Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
But he can't create himself according your own statement.
He exists beyond this world and by our perception ability he is eternal and almighty within our universe. That is all we are able to perceive but He exceeds by far the merits of our universe. For our universe it is anyway completely irrelevant what he can or cannot do outside of it. This universe is His creation. How could any reasoning abilities He gave us define Him in any other way but only related to our world we are able to perceive? This is as if you would expect from an artificial intelligence to answer any possbile question about humans. AI could answer only questions a human would enable it to answer.
And you think in beginning and end, but that's not how the universe is. That's the limitation of many people's way of thinking. If a tree dies it's recycled, if a sun dies it's recycled, if a universe dies .... ;) Maybe this is how it is ..
Huh? Tree recycling? Sun recycling?
(edited)
He exists beyond this world and by our perception ability he is eternal and almighty within our universe. That is all we are able to perceive but He exceeds by far the merits of our universe. For our universe it is anyway completely irrelevant what he can or cannot do outside of it. This universe is His creation. How could any reasoning abilities He gave us define Him in any other way but only related to our world we are able to perceive? This is as if you would expect from an artificial intelligence to answer any possbile question about humans. AI could answer only questions a human would enable it to answer.
And you think in beginning and end, but that's not how the universe is. That's the limitation of many people's way of thinking. If a tree dies it's recycled, if a sun dies it's recycled, if a universe dies .... ;) Maybe this is how it is ..
Huh? Tree recycling? Sun recycling?
(edited)
Pastafarianism accepts the other religions ...
I meant that Pastafarianism needs to be accepted by other religions. Same as countries do not exist really until UN recognizes them.
And I still haven't found an objective standard which you'll use to determine if someone can wear certain religious symbols (the Austrian guy).
The standard is very simple: it has to be a real religion. I have explained above what it is and it is surely not objective. There is no such thing as objective truth or standard. As soon as humans start interpreting the truth, it becomes subjective. Only arrogant and vain people are able to believe that they interpret the truth objectively. Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing." That's the closest to an objective truth we will ever be able to get.
You can lol whatever you want, you only do that when you don't know what to say. Which is quite often.
Honestly, what is there to answer to a claim that religion is a standstill? You can either LOL or advise the author to get a better education.
I meant that Pastafarianism needs to be accepted by other religions. Same as countries do not exist really until UN recognizes them.
And I still haven't found an objective standard which you'll use to determine if someone can wear certain religious symbols (the Austrian guy).
The standard is very simple: it has to be a real religion. I have explained above what it is and it is surely not objective. There is no such thing as objective truth or standard. As soon as humans start interpreting the truth, it becomes subjective. Only arrogant and vain people are able to believe that they interpret the truth objectively. Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing." That's the closest to an objective truth we will ever be able to get.
You can lol whatever you want, you only do that when you don't know what to say. Which is quite often.
Honestly, what is there to answer to a claim that religion is a standstill? You can either LOL or advise the author to get a better education.
I meant that Pastafarianism needs to be accepted by other religions.
Who says so?
If suddenly all religions decide to deny that Islam is not a religion, then it will stop being one? First class BS, if you would put some seed in it you'd great a very nice plant.
Who says so?
If suddenly all religions decide to deny that Islam is not a religion, then it will stop being one? First class BS, if you would put some seed in it you'd great a very nice plant.
I meant that Pastafarianism needs to be accepted by other religions. Same as countries do not exist really until UN recognizes them.
Why should a religion be accepted by other religions?
The standard is very simple: it has to be a real religion. I have explained above what it is and it is surely not objective. There is no such thing as objective truth or standard. As soon as humans start interpreting the truth, it becomes subjective. Only arrogant and vain people are able to believe that they interpret the truth objectively. Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing." That's the closest to an objective truth we will ever be able to get.
It's not about the truth (after all, all religions are wrong :p), it's about finding an objective standard to determine if something is a religion or not. And that standard doesn't exist, and therefore, you cannot determine if something should be allowed (like a kippah or the spaghetti thing) or not as a religious symbol. And you as a convinced catholic (I think as Croatia is more catholic than protestant) are in my opinion certainly not in a position to determine what is religious and what isn't. For every person who isn't religious, christianity, FSM, judaism, islam, ... they are all as likely as the others. If you like it or not.
Honestly, what is there to answer to a claim that religion is a standstill? You can either LOL or advise the author to get a better education.
What I meant was that science - more than religion - is constantly evolving, as more and more things get discovered. Religion will always have the same basics, and they'll never change that, while in science, theories get confirmed and theories get rejected. In religion - even if science proves the statement cannot be true (for instance that the world is about 6,000 years old) - they'll stick to their ideas, ignoring the scientific truth. I hope you understand what I meant, and I hope for once you can react normal without mentioning 'LOL'.
Why should a religion be accepted by other religions?
