Sykora said:
kiran.rkk said:
john_the_ultimate said:
naveen_reloaded said:
+1zegulas said:
john_the_ultimate said:
zegulas said:
zegulas said:
sms_solver said:
naveen_reloaded said:
Poon said:
thewisecrab said:
can't decide
Sykora said:
I agree to that. Its human nature to do so because of which comes spirit of questioning n which leads to scientific evolution.shaunak said:
shaunak said:
zegulas said:
If the engineers were so good why did the plane crash in the first place.LOLshaunak said:
I accept that they were facts and only and an ignorant person who has evidences in front of him can think absurdly that they were stories!zegulas said:
Everyone who has a sense of judgement, spirit of questioning don't fit in ur category! If u think they r stories then it doesn't mean everyone's like u!zegulas said:
Don't mind, but that's the most absurd and stupid reason I have ever heard. Neways who will remove that water?? Will u? My dear if all the water is removed, then u wont be here to giving such an absurd reasoning as humans can't stay alive without water, u won't have fish to eat and many things.
mediator said:
mediator said:
Coz thats how debate works. By facts, not by absurd reasoning,expert comments from someone ignorant about the topic or absurd examples!zegulas said:
And I request u not to eva bring this kind of absurd reasoning with an insane "but if" factor! If u have even a bit of intellect than u'll probably know what I'm talking about!zegulas said:
N what makes u think that? "What if" (like ur "but if") comet is twice the size of earth?zegulas said:
Are u kidding?? If u are a science student if u have even a little knowledge about science then u won't be saying such absurd things! Did nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed the earth?? Then how can it destroy a comet completely? Real things aren't as u see in movies or cartoon serials buddy!zegulas said:
mAV3 said:
mAV3 said:
naveen_reloaded said:
bang on target .... dont americans go to church don world muslims go to mosques, i wonder y was the vatican built was it for Indians???mail2and said:
mail2and said:
)
Sykora said:
to be precise, God is greatest invention of manxyzsuhas said:
planetcall said:
planetcall said:
I never said i'm attracted to Americans. We are more intelligent than them. But also we have these superstitions spreading like disease.mediator said:
Doctors are not scientists. They are also one among us, and brought up with the same beliefs. And the reason they say like that is comfort them psychologically.Lucky_star said:
cyberscriber said:
Lucky_star said:
planetcall said:
planetcall said:
cyberscriber said:
I have never seen neone who believes in science being superstitous! The richness of our culture was there. The proof is there. The Amercian's opinion that u consider so much before forming ur own is there. The whole world has evidences based on scientifics facts now. So read em. Read the link I gave!cyberscriber said:
I marvel at your ability to draw parallels between two eras viz. myth and present. The type of technological and medical advancements that are claimed to have been existed then... Wow!jal_desai said:
, though it is negligible or infinitely small but certainly not NULL. Study of Science indeed makes you believe in the ultimate divinity even more. Indian Philosophy has stated it since beginning. The concept of soul and you being a part of that divinity is one of the core concepts of our Civilization. Knowing self is one of the steps towards enlightenment. A body, a chain of reactions, skeleton and the rest doesnt make this body a living object. There is something which is me, the very absence of which makes my body equivalent to any other object of this universe. I am distinct because that very entity exists in me.
I shall post in detail some day soon when I have time.
planetcall said:
tuxfan said:
GOD IS MAIN COMPUTER AND WE R A COMPONENT AND WORLD NEVER SHUTDOWN ONLY GOD HAVING AUTHORITY TO CHANGE OS OR FORMAT EARTH HARD DISK HE MAKE NEW PROGRAM AND WHEN HE WANTS TO OR CHANGE HE CAN DO VERY EASILY NO BODY CAN STOP HIM OR SCIENCE.
NIGHTMARE said:
MY VOTE GOES FOR GOD.
baccilus said:
.
, i liked LOTR far more ...in case of trilogy ...
aravind_n20 said:
mediator said:
zegulas said:
cyberscirber said:
sanddy said:
. That too during critical exam results or some strict family policy, but yeah i do like the sweets served
and nothin will cange till u disprove god in front of me!!amitava82 said:nothing gonna change my mind unless u present your god in front of me..
PROUD TO BE ATHEIST
The moral of the story... there is always someone better than the best of us... and... yup... he's up there... somewhere... smilin @ our dreams to godliness.
koolbluez said:
blademast3r said:
What "wisdom"!... tumhe toh nobel prize milna chahiye yaar...anyway we give you the benifit of the doubt, by assuming that you are a very intelligent person...so who is the atrist? and who is the creation? and how does your comparison make sense? explain oh, wise one to all the mere mortals here!s_aerin said:
seems i hv hurt some ppl's feelings.caleb said:
No hurt feelings mate...it is fight club...basically we are just wasting bandwidth...so coll...no hard feeling and also it is not personal.s_aerin said:
koolbluez said:
Yamaraj said:
How many of us believe that Black Holes exist? And how many that don't? The fact is, except for a few mathematical equations, there is no concrete way to prove that black holes do exist. And every once in a while some scientist comes up with data that indicates otherwise. Still, people contiune to believe that they exist, among other things, only because they've read so in text books. At quantum level, a particle can both exist and not exist at the same point of time. And it may exist at two or multiple different places at once.Aberforth said:
C ya...
- So many bleieve in God 
, but the only difference is that ..
