I wouldn't say they are like fleas on a dog, but the whole point of buddhism is becoming a buddha is something any one can't do if they care to. Even you Sam.
and even have been from time to time. Usually with things beginning with "ph" like phrenology and phlogiston. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the exact nature of universe formation is still hotly debated. Big Bang has some variants and competing theories.
What you are saying is that over time scientists can, generally, change their opinions about this or that fact, hypothesis, theory. I am not sure this is tolerance. And much of life is resistant to empirical approaches: politics and social relations and ethics are some areas that seem to me to be rather especially resistant. IOW the bulk of life. Again, I do not see scientists as especially tolerant. Also their ideal that things are always open to revision is simply an ideal. Not unlike the love your neighbor of Christians. I don't see it playing out in reality very much. In the lab, in the distant background, sure. Out in reality scientists seem at best just like everyone else when it comes to tolerance and certainty. In my experience - which is, of course, filtered evidence - they are less tolerant then other people, on average. There are tendencies to see others as irrational. But if you have some evidence that scientists are more tolerant, please post it.
Or, more precisely, they tolerate that which can be demonstrated. The kooks, crackpots and woo-woo's become less tolerated as they sit waving their arms in frantic need of attention, much like you and your cult.
This post could be taken as supporting the idea that scientists are more tolerant than other people, since this was the context of my and SAM's comments in reaction to Michael. If you believe like Michael that scientists are more tolerant than other people, could you demonstrate this?
I never said scientists were more tolerant than other people, I merely explained what scientists aren't usually tolerant about.
Yes, yes. I knew you never said it. That's why I used 'could be taken' in the first sentence and the subjunctive in the second. And now I know.
There's all sorts of evidence. There's Evidence for Xenu, it's isn't very good (ex: I saw Xenu last night, we had dinner, He is a nice Alien overlord - send your money to Scientology Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm waiting for DH to respond with his intolerant post about how the Qur'an is the only uncorrupted religious book and is completely and forever true and Islam is the only true religion - polytheists and atheist can not be correct. The reason why I know DH thinks this is because of his intolerant ideology. Science if thought of as an ideology (I think of it as a methodology) is based on the scientific method. The ideology is tolerant of change and it's actually proposed to bring about change - closer to reality. So there's a difference b/w the people and the "ideology". That said, let's await DH's post. M Note: I do not believe in Gods (or Xenu'es) BUT I definitely agree it's possible there are Gods (or Xenues). So what I believe is different than what I believe is a possibility. anyway, DH, please post your intolerance so I can win another debate and move on. S.A.M, please feel free to do likewise Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BIG FAT NOTE: Many Buddhists tell me yes they may indeed be completely wrong. Actually, every single one I have personally met. I wonder if this is a reflection on their ideology.
Evidence can be good or bad. Good evidence is independently testable - so that the results are repeatable and example of bad evidence is hearsay. Natural as in inherent. Scientists use the scientific method. Part of that is accepting the result when scientifically proven wrong. That the question tested in the hypothesis is disproved. Change is inherent and natural. Being proven wrong common. Therefor the ideology is tolerant of new ideas. DH beliefs on the other hand are inherently intolerant - as they are based on Islam, an intolerant ideology. You shall see an example of this if and when with he or SAM fesses up an answer. It's really that simple. In my experience Buddhists are tolerant of new ideas and open to the possibility of being completely wrong.
. Yah, yah. Just seeing what you have to back up the claim. But that doesn't make scientists tolerant. It means they can possibly change their mind after being shown what they consider evidence. But are they tolerant compared to other people. Scientists have a very particular set of methodologies - with a caveat regarding the work of Feyarabend - but there are many factors that go into the making of a scientist. Do these as a sum make for more tolerant or less tolerant individuals? Given my experience, I don't think it does. You seem to think it does. Why? And I am not looking for the same deductive argument. Deduction generally does not cut it in scientific research. Are they tolerant of emotional expression? Are they tolerant of desire? (in themselves, in others)
no no no I'm talking about tolerant in their ideology in this case being science which is based on the scientific method. When I say DH is intolerant, I'm referring to their Islamic ideology not their ability to tolerate chili or rap-music or etc.... I thought I made that clear earlier? Anyway, if DH (or SAM) bothers to post, then you will see that an example of said Islamic intolerance. Two people: A) Hindus may be right and their Gods could be real. B) Hindus are not right, their Gods are not real. If a person came be in this this frame of mind: Hindus a small minded little people that have such a simplistic understanding of the true God that they need to use pretty little painted idols to get their minds wrapped around it. Think this came from person A or person B? Here's something to think about. Imagine you teach a child that is white-skinned, that white people are superior and black people are inferior. You teach him that God hates the blacks. Don't shake hands with the blacks. Don't take friends with the Black. The only good things Blacks have done was based on what whites did. etc... But, you never tell him to harm a Black person. You just teach him that ONLY whites are superior "God's chosen people". One day this child grows up and murders a Black. Will it surprise you? It seems to me that the line: I never taught my child to kill, just to be proud of being whites - is really just bullshit. The child was taught an intolerant ideology and this played a part in that child killing the black. And this isn't some off the wall example, it's a HUGE part of our culture and something that leaves a legacy with us to this day. The racists ideology is wrong. IMO. In this day and age, many forms of monotheism are accepted form of racism-like mentality. Like a black, we atheists have no ability to change out belief to God. Just like you can not force yourself to truly believe in Santa, or Xenu or whatever. Teaching children that God hates the atheist or polytheists or the homosexuals or etc... and that one's belief system is the ONLY true one and that one's holy book is the ONLY true on and that one's prophet, is the ONLY LAST ONE is the same thing. Going back to the Buddhism. Different people need differing amounts of superstition. I agree that society functions well with a certain amount of superstition, for whatever reasons. If we accept that we will have superstition, then we should make sure that said superstition is acceptable. Buddhism as I understand it is IMO probably the least in a line-up of racist-like ideas and is the best suited towards peaceful multiculturalism as is represented by our Western societies. Well, I have written about this many times, I'm not sure if I have the time to be more clearer. I'll end by saying this: Yes, I may be wrong, there may indeed be a Xenu. Ron could have been a Prophet. I don't think that is the case, but, I may be wrong. Now, DH? SAM? I'm still waiting.
