dimreepr

What makes you think, zero has a value?

Then you ignore the question of life and it's value...

Why?

It's my topic...

We all have something we don't want to admit, but I forgive myself; seems more rational to me, than blaming someone else...

That depends on what you've done wrong...

Depends on your level of understanding, IOW, how is karma wrong?

Indeed, but that doesn't make the old man wrong...

Welcome to our world of grey; in order to teach a child, we need to paint a monochromatic picture first, and then smudge the colours.

We have to learn somewhere/sometime... Can you explain why the old man is wrong?

And that's the point of my Berty quote, thanks... It is if it's science that claims it... But like I've said, in this thread, it's NOT about a god...

Which is more rational to believe without evidence: Something that makes you happy or something that makes you laugh? Dawkins can't prove that God doesn't exist, yet he's happy to point the finger and claim, they're delusional. Not every religion claims the supernatural, karma for instance is practically Newtonian. How does that quote contradict mine? How is this thread an attack on science?

but it is a belief...

Which is truer?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0015bdb

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time." ― Bertrand Russell

For the rational among us, war is not a game...

You don't read my posts, that's the problem, you just assume you know better, because that's common sense and the alternative is ugly and frightening, so you don't bother to think about it properly. Like I've said "if you want me to answer off topic question's start a topic"; I've never claimed an atheist has any more struggles than a christian/buddhist, just that some people want to believe and as in my tax/tythe analogy, it can help society. The truth you refuse to see, that some people are scientists and happy with their search, even if that search disagrees with the consensus and some people are happy to believe what their teachers teach; the scientific method has nothing to say about our moral compass, and everything to say about a ship's compass. Obviously 🙄. And before we descend down this road to hell, again; I will be ignoring everything you say that doesn't directly address the topic properly and civilly. 🙏

Every step you take could be your last, that's both the joke and the issue...

Not two ideas, just one: some people struggle with life and need a bit of guidance, to whom do they look for that guidance? Because I think he had a point and you haven't explained why I'm wrong.

I've not been taught philosophy, so I don't know the conventional wisdom as to what he meant by the madman parable, it's just my take on it, as I tried to explain in my tax v tythe analogy. What's your, or the mainstream's, interpretation of the parable?

It doesn't as far as I'm concerned, being an atheist as I've said many many time's; this thread isn't about God, it's about the rationality of religion. Because we are human. We all need a lantern, even on the brightest days. Friedrich Nietzsche, I thought it was obvious. I have. A lot of people are struggling against poverty, I thought that was implied. Sorry it was ill worded title, I'm trying to explore the rationality of religion and it's benefits to humanity, and Fred was famously an atheist who seemed to have struggled with the question of what we replace god with. Sorry, I'm not very articulate/clever.

I don't know what problem's Fred foresaw when we give ourselves agency over our moral decisions, without a backstop; but for me the ever increasing wealth gap is a direct result of no God. It's the difference between a tax and a tythe. A tax you can decide to avoid, if you can't see the benefit to yourself of paying your fair share. A tythe you give happily because Jesus told us to, he understood the benefits for everyone, so even if you have no intention of being benelovent or caring, you give because you'll go to heaven.