dimreepr

Yes please since the context is very different.

I've never suggested it has no value, just that gees is wrong in its assignment.

It's not a dumb question at all, in fact, I think it's sciences Achilles heel, in a way, as it leaves a layperson a backdoor to challenge what is essentially a truth/fact with common misconceptions and specious observations; which ultimately are manipulated by our politicians.

When did I suggest either? Yet you ask that we follow your instructions and read for ourselves when the link and relevant quote is far more likely to be read if only the quote. Are you really so conceited that you think that's enough when it's been disputed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=fR8DWveMIoTYaZu4psAD&q=human+pattern+recognition+bias&oq=humanpattern+recognition&gs_l=psy-ab.1.2.0i7i30k1l10.37528.39007.0.47323.5.5.0.0.0.0.110.512.2j3.5.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.5.512...0i13k1j35i39k1.0.ixv9M5REiQA

Ok yes, it was me that muddied the water with my unfortunate turn of phrase, zapatos has called me out on it with an explanation; you're just piggybacking in order to discredit my point, intellectually dishonest given my replies to him, that you've ignored. Which is it? I realise you're 'trying' to make a joke, but your only able to do this because of your cultural environment which you have no control of; it's ironic that your limited choices are buggering up the environment for everyone else. It doesn't matter what level of expectation you have, it's how you react when they aren't met:

Knock yourself out Since you're the only one that suggests otherwise, complete bollox.

Yet again you misunderstand, "true nobility is being superior to your former self". Not your version. Clearly, but you should at least explain why. Ahh yes, I see, you hate religion; enough said... in case you missed it, I'm an atheist; or do you hate those as well?

The topic is inner-peace and the start of this tangent is my claim that control is illusory, yes you're correct, in that my subsequent reply is technically/pedantically false, that doesn't, given the context, make the premise false.

I've already conceded this point, what I don't concede is that you have ultimate control of yourself and that's why you're muddying the waters here.

Ok, I see your point, but it only muddies the waters in the context of this thread.

I thought I had, but to further clarify; how much control do you have over your culture or your ability to imbibe alcohol? Do you deny that both have an influence on your thinking/decision-making/control? You can control where you plant a seed but not what it will grow into.

Again you've missed my point, we have no more control over ourselves than we do others; our environment and diet has a major effect on our moods and behaviour (iNow can explain it in far more detail). You talk about controlling your anger when you really mean suppressing it, you still feel the anger however large the controlling muscle; this approach leads to torment, not peace, because however good you are at not showing it, you know you still feel it and if control is your bag, you won't forgive yourself when you can't. You'll have to explain this one.

The meaning of life is what you choose to give it, yes, you can do whatever you want so if one wants to find ones meaning in religion, then by your own words, one is free to do so. There is no universal meaning of life but there are consequences of assuming that means you're free to explore whatever hedonistic direction you desire.

You can't, I did it for you hence "strangely" as we seldom agree. I should have explained sorry. It was an attempt (obviously a poor one) at illustrating Prometheus' post. Time is real it's the way we think about it that seems to confuse people. Yesterday and tomorrow literally don't exist (not to mention lunch-time) yet we spend so much of our 'time' concerned about them whilst ignoring what does exist, now. Herrings are all unique, yet they all look the same and behave the same. My point is, it's this human conceit that bars humility and therefore a roadblock to Rome.

Of course not... There's nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man, true nobility is being superior to your fellow self.

Strangely, you can. A spoilt child suffers, just a little differently to an abused child.

If that's your question why post it here?

Almost impossible on this medium, face to face is so much easier. One needs to understand/recognise the illusion of time and the illusion of control first, then get to grips with the difference between, needs and wants and expecting and accepting not to mention understanding the torment of the greedy and bully (karma) and finally understand/recognise the fact that we aren't unique, just clones. +1 BTW You're missing the point, inner-peace is a good "rant and curse" and when we're not.

You clearly don't see my point, or you're being deliberately obtuse. Or, you could just post a link and quote the relevant passage. No, it's not, but it is a reasonable definition of science. I scan them, so I know enough. You seem to be having a discussion in which you move the goal posts and assert without citation to name but two.

For me, the soul is a sense of self, I've no idea what tools have got to do with it.

Privilege has a price, the torment of losing it.

Yes, it is mostly, sometimes I think "that moment" of understanding depends on suffering, a sort of Ying and Yang. I said you should stop looking for Nirvana because karma seems to be the final lesson which leads to forgiveness, we don't all have someone to forgive until we include ourselves.

But that depends on a good education and that has been denied to the poor, successively, as the bank balance is denuded.

Of course it's subjective but why does that matter? Laughter is subjective and we're all capable of that; why would you be skeptical of someone trying to make you laugh?