The standard is very simple: it has to be a real religion. I have explained above what it is and it is surely not objective. There is no such thing as objective truth or standard. As soon as humans start interpreting the truth, it becomes subjective. Only arrogant and vain people are able to believe that they interpret the truth objectively. Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing." That's the closest to an objective truth we will ever be able to get.
It's not about the truth (after all, all religions are wrong :p), it's about finding an objective standard to determine if something is a religion or not. And that standard doesn't exist, and therefore, you cannot determine if something should be allowed (like a kippah or the spaghetti thing) or not as a religious symbol. And you as a convinced catholic (I think as Croatia is more catholic than protestant) are in my opinion certainly not in a position to determine what is religious and what isn't. For every person who isn't religious, christianity, FSM, judaism, islam, ... they are all as likely as the others. If you like it or not.
Honestly, what is there to answer to a claim that religion is a standstill? You can either LOL or advise the author to get a better education.
What I meant was that science - more than religion - is constantly evolving, as more and more things get discovered. Religion will always have the same basics, and they'll never change that, while in science, theories get confirmed and theories get rejected. In religion - even if science proves the statement cannot be true (for instance that the world is about 6,000 years old) - they'll stick to their ideas, ignoring the scientific truth. I hope you understand what I meant, and I hope for once you can react normal without mentioning 'LOL'.
If suddenly all religions decide to deny that Islam is not a religion, then it will stop being one?
This is really a stupid hypothetical question but the answer is yes. Here's a simmilarly stupid hypothetical example. If United Nations would hypothetically really decide to delete Poland from the world map, they would easily do it and Poland would be no more. But why would anyone ever want to do that to any religion or to any country for no good reason?
There is a reason why such a thing would never happen to any major religion and it is because they all have values, tradition and purpose of good quality. And there is also a reason why FSM does not qualify for a real religion and it is the lack of exactly the same qualities.
This is really a stupid hypothetical question but the answer is yes. Here's a simmilarly stupid hypothetical example. If United Nations would hypothetically really decide to delete Poland from the world map, they would easily do it and Poland would be no more. But why would anyone ever want to do that to any religion or to any country for no good reason?
There is a reason why such a thing would never happen to any major religion and it is because they all have values, tradition and purpose of good quality. And there is also a reason why FSM does not qualify for a real religion and it is the lack of exactly the same qualities.
There is a reason why such a thing would never happen to any major religion and it is because they all have values, tradition and purpose of good quality. And there is also a reason why FSM does not qualify for a real religion and it is the lack of exactly the same qualities.
It doesn't lack those qualities. You say that because you don't want to be confronted with FSM and how it is very comparable with your religion.
It doesn't lack those qualities. You say that because you don't want to be confronted with FSM and how it is very comparable with your religion.
This is really a stupid hypothetical question but the answer is yes. Here's a simmilarly stupid hypothetical example. If United Nations would hypothetically really decide to delete Poland from the world map, they would easily do it and Poland would be no more. But why would anyone ever want to do that to any religion or to any country for no good reason?
No, that would mean that Poland is not recognised as a country by UN, but still it would be a country. Country, just like religion, is not about being recognised.
No, that would mean that Poland is not recognised as a country by UN, but still it would be a country. Country, just like religion, is not about being recognised.
FSM does not have any tradition lol
Value and purpose for good quality, I even doubt that :)
Value and purpose for good quality, I even doubt that :)
it's about finding an objective standard to determine if something is a religion or not.
What is an objective standard used to determine if something is a recognized country or not?
What I meant was that science - more than religion - is constantly evolving, as more and more things get discovered. Religion will always have the same basics, and they'll never change that, while in science, theories get confirmed and theories get rejected. In religion - even if science proves the statement cannot be true (for instance that the world is about 6,000 years old) - they'll stick to their ideas, ignoring the scientific truth. I hope you understand what I meant, and I hope for once you can react normal without mentioning 'LOL'.
You wrote that religion is a standstill. Then you wrote above that science is evolving more than religion which then means that it's not a standstil but only slower than science. And then you wrote in the same post that all religions equally and persistently deny and ignore scientific truths meaning that you again claim they are in standstil. I really and honestly am not sure any more what you think about evolution of religion. If it exists at all or is it just too slow for your taste.
In any case, it is not up to religion to be flexible and fastchanging. We have science for that part. Moral values are not a complex issue and they need to be conservative and subject of careful scrutiny before they get changed if at all needed. Looking at the western world today, religions there became too flexible nowadays.
What is an objective standard used to determine if something is a recognized country or not?
What I meant was that science - more than religion - is constantly evolving, as more and more things get discovered. Religion will always have the same basics, and they'll never change that, while in science, theories get confirmed and theories get rejected. In religion - even if science proves the statement cannot be true (for instance that the world is about 6,000 years old) - they'll stick to their ideas, ignoring the scientific truth. I hope you understand what I meant, and I hope for once you can react normal without mentioning 'LOL'.
