Evil Companies

[Croyvern]

Lao Tzu? Old Man? That would be me and Brehan right? There is a very nice book at Barnes and Noble Rev, a small handheld book that explains a lot about Lau Tzu, and Confuse Us. I think you will enjoy it. I will find it on the shelf and get the title. You also might look up a book called Easter Wisdom by Alan Watts.

Edit> Sorry I guess I forgot Gradrel .

But on a serious note Valek, when you read about Taoism and Buddhism, you will find that it is not necessary to disbelieve what you have already learned about religion.

As they say, the Tao that can be written, is not the Tao.

And americans thought we invented the phrase "Woo Wee"

[Imoutgoodbye]

I've made a good study of all the factions of Christianity. I have a decent idea of what others are.

Confucius I group with Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. I do love those three and Confucius is an interesting Eastern view to be sure.

Religions/beliefs share common threads because it's man who follows and interprets. There is wisdom in the darkest corners of the world. I've been an atheist. I've been a baptist. I've been a wiccan. Now I'm just a crazy man with his own views on Christianity that won't set foot in a church. My wife can go to church. Listening to someone else isn't for me.

Considering what someone else has to say, well, that's a whole 'nother story.

[Psycho Child]

I think I can understand where you are coming from Valek. Especially concerning churches. While I believe that faith is crucial to life (faith, not necessarily belief in creationism/god etc. before Pali jumps all over me ), I have a very low opinion of organized religion. And to think, I'm an ordained minister.

[Dizz]

Lol

This threadjack of philosophy was started by a green tongue. HAHAHAHAHA!

[jibber]

Wow, Valek, it sucks that you have to endure that. I, too, disagree completely with that kind of policy. When I worked for Sprint, it was the same way. Now I work for a better company, have wonderful benefits, get paid weekly, get shift differential pay for weekends (I work four 12 hour days) and I also get paid sick leave, paid time off, vacation, and non paid sick leave (which doesn't count against me). On top of that, it's a sales position, and I have the opportunity to roughly make about $3K a commission check, on top of my hourly rate of roughly $23/hr.

And I live in the U.S.

And shame on everyone bringing some stupid crap about republicans/democrats/evolution theory and.. meh, I stopped reading halfway down the thread.

[Kyzarius]

Not to disagree with your point Kyzarius, however Taoism is not a religion. The chinese do not have a word that translates to religion, nor one that translates to philosophy. Taoism simply is... Taoism. Which roughly translates to "The Way".

I'll shut up now and let you people get back to arguing different points at each other. ^.^

Taoism is a way of life, I could never argue against that fact. Many view organized religions in the same light. Where is the line between what you call your way of life and what others would call their religion? This is what frightens some people (including me, and pali thinks the US has already plunged into the deep end. heh.), that people will take religion with all of its extreme reactions and make it their way of life.

[Psycho Child]

There should not be a line. If you truly believe in something, than it and it's principals should be your way of life. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite. There is a difference however between living your faith, and being a fanatic. I will fully support anyone else's faith (provided that it does not require infringing upon the rights of others) as long as they aren't a fanatic. Only thing you can do with fanatics is drop a .45 hollow point in their skull and walk away. But PC you say, what then is your definition of fanaticism? *sigh*

A fanatic (to me anyway) is someone believes so firmly in something that they can no longer tolerate any difference of opinion. I guess that is the simplest way I can put it.

[Pali]

So I wouldnt say that NO religion offers a valid reason to act morally.

When I use the word "religion", it is in a very general manner - there are of course going to be exceptions to pretty much any statement along the lines of "religion is ". You'll find people who identify as Christians who do not believe Jesus was the son of God - when you're making stuff up, there's pretty much no limit to what you can do - but I'm still pretty comfortable with making the statement "Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God".

He can' date=' actually. There's an interesting line between ethics and morals, but science has no conscience. Not to poke at science, but it's done just as much good as it has done wrong, much like it's brother, religion.[/quote']

