What Is Alcoholism More Condition_symptoms La Sopa Boba (II)

once told the fable, what I wanted to say Arthegarn " And why, exactly, we produce with our ability we have to support those who do not contribute to anything other than System your need? "and, as we are, why has titled this series" La Sopa Boba ?

I mean, and bluntly, is that it is unfair to force those who produce to support those who do not produce. And is not that simply be unjust is to build a system around the principle of compulsory charity sub poena, around the idea that todo that to happen need to be taken out of that state simply because it goes necessity is stupid and bordering on suicide. If above not talking about basic necessities of life (food, water, etc.) but to guarantee all citizens, simply because they are citizens, a certain quality of life , then the system is directly suicide and is destined to collapse in the short to medium term.

That's not to say that I think you have to let people starve in the corners. For nothing. What happens is that there is a very important difference between I choose to give part of me i who has less money because it upsets me, and that has meI have us right put my hand in my pocket and keep some of my money, simply because I have more than him, without stopping to ask why this is so. That's what happens now, but we have disguised this action by the hand that gets it right in my pocket covered by the glove of the State. But in the end, is the same.

Charity is a very good idea, not only for humanitarian reasons but for selfish reasons. It is so good that is written in our genes , we are genetically conditioned to helping others, so we are moved when we see someone suffering (and, if we do not, is thatsomething goes wrong). Now the charity is that I voluntarily ⁽¹⁾ , spend part of my resources to help my fellow men: it is a decision I make because I'm that good, not because the other has the right to help, they do not have ⁽²⁾ . The fact help my fellow me a better person, yes, but the failure to help them not make me worse but our conceptual structure it suggests.

The problem is that we live in a system of ideas as infected with the memes of the religions of the Book that certain concepts, such as the goodness of charity, based on repeated again and again, generation after generation have embedded in our mindss, and not just on individuals but on the collective imagination, and have lost their original meaning. At some point, we stop helping people because we thought we did and we had to do it just because we were told since childhood that had to be done, it was good to do, stop being motivated to think and decide case whether that person deserved our charity, and we associate the idea of charity with the idea as well. Since then, all charity was always good, and that unfortunate identity silly soup was born.

silly soup, as most know, was a food that the poor in ofrecíaaconvents, soup consisting mainly what-have-a-lots-this-week-seasoned with you-were-getting-wrong-in-the-pantry and leftovers stumbles. Nobody asked anything. You arrived there, poníaa tail and a cappuccino or a nun on duty gave a bowl of soup with which they could survive another day. The history of silly soup and Spain have developed is fascinating and offers some lessons, of course, have forgotten. For example, it is true that silly soup saved lives, but it is also true that decisively contributed to the ruin of Spain, creating an important social stratum of sopistas ⁽³⁾ , people who walked into the soup (eg: living a lazy life at the expense of another) and that did not work and did not produce because they made him , in the absence . No soup silly, without a chance to live without doing anything to earn a living, who knows if we had been obliged to advance a century Charles II's decree on the honor of the trade and labor ... but I digress. We will return to the soup and subsidized silly. Once

appeared that identity (charity = good), we repeated it ad nauseum, until exhaustion, generation after generation. The value of goodness of charityleft to rely on our decision about who merecíay who is not, and just as the truth value of the association ceased to depend on our understanding and went on to be connected to the authority who told us, bringing into question that identity was to question the authority of us who instilled. When this question inevitably came when someone said "love is not good in all cases" (or "silly soup does more harm than good"), the authority felt itself attacked and defended ; from power, with a simple ad hominem argument , type: & amp; ldquo; Good men do good things. Charity is good. Who argue that charity is good is because they want to be charitable. Who is not charitable is not good. Who is not good is bad. Who argue that charity is always good is evil. " And since then, he opens his mouth to claim the true meaning of love is immediately branded a selfish evil ⁽⁴⁾

Things should not be. Whoever decides to dedicate part of their resources to help others deserves our praise, but who choose not to does not deserve our condemnation, because it is on your right. Why are we going to fail? Does it interfere withsomeone who goes to his own and does not intrude on the lives of others, for better or for worse? No, by definition. But the collective unconscious, after centuries of crushing of that identity (reinforced with a mem insisdioso it says it is good to be bad with the bad guys) put it at the height of the thieves and murderers. It's amazing what can be achieved when introduced into a culture's idea of sin of omission: virtue is no longer truly virtuous and becomes mandatory. One can never be good enough, in the end everything is left to the mercy of God ...

