I think recreation is important, psychologically speaking. There's science to back this up.
So I'm fine with bowling alleys.
As for what I'd teach my children, I'd try to focus on teaching them how to think rather than what to think. I think from there, they would decide themselves that...
I got the point. I'm just telling you it's not the same thing. Having hallucinations and having delusions aren't the same thing.
Pluto couldn't be proven because of technological limitations, not scientific limitations. Pluto was, in fact, proven by science.
You're saying some things can't be...
This is totally different.
If this person went to seek help about the voices in his head, then he knows the voices aren't real and is just a false perception that his brain has conjured up. Therefore, he's not delusional, which is probably an insulting thing to say about him. That's why he...
How do you distinguish yourself from the delusional? Or do delusional people not exist?
In other words, it's not something that can be proven. Science concerns it self with whatever can be proven. Things that don't exist, also can't be proven.
In other words, God exists only inside the minds...
Whatever science can't prove, nothing else can. More importantly, if it can't be proven, it doesn't exist.
Again, science is about figuring stuff out. Whatever doesn't work in figuring stuff out, isn't science, by definition. There can't be non-scientific ways of proving something. If it could...
I thought you knew nothing about science. How can you say what science does and doesn't ask? Or what it will and will not find? Or what answers will and will not satisfy me in particular (it's the only thing that ever gives me satisfying answers)
In any case, science asks what is true about...
I would say that's wrong. We occupy one reality. Something can't be true and not be true at the same time. If a Christian is making claims about how God does x, y, and z, they're making a claim about reality. Nothing is isolated.
Science is about finding the truth by any means possible...
Science is really the only valid criteria to have. That may sound narrow-minded, but it's the only thing that ever works. If it's not scientifically valid, it's not valid.
I didn't know equations belonged to people. Equations are there for anyone who wants to solve them. What exactly don't you get? Why I'm challenging religion? Being critical of it? That's how I am of any and all things.
Of course not, because no religion has any concept of being wrong, apart from whatever notions come from outside that religion. If it's in their scripture, it's right, unquestionably.
No one here is trying to "solve" religion (not sure what that even means). Rather, we're testing it against...
I base it on consistency, predictive power, and application (what can be put into practice).
If someone's belief lacks evidence, is inconsistent, or makes predictions that turn out untrue (or doesn't make predictions at all), then it's not credible. And if it yields no practical application...
No offense, but the fact that you have no idea what I'm talking about, shows you need to learn a lot more about scientific processes. It explains why you think there's no possible way to objectively find and recognize evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power
The fact of the...