Valek, I've very often seen you treat science as if it is a religion, as if it shares features characteristic of religions. It does not. It is not a worldview - it is a toolkit for investigating how the natural world functions. Nothing more. You say it has no conscience - why would it? It's not professing to be a guide to living a full life. Religion and science are not "brothers" in any appreciable meaning of the term. Religions actually DO offer commandments on how one should live one's life - science does not. Science, by its very nature, cannot do this - the closest it comes is by being potentially able to answer the question of "if I want this, how can I get it?" But even there, it makes no promises. Religions are capable of serving as motivation for one's action - science is only capable of being used as a tool to gain reliable information. Sometimes the quest for knowledge drives people over the edge, sure... but science is the tool used on that quest, it is not the quest itself. A thousand years ago, alchemy was used on that quest - because science hadn't been invented yet.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Valek, I've very often seen you treat science as if it is a religion, as if it shares features characteristic of religions. It does not. It is not a worldview - it is a toolkit for investigating how the natural world functions. Nothing more. You say it has no conscience - why would it? It's not professing to be a guide to living a full life. Religion and science are not "brothers" in any appreciable meaning of the term. Religions actually DO offer commandments on how one should live one's life - science does not. Science, by its very nature, cannot do this - the closest it comes is by being potentially able to answer the question of "if I want this, how can I get it?" But even there, it makes no promises. Religions are capable of serving as motivation for one's action - science is only capable of being used as a tool to gain reliable information. Sometimes the quest for knowledge drives people over the edge, sure... but science is the tool used on that quest, it is not the quest itself. A thousand years ago, alchemy was used on that quest - because science hadn't been invented yet.

My favorite part of the day, yanking Pali's chain.

Science is a tool. Or toolkit. However you want to word it. Science is the study of this world and how to manipulate it. Yet, it's often the basis for rebuking creationism and an afterlife. While at the same time flirting with the possibility of alternate universes and time travel while admitting it can't be done. Yet. Dreaming by another name.

And science has a material worth. It has its gains. It's embedded in the here and now. Like religion, it's only as good or evil as the mind that embraces it. The Nobel Prize in science comes with a very cool monetary award, not to mention whatever patents you can put on your discovery or royalties can be wrung from it. Again, we come back to the fact that man controls what happens with anything, real or imagined.

Science and Religion are much like Cain and Abel.

EDIT: And I'm not saying another word about it. Just because, well, I've got a pile of homework that's easier to do.

[Pali]

Yet' date=' it's often the basis for rebuking creationism and an afterlife.[/quote']

Yes, because creationism and the concept of an immaterial soul are empirical claims, and empirical claims are capable of being investigated by science. There simply is no evidence in favor of either - therefore, science does not treat either as worthy of serious consideration.

While at the same time flirting with the possibility of alternate universes and time travel while admitting it can't be done.

While I don't entirely agree with the above statement, even if I did, science at least is able to admit where it does not know things. Scientific knowledge is provisional knowledge, and is considered to be certain only to the degree with which it is supported by evidence and testing. Multiverse theories and the like, while considered interesting concepts worthy of investigation, are NOT assumed to be accurate or valid by any sort of scientific consensus. Religions, on the other hand, very often assume absolute certainty in arenas in which they cannot possibly have knowledge.

And science has a material worth. It has its gains. It's embedded in the here and now. Like religion, it's only as good or evil as the mind that embraces it. The Nobel Prize in science comes with a very cool monetary award, not to mention whatever patents you can put on your discovery or royalties can be wrung from it. Again, we come back to the fact that man controls what happens with anything, real or imagined.

Yes, there are some monetary awards that come along with having a distinguished career in science. There are similar awards that come along with a distinguished career in pretty much any field, and much, MUCH greater awards (at least when judged on a level of personal finances) that come with many other fields (and should I mention that, comparatively, very few scientists actually gain anything from these major awards). When last I checked, the Catholic Church is one of the richest institutions in the world.

Science and Religion are much like Cain and Abel.

Only in the sense that science is capable of demolishing religious claims that are vulnerable to empirical investigation.

[KRins]

Empirical investigation with tools that no one is willing to consider may not be sensitive enough to detect said claims. I don't believe there is some wispy ghost in me. I am not even entirely sure there is an afterlife. I am not to the point I can boldly deny it however. I am always saying "If there is a Heaven, soandso will be there with great seats." This isn't some contrived comfort... I still miss people who have died in my life. I am simply vocalizing something you, me, science, and all the theologians in the world cannot PROVE or DISPROVE yet. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there... ask the armadillo who was trying to dig under my house last night.

[Magick]

Only thing you can do with fanatics is drop a .45 hollow point in their skull and walk away.

Best line I've heard in a long time. Almost sig material.

[Mali]

I'd disagree and say that statement is both ridiculous and appalling.

[Twinblades713]

Such a degree of hatred for someone in that manner is fanaticism in itself. Unless you're just full of ****.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Such a degree of hatred for someone in that manner is fanaticism in itself. Unless you're just full of ****.

For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction.

[Pali]

Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there...