This concept of charity as a must-carry, with time (not too) to the institutionalization & OverhaulI n of charity: it's not just the individual who has to be charitable, it is society as a whole who have to be. And so the State, that machine, the legal construct by definition incapable of feeling empathy or solidarity or any of the emotions that give rise to charity, begins to imitate the actions of its citizens charitable and "help the poor" to "feed the hungry" ... soup with boba. But everything changes, everything is distorted, we are not talking as a human being to help a fellow because he identifies with him, because he suffers with him, for pity, but a single entity without feelings acts ^{by objective criteria (3)} maso less suitable to reality. Charity no longer a matter of moral compasióny and becomes ... policy.

why I said that the state gives to eat soup with boba? Because it has to be guided by objective criteria when distributing the subsidies. Capuchins did not ask her if you truly sopistas solemnity were poor they needed food or if that way they saved some money for wine it was the most common . Likewise, the State does not look at whether the grant recipient deserves it or need it, only if it meets (or not) certain formalities, Hace four years the formal requirement was planted at the convent, today is ... well, maybe he contributed twelve months in the past six years, for example. But none of those things, not silly soup or state subsidies, are true charity.

And the problem of institutionalized charity (one of them) is that it creates the absurd idea that the recipient of is entitled to receive . There is no difference between the XVI riots if the soup is just silly and the braying of the unions against the latest measures, rather hesitant, government to try to get the unemployed back to situation & oacute n active as soon as possible. Or the idea of having six months of unemployment, we all know that everyone interprets it as if it had the right to collect six months of the state when in fact it is not. The source of unemployment is charity and not because I say so, but because it is configured the law. Quid pro quo , yes, in mutual plan, yes, but charitable. It is not a salary or a pension they are entitled to have contributed, it helps that you listed do not lend to pass so badly in the minimum period necessary until you find another job and return to keep for yourself. But, of course, "qui & eacute, n take it well? Look around or within you, and tell me I'm wrong, that people do not think you have right to "collect unemployment" and not react violently if you question the very ...

Right to charity. This is a horrible idea against which I fight. The charity is entitled to basically say that one is entitled to keep it just for existing. In other words, that one can be immersed in a system without contributing anything but their own existence and their own needs and require the system to keep it. Their net contribution is negative and that system has a name in biology: parasitism. The good news is que in biology is to defend the host of the parasite, but not us. We not only do not defend ourselves is that we recognize the right of the parasite to suck blood. Sorry, we do not recognize this right, because they do not have it, attach it, which is even worse. As an organization that defends itself against parasites has just devoured by them, a company that not only defended himself against parasites, but the further recognizing the right of everyone to parasitism, is wounded death. Because if it is possible to live without working, why work? (And great care that, like charity, it also & eacute e, n is written in our genes and more deeply ) And if above is not just going to keep me but what "progressive" is to recognize the right of the parasite to health care and clothing and decent housing with electricity and gas and running water ... diced ham and a few from time to time.

Because obviously, in an ideal world is not just that no one is necessary, you eat all the dogs jamóny tied with sausages. But that world is not true, and all those things have to be paid, and where does the money that goes to the increasingly expensive and attractive silly soup? From the pocket of those who produce, of course, some d & amp; iacute; to wonder, like me, exactly why they should support those who do not produce.

enough for the second part, I think. Good weekend to all,

Arthegarn
__________ (1) O voluntarily everything you can do things in a world without free will, come on.
(2) Of course, this idea of mine that you have no right to steal (for example), it is mine. There is whole philosophical systems based on the absence of private property, for example, which excludes the very concept of theft, and our own constitution talks about "social function of pROPERTY ", which basically amounts to saying that private property exists and must be respected ... whenever it seems good to the State. I is not agree to these settings because they seem too artificial, just in line with reality. I do not think the limitations on private property for the same reason I do not believe in God may be a good idea, but the universe does not work like there. Try to address this issue in the next article in the series.
(3) And, ultimately, the greatest evil of Spain ... The tuna!
(4) Which is a redundancy, because so entrenched is the identity-either as charity andt is the identity selfishness = bad. And as false is the one or the other.
(4) That when we are lucky, of course.