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Aberforth said:
shaunak said:
amitava82 said:
avinandan said:
naveen_reloaded said:
Science never gets in the way of spirituality. It's only a different way of exploring the nature and appreciating it. But science is not without its limitations either. All the theories and equations have only helped unleash what's already there. Gravity existed long before there was any Newton, and so did relativity. Scientists are not inventing or discovering things, they're only opening our minds to things we never thought of.Aberforth said:
Yamaraj said:
cyberboy_kerala said:
I very much understand what Cosmology and explorations are, and I'm not unaware of the differences between the two. Cosmology is much greater a domain of sciences, exploration, and metaphysics than you happen to think. It's the study of the Cosmos in its entirety. Whether it's the particles or strings that make our clock tick, is still quite a mystery.Aberforth said:
Yamaraj said:
So be it! I know you have the right to be in disagreement with me, but there should at least be valid reasons and arguments in due process. What you have essentially been saying that science is the answer to all questions and nothing metaphysical or supernatural can exist beyond its claws.Aberforth said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Fixed for you.Aberforth said:
Problem is that your words are not yours, but imported. The whole "religion vs. science" bitterness is an entirely Western issue. We have never had such conflicts in eastern religions, mysticism and philosophy. Our ancient scholars were both religious and scientists at the same time. The concept of atheism or agnosticism is also a "part" of eastern religions, not against them.Aberforth said:
Science is only a method of exploring what is already out there. The Universe does not exist because of scientists or their "facts", and it does not cease to everytime the "facts" are debased and defaced. No offense intended, but you clearly need to put some efforts in understanding the dynamics of science. Even the best works of best scientists can vaguely be compared with the findings of the seven blind men, who were left to feel an elephant and conclude their findings. Science also requires a certain amount of faith and belief, even if in scientific methods only, to ignore the ever growing pile of failures and keep going.Aberforth said:
Again with your typical Biblical references. Even before there was any Christ, Indians knew it very well that Earth was round and not flat.Aberforth said:
I'm not denying science. It's because of scientists and scientific people that we are here expressing our views and e-insulting everyone on the net. If you are thinking of me as a Bible-thumping arrogant preaching to the choir, it's your problem.Aberforth said:
Examples? Sorry if I missed any.Aberforth said:
That is almost as much as I can take. One at a time!Aberforth said:I can give tons if you wish...
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
We settled upon this 'insult' issue a few posts back, didn't we?Aberforth said:
You can say whatever you like, and you can say it all day long. Science still does not have the answers to the most significant of all problems - the Universe, and most likey it never will. And, you seem to purposely bring the "god" issue every now and then. Science was never meant to be a replacement for a god. In fact, there is more to the reality than just a god or science.Aberforth said:
I never said Science was a western concept. This whole thread is based on the faulty premise of the Western "Religion Vs. Science" propaganda. And this thread is surely not about what you think it is. Take a second look at the original post and poll options. You and your agendas!Aberforth said:
I have been repeatedly trying to explain what science is, but you fail to pay any attention. It's not my problem.Aberforth said:
I doubt if you have the courage to say it in face of a Big Bang promoter scientist. And I assure you he can't back it up at all. This is what I call "faith and belief" in science. You'll never accept what non-scientists have to say, but whatever crap the pseudo-scientists are pulling out of thin air is the only "fact" you're willing to adore. <Insert any insult here>Aberforth said:
You don't know what you're talking about. If scientists are basing their theories on unobservable and unfalsifiable "things", it's not science but pseudo-science.Aberforth said:
Of course you don't want to read and digest it, for it doesn't rhyme with your rheoterics.Aberforth said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
You are wrong mate,cause and effect is, cosmic reality or cosmic law which drives every event in our universe.Aberforth said:
Good question ,but not. Lets look what "quantum physics" says. If an ordinary person try enough times(not infinity) to pass through a concrete wall several meter thick he will successfully pass through it without physically breaking the wall.Yamaraj said:
If you say "Confusion and skepticism is only for the intellectually blunt" then you are calling all the scientist who are formulating "String theory" and quantum physics" as intellectually blunt ,and i wud also say that you dont know the latest happenings in modern science.Aberforth said:
Exactly ,perfect example for this is "evolution" everyone knows why giraffe has got long neck. It started to reach for higher branches,but took millions of years to reach that state.But problem is even though natural selection is the driving force behind evolution there are other creatures where partial development of bodily parts have no use for it unless it is fully developed but managed to live with this useless thing and continued to develop it for milliones of years(and we know that evolution will not continue to develop useless things).Evolution is proven theory but contains the anomalies behind it like this.Scientist are amazed how evolution escapes from tricky situation where they now suspect tinge of intelligence behind evolution . And as he said "It requires a certain amount of faith and belief " to belive even in a well proven theory like "Evolution".Yamaraj said:
oh no...Very wrong, you know that normal humans are not capable of producing something like "oscillatory Universe",MAYA(illusion) singularity(even has symbol for it in hindu mythology) and many other.Aberforth said:
Sorry to say that you are very much mistaken,And also sorry to say that if you really belive that "Science has sufficient answers to the questions of this universe" i dont see much difference between you and a person who blindly belives in god/Super human. Science doesn't have answers to even to simple phenomena like "human Consciousness" .Not even a single scientist/physicists will agree to your opinion.It not about hating science, it is to understand its limitation,and i am very much interested in science.Aberforth said:
You have made little attepmt, if any, to come up with facts that support your point of view. In stead, you've been playing apologist for the like-minded people living inside a box of their own imagination. I don't know why it's so hard for you to accept shortcomings and limitations of science, and that scientific methods alone cannot describe and explain everything.Aberforth said:You obviously do not get me and of course you don't know me to make such a biased, concieted opinion of my beliefs. And your attempt to insert an insult shows I should not bother arguing with you.
And please, do avoid insults if you can. I know it is hard when you face stiff resistance, but it does at the very least make you look more civil if you are nice enough to do. No one is paid here to debate and I am sorry to state there are no agendas. Nothing is going to come out of this debate and nothing's going to change.
Lack of comprehension? Sure! Who said irony was dead?Aberforth said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
You're quitting because you were proven wrong, and many times at that. Being an engineer is not an excuse for getting away with stupid remarks on science and its capabilities. Granted, from your understanding of science, I can make an exception of you.Aberforth said:
cyberboy_kerala said:
Yamaraj said:
You're dealing with a phenomenon known as the "foot in mouth situation". I see you've accepted the flaws of science in your two posts, but only after a long series of idiotic and crappy remarks. Good for you! Whatever I wanted to prove is none of your concern. Don't start putting words in my mouth. No, you cannot explain anything. Because to do that, you must have the ability to learn and understand.Aberforth said:
Luck is not my cup of tea. But as I said in my last post, you need it nonetheless. I don't get how you went on comparing the two of us, since you don't even know my age, profession, intelligence and what not! Sorry to burst your inflated bubble, but you need to get a strong hold on reality. Hitting on others only to wash your shame away won't do. You could do better if you tried enough, but I have my doubts.Aberforth said:Secondly if you believe in luck, keep all to yourself. Personally I believe in making my own luck not on your wishes and I am doing quite well with what I have which you have no idea of. It looks like you contantly need to put down people better than you by hook an crook and show how credible you are...that is the sign of immaturity and frustration. Perhaps you are overshadowed by real achievers which is why you hit at them and feel the need to insult heroes and scientists. If luck exists, I hope you get it by the truckloads, you really need it. This is not the first time I came across sort of people like you, I meet them all the time in my dealings and feel sympathy for them.
amitava82 said:
Although, Big Bang is the standard cosmological model, it has many problems and does not accurately describe and predict many things. Many senior and reputed scientists have raised issues with the Standard Model.Vyasram said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
Yamaraj said:
And don't worry too much I am not bothered about your stance seriously, it is only internet - a lot of things I come across by people who really are sick and frustrated with life and hit pointlessly at everything and anything for the sake of attention, I can quite understand that.