I wonder why the tolerance you see in the ideology does not translate into tolerance in general. Maybe. Is A supposed to be scientists? Are you talking about the Iraq embargo and the dead children? Cause it is amazing how indirectly this kind of logic can be instilled in a nation. And I noticed the scientists bought it just as much, if not more than the average person. You mean like Western Capitalism is the best and other countries need us to run the world type stuff, implicit and explicit. I agree. I mean it goes back to Manifest Destiny and the Native Americans. And it's still going on. Mine too. Oh, hell I am with you, I mean look how the technocrats, generally atheist, and the monotheists have treated the pagans in the USA. I have always found it odd how these two groups see themselves as enemies when in fact they wash over most cultures, hand in hand, together. And teaching people that _____________ are backward irrational idiots also ties in with bombing runs. I see the exact same level everywhere I look. Each person totally in love with his or her own epistemolgy and axioms. Except it is intolerant of desire, sense of self and strong emotions. These judgments could lead to death, deaths of the heart if nothing else. Do you really think you mean it when you state uncertainty? Given your own logic, how much do you think your ideas, if told to children, might make it easier for them as adults to approve of embargos that kill Muslim or _____________ children or wars that are really about making money for a few people but seem to be about getting at the bad irrational people who are the world's problem?
You meet a large group of WASP white supremacists do you think that their ideology could perhaps give them a general intolerance towards Blacks? Not all mind you, maybe some are respectful of Blacks and just proud of being White. Maybe. Most, probably not. Think about this sort of scenario because that's what we're talking about here. Inherent intolerance ideology. It colors peoples perceptions of things. Now, just as it is not likely a White WASP will admit a Black is his equal, monotheists are equally unlikely to admit Scientology or polytheism or even atheism is their equal. Look I wish I write this more elegantly, but, meh, I'm too busy! Sorry, Michael
well, teaching tolerance is a start. Buddhism can be very tolerance and is, unlike monotheism, not inherently intolerant. So, even though I am no religious, I think Buddhism would be a good ideology to teach children. Are you happy to teach children to be accepting of other people of different color skin and looks? Are you happy to teach children that it's not acceptable to be racists? That's all we're doing here. Islam and other monotheism just happen to be unacceptable. But, at this time, like how racism was 200 years ago, there are more people on the other side of the fence. But, things are moving in the right direction, I think.
I'd love to show you an example with DH of what I mean, but, racists prefer to hide in dark corners. All I'm trying to do is shine a bit of light in there. Is it possible that Shinto polytheist Japanese are correct and their belief is right? That the Qur'an is not true? Is it possible that Mohammad was not the LAST prophet and many other's have followed him? Is it possible that Scientology is correct? anyway... ... RE: Given your own logic, how much do you think your ideas, if told to children, might make it easier for them as adults to approve of embargos that kill Muslim or _____________ children or wars that are really about making money for a few people but seem to be about getting at the bad irrational people who are the world's problem? At some point people have to stop and say, slavery is wrong. And yeah, it may be a hard road from there. In the USA it kind of led to the Civil war but not in all countries. Nevertheless, it had to be said. I personally think that debate can bring about change. And teaching children not to be racists or like-wise.
Religions ask people to be different, (hopefully better) than average people. But people are average people. When average people claim to be followers of a religion then of course the religion fails because the people continue to be average. Perhaps you thought Buddhism should be different from the other religions because Buddhism is the least insane of the religions. But the average people everywhere are mostly insane (insane in a normal boring sorts of ways) so of course the insane average people won't follow the sane parts of Buddhism. Too bad that the atheists also are insane. I wish I also was more sane but unfortunately it is human nature to be insane in all these normal sorts of ways and therefore people including ourselves will continuously disappoint us if we expect too much from them.
I agree, really. I just think you're not noticing how irrational the theoretically rational, tolerant people are. All they seem to have to do is say _____________ is irrational - and have them as enemies in Stallone movies or Demi Moore movies. And bang, the whole country will vote for a war against people who are not causing them problems. It seems to me you keep saying 'they' and this seems familiar. You know, like irony is dripping here.