Aspbergers Syndrome More Condition_symptoms Your mouth

I have it recorded on my skin, his touch, his moisture ...

How I wish your mouth! United

my mouth close to my body ...

The pleasure I get your mouth ...

The taste in your mouth ...

I soaked in your mouth ...

I love you in my mouth ... I want

fill my mouth ... I want to invade your



mouth ... I want your mouth ...

Creative Extigy Driver LLamada

"I call to tell you how I wish ..."

You said it, or imagine?

Anyway I could not erase from my mind, I pushed, leads me ...

Today I wanted to hear ... just say "Hi", "How are you?" ... That's why we call

Words like "I Wish" I love you, "Rejoice with me," would have killed me ... sanity.

If you only knew ...

Big Fun Motorcycle Trials# Silly soup (I)

In early June

put as my Facebook status, the following sentence: "And why, exactly, we produce with our ability we have to keep the system that do not add anything other than your need?" The reactions were about 40 comments some discussion, some directly and others calling insulting to develop what he meant. Well, I'll try, but as I say quen is long and complex will do it for deliveries.

begin with a fable.

was once a computer who hired her to make me a website. We agreed that when the page estuvierto pay him his price list and a month later he returned with my page out, to claim the agreement. Teníam you a deal, he had done his part and I had to meet mine. What's more, he had a right to require me to pay him, so I did.

A month later he heard the same developer that wanted to introduce some improvements to my website and, without talking to me, he started when he had finished them came to my house to introduce them and claim pay him. I explained that we had no ning & amp, desktop search, No treatment and that he had not charged anything, so had no right to demand anything. He gave me razóny told me, then, look what I had made to see if he was interested, so I stayed and told to return in a week. I liked his work and implemented improvements, and a week later came to claim his money because I was offered something that interested me, I had left and had to do my part , and give you your money. What's more, the right to demand anything he had last week now I had itto, so I gave it.

A month later I wanted to introduce other improvements to my website so I called this programmer hacíay good work they are ordered. He accepted but a month later came to my house to demand payment with empty hands. I told him I was not going to pay, because although we had a deal he had not done his part, so I had no right to claim anything and left, so with nothing as he to come.

The next morning he reappeared at my house, yet the page, and me withtó a sad story that basically said that improvements had wanted me, but that was impossible because a component needed had not yet arrived, and returned to require me to pay him agreed. I told him I was sorry that he had spent the previous month, but the problem was between the carrier and he had nothing to do with me and had no to claim anything, because that right was born to do his job and did it well, not their good intentions in this regard. Then he became very angry and told me that I nottended the situation that had the money, it needed because he had to deal with down payments and I had to give, he was obliged to give because otherwise you would seize. I told him he was mistaken and that I was obliged to anything because I have nothing to deal with breaches of the transportation company that had hired. Yet, since after all I still wanted me to do those improvements, he said he was willing to advance pagárselas if he have them comprometíaain a month. He accepted, I paid him and a month later fulfilled his part of the deal and could make improvements.

A month later reappeared computer in my house with some improvements to the page that I had not charged and did not want to na da, but he had done. I told him I did not want them. He told me he had been working on these improvements and who is going to pay, and I said I did not know, but I do not, I have no interest in change and BP ; page. He came to mesay that since I had had to accept and pagárselas, and I said no, that he had worked, yes, but he did because he felt a well and had no right to require anyone to pay him for doing what seemed to him well done. So again I say that if I got the money would seize him and told him I was sorry but that was their problem and they had no right to require me to come to I solve their problem by buying something or commissioned or wanted for anything. The

mes past, again, the computer reappeared in my house with a fantastic story in which he had wanted to dedicate a month to get a better on the page, he I was sure I would have loved, but it rained a lot and was left without internet and could not do it, but if he had made them I would have implemented the ipso facto. And he demanded that the pay . I was shocked looking at that guy who demanded that I give him money for nothing at all, for work quen had done about a product I did not want or commissionedoy that up did not exist. I told him I thought that under no circumstances pay for not having done anything at all and sent him home. Yesterday

knocked on my door and a person who absolutely did not know told me a sad story about why, for circumstances beyond their control, had nothing to offer, but still and wanted to give him money for nothing, as was my duty "as a human being" .