You wrote that religion is a standstill. Then you wrote above that science is evolving more than religion which then means that it's not a standstil but only slower than science. And then you wrote in the same post that all religions equally and persistently deny and ignore scientific truths meaning that you again claim they are in standstil. I really and honestly am not sure any more what you think about evolution of religion. If it exists at all or is it just too slow for your taste.
In any case, it is not up to religion to be flexible and fastchanging. We have science for that part. Moral values are not a complex issue and they need to be conservative and subject of careful scrutiny before they get changed if at all needed. Looking at the western world today, religions there became too flexible nowadays.
No, that would mean that Poland is not recognised as a country by UN, but still it would be a country. Country, just like religion, is not about being recognised.
LOL I wonder what rubinho will answer to your claim. According to you, Flemish already have a country. Rubinho didn't even know that he can already get the passport he wants. :D
LOL I wonder what rubinho will answer to your claim. According to you, Flemish already have a country. Rubinho didn't even know that he can already get the passport he wants. :D
It doesn't lack those qualities.
It has a lpng tradition of 6 years and a meaningful purpose of mocking all religion? Good night, I am going to sleep.
(edited)
It has a lpng tradition of 6 years and a meaningful purpose of mocking all religion? Good night, I am going to sleep.
(edited)
Please, do not insult people back. I know it's tempting, but don't.
What is an objective standard used to determine if something is a recognized country or not?
You ask the wrong question. The right question is: "What is an objective standard used to determine if something is a country or not?" The answer to the latter question is if the region/country is de facto independent or not.
You wrote that religion is a standstill. Then you wrote above that science is evolving more than religion which then means that it's not a standstil but only slower than science. And then you wrote in the same post that all religions equally and persistently deny and ignore scientific truths meaning that you again claim they are in standstil. I really and honestly am not sure any more what you think about evolution of religion. If it exists at all or is it just too slow for your taste.
I said something, but didn't explain it very well. You lolled, so I explained myself, and now you are confused. Not my bad.
In any case, it is not up to religion to be flexible and fastchanging. We have science for that part. Moral values are not a complex issue and they need to be conservative and subject of careful scrutiny before they get changed if at all needed. Looking at the western world today, religions there became too flexible nowadays.
But when science proves something, religion has to accept that imo, if it suits the religion or not. If it doesn't, the religion is being ignorant for the scientific truth.
You ask the wrong question. The right question is: "What is an objective standard used to determine if something is a country or not?" The answer to the latter question is if the region/country is de facto independent or not.
You wrote that religion is a standstill. Then you wrote above that science is evolving more than religion which then means that it's not a standstil but only slower than science. And then you wrote in the same post that all religions equally and persistently deny and ignore scientific truths meaning that you again claim they are in standstil. I really and honestly am not sure any more what you think about evolution of religion. If it exists at all or is it just too slow for your taste.
I said something, but didn't explain it very well. You lolled, so I explained myself, and now you are confused. Not my bad.
In any case, it is not up to religion to be flexible and fastchanging. We have science for that part. Moral values are not a complex issue and they need to be conservative and subject of careful scrutiny before they get changed if at all needed. Looking at the western world today, religions there became too flexible nowadays.
But when science proves something, religion has to accept that imo, if it suits the religion or not. If it doesn't, the religion is being ignorant for the scientific truth.
It doesn't have tradition, no. But it has good values (for instance, FSM religion says the followers shouldn't build churches etc., they should use the money to help the poor instead, FSM religion says it is very okay if other people don't follow FSM religion).
Science proves nothing 100%. A given theory can be wiped away by one example proving that theory is wrong. Or better: not entirely correct.
Btw, science and religion can go together. They don't point each other apart :)
Btw, science and religion can go together. They don't point each other apart :)
LOL I wonder what rubinho will answer to your claim. According to you, Flemish already have a country. Rubinho didn't even know that he can already get the passport he wants. :D
Nice try, but you failed. Flanders is de facto not an independent state, we only have only autonomy in some specific areas (like education, cultural affairs, ...). I never claimed Flanders to be a country. Belgium is (unfortunately) the country I live in. I want Flanders to become a country, yes. That doesn't mean I don't see Belgium as a country.
In your case: if UN would no longer recognize Poland, Poland would still have independence. So it would still be a country. Just like Kosovo (for me) is a country as it de facto has independence.
(edited)
Nice try, but you failed. Flanders is de facto not an independent state, we only have only autonomy in some specific areas (like education, cultural affairs, ...). I never claimed Flanders to be a country. Belgium is (unfortunately) the country I live in. I want Flanders to become a country, yes. That doesn't mean I don't see Belgium as a country.
In your case: if UN would no longer recognize Poland, Poland would still have independence. So it would still be a country. Just like Kosovo (for me) is a country as it de facto has independence.
(edited)