Exactly, they were removed from the formal curriculum.
Forcing Christian prayers on Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews was oppressive. Now everyone's free to pray to his own god, in the manner familiar to him. Everyone is free to pray in school.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Forcing Christian prayers on Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews was oppressive. Now everyone's free to pray to his own god, in the manner familiar to him. Everyone is free to pray in school.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I can see where life in a scientific sense is devoid of the meaning and substance that human life offers. Science only looks at the exterior observance, and not the inner quality, and faculties of life from the inside. It has no reach there.
I mean if I need understanding I would never look to cold, impersonal science for life issues understandings.
Science is going to ignore 80% of what it means to be alive because of methodological naturalism.
It's best to keep it separated. Spirituality and science do not mix. Now a rigorous spiritual discipline of study is probably what you are after. The aspirations and meanings humans can live and how they have effects, and affects that can go very deep is a worthy study totally separate from biology. Not enough is known from a non biological perspective and individuals can be very unique in their spiritual journeys.
Basically what lives in the spirit sense has no voice in science. It is well off their radar as science becomes more naturalistic. And I don't think any reasonable spiritual person needs science poking around in their inner freedoms only to hear deterministic genetics and have those inner freedoms devalued, and weakened.
The whole point of spirituality is to explore our inner freedoms and powers of being, and then to live what is wisest from our own unique motivations and feelings to what might be common of us all.
I mean if I need understanding I would never look to cold, impersonal science for life issues understandings.
Science is going to ignore 80% of what it means to be alive because of methodological naturalism.
It's best to keep it separated. Spirituality and science do not mix. Now a rigorous spiritual discipline of study is probably what you are after. The aspirations and meanings humans can live and how they have effects, and affects that can go very deep is a worthy study totally separate from biology. Not enough is known from a non biological perspective and individuals can be very unique in their spiritual journeys.
Basically what lives in the spirit sense has no voice in science. It is well off their radar as science becomes more naturalistic. And I don't think any reasonable spiritual person needs science poking around in their inner freedoms only to hear deterministic genetics and have those inner freedoms devalued, and weakened.
The whole point of spirituality is to explore our inner freedoms and powers of being, and then to live what is wisest from our own unique motivations and feelings to what might be common of us all.
No.
Publicly lead prayers were banned, because they're intrusive and exclusive. Anybody can pray all they want to by themselves.
Tom
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
This means the death of a Christian (the Christian in its historic origin) country. "If we can defeat their children, we can defeat all of them" (Hitler, satan)
How is this a defeat of anything? It's non-interferance; a level playing field.
If there were any contest, wasn't it the Christians who were repressing the Hindus, Jews and Muslims with their (Christian) group prayers?
Nobody forgets the gin, though they sometimes leave out the olive.
https://www.liquor.com/recipes/dry-martini/
Last edited:
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Neither of the two ever said that.
gnostic
The Lost One
For day to day reality, energy is ability for any object (matters) to do work.
And that (energy) require mass.
Some mass are gain and some mass are loss - hence a trade off...which in turn cause gain in energy and loss in energy, which is another trade-off. There are always trade offs, whenever there are work to be done.
Mass and energy are related, and they are both properties of matter or an object.
Take for instance, a marathon runner, require certain mass, in order to have the energy to complete the run.
If you look at a person’s body masses, about 20% are proteins (eg proteins are found in cells, tissues, muscles, etc), 12% are lipids (body fat and fatty acids). But most of human’s mas come from water, about 65%.
When runner use their muscles to run, hence doing work, the store energy (potential energy) in the mass, will become kinetic energy. But some of the potential/kinetic energy are loss in the form of thermal energy, meaning heat. The water in our body is what keep us not only hydrated, but keep body cool. But since we expend energy doing work, some of those masses I talked about, are loss though sweating. So unless we replenish the water we loss through sweating, thereby causing the body to suffer from dehydration, it can cause heat exhaustion, and marathon runner could collapse.
And losing masses, like water in our bodies, mean losing energy.