Well. " would have to pay? Did he right to do it pay?

Create Your Own Wrestler July Books

In June, Ana bought seven books of Terry Pratchett, some who had not read, others who do, and that has given leading travel since the Discworld.

Monstrous Regiment, nominated for the Locus 2004, is one that I had not read. It is one of the books "extravagant" Discworld, in the sense that is not in any major story lines (the Guard, the Witches, Rincewind, etc.) Although there are guest appearances by various members Guard and William de Worde. Talk of war and women,which can lead to religious fanaticism of the clergy (both the official religion as true cases). The action takes place mostly in Borogravia, a small country suspiciously reminiscent of Serbia, in a region very suspiciously reminiscent of the Balkans. A plot could be summarized as "Mulan in the Discworld" if Mulan had met someone who knew as much headology Jackrum Sergeant, who would rather see Guard someday. It's good, but the storyline is pretty Pira fetched.

Guards! G "uardías? is rereading, of course. At the time was my favorite book of the Discworld and the book that I laughed more than ever, now I guess I've read so much money Pratchett that surprised me less. Is still very good and it is crucial for fans of the series, introducing the same characters as the great Sam Vimes, Carrot, Nobbby Nobbs and Fred Colon. Priceless scenes as the dungeon of Patrick and reflections on humanity dragon.

Men at Arms is another book of the Guard, also re-reading, also recommended as all Pratchetts. Angua von Presents & uuml; Berwald and marks the entry of Detritus in the Guard (if you stop to think about it, Detritus is probably the character who appears in more books Mundidisco after Death, and its first appearance in the Colour of Magic). About the power and authority and how power changes people. Already said the Trinca: Give a man a uniform and you look over your shoulder, give a cheer and think he is entitled to use, adds a peaked cap and can not wait to do so. So we will not explain what happens when you give a gun ... Wyrd

, unlike Guards! "Guards? wins with each rereading that I make. Granny Weatherwax is such a priceless like Sam Vimes, and the introduction to this book as his sidekick Nanny Ogg (and I thought life was said adláter) puts a bright snap to your personality . Another book whose main plot could be summarized in one sentence, "MacBeth in Discworld, but has other issues like the Shakespearean play Hamlet. It is also a book in which Pratchett returns to play with the idea of memes and the importance of words as a vehicle for ideas that shape the personality and world view, they may haveer. This is the essential.

Draw Roulette Calculator What do you know? - Science and Religion: The Great Divorce

I have no

all clear that one can speak of "divorce" between science and religion because it would mean that once walked hand in hand and that has not happened ever.

There was a time when knowledge, all knowledge was in the same boat. No matter how you got dealt, or what it was all science, scientia, knowledge. For example: on wheat one could ask why increased, reaching the concept of a force makes him grow, call Ceres, anthropomorphized maso less and then think that if the wheat growing ma , s better si plant them on certain dates or at a particular site or if cared for so and so because these activities was liked Ceres. From this point of view, any unexplained cause was supernatural, and all technical innovation was really a search for methods and rituals that were pleasing to the top supernatural turn that had the power to cause desired effect. Art and religion went hand in hand, the world was not conceived as dualistic, with differentiation between natural and supernatural, everything was in the same package. There were two sides of the same coin, were the same concept.

The & ldquo; problem "comes when we get we do not need supernatural explanations for many phenomena. See a man named William of Ockham armed with a knife and told us that if there is a simple explanation for an event should not be complicated by introducing unnecessary elements. Thus, unlike the system "if payment pleased to welcome Ceres Ceres and if the wheat grows best" turn to "if the wheat grows best fertilizer." God is no longer the small Ceres dealing on a small patch of the universe and becomes the cause causae, Legislator Universal. God is not on top of each plant to & amp; eacute; foward to grow miraculously invented photosynthesis and that's it. So much of human activity stops please include supernatural entities will now be dedicated to trying to find out the laws that God wrote the universe, and that specialization that studies the laws of God and not God born science over time.

is important to see that while the first scientists (as whole persons, not only in his role of scientists) believed they could learn things from God through His creation, ie, its rules, not using science to regulate their relationswith God. There were two distinct areas: acquisition of information (science) and analysis of information (mysticism). Science attempts to create to analyze and understand and propose models for how reality works, the natural world and God is not part of the field of study of science but, if any, may be able to learn something of their own through Science.

