Politics Is So Sick!

[elitek]

Originally posted by clocker+17 July 2004 - 17:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 July 2004 - 17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-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? [/b][/quote]
we are going back into this dilemma again. if its not a science course, why would it be a subject of general education in most of the university. now you are saying most of the universities provide non-scientific courses. what is science? strictly, math geometry.. are not science. they deals with abstract concepts and calculations(see my "why 1-1=0"?). the concept of triangle will be always there when all material triangles are destroyed.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by j2k4+17 July 2004 - 20:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 17 July 2004 - 20:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Biggles@17 July 2004 - 14:32
<!--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.

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. [/b][/quote]
How about the hang-yourself-by-a-ceiling-fan? I was only able to do it once, then I never picked up a yoyo again.

[clocker]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 14:40

we are going back into this dilemma again. if its not a science course, why would it be a subject of general education in most of the university. now you are saying most of the universities provide non-scientific courses. what is science? strictly, math geometry.. are not science. they deals with abstract concepts and calculations(see my "why 1-1=0"?). the concept of triangle will be always there when all material triangles are destroyed.

Huh?

Don&#39;t tell me...this is all leading up to a big "Who&#39;s on third" recitation.

[hobbes]

Who is on First base?

[clocker]

Damn.

That&#39;s two screwups in one thread.

Bill O&#39;Reilly made me do it.

[elitek]

3. I don&#39;t worship science, I don&#39;t deny science either. it&#39;s not perfect never will be as I mentioned it&#39;s one-sided, logically, anything goes one-sided will be a failure.
I am just standing on the middle between religion and science, I want to point out there is limitation of science. what you said are merely a theory.

"individually they are nothing but matter and space."
atom is matter in the human eyes under microscope. atom must be composed by smaller particles. if so, atom is empty. Ultimate science fails to explain it already. thats why I said science will never be perfect.

"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"
who knows mind creates brain or brain creates mind? isn&#39;t science just a theory too?

"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. "

there is no conflict with the theory of a independent soul, you have understand the concept of soul, without a body, a soul doesn&#39;t contain thoughts like human do, it&#39;s like a media, if a soul goes to an animal like a dog, it will be inhibited within the traits of a dog. so soul and substance interact with each other.


4. "I don&#39;t need to follow Newtons laws (they work on their own), but I can observe them in action. Predictable and reproducible. "
thats pretty cool, we don&#39;t need scientists anymore.

"How do I prove so conclusively that scripture is "true"?"
you cannot prove it is "not true" either.

6. coudn&#39;t open it, please post it again.

7. I never thought about your age, 15 or 45 the same to me. Buddhism has scientific and spiritual nature not philosophical nature. Einstein didn&#39;t say he want to make it more adaptable to science, he meant theres possiblity science and Buddhism can get along with each other. he could see the similarity but couldn&#39;t prove the difference, he never gave opinion which one is better.

[elitek]

all right thats it. you judge it by yourself. end of discussion

[hobbes]

My conclusion is that English is not your first language thus explaining your rather odd rebuttals and that you are a naive young man. In 15 years you will look back on yourself and laugh. There is no substitute for experience.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by elitek@17 July 2004 - 18:31
3. I don&#39;t worship science, I don&#39;t deny science either. it&#39;s not perfect never will be as I mentioned it&#39;s one-sided, logically, anything goes one-sided will be a failure.

Try this, then:

1. A yo-yo is science.*

2. A yo-yo has two sides, and is therefore non-scientific.*

3. A one-sided yo-yo does not work; science proves this.*


* From "The Yo-Yo Philosophy: A Scientific Study"

[Biggles]

Originally posted by clocker@17 July 2004 - 22:56
Damn.

That&#39;s two screwups in one thread.

Bill O&#39;Reilly made me do it.

The source of the dark side by all accounts.


I have to say I am having difficulty following this one. I can, however, say with certainty that Philosophy was not in the Science Faculty at my University. Neither was Politics or Psychology come to think of it and History definitely wasn&#39;t (or if it was I spent 4 years in the wrong building ).

Buddhism is one way of understanding our sense of being in the material world. It neither contradicts nor supports science.

The zeal of the convert is as ever somewhat like being hit with a steam hammer, but it is a necessary evolution.