You really need to take your head and stick it in dung, for it is a sin to keep twins parted. If my apology came to you as a string of soft words of a beaten warrior, don't flatter yourself. I would even apologize to a dog if I accidently stepped over its tail. It shows that I'm a rational and sensitive person. But you probably don't even deserve that.Aberforth said:I understand I caused you quite a hurt with my comments it is to be taken in a lighter vein, like I have a good laugh on reading this crap.
Yamaraj said:It's not really difficult to imagine how all these ideas, theories, scientific papers and their statements, philosophy and quantum mechanics appear stupid and "bullshit" to you, given your level of intelligence and ability to comprehand and understand.
Why would you change your stance now, is it because you realised your blind opposition to science is bullshit? Look up at your own posts man and then I guess you'll realise your claims about how science is nothing but a bunch of insufficient hypotheses, quantum mechanics are doubtful and confusing...and what not. Please do have a look at your own posts, its really cheap changing colours faster than a chameleon to look pretty.
Yamaraj said:
Ooo boy, you really spoiled my moment of flattery. Now don't spoil my moment of fun when I laugh at this stupidity....
You are a really imaginative person, to think of yourself as a beaten warrior when you lose a silly forum debate. If you won, would we have had to call you Sir Yamaraj, knighted by her Majesty?
Yamaraj said:
That would be extremely stupid, a dog would be unable to understand your apology and you would get bitten. Now don't go telling me you can telepath with a dog...in that case I could assume you are one of them.
Yamaraj said:
Dung is better than reading unsufferable stupid analogies and comments.
Yamaraj said:
Bit rich, coming from you. Maybe you really need to heed your own words a bit as I have pointed in my comment below.
Yamaraj said:
Ahem...this really took me by surprise. I didn't expect your arrogance to give you an opinion that you are brilliant than Einstein. Well talk for yourself, pity being such narcisstic person....I learned never to give way to narcisstic people like you, it on;y makes them worse.
Yamaraj said:
Pretty silly comment, when I am sitting at home all right. Next time, don't pick phrases from a slang dictionary, doesn't look impressive.
If it's anyone who's taken a U-turn on this thread - it's you. You went from not recognizing the shortcomings and limitations of science to accepting them. My posts are there for anyone and everyone to read, analyze and form their own opinions.Aberforth said:
Yamaraj said:
vyasram said:
) and you dont need to break everyone's skull to prove that everyone got a brain ( learn probability ,dude)
Vyasram said:
deal with the topic alone
As FYI, Vedas is a vast set of well accumulated scientific knowledge and observations, it defines ur way to live ur life, medication,music etc which is now just being reexplored by modern science. Neways can u throw some light as to what r those "stupid imaginations" in Vedas? Doesn't imagination and scientific observation contradict?
Now wat u'll say that media fuels absurd stuff?
And then ur saying
So shud I assume that u r not sure of wat ur talking about and unnecessarily promoting a FUD like a steroetypical ignorant communist?
Alas! I still cant understand why is such contradiction of constant light speed C as I talked about? So is science flawed? learn the difference between science and a fluke(observation). I hope u understand that observation means to curiously explore and fluke means accidently. It seems ur contradicting urself everywhere!by-vyasram said:
Sorry brother if ur fella scientists r still amazed by homeopathy and can't understand that well, then who m I. Likewise can u answer properly (with science in mind) the several questions I asked in my previous post to which u replied only as "Vedas r imagination"?
Atleast that "stuff" is practically working. Its way better than learning the big bang theory and controversies about it and the speed of light staying constant in wateva condition where another law contradicts it. And how can u say no sort of radical thinking was encourage in those days? Do u remember those days? Its quite a pain for me to see an Indian person making such an absurd statements that he has to witness a puclic mockery!!
Then please discuss about in future. Since u have lived 10000 years to say absurdly that "no sort of radical thinking was encouraged in those days" then I guess u can survive the future tooooo to promote ur FUD and contradictions.
All I say is to read Vedas to prevent ur mockery and practically experience it and try it so as to contradict it then if u can!!
surely there were geniuses at that time! *www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/4789/Articles/Scripture/Veda.html
Impressive conclusion
!! It looks like a webpage/blog of a guy who can put up anything, even some fake and forged points to create FUD and hatred for Vedas! I wont be surprised if he's a Non/Anti-Hindu!
oops sorry!
1. you may want to read about placebo effect. It is known to heal tumors
1.Interesting.. any links ? but if the weight of ghee doesn't alters shouldn't the 'dia' burn forever!
Aprils fools joke?? anyways link?
You bet I can
x-y or y-x depending where is the observor
Edit: what is 'it' here
I dont doubt that the science accept changes and thats what we have been seeing in science in case of universe....i.e changes, nullifying our previous knowledge! But wat about speed of light as I discussed? I hope I dont have to quote n repeat myself!
1. Read the post carefully, I assure that u'll find links pointing to reliable sites and not to some blogs or geocities promoting FUDS! As for dia, they say wt of ghee doesnt alter! Now in dia u have "2 things" with which burning takes place. OF those, its that whitish cloth like thing (can't remember its name rt now) that disappears gradually! So how can dia burn forever if the fuel itself is exhaustible?
I hope u have come for a serious discussion!
Thats ok....I started to think that u r trying to have a serious discussion! I forgot its April 1
!
vyasram said:
vyasram said:
Ok now I get ya. You are challenging relativity here!
So if you keep adding the 'cloth' part the dis will keep burning forever.
sigh you know as well as I know that I won't believe what ayurveda for you and pandu has to say. You could be right but you need more authentic sources to back up such claims.
.. till i stumbled upon *www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1864748,00.html . feel free to PM me
IN reply, I wud like to ask have u ever tried homeopathy, avurveda etc that ur questioning its supremecy?
Yea, its all right for science to have unexplained phenomas and the same can't be tolerated for ayurveda,homeopathy etc which r found to be "practically" working...Right? Neways the logic behind that cowdung is "scientifically" given and practically working and Vedas has it all written! U didn't even debate on this??...even when I gave u a reliable link!