The problem of course arises when these proto, these natural philosophers, say something like natural laws (whether or not of divine origin, that the Science not care ) that regulate growth Wheat stipulate that the wheat is growingbetter if they paid, but those in authority ⁽¹⁾ claiming a supernatural origin of the same reply that the fertilizer odor is not pleasing to Ceres. Not that the scientists have maníaa the reli want to kill her or anything like that, is simply that if you have to choose between pleasing Ceres or pay, you end up paying. Or, to be exact, what happens is that evolution by natural selection rewards those who put their trust in science and pay, and penalizes those who put it into priests of Ceres and do not pay . In the end, people believe what they tell scientists because its predictions work, and it is not crea in what they say priests of Ceres, is comparatively less rely on them for as what.

was but a short mental step from "the scientists say" a "science" and "what they say priests" to and "religion" and you is mounted. But in reality, not science and religion, is just what they say each other . Science is a method of knowledge, nothing else, we should not be confused with the whole of scientific knowledge, which is another thing. And religion is the relationship & oacutee; No personal directly with divinity, in the moment when someone gets in the middle and claimed to have exclusive hotline to the deity and not religion, is an institution . There is no war between science and religion, there is dissension between what scientists say and what the mystics say .

science, understood as the scientific method, and religion, have never gone hand in hand. Try different fields of science and is more specific, smaller than religion. The scientific method is wonderful,It does not work if you try to apply to God. As I explained long ago, any explanation that requires God is excluded from any other that requires no God, no matter how difficult that is.

Do you think not?

Suppose we find the following phenomenon: the heavens open and the gap arises vegadora intense light, and angels blowing their trumpets, and hear the heavenly choirs, and suddenly a deep voice powerful and says "I am the Lord your God, the God of your fathers who died on the cross for you." Are we really in God's presence? Muchpeople would consider this event more than enough proof of the existence of God. I, no. ⁽²⁾

first thing I think is that I've gone crazy. Why? Because it is a much more simple and reasonable, because if we have to choose an explanation that only requires a brain that does not work very well and one that requires the existence of a supernatural God, infinite, creative, planner and organizer of the universe and the rules that govern it, and actually knows maintainer posicióny the time of each quantum ⁽³⁾ in each moment ... it is easy to see which is the machines simple and which requires fewer assumptions (entia non sunt multiplicands praeter necessitatem . At the end of the day, if another were telling me, do not think that is much more likely that neurons slip God has it appeared? is even more likely to be the victim of a cruel joke incredibly advanced alien race with technology capable of creating all these effects (whether real or are just in my mind) of what it is that God really exists and really is speaking to me. While I was talking about truth, Because this is thelimitation of science. Some people are so dumb that can not be the ass or using both hands, well, the science is wrong something like this would not be able to recognize God even if he had before injecting mass ; in neutrinos.

Science has its field of knowledge, which is this thing we call "reality." Religion has its own, which is everything else ⁽⁴⁾ , is unreal, imaginary. This may seem insulting to religion, but it takes me to another ⁽⁵⁾ my similes mathematical pun: just as there are real numbersnumbers are imaginary or unreal, where i (√ -1) the most famous of them. Like God, may I be unrealistic ... but nobody can argue is that it is useful filthy. In fact, quantum physics is unthinkable without i. Perhaps mathematics is, once again, an allegory of life. Maybe God is unreal in itself, but when applied to something real, make possible to explain things to another level, as do i create complex numbers. Mathematics is the language with which God has written

universe ... In any case, science and religion & Overhaulyou n never been married and never divorced. They work in completely different fields and when trying to get into the other, fail miserably. Any phenomenon is likely to be measured can be analyzed by science and step into the natural world and the rest, as they do not. The frustration of the authors of the "obsession" of scientists not to engage in scientific study which can not be measured incomprehensible to me. Which brings me to the famous Institute of Noetic Sciences, a Dean Radin , Edgar Mitchell and other mob ... Say ...

