Politics Is So Sick!

[elitek]

wondering how politicians live when they spend they lifetimes to think and talk BS 24/7, almost.

I am taking my first political course, it made me sick! I start to hate politics. Politics is just totally BS, political science? it is not even logical, it is no more logical than the story god creates earth in 7 days. Several books required for this course are all about anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, anti-bilingualism, pro-conservatism, pro-bushism. who cares? although I am liberal, I really don't care what the teacher believes, but why he must go one exteme direction? its a university course not a course for him to preach his rightism, its not a place for him to relieve his anger toward some political parties. You can imagine if your major is Politics, then the next professor will tell you rightism is wrong. What a joke! It surely will be my last political course.

I am reading this freaky book called "life at the bottom", everytime after telling his fairytales, the author begins to blame liberalism for causing proverty, underclass, crimes and so forth(England). its just your life, your responsibility for yourself, on one you can blame of. he tries to express ironically and pretends he's not hypocritical, so people think he's candid. Guess he will blame liberalism for file sharing if he works for RIAA.

[zacspeed]

[Prodigy Girl]

@ Elitek - If what you say is true about how the course you are taking is one-sided, then it's good of you to realize this (there's many out there who don't have the ability to distingush opinions from facts).


Sometimes I felt the same way you did when I was taking my science courses. I am a Christian and I don't buy much of what science says, but I wasn't going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.

Anyhow, my advice to you is to just listen and learn what you need to know for your tests. After that, you can either retain the knowledge or forget about it. You don't have to allow the material to assimilate with your true thoughts and feelings.

And do keep in mind that though you disagree, it's never so bad to listen and understand the opposition's point of view.

[elitek]

good point, what you said are quite true. you reminded me not all politicians are bad,i.e Washington.

btw, I don't buy religion or science though I think science is much more acceptable.

both religion and science are one-sided, one goes extreme spiritual side and the other goes extreme material and physical side. actually, most of the people out there don't know how to distingush opinion from facts(it's called animal-like ignorance). what I am trying to say and suggest is there is a perfect teaching doesn't have any biased opinion, it's so flawless no one can deny its saying. it's spiritual and scientific, it's Buddhism.

I really don't want to see people waste their time to argue for some little things or write up a 10,000 pages book to discuss some useless points of philosophy.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 01:10
both religion and science are one-sided, one goes extreme spiritual side and the other goes extreme material and physical side. actually, most of the people out there don't know how to distingush opinion from facts(it's called animal-like ignorance). what I am trying to say and suggest is there is a perfect teaching doesn't have any biased opinion, it's so flawless no one can deny its saying. it's spiritual and scientific, it's Buddhism.

I really don't want to see people waste their time to argue for some little things or write up a 10,000 pages book to discuss some useless points of philosophy.

How is science "one sided"?

Science is based on assuming that your hypothesis is wrong, and only by providing incontrovertible evidence are your claims considered to be worthy of consideration.

If I say that "x" will cause "y", in the following conditions, scientists around the world should independently be able to verify my claims.

Science is not a faith, but a growing document of evidence.

As for Buddism, it is a philosophy based in nothing. It is merely an opinion which cannot be substantiated. A childs toy, really.

Let me guess, you are between 18 and 21 years of age. The time in which we are awakened to abstract thought, but so vulnerable to the biases of your mentors.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@16 July 2004 - 20:57
I am a Christian and I don't buy much of what science says, but I wasn't going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.

Like what, gravity? What don't you believe?

[clocker]

Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@16 July 2004 - 15:57
I am a Christian and I don't buy much of what science says, but I wasn't going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.

Hmmm...
A pragmatic Christian who doesn't believe in Science.

I sense a logical disconnect here.

[elitek]

I was a completed science believer before. I am not denying its fact-extracting methods based on logic, thats why I said science is much more acceptable to me than religion. but why science is not "one-sided"? Pure material and physical reality is what science looking for, if this is not one-sided then what is one-sided.
tell you what? mind is not material, you can't see it, you can not feel it, you can only mind it. can science show me a physical mind through microscope?
scientists believe "everything is nonsense without the presence of material", aren't scientists as arbitrary as pope? how could they assert such statement which they cannot refute their opponent? when you say this is "reality", are you sure? what makes you think so? your eyes? if Plato wasn't an idiot, he wouldn't say "this is not the true reality". I would say science is another form of faith.

what are you talking about x cause y? never mind, I am wondering how much you know about Buddhism? but I can tell you the further science goes, the closer science gets to Buddhism. If you know Buddhism a little bit, you wouldn't even call it a philosophy. about 2500 years ago, Buddha said "there are countless planets and the universe has no center", more than 1500 years after Buddha, people around the world still claimed earth is the center of the universe and then the sun. Buddha also told his students "if I go to another planet stay there for one day, when I come back, all of you would be already dead"(not the original translation), the theory of relativism was only discovered recently by genius Einstein, he said "If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism". You can see many similarity between science and Buddhism except science still cannot figure itself out. so if Buddhism is basd on nothing then how it tells people so many scientific, logical and beyond logical facts and thinking even in the age when science was blank. only people have blind faith would call it child toy. If you can prove any statement of it wrong, even just a reasonable explanation, I will take your words immediately.

one more thing, age doesn't matter, even old people have more bias than young people.

[elitek]

Originally posted by hobbes+17 July 2004 - 03:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 17 July 2004 - 03:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Prodigy Girl@16 July 2004 - 20:57
I am a Christian and I don&#39;t buy much of what science says, but I wasn&#39;t going to allow this to prevent me from passing each course with an A average.

Like what, gravity? What don&#39;t you believe? [/b][/quote]
The development of science is pretty much based on conjecture and refutation, by asserting bold statement, old theory was replaced by new one. that is to say, science is not alway true.

“One may throw objects up one million times and see them fall one million times. But that still does not prove ‘what goes up comes down’. For NASA might then &#39;throw&#39; a Saturn rocket up into space to explore Mars, and that never comes down to earth again. One negative instance is enough to disprove the theory with absolute certainty”(Ajahn Brahmavamso, a buddhist who was a science student graduated from cambridge university)

[hobbes]

I have blind faith in what?

Since science is based on the reproducible confirmation of a hypothesis and is the of anti-thesis of faith, you are babbling. Remember, it is not my obligation to prove Buddism wrong, but your obligation to prove it right.

Science has no goal but observation and description. Unlike religion, we are not attempting to make an experience fit the predictions of a written document.

Your retorts are so rambling and illogical that you must either not speak English well, or you are the enthusiaistic, but myopic child, I predict you to be.

Your quote about going to another planet fails to mention how he got there and how he returned. The theory of relativity requires that you travel just below the speed of light.

Don&#39;t press babble into a confirmation of scientific theory. You are pounding square pegs into round holes.

Oh yes, I have eviserated the Buddist argument before.

I assume that my guess at your age was spot on.

As a point, "faith" is belief without proof. So what is blind faith? You sound like a little boy, repeating the crap spoon fed to him.

The Buddist may have a wise and balanced perspective on life, but it in no way is related to divinity and is more a guide on how to lead a happy life. It is a philosophy, not a religion.