But just as there are loss in mass and energy, while human body do work, we also gain some mass and therefore gain energy as well, when we breathe in air. Our breathing system, convert mass of air into energy, and can keep runner going.
Like I said losing mass will mean losing energy, but you can regain energy by consuming masses, like when we eat, drink and breathe. Our body needs to replenish any mass loss.
So there is trade off, gain vs loss in any physical systems.
There are two things in the universe that I know of, that don’t have mass: in particle physics, these are called gluons and photons. They both don’t have electric charge.
You might know photons as light or radiation.
Photon, while mass-less, does have energy that cause photons to move or propagate through space, moving at the speed of light. Their energy come from electromagnetic fields, which exert electromagnetic force on photons, hence the ability of light to travel through space. The energy comes from electromagnetic fields.
It is more complex than that, so I am simply laying my examples out about where energy come from.
If you want more expert explanations then ask Valjean, exchemist, polymath257, who have better grasp for physics.
gnostic
The Lost One
gnostic
The Lost One
@questfortruth
When there are some things that are not visible, they don’t mean they are not observable.
In science, observation doesn’t just mean seeing with your eyes.
We cannot see air, but we feel it when the wind cause air to stir, and we can detect and measure air, such as air pressure, humidity, wind speed, etc.
We cannot see electricity, but we can feel it, eg shock or electrocution, and we can detect them with all sorts of devices, including the basic multimeter, that can measure voltage, current and resistance.
We cannot see objects that are too far away, so we use devices like binoculars or telescopes to extend our range of vision. Or objects can be too small to be seen, so we would require powerful telescopes.
We cannot see radio waves, and yet can transmit and receive them through some sort of devices, like radio, television, mobile phones, wireless network devices, satellite dishes, antenna, radio transmission towers, etc.
Some things that are visible don’t mean they are not real, because we use them everyday, at home or at work.
Spirits, angels, demons, gods, fairies, etc, these are invented stories or delusions. These are not real.
When there are some things that are not visible, they don’t mean they are not observable.
In science, observation doesn’t just mean seeing with your eyes.
We cannot see air, but we feel it when the wind cause air to stir, and we can detect and measure air, such as air pressure, humidity, wind speed, etc.
We cannot see electricity, but we can feel it, eg shock or electrocution, and we can detect them with all sorts of devices, including the basic multimeter, that can measure voltage, current and resistance.
We cannot see objects that are too far away, so we use devices like binoculars or telescopes to extend our range of vision. Or objects can be too small to be seen, so we would require powerful telescopes.
We cannot see radio waves, and yet can transmit and receive them through some sort of devices, like radio, television, mobile phones, wireless network devices, satellite dishes, antenna, radio transmission towers, etc.
Some things that are visible don’t mean they are not real, because we use them everyday, at home or at work.
Spirits, angels, demons, gods, fairies, etc, these are invented stories or delusions. These are not real.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If there is only one or two Muslims in the class, then they can go outside into the corridor for 5 minutes, or stay in the class, but keep quiet. That is how the Christian country operates. God is freedom within the Law and Order.
Believe me or not, but there is a whole wide world outside atheism and materialism. It has notions of God, angels, souls; evil spirit.
According to the peer-reviewed(?) research of brave talented scientists (I have Russian video: "человек рождается с верой в Бога"), all people are constructed by Constructer, so He has put record of Him into the humans. It is like painting a picture: the author writes his own name into the picture.
According to top researches, the Black Holes destroy the infalling bodies with all their information. That violates the unitary principle of Quantum Mechanics: in QM the information can not be destroyed. However, because Physics is time-reversible, the information if it can not be destroyed, it can not be created as well. Thus, the amount of information is exactly the same at any moment. This means, that the (virtual) Big Bang has contained all modern poetry and books. That is not possible. Thus, there is no law of information conservation. This means, that having all information (or simply knowing the form of the wave-function) in the year 2020 AD about properties of the reality, we can not determine the state of the affairs in 2021 AD. Because the new information is coming in, at any second through Freewill.