For those who have not been read the latest book by Dan Brown , the Institute of Noetic Sciences is an institution created to study the relationship between mind and matter ⁽⁶⁾ , specifically on issues as ESP, remote healing through the mind or psychokinesis. In itself there is nothing wrong with using the scientific method to explore all these possibilities, but interestingly there is in interpreting the results of the experiments. I'll give you an example: if an experiment ⁽⁷⁾ is tossing a coin ten thousand times while the subject focuses on getting heads for measuring andr psychokinetic ability of the human mind, and gives results that have come 4,996 5,004 faces and crosses the conclusion may be:

1. or that this ability does not exist and that the deviation is within statistically acceptable margins (or, if we damn, that money is imperfect and has its center of gravity shifted to the side face a 0,025% of its thickness), or
2. it is demonstrated that the ability exists and that the subject has an inverse psychokinetic ability (because I wanted them expensive, but left crosses) of zero point Nosecuantos femtonewtons (a phenomenonrmonewton is the amount of force needed to accelerate one microgram a thousandth of a millimeter per second).

need not tell you which is the conclusion of the Institute of Noetic Sciences ...

If you have a question that I urge you to dis a good ride for your website and you bring forth your conclusions. Or even wikipedia, which refers to the "noetic science" saying "is Noetics Often viewed as a Completely unscientific field, based on nothing more Than misguided spirituality and Philosophical hand-waving." , & nbsp; Mal carry the theme of science in this book if they are to be based on something as biased as that institution. The Templeton Foundation , which is hardly in doubt, was light years more serious with his study the therapeutic properties of intercessory prayer on heart patients in 2006.

As I read I think What do you know? suffers from begging the : part of the basis of what you want to show. Phrases like " watch the outside world as lifeless matter and nothing else (& Illip;) separates us from living nature that sustains us "or" the physical universe is not physical in nature and may arise from a field that is still more subtle energy ; to it, a field that, more than matter, appears to information, intelligence or consciousness "are so biased, so little neutral and so jump to conclusions ... I squeak, is preaching to converts. I'll give a vote of confidence with the "information field" because they have not yet gotten involved with quantum physics, but to me is that the pangeísmo, for example ...

Furthermore, the chapter ends with paragraph And YOU, what questions you want answered? , which reads:

Well? Does it promote the creation of prayer? Can you influence physical reality with their minds? Is it possible to perceive things outside of space and time? Can a man walk on water? Is there a Higgs particle?

What?

theoretical particle physics predicts the existence of the Higgs particle (the particlewhich gives mass to other particles). They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build ever more powerful accelerators to find it. We believe, however, that most citizens of planet Earth would prefer to know the answer to the first four questions.

undoubtedly answer these questions first four have a massive impact on how we see the world and we see ourselves. A far greater impact than it would find a particle. But the mainstream scientific community does not want to contemplate what you have said is "out of her campo. " It's funny, because great progress from there.

So now who takes over the search for truth?

are two sides of the same coin.

First Church and now the new priesthood of scientists.

are eager to close their eyes, putting your hands in your ears, and repeat litanies. The search for truth can be undertaken from many perspectives and many procedures and science is just one of them. Is a specialized method that studies only reality or, if one is determined to expand the boundariesthe fact that part of reality and perception can be measured or whose effects can be measured and perceived. That is because science as a method, including experimental verification of their hypothesis, and if you can not measure the results of an experiment can not prove anything. The method is extremely good and has earned the respect and confidence of most of humanity because it gives results , but has its limitations. I have shown that science can not prove that God exists even if you have the front and is subject to all conceivable evidence. Is it possible that God exists? Sure! But is impossible is to have scientific evidence that God exists ⁽⁸⁾ . Neither God nor the rhino ^{fluorescent (9)} . And in any case, science does not deny the existence of God, not actually deny the existence of anything. Science does not dedicated to finding the truth, for that is the philosophy, the science is devoted to propose models as simple as possible to explain the reality best. And the mountains as mountains, a model that requires the existence of God is less simple than one who does not.

is not that "the mainstream scientific community" say that God is not part of the study of science, is that not is , as neither are, for example, the Good and Justice. Science could be studied (and does) the effects on the reality that is the belief in God, but as a fact, which occurs in the natural world, the very structure of science determines that this fact has natural causes, known, unknown or, ultimately, "because the universe is." Sometimes the science says that, the fact that all the electrons in the universe are exactly the same electric charge is a great example of natural event that occurs "because the universe is." And on this category, as Ceres and wheat, can contestar "because the universe is so" or "because God made the universe was like that," I just do not need God in model. How can there be people who do not understand you can not have scientific evidence of the existence of God? If, moreover, God, if any, not need science to claim it !

