9 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

If faith (in science) is going to make you blind to all the other wonders,  that would be less good ????

Of course it would. We have to distinguish between 'faith in science', as reported in the media and accepted by many who don't really understand science; and 'faith in the methodology of science', which requires knowledge of our history of scientific enquiry and at least some experience or training in basic scientific experimentation.

 

The 'Methodology of Science' requires that all available data and evidence relating to any issue under investigation, be taken into consideration, and not be discounted or covered up because such evidence might be contrary to accepted theories, or contrary to the scientist's personal beliefs.

 

However, scientists are also human, and it's very difficult to be totally unbiased, especially when one is earning a living as a scientist, hoping to get promotion and an increase in salary so one can better support one's family and pay off the house mortgage.

 

An obvious recent example of such bias, was the behaviour of certain scientists who were working for Tobacco companies when the evidence that smoking increased the risk of lung cancer became prominent. The choices would have been to resign and search for another job, or continue to work in the Tobacco company and promote alternative explanations, however weak, for the 'apparent' increased risk of lung cancer, such as the hypothesis that people who had a genetic weakness for developing lung cancer also had an increased desire to take up smoking, and that such people would have developed lung cancer whether or not they were smokers. ????

If anyone believes in God/Karma, I'd like their opinion - 

 

It would obviously be morally and/or Karmically bad if I killed someone. I think it would also be bad killing the soi dogs outside my house. I have no issue killing an ant or mosquito. 

Where does one draw the line?  

Personally, I would draw it around a fish or a frog. What say ye philosophers?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Personally, I would draw it around a fish

It it because fish have no Porpoise?

22 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

However, scientists are also human, and it's very difficult to be totally unbiased, especially when one is earning a living as a scientist, hoping to get promotion and an increase in salary so one can better support one's family and pay off the house mortgage.

That's it, when science is ruled by profit, it can be as bad as religion in a not too distant past.

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's it, when science is ruled by profit, it can be as bad as religion in a not too distant past.

I understand what you are trying to say, but that's not science, it is simply corrupted by money human behaviour, certainly not science. 

Science is a process not a set of people. any process that does not follow the criteria of the scientific process, is simply not a scientific process. it is simply pseudoscience.  

19 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

If anyone believes in God/Karma, I'd like their opinion - 

 

It would obviously be morally and/or Karmically bad if I killed someone. I think it would also be bad killing the soi dogs outside my house. I have no issue killing an ant or mosquito. 

Where does one draw the line?  

Personally, I would draw it around a fish or a frog. What say ye philosophers?

 

 

I think the main point here is the intention behind the action. If you eat meat, you're indirectly responsible for the animal's death, but you do it for sustenance. If you kill another human being for self defense, the intention is not the same as killing the man to steal from him.

 

Personally, I have killed (and still do sometimes) ants and mosquitos, but I do feel bad about it and try to avoid it as much as possible. Generally speaking, I try to preserve life if possible. I would never kill a snake out of fear of getting bitten, unless my life depends on it.

I do however eat meat at the moment and I'm aware that that's something in my life that I could (should?) change again (I've been vegetarian for 7 years previously). There's always room for improvement...
 

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I understand what you are trying to say, but that's not science, it is simply corrupted by money human behaviour, certainly not science. 

Science is a process not a set of people. any process that does not follow the criteria of the scientific process, is simply not a scientific process. it is simply pseudoscience.  

I see the logic in that.

The same goes for religion and spirituality. What unenlightened people do in the name of religion should not taint what true spirituality is about. It would be nice if the atheists here who like to put both in the same basket could see the difference as well.

 

35 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's it, when science is ruled by profit, it can be as bad as religion in a not too distant past.

It's not 'science' that is ruled by profit but certain people who are also scientists, who are ruled by profit, such as those tobacco scientists I mentioned.

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

It's not 'science' that is ruled by profit but certain people who are also scientists, who are ruled by profit, such as those tobacco scientists I mentioned.

Yeah, right, certain people, or perhaps the great majority.. 

The tobacco scientists you mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg imho.

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Yeah, right, certain people, or perhaps the great majority.. 

The tobacco scientists you mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg imho.

Where is your evidence or data for that? No evidence or data equals no science.

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Where is your evidence or data for that? No evidence or data equals no science.

Lol.. the system is rotten, if you cannot see it by yourself,  I cannot help you. 

Actually you're probably better being unaware, there's no joy in staring into the abyss ????

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

If anyone believes in God/Karma, I'd like their opinion - 

 

It would obviously be morally and/or Karmically bad if I killed someone. I think it would also be bad killing the soi dogs outside my house. I have no issue killing an ant or mosquito. 

