When will you people just accept that nations are driven by power?

Apathy is the best policy.

> avogadro wrote:

> > Justinian I wrote:

im not sure about every form of religion, but the largest sect of the largest religion, Catholicism doesnt.>

Yes it does.

> SOL wrote:

> Then why is that people with the same sense(vision, hearing, smell, taste or touch), that are put in the same conditions seem to get a different outcome?>

Factors like interpretation and attention. That said, not everyone senses the same. Some people are color blind, for example. But that does not demote the power of the empirical method in any way.

> Ehawk wrote:

> i thought Bhuddist were against testing on animals, i could be wrong though.  but i'm certain i heard that somewhere...

@justinian,
do you think there is a 6th sense?  not the stupid one with ghosts and paranormal shit.  but a 6th sense that could explain feelings like de'ja vu, dreams and as some would say "god">

I don't know. But even if there is something like that, it still does not prove there is a God. I personally have had sudden feelings that a particular outcome could occur, like my puppy was going to die due to my neglect before reaching adulthood. Fortunately, that did not happen, although that same feeling has been right at other times. And I don't think it's appropriate to call it a sense, but rather a deduction that occurs subconsciously. I do not know what it is, but that is my theory. All I can say is that "sixth sense" is not 100% reliable, and it does not prove there is a God.

Actually, I would argue that God can not be empirically tested. You could dismiss voices in your head as hallucination or an elaborate deception with technology. You could dismiss any miracle as an improbable event that is unknown because of ignorance. In fact, you could blame things on aliens.

It effectively becomes impossible to prove that God exists because so many alternative ideas can be proposed to explain miracles or even hypothetical visits from an advanced being.

For a claim to be empirical, it needs to be tested from sense experience. It can not be verified, which is too strong of a word, but it can be confirmed.

Religion is authoritative, which means that truth is provided by special persons and/or a text.

Lat,

The problem is the problem of underdetermination. It does not matter how many facts you gather for a theory, there are an infinite number of conceivable theories to compete with it. But given the ones presented, I think Evolution is most consistent with observation.

Umm, no. They are very strong, and consensus agrees with me. You just have expectations higher than everyone else for just about everything.

Marijuana is not illegal for health related reasons. It's illegal for political and economic reasons. Prisons have become a profitable center for slave labor, with prisoners working for companies at the prisons for below $1.00. To man these slave pits, the authorities have had to expand the crimes that count as felony punishment and implement conditions after release to effectively bring offenders back. These conditions include strict probation and limited work and education opportunities. For example, a person can not qualify for student aid if they have been in prison for a drug offense.

Personally, I have nothing against this policy. The de facto double standard effectively controls the number of hip hop idiots on the streets.

Science

1. Bases its theories on empirical evidence
2. Assumes that evidence correlates with reality or what is true

#2 can not be justified. We have no independent access to reality to observe that it does.