And about the alternative research lines that the book's authors suggest as a better target our efforts and taxes that the LHC ...

1. The experiments have serious realraised in regard to prayer, like the quote from the Templeton Foundation, suggest that it has no effect. Moreover, to pray for your health and you know it seems to have a detrimental effect .

2. The mind emerges from brain and therefore is part of physical reality and influences and is influenced by all matter and energy that surrounds it. Descartes is extremely exceeded. The influence of mind over physical reality can be seen every time I decide to move a finger, and the limitations of the influence of mind over physical reality can be seen every time I try to use the Force.

3. For dEFINITION things that are outside of space and time does not affect the spacetime, and as not affecting them can not be perceived. It drawer. This hypothesis does not need scientific research needs a dictionary and a kind of logic. It's like asking can the whole be less than the part? or how much is infinity plus one? Well, it's like wanting to ask and up to pour money into research.

4. Of course a man can walk on water. You can even skate and play hockey and curling. It's all about seeing how far you're willing toforce the definition of "waters" or "walk" (or "man", as we are).

Anyway, I'm sorry, is that such people unnerves me. In fact, answering these four questions would not have a great impact on humanity, what would that impact the answer is yes . Because scientific defense of those serious "do not say that this is absolutely true, but it has all the earmarks of being" already have: no, no ⁽¹⁰⁾ , no and no.

The problem is that scientists do not take ownership of the search for truth,is to appropriate the scientific method and do well. If you want to seek scientific truth does not do it, but do not try to dress with the mantle of science, or blame it on the pavement because the experiments do not have the results you want with or because the scientific community does not According to your findings, peer review is also part of the scientific method. The human species, fortunately has become much more picky about what they consider truth and, above all, on what premises will be considered safe to base their decisions . The scientific label opensthe door to that trust as Rioja label opens the wine market, but as much as you complain that the regulatory council of the denomination of origin Rioja does not consider your plonk is a Rioja, and tell are short-sighted and have a very narrow idea of what a Rioja and should expand their horizons ... will not be a Rioja.

And is that God does not need to be a Rioja!

Greetings all,

Arthegarn____________
(1) The authority of any kind: religious, scientific or pol & iacuyou; policy.
(2) And I have reason to think that my parents either.
(3) This includes Arthegarn brain and all its thoughts, emotions and memories, good or bad work
(4) And this is not me, is the application of NOMA.
(5) several years I've been wanting to write an article in the "mental straws" with a parallel between the isomorphism in fractals and perception of reality by the human mind but I have never
time ... (6) The book is presented as if trying to destroy the Cartesian separation between mind and matter. They should know that half a century and the psychology & iacute; ay Neurology showed that this separation is nonexistent ...
(7) Based on a real case.
(8) Or at least that exists in its most common configuration in the collection meme that the entity is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent of the religions of the Book.
(9) Well, yes fluorescent rhino because they know where he lives, but the invisible pink unicorn not.
(10) And I'm smelling where this goes, the Emperor model of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Statistics On Steven Spielberg Tribute / Homenaje a Roberto Cantoral

Mount And Blade Manual Lure Fic: It's time

Title: It's Time

Author: fascinated

Pairing: Luke / Reid

Rating : NC-17

Summary / Prompt: From spoilers

Disclaimer: just for fun

& nbsp;

It's Time

Reid Gets Into Katie's, looking upset, I throws his stuff on the coach and goes to the kitchen. Grabs a beer from the fridge and drinks Almost half of it in one long swig. The door bell rings, Reid smiles Anticipating Who Could Be at the door.

Reid opens the door and His smile widens, it is Luke. Reid pulls him Into the house and Close the door as I puts His arms around Luke's waist.

Both They say hi, and kiss, a soft touch of lips, But long enough to get the taste of Luke's mouth. Reid loves the taste of Luke.

Looking Into Each Other's Eyes, Reid tells Luke how I looks good.

Luke: You look good too.

Reid: In my scrubs? Do not think so.

Luke: I like you in your scrubs, you will lookxy.