Why dont u experiment urself?
Again ur post misses the discussion about cowdung that counters radioactivity!!
First of all I dont believe in Gods and haven't even dragged the word "God" here. Secondly spirituailty is way different then god that u have termed it like "spirituality/god".
Source
I thought the teenager had a back up support, but it seems he had been betrayed, and as for the "logic" of surya namaskar (preaching sun god...anyone?) and cow dung has been given which I guess has been purposefully and deliberately not been discussed. How sad!
Vyasram said:
I expect you to read and understand it fully before you make another post of yours. If this hymn was written by a "blind religious fanatic" without any passion for logic and reason, I don't know of anything else this ancient and this close to the truth of human endeavour written or said in the whole of known human history.
planetcall said:
planetcall said:
pro said:read erin von danikens "chariots of gods"
gold of gods
was god an astronaut
etc as pdf on esnips.com
you will stop worshipping blindly and will get a reason to seek the truth...nothing else
trust me it will change your attitude forever...
planetcall said:
Okies! Calm down man. Its a deal from "his pals"!Goten said:
I agree.Aberforth said:
Aberforth said:
planetcall said:
planetcall said:
yesAberforth said:
N ur really one heck of a lame a55.thunderbird.117 said:
!
mediator said:^Debating on the internet has a lotta advantages which I guess is beyond the understanding of a little super saiyan....try to be a scendent saiyan! buuu
deadlyvenom said:God has said in the bible "I refuse to prove that I exist,because proof denies faith,and without faith,I'm nothing"
I'm not a very religious person..but I believe there are supernatural powers..The power inside us that makes us do the good things to living beings like compassion,love,sharing etc..is GOD
Let's not forget we are mere humans..and the existence or non existence of God cannot be determined by us..we are foolish to try and do something like that
But there is something beyond science,beyond life and beyond what we can see.
Just my thoughts..
Cheers!
On a painful sidenote...there are a lot of people in India who are adrent devotees of God...But its a pity that in a religious place like India these people are involved in racism,corruption,adultery,crime,murder etc etc etc
So..I think a person who is an atheist is a gazillion times better than a religious person who worships God,but fails to understand what God wants him to do
deadlyvenom said:God has said in the bible "I refuse to prove that I exist,because proof denies faith,and without faith,I'm nothing"
I'm not a very religious person..but I believe there are supernatural powers..The power inside us that makes us do the good things to living beings like compassion,love,sharing etc..is GOD
Let's not forget we are mere humans..and the existence or non existence of God cannot be determined by us..we are foolish to try and do something like that
But there is something beyond science,beyond life and beyond what we can see.
Just my thoughts..
Cheers!
On a painful sidenote...there are a lot of people in India who are adrent devotees of God...But its a pity that in a religious place like India these people are involved in racism,corruption,adultery,crime,murder etc etc etc
So..I think a person who is an atheist is a gazillion times better than a religious person who worships God,but fails to understand what God wants him to do
planetcall said:
planetcall said:
deadlyvenom said:@ thunderbird..I'm really sorry I don't know which verse that belongs to..but I read it somewhere..and it makes a lot of sense
@ goten..I don't believe there's something that god wants us to do..i just meant the normal good things that we are supposed to do as human beings which are said in the bible and other books of God..
thunderbird.117 said:
Y doesn't those holy books also consist of pieces of wisdom that promote humanity ur talking about? Aren't those words of wisdom the same the elders in ur family talk about? So will u say u dont even need elders then to know wats the best?
Goten said:
Now that's a bit extreme, isn't it?thunderbird.117 said:
thunderbird.117 said:
thunderbird.117 said:
Aberforth said:
Aberforth said:
Aberforth said:
Aberforth said:
Goten said:
Goten said:
shantanu_webmaster said:
thunderbird.117 said:
shantanu_webmaster said:
Asfaq said:
shantanu_webmaster said:
). Please people! U dont HAVE to respect us.. We are just policing this place.. and we are neither below you, nor above you. Just remember to give credit where its due!Asfaq said:@thunder: good to see you back
What i find so funny on this board is the total aura and respect with which mods are treated (and i must confess, i like it
@Goten: when u read this, hope you are a better person!
. Hope you got my point.
ROFL....
@thundebird : I was just checking this discussion. If u think a little provoking words shudn't be applied here, then u shudn't talk the same too! I agree personal remarks (if made any) on holy text shudn't be made! But then u shudn't make remarks like the bolded part and tell a person to shutup. Its FIGHT CLUb after all and people can go more nasty than this.thunderbird.117 said:
So if one cannot discuss a topic peacefully, then he shud just say so and quit or just ignore and never post. But one shudn' t tell to shutup!
mediator said:@thundebird : I was just checking this discussion. If u think a little provoking words shudn't be applied here, then u shudn't talk the same too! I agree personal remarks (if made any) on holy text shudn't be made! But then u shudn't make remarks like the bolded part and tell a person to shutup. Its FIGHT CLUb after all and people can go more nasty than this.
So if one cannot discuss a topic peacefully, then he shud just say so and quit or just ignore and never post. But one shudn' t tell to shutup!
Seeing the aura of this section, I hope mods understand that people can go out of bounds here sometimes. So please I urge not to take any strict actions this time atleast not in FIGHT CLUB!
~~PEACE!
Looks like ur post!thunderbird.17 said:
So, I checked out and what I saw was that the super saiyan just posted his thoughts about god and religion! Isn't that a majority on non-believers out there think? Will u call all of em as "lame"? U didn't even need to comment on his thoughts! "God Vs science" is very deep topic in which u can hurt the feelings of others. U can see both parties giving interesting points. U can check my posts too where I refrained from posting about gods and check my poll too. So u cannot call anyone "lame" here! And what I saw was that it was u who started it all!