Alternative proof: they say, that if you burn a book, the information will stay in the form of ashes, gases about all that is written in the book. However, if the new information is coming in, then it can alter the information, which belongs to the book. So, the information of the book can not be fully restored. So, if information can not be destroyed, it can not be created as well.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
When the universe exploded into being, matter was not the source of that explosion. Matter happened as a result of the expressed energy. Sorry, but you're wrong.
Do you seriously think branding Muslims as religious pariahs and weirdos is a good solution; that teaching Christians to shun Muslims is a recipe for social harmony?
That may be, but how does this address Gnostic's statement?
So scientists have discovered a constructor? Why is this not general knowledge? It seems to me this would have been front-page news.
Peer review? What peers? Where was this published?
Is this supposed to be some sort of proof of something?
I'm still not following the implication that the 'state of affairs' varies year to year.
What does this prove?
exchemist
Veteran Member
You are confusing radiation with energy, I think.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Certainly human life transcends cause and effect in the universe.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Data from Near Death Experiences show us we are more than chemistry and have a spirit side/souls. That leaves open the possibility of the truth of angels also.
Brian2
Veteran Member
What we currently know in science is that life can come only from preexisting life.
Any ideas other than that are theories. Many of course prefer the theories to the alternative of a creator who gave life initially. (and that has to be the case even if came to this planet from outer space.)
I don't see the relevance of saying that science does not know exactly where to draw the live between life and chemistry.
I look at it from the other way. The only people who deny what we now understand to be the case that life comes from other life, are those who deny a creator.
Interestingly science can keep telling us for the next million years that we do not know that life only comes from other life. The search for other life in the universe and the search for a meant to create life are ongoing without a yes no answer unless life is found or created. Do we deny what science currently tells us for the next million years because of a theory that is the product of a creatorless philosophy of life?
That sounds like the argument of someone who has put their faith in only the scientific evidence.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I don't think it's the key question really, but it is a rival hypothesis. Most of the work I think is going on to understand how the building blocks of biochemistry can have come together, assuming they did so on earth.
There was an excellent thread on some of this work posted by @sayak83 .
Here is a link to it (I warn readers of a sensitive disposition that this contains serious chemistry):
Science of Abiogenesis:- By popular demand
It is amazing how easily the components of RNA come together.
Does all this chemistry mean that there was no creator or even that there was no need for a creator and life giver?
Brian2
Veteran Member
Surely the main evidence for many things that science tells us about the past is "there is no scientific evidence for a creator/life giver".
I sometimes wonder what scientific evidence for a God would look like.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Your remark about "just theories" shows you don't properly understand how science works. You are thus not really in a position to lay down the law on what "we [sic] know" in science. (There are people here who do understand a fair bit about it, actually.
) Science does not say "life can only come from life", and I do not believe you learnt that in school, as you claimed. I think you have made it up, most likely having got the phrase from a creationist website.
I see you also make the classic creationist mistake of confusing the scientific method, which employs methodological naturalism, with a "creatorless philosophy of life".
Science works like this:
- In science, the only facts are suitably confirmed observations of nature.
- Everything else in science is theories. (What you dismiss as "just theories"
)- However, theories in science always need to be supported by observations that corroborate them. A test of a theory in science is that it should be able to predict what further observations should be expected. For example, evolution predicts that intermediate fossils should be found between various types of creature and their presumed ancestors, and that these intermediates should be found in rock strata of intermediate age. And that is what we find.
- No theory in science is ever proved, since it is always conceivable that an unexpected future observation could throw doubt on it.
- All theories in science are therefore provisional and subject in principle to revision in the light of new observations. The history of science is full of examples of this.
Finally, and most importantly for a creationist to understand, the scientific method employs something called methodological naturalism. This is the presumption that natural causes and explanations can be found for what we observe in nature. That principle (and the reliance on observation to support hypotheses) is the whole point behind science. It is what has made it so successful ever since since the Renaissance at explaining the physical world.
It is perfectly possible for a religious believer to practise science: indeed many scientists have been clergymen or affiliated to the church in one way or another, from Copernicus and Newton to Mendel and on to Lemaitre. It is obvious that methodological naturalism does not require atheism. You just don't put God into explanations in science, that's all.