Page 13 of 32
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 9:50 pm
by Smitts
I'm a bit late, sorry.
This might be interesting for all of you who were discussing different dimensions.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjsgoXvnStY
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 3:57 am
by nobodyknows
It was... definitely interesting...
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sat May 29, 2010 10:11 am
by Keyaki
shugo_lover wrote:Remember kids Hugs not drugs!
The more you know!
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 11:54 am
by Azure Knight
zaseo wrote:Pharmaceutical drugs kill if they are used too much. I fine it ironic how every ad on tv you here the warnings. It is best to avoid take pharmaceutical drugs if you can. The drugs like lsd, meth, etc will damage someone very quickly, and kill them.
LSD and meth aren't pharmaceutical drugs. And the only reason it's dangerous to take too much of a prescription drug is because the drug is trying to regulate something irregular within the body, and taking too much will then try to regulate something too much, once again making it irregular. It's like, if you're hot, you turn on the AC. But if you have the AC cranked too high, you'll just get really cold rather than it being just right.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 6:05 pm
by zaseo
Azure Knight wrote:zaseo wrote:Pharmaceutical drugs kill if they are used too much. I fine it ironic how every ad on tv you here the warnings. It is best to avoid take pharmaceutical drugs if you can. The drugs like lsd, meth, etc will damage someone very quickly, and kill them.
LSD and meth aren't pharmaceutical drugs. And the only reason it's dangerous to take too much of a prescription drug is because the drug is trying to regulate something irregular within the body, and taking too much will then try to regulate something too much, once again making it irregular. It's like, if you're hot, you turn on the AC. But if you have the AC cranked too high, you'll just get really cold rather than it being just right.
Lsd, and meth was being refer to the other type of drugs like cocaine crack etc.
It seems people see drugs as the solution to their problems. They get addict to the prescription drugs gave to them by the doc, and take too much.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 6:20 pm
by Azure Knight
Because when people are high they forget about all the problems in their lives. It's an escape, just like how books and video games are an escape for some people.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Mon May 31, 2010 3:11 pm
by AuraTwilight
Not to mention that on top of that, it's CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE. Which means even if they don't consciously want more of the drugs, their body tells them they do the same way it demands you eat food.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:09 am
by zaseo
Best advice don't ever start using drugs. When it comes to food many people likely feel sorry for the animals in the slaughter house, but people must eat. The body tells people to eat food, or they shall die within a few days. Due to the stuff that in food it is a good idea to detoxify the body with things like activated charcoal, or lemonade juice.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 11:15 am
by Keyaki
they shall die within a few days
Uh...you can go longer with out food then just a few days buddy
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:50 pm
by shugo_lover
Keyaki wrote:they shall die within a few days
Uh...you can go longer with out food then just a few days buddy
You can go months without food. It's water that you can only go days without. 3 to the most I think.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:49 pm
by S1lentOp
shugo_lover wrote:Keyaki wrote:they shall die within a few days
Uh...you can go longer with out food then just a few days buddy
You can go months without food. It's water that you can only go days without. 3 to the most I think.
You can survive 4 to 6 weeks without food. Depending on the temperature of your environment and whether or not you are exposed to direct sunlight, you can survive 2 to 10 days without water.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:00 pm
by Gomorrah
The survivors in the Hait Earthquake are a prime example of this, as some were trapped under the debris and rubble without food or water for about 10-14 days.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:38 pm
by zaseo
By law, or religious rules should someone get the death penalty? In case where someone killed somebody without any doubt should they get the death penalty? Should they get a painful death, or is life in prison enough suffering?
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:25 pm
by Azure Knight
The Bible wrote:Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Deuteronomy 19:21.
I support the death penalty if the person is guilty beyond doubt. I don't like that my tax money (well, not MINE, but...) goes to pay for food, medical service, and a TV for murderers.