)
mediator said:
mediator said:
planetcall said:
planetcall said:
amol48 said:
speedyguy said:
@ mediator.... this is really a piece of wisedom(i too got d same idea but didnt post anything.... wanted to c how ppl think abt religionmediator said:
solomon_paulraj said:
. And I am a born athiest.
kalpik said:
karnivore said:
strange point,You r successful does't mean ter is no god.Quiz_Master said:
Agreed on first point,but evolution does't provide enough basis to debunk god,u need a first organism for evolution to work. Evolution hav not produced a credible scientific explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, human consciousness,and many other complex elements of the cosmos.We are far behind to claim that.karnivore said:
It does not need any type of deep thinking and understanding it is written by a fool. It is bunch of nonsense which is written by people who does not have any work to do.karnivore said:
This is blind faith at its extreme.thunderbird.117 said:
cyberboy_kerala said:
vish786 said:this is for all the atheist....
i know many people dont believe in god.... but some of them start prayin during the exam time, do pooja and go to temple. Ones exams r over again they come back to their dialogue... i am atheist i dont believe in god... wat the hell is this
wow what a thinking !!!fun2sh said:
karnivore said:
Yamaraj said:
Whether or not you believe in a god or gods - it's still a matter of "belief" - for you cannot prove or disprove their existence.speedyguy said:
SCIENCE HAS PROVED MANY THINGS N IT WILL FIND THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION TOO. why dont u look at the history. ppl used to believe several things n use to say "can sceince prove or explain it. its the god which is doin n BLAH.. BLAH.." but science has given nice answeres to all that n wil one day even prove the non existence of god n that it is just an imagination of human mind n that human mind gives the name of god wen it i unable to understand something.solomon_paulraj said:
who says man cant create pyramid or baby lone garden with help of science.solomon_paulraj said:
kenshin1988 said:
Yamaraj said:
Science doesn't make the point to prove or disprove any "G"od. It's a quest for knowledge - no more, no less. Even though there are many things indeed beyond its reach, it doesn't tantamount to the exietense of a prophet or a messiah or a god.sadabakwas said:
karnivore said:
Well "selfish gene" is not my theory. It was proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1976 and today its widely accepted, although not entirely without its own share of criticism. I would suggest u to first go through the book before u start tearing it apart.
If by "self" u mean the consciousness as "self", of course it can't be denied. Well how can u deny consciousness. But here's a question (although it might be a touch too heavy for u to fathom the full implication). If u convert to Islam, will u still argue about your so called "atma", cauz i hope u know that Islam doesn't believe in "atma".
Exactly how u got to know that Universe is self-aware of its existence. Can u please throw some light on it, that is, if u can.
Hmmmm.......arrogance of youth or arrogance of ignorance, i wonder.
Yes. As i said, its much more simple than its made out to be.
According to Darwin, propagation of "species" and according to Dawkins propagation of "gene".
Pretty much inane. Why does anything happen in the first place. They happen because they follow certain laws of physics, biology and chemistry. There is nothing divine in these "happenings". True, we have our limitations and probably would never quite understand or explain everything in black and white. Incapability of science is not the explanation for god. And hell no, world was never created out of nothing.
My dear friend, here in lies the greatest fallacy. If u accept that we are evolving the pertinent question is why. Now, biologists say that the reason is because nature is changing, and with each change we are learning to cope with nature and more we gain experience more we evolve, and more we evolve, more is the likelihood that our gene will survive. Thats how the ball rolls. But the interesting observation is that if we are still in the middle of evolutionary process, then obviously our current looks as human beings, together with our consciousness is definitely incomplete, cauz we are in the process of becoming a still higher being. Thats where religion clashes with the concept of evolution. If something divine really created us, why didn't he create us as complete humans, why did it take so million years to get here. All religion grappled with this dilemma and finally came to the conclusion that "evolution" does not exist, because thats the best they could do in the face of compelling scientific evidences. Once again, first read "The Selfish Gene" and then start asking questions.
My hunch is that u hav read the transcripts of Swami's works. A little of this and a little bit of that. As i suggested, go through the first 4 volumes thoroughly, and since u are a Bengali, read the Bengali version. Don't read anything beyond 4 rth volume. It will be waste of time.
I hope u are mature enough to realise, that it is a subtle criticism of the Church. As with the Buddhism, read his observations on "atma", in probably volume 2, and then tell me if those were not criticism of Buddism, not Lord Buddha, then what is.
Being and becoming what ????
Who said u that ???? I hav plenty of self-confidence and i don't hav to call god for that. Neither do i believe in this crazy crap called "atma" You are a kid and need to face the world first. You will then know a thing or two about life.
Do u even read what u type. If someone believes in god he is a THEIST, if someone does not believe in god but believes in himself, he is still a THEIST. Kiddo, grow up.
Unbelievably stupid. OK, what is the law of karma, and who wrote it please. And yes u can hav pity on me.
Fine, then define god.
Like what.
Karnivore said:
Source
karnivore said:
karnivore said:
) is stupidity.And to say "I am very much knowledgeable" is still more stupidity.I am not in a position to challenge any one my friend,neither have I any desire to show my ignorance(showing of knowledge is showing of ignorance). I love Truth that is why I say for Truth.I don't have any intention to forcibly convert anyone to my view.I am servant of servants af all of you.I don't dare to know the Infinite...Sat-chit- ananda with mere argument....a slight introspection reveals that we are scratching the surface of the Infinite.This "little I" of ours has limitations....knowing God with arguments is not possible,He is not percievable by senses...introspection reveals.
This hallucinated world of mine does not tie me up in mindless dos and don’ts like your distorted reality. And tell u what, am loving it.
Duh!! Whats your point. Scientists conduct experiments on animals because of the ethical reasons. U don’t want half formulated drug to be administered on humans and kill them in the process, or do u.
Gullibility has a limit – that’s what I thought, until today. Ghee has a very high melting point, that’s why apparently it seems nothing is happening. Try it at home. Havn’t u heard of lamps where ghee is the fuel. Watch a ghee lamp burn. Perhaps that will stop u from making such silly posts.
Congratulations! U have successfully graduated, and topped, from the RSS University of Pseudo Hinduism. That “radiation” was known in the vedic ages is a little OTT, leave cow dungs' ability to absorb radiation. AFAIK, NASA uses a chemical mix of Granite to make things radiation-proof and not cow-dung.
I don’t see the relevance here. May be some other time.
We are discussing "science" not "science fiction", like that crazy crap theory which says Black Hole is a port to a parallel universe.
Well scientists are trying to do that only. First proposed and later dropped by Einstein, this theory is called “Super String Theory”. The idea is to reduce all the formula in the world to a single one, that will tie all these formula in a single sting.
Sorry to say, but my reality is more practical and based on truth than being theoretical like yours so as to be believing in something theoretical so blindly that you overlook its fallacies. And tell u what I am loving it!!
