing or not.
We only exist because tht's our perception.

Your life is non-existing. It's just your perception ;)

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.

Sorry. Didn't get this part.

because public must not give any kind of indoctrination in religion matters (implicitly intending them good), that are private stuff..

So you think that e.g. public TV never indoctrinates its viewers? When 6-year-old girl wants to be a velina on RAI she is not indoctrinated? Or that public universities as soon as they are not religious, they immediately get vaccine against indoctrination? Or what about state army? There is no indoctrination when you make people become soldiers? Do we stop funding wherever indoctrination is possible or only religion?

And if people stil choose to take religious education within a public school system, how could that be wrong? Why do we finance chess in public schools when we don't have all kids playing chess?

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!

Which euro of tax money pays something that everybody can accept!? I bet we could find many tax payers who believe that we don't need street lights and that think everyone should just stay home at night. What is different about such person's tax money he doesn't want to be spent for street lights than yours tax money who don't want to be spent on religion? I even suggested that everyone chooses whether he wants to fund his religious organisation, punk rock club or just leave the money in the government budget. What's wrong with that? That's not everybody's money then but only money of people that choose it to be spent there.

It is not a pereption but a reality... For a blind person, a red colour has no sense because the colour idea ha no sense... Colour is in your reality and not in the reality if a blind person... No matter with perception here... You misuse the word perception and reality because you are someone who see. You are in the same reality as another person who see also. But for a blind person, there is no reality of colour thus perception has no matter with a seeing person.
That's the same way for a believer and a non-believer.

We only exist because tht's our perception....

Not only, we have a certain perception of other because we have the same reality... Let's gt 2 different realities and perceptions become useless.

Brilliant Stef! Great analogy! I wish I have thought of it. :)

"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind but now I see."

It is not a pereption but a reality... For a blind person, a red colour has no sense because the colour idea ha no sense... Colour is in your reality and not in the reality if a blind person... No matter with perception here... You misuse the word perception and reality because you are someone who see. You are in the same reality as another person who see also. But for a blind person, there is no reality of colour thus perception has no matter with a seeing person.
That's the same way for a believer and a non-believer.

The scientific definition of the color 'red' is reality. The perception (how it looks to me) is not reality. And a blind person doesn't have a perception of the color 'red'. Speaking of 'your' reality is pointless. The reality is there, it is neutral, it is objective and observable for normal human beings (so that blind can't see colors doesn't make the colors less real). Reality is not personal, perception is.

For a blind person, there is a reality of red. The scientific definition. There is no perception of the color red.
(editado)

Perception is not linked with the same reality, reality is linked with perception. We only have the same reality if our perceptions are the same. My perception of reality can be different of yours.

The 'standard' perception of reality you're talking about, is actually just a widespread perception thought to us ;)

But if all humans would be blind, we wouldn't know that red even exist! If there would be just one non-blind person in the world, nobody would ever believe him about colour red as he would not be able to prove it exists to anyone!
(editado)