They shouldn't be killed painfully, because that in turn makes the legal system no better than the criminal they're executing.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 2:47 pm
by zaseo
I support it as well. When DNA testing is not needed then that human should die. Criminals can actually have it much better in prison than being homeless. All they would have to do is avoid trouble, and they're fine.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:06 pm
by shugo_lover
I think are government are way to light on criminals. If there not that bad off then sure let them stay in prison, but murders get like 15yrs then released. Geez now they can just go and do it again.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:40 am
by AuraTwilight
Is it bad that I feel the exact opposite? Ideally, I don't believe that anyone, even Hitler, should experience a single iota of suffering in their life, but since that's not realistic...
The problem isn't that criminals "have it so nice" in prison. It's that prisons fail to rehabilitate their prisoners, which is their original purpose. In lots of cases, people come out having become even worse than before in order to survive.
The prison system needs a reform, that's all. For starters, rehabilitate criminals instead of just putting them away, and reserve the death penalty for those that have proven to be both absolutely guilty and completely irredeemable. Also, don't put rapists in murderers in the same prisons as tax frauders, thieves, or whatever. That's just asking for trouble.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:46 pm
by zaseo
1. What are your views on the counterpart theory?
2. If you start a religion branch, or a new religion base on your teachings what would it be like?
Lol this topic could go on forever.
It seems to me that most if not all things have a counterpart. I think most things must have a opposite counterpart for balance in the world.
If I would start a religion branch if would have Jewish, and Christian teachings. I would have followers attend church on the Sabbath (Saturday). I would teach followers of my branch of Christianity to keep the Commandments with the 4th, and 1st ones being most important. There shall not be any celebrations of Easter, Halloween, and Christmas. I'm would be against things such as tattoos, piercing, homosexuality etc. There would be things like Passover, and other religious events.
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:41 pm
by AuraTwilight
What is counterpart theory supposed to be? Everything has an opposite? You mean like Ying-Yang duality?
If so, I think it's crap. At best, it's an emergent phenomenon, not a cosmic truth. Superstrings have no counterparts, natch.
Who the hell would start a new religion, knowing that it's effectively a lie you created because no other religion satisfied you? It'd just be a testament to your own ego, just like every other religion ever formed by people who weren't deluded maniacs.
If I would start a religion branch if would have Jewish, and Christian teachings. I would have followers attend church on the Sabbath (Saturday). I would teach followers of my branch of Christianity to keep the Commandments with the 4th, and 1st ones being most important. There shall not be any celebrations of Easter, Halloween, and Christmas. I'm would be against things such as tattoos, piercing, homosexuality etc. There would be things like Passover, and other religious events.
1. What are your views on the counterpart theory?
2. If you start a religion branch, or a new religion base on your teachings what would it be like?
Lol this topic could go on forever.
It seems to me that most if not all things have a counterpart. I think most things must have a opposite counterpart for balance in the world.
If I would start a religion branch if would have Jewish, and Christian teachings. I would have followers attend church on the Sabbath (Saturday). I would teach followers of my branch of Christianity to keep the Commandments with the 4th, and 1st ones being most important. There shall not be any celebrations of Easter, Halloween, and Christmas. I'm would be against things such as tattoos, piercing, homosexuality etc. There would be things like Passover, and other religious events.
You are aware what you're describing already exists, right?
Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:49 pm
by nobodyknows
AuraTwilight wrote:Is it bad that I feel the exact opposite? Ideally, I don't believe that anyone, even Hitler, should experience a single iota of suffering in their life, but since that's not realistic...
The problem isn't that criminals "have it so nice" in prison. It's that prisons fail to rehabilitate their prisoners, which is their original purpose. In lots of cases, people come out having become even worse than before in order to survive.
The prison system needs a reform, that's all. For starters, rehabilitate criminals instead of just putting them away, and reserve the death penalty for those that have proven to be both absolutely guilty and completely irredeemable. Also, don't put rapists in murderers in the same prisons as tax frauders, thieves, or whatever. That's just asking for trouble.
The funny thing is, I was told this exact same view by an ex-govnt. official who used to work with the British Conservatives - who happened to have been in prison for a while - approximately 8 months beforehand...