Please dont talk about ethics, if they can kill animals in the process then its far from being ethical. U respect human life and I respect animal life too. BTW, I already told that humans too have diff. immunity levels. It seems u r trying to ignore the homeopathy point!!
Perhaps u shud read the debate from the start and the link I gave for ur convenience and that wud stop u from being a joke!! This point was already put forward by someone!! There is something called ideal conditions. Did u skip science classes in skool or wat? Since when did the melting point started coming under ideal conditions? So nobody is mocking u over ur gullibility, but m trying to suggest u to shed ur ignorance and be more practical!! and ofcors ->Gullibility has a limit – that’s what I thought, until today. Ghee has a very high melting point, that’s why apparently it seems nothing is happening. Try it at home. Havn’t u heard of lamps where ghee is the fuel. Watch a ghee lamp burn. Perhaps that will stop u from making such silly posts.
laughable!! R U Out of words that u started making personal remarks?? May be u need a foreigner like many INDIANS, who don't believe what their countrymen say, to believe in. So read. What does RSS university... has to do here?
? Ofcors, when u r able to read and understand paragraphs and their relevance, links and debates then come and get enlightened!! We don't need illiterates who can't even follow up with debates and read what has been debated to be expert opining all around!! And then they keep crying that modern science is flawless and even think that it can used as a basis to
...BE READY TO APPRECIATE THE REAL "REAL".[/QUOTE]
Now i hav to know what real "real" is from a kid who is perhaps not even out from school ??? Hmmmmm.......
A breakthrough discovery, i must say. And am i noting a little confusion here ? R u getting more and more obscure ? Because u see, "obscurantism" is the flip side of any religion.
There u go. Just as i expected. U r forcing an exclusive Hindu belief onto another religion which does not even believe in "ATMA", in the first place. So, one of us is wrong. Either we, Hindus or they Muslims. As a believer of Hindu hegemony, you obviously think, its them, the Muslims. How wonderful. And i am not even saying how, someone who claims to not know the truth, is absolutely sure that ATMA IS the TRUTH. I am giving u the benefit of doubt here, since you are a kid.
I hope i have been able to logically discuss the fallacy here. Thats why i find contradictions in Vivekananda. Any time u switch religion or place your self in a different pair of shoes, all his writings fall apart. Same is the case with Bible, Koran, Trpitak etc. And thats where science rules. With all its shortcomings it is never partial. Its same, if u r Hindu or Muslim or Christian. It is always the same.
Its a pity that u have decided not to view this thread. Would hav loved to see you around.
Am glad that that you are loving it. Congratulations!!!!!
For once can u please prove how authentic that site is. Cauz u know, i hav this bad habit of not falling for any dime-a-dozen site. Some proof of its authenticity would be appreciated.
Glad to hear your love for animals. But how do u suppose the medicines should be tested. Please write to the WHO with your esteemed suggestions.
Yes they do. So. People born in hilly area are more adept with heights than people in the plains. Whats so mysterious about it. Its all gene, dude.
Hmmm......all you hav to do is light a lamp with ghee as fuel. You will get your answer. Is it very difficult for u to do. The "myth" will be busted in your own room. OH i get it. You are afraid that you will know the "truth"
Authenticity? Do u want me to give u classified documents of NASA. Grow up!!
Baah, here we have another one ur whinings!!
Do I need to repeat abt homeopathy in such cases now? U know, and still talking like a blind believer in modern science?
I told u to read the previous posts.
That all the world's scientific knowledge is a big lie and compared to your insights and wisdom, we stand a million miles away. Yes i was keeping it a secret. Now........Its out in the open and the stone is off my chest and i can breathe again. PHEW.
This shows u r mistaken about Einstein .Einstein himself stated quite clearly, that he did not believe in a personal God.He believed in a orderly arrangement of matter which is against QM in which every thing is random,This is why he said "God does not play dice", its not about the god tat u r thinking.Both special theory of relativity AND QM explains matter but in different way, and both are unified in M-Theory/String Theory.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
*findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n26_v12/ai_18469259
*www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/05/19551
Now we are down to splitting hair on the nitty-gritties of the character and type of GOD. Anyway.
Well, actually matter can exist "anywhere" till u "see" where it exists
Actually this "theory" is restricted within the sub-atomic world and not the "Space". The theory in that case is "deterministic", unlike the "uncertainty" theory of QM, and therein lies the biggest mystery of science. At planetary level it is deterministic, but at sub-atomic level it is uncertain. Einstein was not flustered for no reason.
Let me admit that QM is indeed too much for me to grasp, and in that i join most of the scientific world. In fact, it is believed that there are actually a handful of scientists who can really understand QM.
In other words, we will continue to lock our horns on this till eternity, cauz there will always be a grey area not explored by science, and religion thrives in that area of unknown.
What is consciousness, if anything more than a word that stands for a few things related to human senses and cognition? There is certainly more to it, but we are incapable of looking anything past our own limitations and feelings.karnivore said:
Lets take it slowly, shall we ? Right. Now tell me, what relevance this Universe, with all its grandeur and pomp, has to the "rock" which cannot perceive it in the first place. [Now don't ask me "How do u know that rock can't perceive ?"] The Universe is relevant to us, humans and animals because we can perceive it, in all its form, in one way or the other and not necessarily within its sensory boundaries and inclusive of the thought process. That is the essence of "conscious" as envisaged by these great men. And what i am talking about. If, "GOD" forbid, u get into a comma, as understood in medical sense, how is your "conscious" be of any help to u. Would it be of any relevance to u.
Well, my sub-atoms a.k.a cells need resources to sustain it self. If it is not nourished properly, it will "die" an untimely death. In other words the "self" will die. Thats how my sub-atoms are different from that of a rock.
Oh i see. Suppose i take my appendix out. Do u suppose it will be have a "conscious" outside my body. If it does not have a conscious of its own, how will it contribute to the "collective cognition".
What a wonderful logic. I am getting wiser by the minute.
Do u even know that "aether" is the core concept of that garbage. And it was Einstein who proved that "aether" doesn't exist. Which in turn means.....oh well, who gives a rats a$$ anyway.
Who said all the world's knowledge is a big lie? But may be u shud dedicate the same amount of time, as u did in skools and may be P.hd, in reading the ancient scientific knowledge as well before making ur expert opinions!karnivore said:^^WOW. Seriously, WOW. I just finished reading the entire thread, specially yours [i am feeling a little dizzy, right now]. I hav to admit, that yes, your are absolutely right. You are just too smart for me.