Apply this line of reasoning to the possible existence of faeries and leprechauns, and I hope you will understand why it's not convincing to me at all. Everything we know scientifically about human beings points to us being entirely physical creatures. There is absolutely no scientific reason to suppose that a soul exists, or that humans continue to exist after they die... and there are a LOT of reasons to assume that we don't.

Just because a concept is incapable of being absolutely disproven does not render it worthy of consideration. I can't disprove that the world began five minutes ago with all our memories intact, nor can I disprove the possible existence of Bigfoot - but neither of these are ideas worthy of being taken seriously. Claims about a soul and an afterlife are, by their nature, not capable of being tested - that we can't test them and show them wrong is not an argument in their favor. The only reason they don't seem as silly to you as Bigfoot or leprechauns is because you are so used to them.

[KRins]

Killing someone back isn't equal or opposite... Now if you made them do hard labor for pennies, all of which is going directly to a victim's family in amounts determined to be what the victim could have been expected to make, then we are talking equal and opposite. Quite frankly, I find executing extremists, particularly religious extremists, giving them exactly what they want. They believe their God is just waiting to reward them for their "holy war", so let's make them wait on it and grind out a few drainage ditches and license plates in the process huh?

Pali... what you are struggling to absorb here is that I am NOT a member of some organized religion. By family association, I am a baptized Catholic. I do not attend Mass every Sunday and I am rarely in Confession. That being said... you're view of strictly what imperfect science conducted by imperfect human beings in imperfect conditions can prove is JUST as ignorant and narrow-minded to me. You are attributing Godlike power to science... and the fact you come up with a thread on a new scientific discovery every week proves that scientists might know more facts... but if it was a pie chart, I can guarantee you that the "we don't know jack" slice would be DRASTICALLY bigger than the "we can prove this with Laws and experimentation" slice. Of course modern technology and approaches has proven much of many religious texts as false... most were written a few thousand years ago by people with little to no education beyond what could be provided by the Church. The fact that you cannot empirically prove that there are no faeries in the world makes it a distinct (albeit small) possibility that they DO. You are shouting absolutes with ZERO evidence... congrats, you are a preacher. You are just asking for anti-faith that science as we know it at this second is absolute and able to detect ALL THINGS, instead of asking for faith that God, Heaven, or an afterlife exist.

[Pali]

Where have I attributed godlike power to science? Where have I stated with absolute certainty that faeries do not exist? All I said is that, without evidence in favor of their existence being available, the concept that faeries may exist is not worthy of serious consideration. Likewise, the concepts of a soul or afterlife are not ones that are worthy of serious consideration - they have no solid evidence supporting them, and it's not like people haven't tried to find any. In science, when ideas contradict what we know and don't have evidence to support them, they are discarded until reason to re-evaluate them is found - that is all I am doing here.

If I'm shouting absolutes... seriously, quote me somewhere doing so. You'll have a lot of trouble finding one, because I take great care to NOT speak in absolute terms in this context. You need to read what I write more carefully.

EDIT: And I fully agree that scientific knowledge is provisional. Hell, I treat ALL knowledge as provisional - I don't take anything as absolutely certain. If you think that I think that science at this second is able to detect all things... I'd love to know what I've said that gave you this impression, because it is an entirely false one.

[KRins]

Apply this line of reasoning to the possible existence of faeries and leprechauns' date=' and I hope you will understand why it's not convincing to me at all. Everything we know scientifically about human beings points to us being entirely physical creatures. There is absolutely no scientific reason to suppose that a soul exists, or that humans continue to exist after they die... [/quote']

Countless experiences by a whole variety of people from essentially every walk of life in nearly every country on the globe.

Absolutely no is also an absolute in case you were wondering. This isn't a fight you can win by trying to sound smarter hombre, you got no proof and I got no proof. I love that you claim that something you can't support this second isn't worth consideration... hypothesizing is like... step 1 or 2 in the scientific process. If you are a man of science... we need to rewrite the textbooks.

[Imoutgoodbye]

On a side note, I'm finally starting to feel better. Got quite a bit of reading to do, a few work sheets to fill out, an online quiz, and a lesson plan to make. Just have to decide if it's going to be in English or Physics.

And after all this laying around being sick the past couple days and screwing around on the mud and the forums and watching TV mindlessly, I've learned something important:

iCarly is actually a witty and funny show.

[Insepiddeception]

I too went through an iCarly phase. Not one of my better moments but it was enjoyable.

[Twinblades713]

Edit: Nevermind.

[Insepiddeception]

Twinblades is without words?

[Twinblades713]

Twinblades is without words?

I decided I didn't want to be banned.

[Insepiddeception]

Do not blaspheme against that which is icarly *lowers head* yeah don't blame you