Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Ha, nice. Should we also criticize psychology because Freud and what they did in the 60s and 70s?
Also, I think you have a somewhat misconstrued idea of Buddhism and its approaches to suffering and poverty, but I don't want to threadjack.
Generally speaking, for the purposes of this thread, Buddhism is worth looking at because its approach involves observation and awareness, rather than dogma, ritual, and superstition. That is, if you focus on the core aspects, rather than the, um, ritualized aspects. You know, the way Buddha suggests.
|
I would really enjoy for you to
enlighten (ahhh see what i did there? haha ) me about my mis constructed idea of Buddhism as it's the only way i can learn!
I think it's worth looking at that i am sure. I think all religions, monothiestic or not are worth looking at.
@lofhay I wouldn't call it a line between science and non-science but science and where science can't be applied too, which is namely our theologies or life before and after death. I don't find it surprising, everyone is their own theologian, a theology that you should only believe in what you can apply scientific evidence too is still a theology.
This is one of my favorite quotes ~ "[Credo ut intelligam] “For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand."
I'm not sure if it would be thread jacking as all the OP has done is made statements. Straight away it will become an argument rather than the discussion as there is no questions put forward which can be discussed only a personal view.