Politics Is So Sick!

[elitek]

Originally posted by hobbes@17 July 2004 - 05:51
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'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.

I can see your logic here: repeat saying that I am babbling over and over again but provide no explanation. I am not good at expressing my opinions but I don't think it should be a problem.
you are definitely not getting my points I have to list the points here.

1. "Since science is based on the reproducible confirmation of a hypothesis and is the of anti-thesis of faith, you are babbling."
Did I say science is not based on logic and facts?

2. "Unlike religion, we are not attempting to make an experience fit the predictions of a written document."
Buddhism is not a religion by its nature, it doesn't predict in principle.

3. "Your retorts are so rambling and illogical"
for example?

4." I predict you to be"
no you scientist don't predict

5. "Your quote about going to another planet fails to mention how he got there and how he returned", hmm, he didn't mention he'd travelled to another planet. he said "if...", what he meant was there is no absolute time and space, the time in any other planet can be very different from the earth's.

6. "Oh yes, I have eviserated the Buddist argument before"
yep? show me. do you know how many sutras in Buddhism? can you name one of them without searching google?

7. "I assume that my guess at your age was spot on."
why do you care about my age so much? what's the logic here?

8. "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."
"faith" also means "believe in something". Not all faiths are fake, you can have faith in science. Science deny spiritual world without any proof, it's blind faith.

maybe your writing skill is better than mine, but I think if your skip saying the words such as "babbling","child", it would make your arguments stronger.

[hobbes]

Point 1: How am I exhibiting blind faith?

Blind faith makes no sense as I stated. And being into science, "faith" has nothing to do with anything. Got it?

Point 2: I clearly stated the Buddism was a philosophy, NOT a religion.

Point 3: Calling my opinions "based on blind faith", that makes no sense.

Point 4: Scientists do predict. We don't do so based on scripture, but based on observation and experience.

Point 5: You don't have a clue what Einstein meant. Could you pound a more square peg into you round hole?

Travel to another planet and returning to Earth in a spacesship would prove that time does "slow down" as one approaches the speed of light.

Point 6: check the forum in regard to Wizardmon

Point 7: I care about your age only in that it shows that you are "rookie". I don't think as simplicitically now as I did at your age.

Point 8: Faith is "belief without proof", nothing else.

[elitek]

1. All right, no argument about the definition of "faith", I should use "believing" or "belief". I meant no one should believe in anything completely without testing or examining by themselves. Now, I don't know what's your point defending science or denying Buddhism or both? what are we talking about?

2. Philosophy is Univeristy course, is generally considered as science, but Buddhism is not a university course and it's not in catalog of science.

3. I am not calling your opinions based on blind faith. I meant science isn't perfect, why should we worship it like it's God? I stated the innate inability of science is it fails to explain mind, emotions stuffs.

4. if scripture is true, then what's the difference between following the scripture and following Newton's three laws?

5. they are basically the same, the research methods are not the main points of Buddhism. Did Buddha say his knowledge was acquired through studying science?

6. can you post it please?

7. so you think Einstein thinks simplistically? he didn't say this when he was young.

8. ok, "believing".

[j2k4]

Boy, this is getting heavy.

Makes me think about yo-yo tricks.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 06:13
3. I am not calling your opinions based on blind faith. I meant science isn't perfect, why should we worship it like it's God? I stated the innate inability of science is it fails to explain mind, emotions stuffs.

Science is not intereseted in your worship.  It is simply a field which seeks to enlighten.  In regard to "mind emotions stuff",  I am guessing that you are referring to mind/brain dilemma.

This is how I see it: 

When you examine a beautiful stone statue, you can break it down into the individual atoms that compose the structure. No one atom is art, individually they are nothing but matter and space. When you arrange them in a complex pattern, the summation is something possessing a property that no single component has. The product is more than the additive properties of the atoms, the complex interaction creates a new property called "artistic beauty".

So analogously, the brain is a complex functioning of many different neurons with axons and dendrites, and the cummulative effect of these components working together create something more than the sum of the parts, they create the mind.

So the mind is a product of the functioning brain, and not a location in it. The mind is the soul.

People with brain tumors can undergo a complete personality change because of changes in chemicals produced and pressure effects on the normal brain.  How can this be if the "soul" is extra-corporeal.  It should be immutable.


4. if scripture is true, then what's the difference between following the scripture and following Newton's three laws?

I don't need to follow Newtons laws (they work on their own), but I can observe them in action.  Predictable and reproducible.  How do I prove so conclusively that scripture is "true"?



6. can you  post it please?
ok<---- that should be blue

7. so you think Einstein thinks simplistically? he didn&#39;t say this when he was young.

I am saying that young people are more easily swayed into "fads", than those who have been around the block longer.&nbsp; As for Einstein, he merely pointed out that the philosophical nature of Buddism made it more adaptable to science than the rigid teachings of diety based religions.

[clocker]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 01:13


2. Philosophy is Univeristy course, is generally considered as science, but Buddhism is not a university course and it&#39;s not in catalog of science.

Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.

What Universities consider Philosophy to be a science?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 15:46

Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.

What Universities consider Philosophy to be a science?

It just wouldn&#39;t be a proper contretemps without you.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes+17 July 2004 - 13:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 17 July 2004 - 13:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@17 July 2004 - 15:46

Although I have no intention of jumping into the middle of this little conratemps, I just couldn&#39;t let this pass.

What Universities consider Philosophy to be a science?

It just wouldn&#39;t be a proper contretemps without you. [/b][/quote]
I prefer Iran contretemps, myself.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@17 July 2004 - 17:33
Boy, this is getting heavy.

Makes me think about yo-yo tricks.

My boy is good at these. I can do the "bounce it off the floor and hit yourself in the face" one. Something I rarely volunteer to do for some reason.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+17 July 2004 - 14:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 17 July 2004 - 14:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 July 2004 - 17:33
Boy, this is getting heavy.

Makes me think about yo-yo tricks.

My boy is good at these. I can do the "bounce it off the floor and hit yourself in the face" one. Something I rarely volunteer to do for some reason. [/b][/quote]
In my "dotage", I realize I have totally forgotten more than I ever knew about yo-yo-ing.

I have, however, retained my mastery of the trick you describe, Biggles.