Meditation vs Prayer - Page 13

That's some deep shit for sure............

Lol.  Don't worry moons, when I reply to you directly I'll try to keep it nice and simple.  You're as bad as gouda in that respect.  The fact is that contrary to your ramblings, your world view is full is holes, nothing more than the same types of others' theories you are so quick to characterize as such, and belittle.  When you are confronted with science and knowledge, you irresponsibly attempt to dismiss it as bs.  The irony, is that without this knowledge, you and everyone else would still be living in a mythopoeic society, dominated by the superstition you constantly attack, one in which your natural station would likely find you grabbing your ankles behind the chief's tent.  If you want the same respect for your bs view other desire for their own, you may want to refrain from asserting your opinions as fact, particularly when you can't back them up.

LOL.... you gave yourself a thumbs up !!!

No, but here it comes.

Sorry man,
I just think it's funny is all.
The other would have to be eeeeeeeeee

Carlin,
if you can't say it in a sentence, it's not worth a paragraph.
Yeah I dismiss a lot of science as bullshit, because it is.
Don't need to prove it to you or anyone else... each one has to choose his own path, and this is just an internet forum.

Yeah we've come along way thanks to some good science, but still much of it is not, and educated people do really make me laugh sometimes.
They try to wear it on their sleeve like a badge, yet they can't drive a nail correctly or change a spark plug, these people in certain positions also scare me sometimes.


Anyway,
that's my take on science and long winded speeches.
 

Yeah I dismiss a lot of science as bullshit, because it is.

Thus the need for the paragraphs you dislike, and those vitally important things to all civilized societies -books.  No it's not for everyone, and I respect your take, particular on the people who see no value in being able to "drive a nail" themselves, but the fact is, even those people serve a needed function.

There is no such thing anymore as "just the internet", perhaps unfortunately.

It's not that they see no value in it, they simply are not capable of doing it.
And yes they do serve a purpose, they feed the machine.

The internet,
and all the other electronic distractions, will be our undoing.
Kid's can't even write or carry on a conversation these days, our future..
And now that everything runs on it what do you think will happen when it all comes crashing down.

There was a news story that quickly disappeared a week or so back about ANONYMOUS.
Bet you didn't see it.

The internet is just as fragile now as it was when the government gave it up over security concerns.



 

And yes they do serve a purpose, they feed the machine.

Unless you have zero use for the products of science (some do not), then these eccentric individuals are simply far too focused in their work.  As for the machine, we all feed it, and you are certainly no exception, though we could argue about degree.
 

Bet you didn't see it.

I know what you're talking about, but couldn't tell you if this particular piece was the last thing I had seen.  It is interesting, but I'd be lying if I said I made it a point to keep up with every move. Yes the internet is fragile, but remains the primary source of information transmission of all types, which is a liability in and of itself that I often think about.

Carlin [when you have finished being patronizing, LOL], who says it
isn't a  -  what you term a 'moral debate', but I would term an
'ethical' question - about what defines 'Evil' in peoples understanding ?

Of course you define this from your own moral viewpoint;  you can't expect
me / others to do that, we have our own perspectives.

I didn't call up the word 'evil';  I didn't call up the quote from Plato.

Just because my curiosity about whether your claim, in quoting him, is accurate,
was awakened, I'm hardly the one taking us off topic or being "completely irrelevant".

In fact I tried to link the question BACK to the relative merits of prayer and/
or meditation as a mediating factor in peoples' ethics, didn't I ?

Oh, and so sorry but I'm thinking wider than just statistics about the US view
on abortions, there's a whole wide world out here.  Anyway, for Pew or any
other MR survey, we'd need to know exactly how the question was put, before
we argued semantics.

Hundmutter, I think we understand each other just fine.  In fact, I think was the case from the outset, even before your question.  I could be wrong of course, but I do not believe I overestimate you.
 

who says it
isn't a  -  what you term a 'moral debate', but I would term an
'ethical' question - about what defines 'Evil' in peoples understanding ?

I suppose the "debate" with in the debate, was prompted by your initial question, which would serve to set the parameters. Here it is:
 

got any examples of some deeds that are just evil, so morally wrong,
yet qualify under the Plato quote of "even if the majority approve it " ?

Clearly, we are limited by the distance between value systems.  Still, I answered the question regardless, and in such a way as to reflect the extent to which a given answer may be in fact more widely representative than assumed.  That aside, a proper and acceptable response need not even go so far.  If I drafted a list, would you then be any more clear to the concept, or inclined to argue specific moral imperatives?  Perhaps we come at this from another direction, such as accounting for changes in perceived "ethical" values in any population across time.  What then?  Are we simply MORE ethical now (in general) than a few hundred (or thousand, or ten thousand) years ago, and do we attribute that to science and education?  If that is so, how much MORE ethical shall we be a thousand years from today?  In that sense, are we not right now somehow, unethical?  How would one sell that?  Impossible.  So then stands the original thought, which was only augmented by Plato:

"The greatest implication of the particular paradigm, may be that at any given time, what's right and wrong is little more than a function of a set of values in relation to the present norm (which is subsequently absolutized, ironically), and is ever changing."