dimreepr

No, it's going to fast because you're skipping steps; you can't understand tomorrow's lesson before you've understood todays lesson. You're trying to run before you can walk. That's the job of an accountant, they use stats to mean what they want it to mean; if you want to expose them learn the job not their ethics. Whatever you may think (not hard enough), you too are part of a herd; are you sure you're in the best herd? Read (or watch) Animal Farm - George Orwell; then get back to us...

Science, religion it makes no difference; it's only when you've understood the script, are you qualified to be critical of it. Until then, your bias will overcome your critical thinking, whether your a priest or a scientist.

If you don't read he script, you'll never understand what it's trying to teach.

Let's not assume, for now; "I always thought a joke is a way of codifying information" - Frankie Boyle

What makes you think life is fair? You can choose to be a slave if you want, but that will eat you alive because you let it. If anything science steals from religion, in this context; only hate can steal people's hearts - there's nothing wrong in fighting for a cause - but only hate seeks to control. I love my life, despite all the hate in the world, that's my choice. Spread the word...

I think we tend to believe/trust what our village teaches us, especially when it's done with kindness; there's no reason to doubt. That can be used to teach hate as easily as it can to teach love. The problem's with teaching hate is, karma; the scientific term is, causation. Science doesn't differentiate, but it does undermine, when pointing out discrepancies in two book's written thousands of year's apart that have been artificially shoehorned together; it's like shoehorning ptolemy and Einstein into one book and then saying "there you go, it's obviously all bollox."

I'm happy with that...

Nor me...

I'm not trying to diminish the practicality's of science (I love what science has taught me, for real @studiot), I'm trying to show philosophy to be equally valuable and practical in most people's lives... If we consider most people to be religious and I think the stats would support this, so real for most people is philosophy, on a background of science that they don't understand. Science doesn't care either way, it just tries to predict a future, but Buddha et al does. So, if we want a world in balance and sustainable; we need philosophy, via people's current understanding, to build a bridge of understanding that doesn't involve fear of tomorrow. If we want to fear less, we need to laugh more.

That was mine, in my thread; but I get why it got thrown out with the bath water...

A dog doesn't suffer that way... 😉

Have you considered that you're, maybe, over-thinking the problem?

Isn't this the real difference? Philosophy seeks for the truth of life as it is "'Does a dog has Buddha nature?'." Yes, a dog can't help it, it has no idea about tomorrow, so if it's fed and watered it can sleep easy. Science seeks to solve an equation. Sure, we get better car's through science and maybe that solves the problem of car's, but it doesn't ask why we need car's, tomorrow. If we use our intelligence to predict a reason to fear, then we'll never sleep easy. I'm not saying science isn't valuable; I'm just asking, why is it more valuable?

Indeed, it's like two flea's arguing over who owns the dog...

Why do you care? "If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person"- Jim Jefferies

Off course it does, that's the point of a question? Most people just answer the question: No, I'm not a rapist. I don't know, please explain why you'd ask that.

You'll note the question mark... A small mention that you've made in other threads... Why are you so angry, that I've asked question's? And before you claim your not angry, why then the barrage of insult's? This is a discussion, not a conflict You really should watch this, I paid for an argument not abuse.

That wasn't meant literally, it's a culmination of the rhetoric from my topic "What is justice", which has, for some reason, boiled over into this thread.

White man speak with forked tongue. Yes that's a philosophical statement and no I'm not a philosopher. Australia managed to before the arrival of western sensibilities... I'll explain further, in the correct thread. Like I said, engage with the topic in an appropriate way or not at all. Otherwise I'll seek a higher authority via the report button

I'm getting a bit tired of this abuse, either engage with the topic or stop posting.

There's no such thing as fish... I think perhaps the difference is more fundamental, science is able to stand on the shoulders of other's because 'the other's' are well understood, I can't stand on the shoulder of Buddha, until I understand...

Which is? Why is it condescending, in a recent thread of yours you held him up as an arbiter of truth in matters of religion; in which he is "just a good physicist", I'd say that's a matter of fact (if I didn't think a fact is just a fleeting concept that you choose to accept is real on the face of it). Why is a description of reality more valid than a way to find out/live? Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?