You tell me. It was you who started talking about stones and consciousness.karnivore said:
Cells are not sub-atomic by any means. And you are not getting the point.karnivore said:
Logic, sire, logic!karnivore said:
Penrose and Smolin won't agree. Neither would I.karnivore said:
I'm sorry to say that you don't know what you're talking about. Quantum mechanics and quantum consciousness are NOT based on Aether by any means. And, Einstein wasn't the only physicist ever born. He made many mistakes and eventually distanced himself from the active scientific community because of his beliefs and disbeliefs in certain key research topics of that time.karnivore said:
My point was that there is no such thing as "holistic consciousness". BTW, u should be able to answer it since u r so sure about this crap.
OK. Then whats your point.
In other words life = consciousness.
Who said QM is based on "aether" and who in the hell said that QM has anything to do with QC. BTW, do u know what is "aether" and why is it the core basis of QC. Do u know that the earliest believer of this garbage was Oliver Lodge. He invented "wireless telephony" which got him to think that "wireless telepathy" was also possible. Thats how the whole this started.
True. But unfortunately, this might come as a shock to you, so brace yourself for the news, it was he who proposed the "theory of relativity" which, is the basis of QM.
Likewise.
That if we, alive human beings made up of dumb atoms, can have consciousness, why can't the universe when it is also made up of intelligent beings?karnivore said:
Are you implying that eminent mathematicians and physicists like Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin are idiots and are talking from their rear? What's there to prove that the Universe isn't alive?karnivore said:
Yeah, and it was Newton who found out about gravity which is the base of many great things in physics. But that doesn't mean whatever Newton might have said about QM (if he did, that is!) is THE truth.karnivore said:
Thats why i brought in the analogy of a rock. Something inanimate cannot have "conscious". Thats what i am trying to say. Humans have conscious because of the "nervous" system. By your logic even my notebook has conscious, my writing desk has conscious, my commode has conscious, and even my $hit has conscious.
Lets not jump the gun here. Their theories are yet to be accepted by the scientific world. In fact their ideas about human "thought" is severely criticized. Also, no offense, they are included in the list of "Crack-pot scientists" compiled by John Baez.
Simple, find the nervous system of the Universe. Well if u do that there's a Nobel prize up for the taking.
So u have given up reading what you write. Good for u.
Conscious is adjective, consciousness is noun. Therefore the Universe may have consciousness if its constituents are conscious.karnivore said:
Baez is a nobody before giants like Penrose. Smolin is a well respected scientist quite active in QFT, LQG and String theory. For the record, even you can compile a list of retarded people and put Einstein and Newton in it. But that won't make it any more authentic than random scribbling of a lunatic.karnivore said:
You are no different from people who don't understand evolution and the randomness therein. Life (consciousness) is not bound by restrictions of a known pattern found on a tiny planet of an obscure solar system in a corner of an insignificant galaxy of the billions others in the known universe.karnivore said:
LOL.....u were right at the beginning wt happened now?naveen_reloaded said:
naveen_reloaded said:
How exactly does it contradict with the Theory of Relativity? Care to explain?karnivore said:
This wasn't the first time I was reading this article.karnivore said:
Help~Is~Here said:
Your apparent intellect makes me feel jealous.Drizzling Blur said:
Source: - *www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19526171.100-spooks-in-space.html
Yamaraj said:
Science doesn't have proofs or explanations, only observations. Scientists don't even know what causes Gravity. A hypothetical particle named Graviton is supposed to exist, because "it is required by some mathematical equations".nish_higher said:
abtom said:
then ur d only person who can see electrons, neutrons, protons.......
such microscope does not exists yet.abtom said:
)
obviously yaar.azzu said:btw : ur signature is mind blowin do u really havit
really?Ksquare said:
Human stupidity is infinite, hence god exists.Ray said:
sick people in the name of religion
ya ya...with enough nuclear power to destroy the world 100 times
that was not science. that was human evil.
Ya...but often it diverts frm its paths same the case with religion
and so on. and humans are no different.
YES, some species kill their own kind,like chimpanzees which are known to kill strangers(chimps) and in some occasions even humans are also victims.
and in case of crocodiles mostly during times of pregnancy... (mothers kill children even... for that matter cubs).
actually they are
hain hain, lets end these evil dudes.. no humans no tension
nuke'em all, let the manatees rulehain hain, lets end these evil dudes.. no humans no tension
chesss said:
there are ways to see them, IR scanners etc.
Only manatees should be spared, neway they are at the verge of extinction.@T159,
why leave only the aquatics... What abt the other animals?
OFF TOPIC: ha ha! funny.
You have been advertising your site blatantly in EVERY post of yours, in spite of me editing your post every time.
not yet, got held up. shud be finishing soon. but so far, the arguments are really good and interesting!
. How can that crack a large enough glass slab. U should have been present there 2 believe it. This was not some sort of magic trick , it was a fact.
Pathetic attempt in explaining the science behind. People deny the existence of god saying thats its based on "belief". But here I see a person arguing and trying to explain science based on his "belief" using the phrases like "may be".
u experienced this first hand??
Pathetic attempt in explaining the science behind. People deny the existence of god saying thats its based on "belief". But here I see a person arguing and trying to explain science based on his "belief" using the phrases like "may be".
The inclusion of the phrase "may be" is funny, but the logic behind is even funnier.
I think some people shud have done the basic science experiments in their primary skools. An empty glass bottle covered with a balloon on its mouth doesn't break up when u heat it even for 5 mintues. Try it.
R u trying to say that the person was made to take a deep breath, asked to complete the threshold of air volume inside his body and was then put in glass chamber so that when he released the air (a little hotter) the volume expanded and in ur opinion it cracked?? Even a kid acquainted with the basic science wud have termed ur "theory" as "funny".naveen said:
I'm yet to say anything on soul dear.karnivore said:
Read more....
Read more....
Had I been born 1000 years ago I wud have learnt something practical like I do now instead of wasting my time on theories and faulty approaches which change when a new one comes and contradicts the previous one and hence wasting all that time in which u thought that the previous one was correct instead of thinking something of your own and independent.vyasram said:
All I can say is your thinking ability is very limited and that u r unable to think beyond what others have already thought. I guess u shud read the whole thread again now.vyasram said:
Sorry to quote the comments since I too feel that article has been published by an ignorant M.D.