Where does one draw the line?  

Personally, I would draw it around a fish or a frog. What say ye philosophers?

 

 

The natural process of 'Nature' kills everyone and every living organism, according to its genetic life-span. There are no known exceptions. Some animals, such as Lions and Tigers, are Carnivores or Predators and eat only meat. Human Beings are Omnivores and eat both vegetables and meat. Cows, sheep, goats, rabbits, and so on, are Herbivores, and eat only plants and vegetables.
Buddhist monks eat whatever food is offered to them, whether meat or vegetables. What's the problem?

 

20 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I think the main point here is the intention behind the action. If you eat meat, you're indirectly responsible for the animal's death, but you do it for sustenance. If you kill another human being for self defense, the intention is not the same as killing the man to steal from him.

 

Personally, I have killed (and still do sometimes) ants and mosquitos, but I do feel bad about it and try to avoid it as much as possible. Generally speaking, I try to preserve life if possible. I would never kill a snake out of fear of getting bitten, unless my life depends on it.

I do however eat meat at the moment and I'm aware that that's something in my life that I could (should?) change again (I've been vegetarian for 7 years previously). There's always room for improvement...
 

I haven't eaten beef for 30 years. I was vegan for 4 years. 

 

I'm not sure if I believe ignorance is an excuse for killing things. 

 

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Lol.. the system is rotten, if you cannot see it by yourself,  I cannot help you. 

Actually you're probably better being unaware, there's no joy in staring into the abyss ????

Ah! That's the difference between us. If you cannot see something, then I can help you, even if I think what you cannot see is obvious. ????

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Buddhist monks eat whatever food is offered to them, whether meat or vegetables. What's the problem?

This is a common misconception by meat-eaters trying to justify their diet. 

Buddhist monks prefer to eat vegetables. 

1 minute ago, Neeranam said:

This is a common misconception by meat-eaters trying to justify their diet. 

Buddhist monks prefer to eat vegetables. 

Why are some of them so fat then? ????

1 minute ago, Neeranam said:

This is a common misconception by meat-eaters trying to justify their diet. 

Buddhist monks prefer to eat vegetables. 

Agree, I'm always amazed by people's ability in finding excuses. 

7 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I haven't eaten beef for 30 years. I was vegan for 4 years. 

 

I'm not sure if I believe ignorance is an excuse for killing things. 

 

What ignorance?

22 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I believe God is everything,  and the source of everything, including science and "things ".

I also think we should separate the concept of science, as research for knowledge,  from the arrogant,  brainwashed folks who claim that "science knows everything ".

If God wanted us to live the simple life of animals, we would not have such an inquisitive mind and such a powerful imagination. 

It's up to us to make good use of these gifts.

 

 

I haven't seen a post that says 'Science knows everything'. I have seen posts saying that such an opinion is the opposite of science. 

Comparing pseudo science skeptics to evangelicals is also not fair. The first is just saying there's no proof so it is not science but good luck in your endeavors  - no leap of faith required - the second is saying I know that which is correct and you must follow me and the one true faith or go to hell.

Critics of psuedo science aren't saying that all of it is  definitely not correct but they are critical of people who talk as though it is correct without proof.

9 hours ago, Neeranam said:

If anyone believes in God/Karma, I'd like their opinion - 

 

It would obviously be morally and/or Karmically bad if I killed someone. I think it would also be bad killing the soi dogs outside my house. I have no issue killing an ant or mosquito. 

Where does one draw the line?  

Personally, I would draw it around a fish or a frog. What say ye philosophers?

 

 

I am with you on that. My girlfriend is a buddhist and she is so careful not to kill anything and certainly does not eat meat. Others say they are buddhists and eat meat and drink and this and that. Hard to say this is actual buddhism but maybe the kharmic laws look at your intention and it's better to be on the path bit by bit.

 

The line could be not the type of animal but the threat it poses to you. If you are attacked by a tiger or bees or mosquitoes maybe there is a justification. Soi dogs are more a nuisance than a threat so it is hard.  

 

The line could be the minimum you can eat for survival. If you lived somewhere with no edible plants but lots of fish maybe that is OK because your life depends on it. 

 

The line could be awareness or conciousness of the eaten thing. Frogs are aware so may be no frogs. New tests show plants react to things and in a sense learn and may have a form of consciousness so maybe without drawing a line you can't eat anything and you die. On that basis too if a human is  brain dead and has no awareness or consciousness you could eat him.

 

 

On buddhism and possessions I like this from The Onion. I hope most buddhists have a sense of humour and it is fine.

