-
[quote user="Dissilusionist"] It really is that simple. Ultimately you are either an empiricist or you are a rationalist (or a nihilist I suppose). [/quote] You have to rationalise your empiricism otherwise you can never satisfy gettiers examplese. It doesn't make you any less of an empiricist. Similarly with Buddhism you have to rationalise
-
[quote user="Dissilusionist"] [quote user="cowen70"] [quote user="Dissilusionist"] I agree that Buddhism does not attempt to make any explicit metaphysical claims (some can be implied however), but again using the word Truth is a bit misleading if you are not making a metaphysical claim. I think some things just get lost
-
[quote user="vaada"] [quote user="cowen70"] it is slowly developing into something that is truly brilliant [/quote] Listen, I must share here from my experience, as I rudely do all the time, that at age 8, being trapped in a catch22 situation with crooked authority, but still better off than in any other place, psychologysts had
-
[quote user="Dissilusionist"] I agree that Buddhism does not attempt to make any explicit metaphysical claims (some can be implied however), but again using the word Truth is a bit misleading if you are not making a metaphysical claim. I think some things just get lost in translation. Unfortunately for Siddartha he did not know about Dialectical
-
Ah well though the idea that the state is a bigger polluter isn't a good argument for me, that without a state it would be great is to me the only argument. Arguments from efficiency don't work with the statists, arguments from morality or just because its great is far better.
-
The big problem is something like spaceflight or DDT where the poisoning isn't immediately apparent and by the time it is the companies who caused it might have gone bust then there is no recourse. Companies could play on that or do it accidentally.
-
I'm not so good at explaining myself as many are here but one thing I will say is that I would be a lot more suspicious of the tenets of Buddhism if the same elements didn't crop up independently in existentialism and NLP and CBT. Now that could be me drawing inferences where none are necessary but everyone else seems to be doing the same who
-
Well I'm not involved in what is a pretty heavy debate so I won't interrupt to much especially not when it is being done so well. If I could add in a minor aside, a point that might help understanding Buddhism a little bit. When we consider the idea of eliminating desire we must try not to consider it from such a heavily ethnocentric point of
-
[quote user="iambinarymind"] To state that Alex Jones doesn't have a shred of evidence for anything he believes is quite an unfair & broad generalisation in my opinion. Including David Icke in your description is promoting a "guilt by association", as much of Icke's claims are in fact baseless. I tend to agree with 'FunFacts'
-
Just a general nod to how insane most conspiracy theories are. I'm aware of the difference between Icke and Jones but really there isn't that much difference, neither has a shred of evidence for what they believe. Or do you think Scientology is crazier than Christianity or Theism? Again neither cares much for evidence though arguably one takes