Mojo
Mostly harmless
Nonsense. The fact that some practices of a religion coincide with scientific practices does not make the religion scientific. Science is a method, not a set of beliefs.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Nonsense. The fact that some practices of a religion coincide with scientific practices does not make the religion scientific. Science is a method, not a set of beliefs.
Nice. Just insult everybody, then you can afterwards wonder why they won't respect you.
Hans
Face the fact. Sooner or later, it will be rewarded...may be bitter initíally. Eg Jes
However already well understood but íf your irrational skepticism do not accept it, study, faith csused reward expectation motivatiónal dopamine release placebo scientific effect and from these practices.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You claimed that you were evidence that people who "practice with dedication" live longer than those who don't. You would only be evidence for this if you had died at least once while not "practicing with dedication" and then lived to a greater age when "practicing with dedication". Even then you would onły be very weak evidence for it because you are not a sample of adequate size.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, now it is proved that Jainism is scientific religion. Should be all other also. So do not try to dent it in your egoistic irrational skepticism.
Why cant I observe many pactically and become evidence for them? Do not demand A&F if you are not A&F.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, it isn't. To be scientific, it would need to have reached its conclusions following the scientific method, not because they have been dictated by legendary omniscient individuals. The fact that some of its dogma coincides with scientific conclusions doesn't make it scientific, any more than sticking a lot of sciency-sounding words together produces a coherent sentence.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Because there's only one of you, and you can't observe your own death and then reach a conclusion based on it.
Last edited:
No, false claim I can observe others and become evidence for them.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Let's go back to the question again.
What evidence do you have that Jains who "practice with dedication live longer than other and in better health"?
Well concluded understandings need no further individual conclusion. They serve purpose of proof. Eg. Various achedemic science books.
By personal observation. Others usually are not in better health than these.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What evidence do you have that Jains who "practice with dedication live longer than other and in better health"?
Evidence, not assertions.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
And, once again, this is why religions are not scientific: they rely on revealed "understandings" that cannot be questioned.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
All discussions on jainism n religions are now irrelevent and superflous, when science in religion is well proved by hónest replies of my two questions. No more TTTTs in egoistic skepticism on it pls.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
All that's been proved here is that you haven't a clue about science. You are claiming that something based on dogma is scientific.
Last edited:
Nice. Just insult everybody, then you can afterwards wonder why they won't respect you.
Hans
Sorry. I accept my mistake. That post about odd skepticism is not meant for you though you have also interacted. You mostly contributed to me. Pls do not mind.
That is A&F. Nothing can deny it that beneficial affects from faith and those religious practices are scientific and so religion has scientific basis. I feel, Jay others in ego may be avoiding to reply those questións due to this reason. But appreciation for them who replied truly.