Only answers that will have some use or value.
Is it bad to believe in god?
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
Only answers that will have some use or value.
Of course.
Really? Every professional scientist I've ever heard of has a Ph.D (That would be a Doctor of Philosophy).
Scientists seem to be fond of evidence to support their philosophy...
Arbitrary ones. Based on...? Your say-so? Mine? Some speaker-for-god?
Sounds like a pretty shitty way to determine the limits for a whole society. As we can see all around us...
A philosophy is just a way of looking at the world. Some are useless, others have great value.
Very little value, if any. Philosophy is just another word for bullshit.
Philosophy for the sake of philosophy is useless bullshit. Like most of the "philosophical" discussions around here.
NO NO NO!
Bullshit is another word for philosophy.
Wait! Which came 1st, bullshit or philosophy?
Bullshit is another word for philosophy.
Wait! Which came 1st, bullshit or philosophy?
Science doesn't deal with society or philosophy, as in, to determine what we should or shouldn't do, or what is right or wrong, etc.
All limits we set would be arbitrary, and we need limits.
All have great value. Philosophy is important to social function.
See above.
Philosophy and science are both valuable, but they do different things. Science is valuable for understanding the natural world and using that knowledge to our benefit. Philosophy is valuable for topics such as social structure, roles, morality, etc
Who gives a flying fuck about philosophy? And yes, science can determine what is right or wrong. We can create a hypothesis based on observation and run tests.
Gibberish.
Whose philosophy? Yours?
You can't have a society based on science. It doesn't work. How do we determine right from wrong, or culture, or standards? Only philosophy can do this.
One we can all agree upon, and by doing so, we become a single society.
Culture is an arbitrary limit, what is "right" and "wrong", what is tolerated, what is taboo, etc, and this depends on philosophy. "Liberal" societies aren't societies, because the people aren't on common cultural ground.
Culture is most certainly not an arbitrary limit. All you have to do is pick up a history book, then look around. All societies change what they view as right and wrong. And how would a liberal society not be a society? In what way are they not on common ground?
It's fairly obvious you don't know what you're talking about here.
Of course culture evolves, but it's put in place by Humans. It is subjective, not objective.
A liberal society is an oxymoron; if "liberal" means tolerating, that is. A society has one way, one common ground among the people; one morality, etc, that's a society. That is the social interaction and structure of the people. In a "liberal" society, there would be many different ones and therefore no real single society. Society is intolerant by nature, but that isn't a bad thing.
From the perspective of an indoctrinated Muslim, I would have to agree. Islam has most certainly produced a perfect society, as we can all see from how prosperous oil rich Arabs have turned the ME around to be the paradise we would all love to be a part.
You would need years of education and the removal of your religious indoctrination to understand such concepts. But rest assured, calling for heads on lances isn't within such parameters.
I didn't say "liberal society", I said "society trends toward the liberal", which means that it always allows what was once taboo to be the norm. 40 years ago, police officers in the southern United States were hosing down black people in the street; today a black man has a damn good chance of winning the presidential election. 40 years ago, schools would show films to students portraying homosexuality as a mental disease; today, two states have made gay marriage legal, while a couple others (I believe) have made civil unions legal.
Therefore, society trends toward the liberal, unless there is a minority intervention, such as by the religious authority or the government. Like today, where in our government there have been attempts made to change the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Or how right-wing politicians seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, taking away a woman's right to choose. It's not the people that fights the change, it's the establishment, the ruling minority.
In other words, tolerance. Is tolerance preferable? Society has no obligation to be tolerant, and society is intolerant by definition. It's a set way of doing things. Anyone not of that set is out of place in that society.
Er.....that is what it is:bugeye:
Or left wing politicians that seek to destroy morality and destroy social order.
The people establish the establishment.
The rich & powerful establish the establishment, to the detriment of most.
The powerful are given power by others.