Reid: Really, That is good to know.

kisses Luke Reid again, this time to kiss fuller, longer, savoring him.

They Are standing in the Same Place; Luke's arms around Reid's Are Back With His hands caressing him up and down. Reid Does not Want to move. Does not Need to move, the moment is perfect.

Luke: Though Day?

Reid: Yes, very. I did not want to wait to change. I just wanted to get out of the hospital.

Luke: You Dr. Oliver? How Is That possible?

Reid: Dr. Dixon is getting on my Nerves.

Reid phone rings. Unwillingly Reid lets go of Luke to answer. Is Katie, she won't be back she and Jacob Are Spending the night with a friend. Reid smiles, I guess Which dog friend.

historical Reid hangs up phone, and Luke puts His arms around him again, from one side and Rests His shin on Reid's shoulder.

Luke: We are alone.

Reid turns to face Luke, "You Heard?" Luke answers with a flirty smile, "Yes"

Luke kisses Reid, this time Completely and absolutely Giving Himself to Reid. The kiss is long and Almost at the end Reid shivers a little.

Reid looks at Luke, Wants To Be sure. "That kind of kiss, Can Give You A Few More Time"

Luke: I do not need more time.

They kiss again, one, two, three kisses, never ending, parting only for air.

Reid stops For a moment, and talks to Luke Into His mouth. Are you sure? C HTMLXC

Luke: I love you Reid, I want to make love with you.

Reid: I love you Luke, I'll always love you.

Pid More Condition_symptoms Lure - Fic: Bridal Suite

Title: Bridal Suite

Author: fascinated

Pairing: Luke / Reid

Rating: NC- 17

Summary / Prompt: From spoilers

Disclaimer: just for fun

Luke and Reid go Into the Bridal Suite Prepared for Holden and Molly

They Have Decided to make a use of it.

They Began to kiss Luke and Reid pushes onto the bed

Reid places Himself on top of Luke and kisses him as I have starts to undo Luke's tie and shirt.

Reid is very much Into It, But Luke is hesitant and as Reid starts to kiss him on the neck and chest Luke stops Responding.

Reid stops and looks to Luke, "what & rsquo; s wrong? "Does not answer I just Luke Reid looks back with an insecure look

Reid: You do not want to do it?

Luke: I do not know ...

Reid straightens up and seats on the bed, I looks annoyed. He fixes Himself, stands and tries to walk But can not. I seats back on the bed.

Reid: I Would If I could walk out of this room, But Ican not yet, while I Takes His Hand to His groin area.

Luke straightens up and seats on the bed too. "I'm sorry"

Reid is Not looking at Luke. He is angry now.

Reid: Do not say you are sorry, and tell me what is it with you? Make up your mind. I can not play this game with you.

Luke: I & rsquoor, m afraid.

Reid: Afraid of What Luke? The tone of Reid is impatient

Luke: I Feel That is all you want, to Have sex with me. And after it you will leave. your price You Would Have your conquest ...

Reid turns to Luke, "You really believe that? I Thought You Knew Better me, I ...

Reid can not keep talking, I is very upset, tond I knows I Can Be very hurtful, Luke is the last person I Wants to hurt.

felling and Luke is looking more and more mortified, sad, insecure ...

Reid Takes Breaths deeply and one of Luke's hand.

Reid: I Do not Want to Have Sex With You. I want to make love with you, I'm in love with you Luke, why can not you see That. I Have Never Opened Anyone to myself so much as i have with you.

Luke: It is hard to know you Reid. You are so much for me. I Told you once I Been Thought by someone like you wanted Was a compliment, pero también very scary. What if I'm not enough, why if you get bore of me?

Luke: I love you too Reid. But I Do not Want To Be Hurt Again, I do not want to be Used and push away, with you It Would Be Even harder to take.

Luke Reid Takes face and kisses him. "I love you so much, That I'm scare too"

Reid: The past weeks i have made the stupidest Things I Have Made in my whole life and It Was Because of You. At first I Fought it. I did not want to Be in Love With You, I Was losing control, and I did not like it. But I accept it, I let myself fall for you, and it got Worse ...

Reid stops Luke from talking with a kiss, a long, hot, deep kiss. He Does not Need to hear anymore. Would They talk later.

Now He Wants to make love with Reid.