 

The Buddha

When I think back to my time on earth, I have few regrets. The path I took, the simple life of a monk, allowed me to achieve the highest state of enlightenment. As one who renounced worldly attachments, I was free to lead a contemplative existence and to then share my wisdom with others. That said, I have to admit that if I were to do it all over again, I would probably choose to have at least a few possessions.

 

Not too many, of course. Maybe 10 possessions—20, tops.

To be sure, desiring earthly possessions only binds one to this life, and all beings must free themselves from the shackles of materialism to reach nirvana. That’s why, if I were to have a few belongings, I’d limit them to just some essentials: a fan, perhaps, to cool myself with, or a candle, so I could continue my study of ancient texts when the sun goes down. It’s not as if owning a candle would’ve halted my spiritual awakening. How could it? It’s just a candle, right?

I’ve always said that it is not objects themselves but our unwavering devotion to them that stands in the way of karmic progress and, ultimately, true awakening. With that in mind, I can’t help but wonder if it really would’ve been such a big deal if I’d had a pen or two to write with—not coveting pens or obsessing over them or anything like that, just having a reliable writing implement that’s great for copying down spiritual insights. If I lost the pen, I’d be absolutely fine with that, but there’s nothing about being liberated from the stranglehold of temporal attachment that says I shouldn’t be able to make a mark on a piece of paper.

And come to think of it, a canteen would’ve been a huge help. I probably would’ve attained perfect enlightenment sooner—a lot sooner—if I hadn’t had to stop meditating beneath the Bodhi tree and walk to the river Niranjana every single time I got thirsty.

I understand, perhaps better than anyone, how vital meditation is to finding the freedom that awaits us at the end of the eightfold path. And you know what would’ve made meditating a hell of a lot easier? A tent. Nothing big or ornate, just a humble cloth shelter to help keep the rain and wind off my body. It’s not as though a tent would’ve stopped me from teaching my disciples to forsake earthly things. I would just say, “Dispossess yourself of all things, except a tent. And maybe a blanket.” Pillows, an obvious worldly luxury, would be forbidden.

 

Oh, you know what else would’ve been great? A tea kettle. I would have killed for a tea kettle.

A sweater or a jacket really wouldn’t have been the end of the world either, and there’s also a lot to be said for a decent pair of shoes. And what harm would there have been in having, say, a flute? It’d be nice to unwind with some music at the end of a long day of rigorous reflection. Again, I’m talking about very modest possessions here. Nothing you couldn’t easily fit in a satchel, which, yes, would’ve been nifty as well.

How about a little carving of a monkey? Honestly, I think it would’ve been fun to have had that to look at from time to time—a wooden one, nothing carved from precious stones or anything. I can’t imagine not being able to break free from the eternal cycle of death and rebirth because of a tiny monkey figurine, can you?

If I’m being completely honest, it’s not just the lack of possessions I regret. I also probably spent way too much of my time on earth meditating. Just sitting there on the hard ground doing nothing but pondering the infinite day after day when there are so many wonderful things to see and do in the world. I could’ve meditated just once a week and probably been perfectly fine. What a waste. I lived 80 years, and frankly, I blew it. I should have just tried to enjoy myself.

 

 

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I haven't seen a post that says 'Science knows everything'. I have seen posts saying that such an opinion is the opposite of science. 

Comparing pseudo science skeptics to evangelicals is also not fair. The first is just saying there's no proof so it is not science but good luck in your endeavors  - no leap of faith required - the second is saying I know that which is correct and you must follow me and the one true faith or go to hell.

Critics of psuedo science aren't saying that all of it is  definitely not correct but they are critical of people who talk as though it is correct without proof.

Well, i guess you are entitled to your opinion,  but calling spiritual science "pseudoscience " is not fair either.

..and yes, some of those materialistic science-types display a level of intolerance comparable to the Spanish inquisition. 

So you can have a go at me, but I cannot have a go at you, right ?

How tolerant ..????

 

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I haven't seen a post that says 'Science knows everything'. I have seen posts saying that such an opinion is the opposite of science. 

Comparing pseudo science skeptics to evangelicals is also not fair. The first is just saying there's no proof so it is not science but good luck in your endeavors  - no leap of faith required - the second is saying I know that which is correct and you must follow me and the one true faith or go to hell.

Critics of psuedo science aren't saying that all of it is  definitely not correct but they are critical of people who talk as though it is correct without proof.

You are forgiven for thinking like that because you've joined the conversation only recently.

 

Not too long ago however, there were a lot more sceptics and atheists in here, and they had no problem making sweeping statements that had no scientific proof whatsoever. But because they invoked science, they got away with it. They were as blind to alternative belief systems as were the fire and brimstone guys.

