Well, religion is based on faith and history (but at a certain point falls back on faith since you aren’t there in the past), and science should be based on empirical evidence. So both realms can’t operate exactly the same, although they can cross over.

Many people do research on many faiths, and their research convinces them that a particular one is correct. They can live the rest of their life believing that particular faith is correct, and stick with it, even if they are open to being proven wrong.

And with science, if you actually prove something true, you do not have to act as though you have not. Now, if you only have a theory, then yes, you should be questioning it until it can be proven. I think modern science has disregarded the scientific method as not required anymore to make claims about what we “know”.

*“Achieving actual, “true”, positive knowledge of the world… is not something modern science event attempts at.” * -Well, that there is the problem. And if that’s the case, and modern scientists believe this, then why are they always talking about something as if they know it for a fact?

“Karl Popper famously stated that science cannot prove that anything is true, only that something is false.” -Well, he is wrong, of course you can prove things to be true.

If you’re science is replaced, then you never proved anything, and should not speak as if you know for sure what you are talking about. But modern scientists talk this way all the time.

If two faiths flat out contradict each other, they can’t both be right.

Faith A says that God doesn’t care what you do or believe. Faith B says that God does care what you do and what you believe.

Both can not be correct. Can they both be paths to God? That’s the thing, because of their statement, they’d have to believe in different Gods. So they would not be on two different paths to the same God. If they were, then God would not be stable, and in the case of faith B, God would be a liar.

I like nature, history, discovery shows and documentaries. But they are always giving different ages of the earth, (ages of various plants, animals, events, etc.) Like, vastly different. So no, there is no overwhelming agreement, other than they may all say a long time ago.

Correct. You can have minor disagreements about some things that aren’t clear. But if the bible and the pope disagree on whether all faiths are valid, then biblical Christianity and catholic Christianity are not the same faith. If the pope says biblical Christianity is valid and true, and the bible says that what the pope is teaching is false, then he just invalidated himself. See why saying all faiths are valid can’t work?

Yeah, there are also Christian scientists who do lots of research and studies and come to the conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Because they challenge modern science with valid questions that get ignored, they are considered quacks. Like why you can listen to 20 different scientists who are all respected in the field, and get 20 vastly different answers on how old the earth is. You don’t come up with 20 different answers (as though they are truth) by using the scientific method. Which would have to mean at least 19 of them are only guessing.

lol, actually, good science would be on the left side of the image, at least after giving an answer to a question. Good science will actually prove something, then give the answer, then have no reason to continue to find another answer for it (whatever the issue is.) If you are giving a different answer year after year (like say for the age of the earth), then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?

Only thing I’d say about the christian scientists who say the earth is billions of years old, is that they’d have to deny the scriptures of their faith in order to believe that. Seems like an odd thing to do. Either they really believe it and not what their faith (religion) teaches, or they just want acceptance from non Christians.

I guess in the end, if you are on the right side of the image, (in the religious or science realm), maybe you should consider the other sides arguments. Maybe its just that they actually figured out the answer and have no need to continue searching. Maybe they don’t have the answer, maybe they do.

Well honestly, (since you mention Christians), if they are true, they’d have to say it is the only way. Not because they are bigoted, but because all the various religions disagree. But, that view (that Christianity is the only way) may have been achieved by doing lots of research. I think its kinda foolish to say all the religions are different paths to God if they disagree with each other. Any religious person who says all faiths are valid paths to God, are either fools, or liars. Some of the popes have said that, and that would make them not Christian.

This isn’t true at all. It all depends on the person. People could fit into:

Religion - I know everything. Religion - I don’t know enough. Science - I know everything. Science - I don’t know enough.

You know, some people even love both religion and science!

This isn’t preaching, I’m just going to explain it so maybe you can understand it better.

As far as God only bringing people to heaven if He loves them, there’s more to it. If God created everything (humans, animals, earth, stars, etc.) then He has authority over it. He has laws we are to follow, and if we break any of them then we are guilty of sin. Just like in human society, when someone breaks a law, they get punished either by paying a fine, going to jail, etc. Hell is jail; everyone has committed a sin against God, and deserves to go there. The bible without much detail, tells us there are varying degrees of punishment in hell.

In response to your edit, think of God as a judge. If a human judge has a child trafficker in his court, and the judge just lets him go free, would he be considered a good, just judge? No, we’d say he is a corrupt judge. Apply that concept to God, crimes must have a punishment. If God just brought people to heaven, then God wouldn’t be just. So you’re saying a loving God wouldn’t send people to hell. Well, God is loving, and had His son Jesus who never sinned crucified (willingly), paying for the punishment of the sins of anyone who puts their faith in Him as Lord. So, because God is loving, it’s very easy to avoid going to Hell. Which is why it’s also very easy to go to hell, we already deserve to go, so if we reject His offer of forgiveness, that’s on us.

Purgatory, I would say was an invention of church leaders since it’s not in the bible. They used the threat of purgatory to get people to pay for indulgences.

Not what I said.

Apparently humans as a whole will never learn to just behave.

Actually, I’d say the issue isn’t so much communism or capitalism as the problem is humans in general. They are greedy and selfish. That’s why both fail. Same with socialism, etc.

Its not that you forget the person. You gain a perfect understanding of the situation. Like when your child has to go to jail for some crimes they committed. You may be sad they went to jail, then understand why they went to jail, then agree it was right that they were put in jail.

Not a perfect analogy, but something like that.

Communism was tried, and it failed.

From the article, sounds like they would only be using money made from the sale of the gold they already have. Basically, not spending any extra money, and in the end, just converting some gold to bitcoin. I’m not sure how the sale of gold certificates work.

This line in the article made it sound like it already exists:

“This move, according to Hines, could be a budget-neutral way to increase the country’s Bitcoin reserves.”

The US has a bitcoin reserve? First I’ve heard of it. Whatever, but using gold to buy it makes no sense.

Web rings still exist, you just wouldn’t know it because search engines don’t show you the types of sites that use them, which is usually personal sites.

I sometimes use excite.com (oldschool) for searching, and get better results than the major ones, sometimes not. Most people have no clue its even still up. I haven’t dug much, so I don’t know much about its current state. Like tripod sites, how they still exist but are full of hidden junk.

There are tons of forums out there, the search engines just won’t show them to you. The search engines are the real problem.

Well, non-citizens aren’t protected under the first amendment. I agree though, he should be able to express his opinions without getting in trouble for it. But from the articles I read, it sounded like physical things happened at the protests. Maybe not from him specifically (I don’t know), but because he is not a citizen, he does not have all the same rights as a citizen. As it has been since before the current administration, if a non-citizen is suspected as a possible threat to the country based on speech alone, then the government deals with them, first by investigating the situation. The few articles I read were all general and not specific so I don’t know the full reason, or what he actually said at the protests. So I try not to make opinions on these things without plenty of info.