dimreepr

I wonder what happens, when Putin starts to lose because of western supply of arm's; it's a fine balance of allowing Putin to win enough to avoid him going to war with NATO.

That seems fair, I've made a proper fool of myself... But to never forgive our human foibles is kinda the point, it's not rational to dismiss an honest question or belief, even if you don't like it...

PTSD suggests, if I do harm to other's I do harm to me; I choose to feed the happy wolf. But I don't have the value of two sheep...

For every, negative, action there is a positive action; in life two negatives doesn't produce a positive; for instance, if I don't have two sheep and I take away two sheep, how do I suddenly have four sheep?

My apologies @Genady I was a bit drunk yesterday. Because he's the one making the claim, faith doesn't require proof; the religious who claim science is wrong, then they need to provide evidence that he's wrong. I don't care what you believe, if it makes you happy; the scientific method is to provide a bias free way to investigate ourselves and our world, not a means to destroy subjective contentment in other's. What makes you doubt that karma is practically Newtonian? PTSD is well established and causes pain and suffering to those who have encountered a traumatic event; a normal person that kills someone, will sufer as a result. There's nothing supernatural about it.

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. 🙏