 

Even our dear resident scientist is a lot more politically correct these days than he used to be.????

 

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Ah! That's the difference between us. If you cannot see something, then I can help you, even if I think what you cannot see is obvious. ????

Now i would really like to know what you are talking about ????

 

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Ah! That's the difference between us. If you cannot see something, then I can help you, even if I think what you cannot see is obvious. ????

 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Now i would really like to know what you are talking about ????

 

@VincentRJ was in a mood earlier because @mauGR1 and @Sunmaster accused him of always trying to be clever.
After hours of awkward silence, @mauGR1 asked "What's the matter?"
@VincentRJ replied "It is the basic structural component of the universe."

 

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Now i would really like to know what you are talking about ????

 

This is the chain of comments that led to mauGR1's confusion.

 

(1) He made the following statement:
"If faith (in science) is going to make you blind to all the other wonders,  that would be less good."

 

(2) I agreed, but made the point that being blind to all the other wonders is not the fault of 'Science', but the fault of certain biased scientists who did not adhere to the inclusive principle of the methodology of science, which requires the consideration of all available evidence and data. I provided an obvious example of the behaviour of certain tobacco scientists during the times when it became clear that smoking caused an increased risk of lung cancer. 

 

(3) mauGR1's response was:
"The tobacco scientists you mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg imho."

 

(4) My response was:
"Where is your evidence or data for that? No evidence or data equals no science."

 

(5) mauGR1's reply was:
"Lol.. the system is rotten, if you cannot see it by yourself,  I cannot help you."

 

(6) My reply to #5 was:
"That's the difference between us. If you cannot see something, then I can help you, even if I think what you cannot see is obvious."

 

(7) mauGR1's response was:
"Now i would really like to know what you are talking about." 

 

(8) To which my answer, right now, is the above listing of the chain of comments. I hope I have now resolved your confusion, mauGR1, by explaining the obvious. ????

On 3/7/2021 at 2:57 AM, Neeranam said:

I haven't eaten beef for 30 years. I was vegan for 4 years. 

 

I'm not sure if I believe ignorance is an excuse for killing things. 

 

In nature everything kills or gets killed. There is no natural order to my knowledge in which carnivorous species lower than man abstain from killing to eat.

It was also the natural order of humans for thousands of years.

We try not to kill un necessarily for the sake of society, but most have no problem employing large numbers of professional killers in the military.

 

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

This is the chain of comments that led to mauGR1's confusion.

 

(1) He made the following statement:
"If faith (in science) is going to make you blind to all the other wonders,  that would be less good."

 

(2) I agreed, but made the point that being blind to all the other wonders is not the fault of 'Science', but the fault of certain biased scientists who did not adhere to the inclusive principle of the methodology of science, which requires the consideration of all available evidence and data. I provided an obvious example of the behaviour of certain tobacco scientists during the times when it became clear that smoking caused an increased risk of lung cancer. 

 

(3) mauGR1's response was:
"The tobacco scientists you mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg imho."

 

(4) My response was:
"Where is your evidence or data for that? No evidence or data equals no science."

 

(5) mauGR1's reply was:
"Lol.. the system is rotten, if you cannot see it by yourself,  I cannot help you."

 

(6) My reply to #5 was:
"That's the difference between us. If you cannot see something, then I can help you, even if I think what you cannot see is obvious."

 

(7) mauGR1's response was:
"Now i would really like to know what you are talking about." 

 

(8) To which my answer, right now, is the above listing of the chain of comments. I hope I have now resolved your confusion, mauGR1, by explaining the obvious. ????

I would disagree with your apparent belief that there is a minority of biased scientists.

 

I do agree with MauGR1 that the system is rotten, and IMO that applies to the system that is sometimes referred to as "the Man".

Off topic posts removed.

 

Lets not derail or go off at a tangent.

15 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would disagree with your apparent belief that there is a minority of biased scientists.

 

I do agree with MauGR1 that the system is rotten, and IMO that applies to the system that is sometimes referred to as "the Man".

I think the system was 10 times more rotten centuries ago before the development of modern science and medicine. It might appear to be more rotten today, but only because the Media is 100 times more efficient at reporting the bad news which grabs your attention.

 

During the time of the Spanish Flu, from around 1918 to 1920, the total deaths amounted to approximately 30 million, although estimates vary from a low of 17.4 million to as high as 100 million. However the global population during those times was less than 1/4th of today's population. Even if you use the lowest estimate of 17.4 million, that would be equivalent to around 70 million deaths from the current Covid-19 pandemic. How does that compare with the current, actual, world-wide, total Covid-19 deaths of just 2.6 million?

 

Would you rather be living during the 1919 period?