Read the complete thing
Tell the genius u plagiarized to be a little broadminded since science itself rejects "concept of the energy of the "vital force" which is essential for homeopathy". May be modern science cannot be homeopathy since its scope is very limited.
This is just a claim. If there is a real mathematical proof of subatomic wave-field interacting on a patient, then scientists wouldn't have been so skeptical. Instead the claim would have been a lot more credible. For the rest part, the claim is, just a claim.
Running out of ideas to get one over me? That's a desparate comment.
Look at the post above u, and look at the posts of the supporters of both science and God. Yes this is a debate a healthy one where people are trying to induct their "scientific beliefs" and self righteous theories. I won't characterise an opponent for his belief in god either unless it degrades mankind and creates terror. BTW see this debate healthy debate already in gutters that u wud like to clean......srivirus said:
Since u bring up mathematics as a base of modern science. Then I wud like u to read the complete thing first and that means the whole site.srivirus said:
Who said not respect it. Bu the problem lies in blindly accepting it. The practise of telling the state of a person remotely and telepathically is not new. It has been practised in ancient eras too. But I'm not in neways blaming science that it can'texplain as to how such a thing can happen. Science needs logic.srivirus said:
I'm in no way ridiculing modern science. But I'm quite convinced that modern science also is not without flaws.srivirus said:
Like I said before you need to come out of the closet set by modern science and need to think beyond it. There have been various side effects of the modern medicine, prescribed drugs causing deaths. Shud I say, modern medicine is not effective?? Shud I ask in the same logic how credible is modern medicine then??srivirus said:
I guess u r not being "broadminded" now.So if u have read the articles given, u wud have realised that we can increase the immunity of the body and do many extraordinary things, like controlling heartbeat for which Indian yogis are popular for and which amazes the west, by knowing our inner nature. Now again read what homeopathy, ayurveda deals etc with.
Modern science!!srivirus said:
Keep saying that if it makes u feel better.vyasram said:
Since u mentioned Einstein, Here a quote from him,vyasram said:
The science u believe in it seems is "limited" right in front of ur own eyes!!vyasram said:
Nice one from someone sooo "scientific". I wonder how many homeopathic, aurvedic pills u and ur circle takes!!.vyasram said:
I thought u already knew how homepathy works. But as usual u make me do ur homework. PLease read now and don't ask the next time and like it is said, humans too have different immune levels and thus its not necessary that a medicine working effectively on one is bound to work the same on others.karnivore said:
Duh, by the lingo u use, it doesn't take long for anyone to comprehend that I'm debating with brainwashed, narrow minded teenager who can't even understand that science and spirituality are different things. So yes, "vital force" and matter of spirituality are beyond science to comprehend and this "mumbo-jumbo" is simply too enormous for your brain to grasp!!karnivore said:
Ignorant a nasty term in dictionary?karnivore said:
Where did u get this? I certainly didn't call u a fool?? Or u believed urself as such? I guess u r being an entertainer now, but certainly I'm finding interest in other's posts.
When did I say mathematics was the answer to everything? Maths is a powerful tool in the aid of science. I do know that maths has a lot of limitations. Even division by zero is not defined. But there have been workarounds to that limitation (it was my maths professor who told me that many things in calculus came to be because of this anomaly). I'm not a mathematician, only an engineering student (and a bad one at it). There would be innumerable things in maths that I can never even comprehend in my lifetime. But by directing me to a site dealing with vedic mathematics, what do you want to prove? Maybe they did find an answer to some problems. And your point is?mediator said:
It is unscientific to mix philosophy/mythology/metaphysics with pure mathematics. Maybe vedic mathematics did solve some problems (I have read about solutions to quadratic and differential equations, using vedic numerical techniques), but the above post is a little too much pseudoscientific.
And I presume you also believe in mythical monkeys who could fly. Did you really go back 2000 years into the past to witness it? What other “proof” do you have other than some “testimony” in some ancient book? This hardly even stands out as an argument. Of course science needs logic. Saying that you should believe in any claim made by any odd guy out there without an iota of reason or logic is what I would say, is ignorance.mediator said:
There have been many a person who have had prestigious degrees and have committed frauds. Not that I’m directly putting a question mark on your Dr. Mona Lisa Schulz, M.D., Ph.D, but as a skeptic, I do have my reservations. And oh, you don’t need to feel sorry for me, thank you very much. The term reality is relative I would say. It can vary from people to people with varying perspectives and points of views. Going by that perspective, even I could be feeling sorry for you. But does it matter?mediator said:
Modern scientific medicine is passed after various tests. There are different subjects just dealing with it (toxicology, for example). Of course, you could argue that ethics are broken here and there (I would never justify the tests on innocent people that turned fatal). But they are known to deliver in most cases. But is there a surety when it comes to alternative medicine? You are expected to believe whatever is told to you, and the cure, if it does happen, is uncertain.mediator said:
You put claims by individuals. Going by that approach, I gave an example about claims by some other individuals who are convinced that they have been abducted by aliens. I don’t think it’s a complex thing to even explain, but since you asked…mediator said:
Yes, modern science. Find it hard to believe?mediator said:
I believe it was Einstein who also said:mediator said:
More on Einstein’s beliefs: *atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm
Now how can I make a rigid soul understand who has already been told and has read that "modern science" straight away rejects the concept of "vital force". And yes, the answer u r looking for, or shud I say u might have read is equally bizaaaaaarrre.karnivore said:
I have already told my point.srivirus said:
Thats why I asked to u read the complete site.
I really don't like to comment upon things of which I haven't acknowledged the effect of. But ur advocation of something that has it flaws too and is based on something which u urself affirm to be erroneous is no better than the thing u quoted here. ANd I'm not interested in in what u think. I can similary think and say that u too r too narrow minded to be walking the path set by modern science alone that u know as well and not observing what other fields have to offer. Don't tell me that a major percent of this world is "ignorant" to be following something spiritual and still getting exhilarated and cured!! No sir, if u have read my links then u wud have found that many knowledgeable souls on this planet who have quest to learn more about science still don't part their ways with stuff like homeopathy,ayurveda, accupunture etc. They practise it, spreading it and are happily living!!srivirus said:
Sure thats a personal opinion. I have no objection to that!!srivirus said:
U talk of belief, then u must have heard about the cases as well where the patient's condition improves just by telling him that he is going to live whereas scientifically he had very minor chances!! U can urself infer what that means.srivirus said:
And how exactly does that relate to spirituality or even science?? A hoax that became a part of course books? R u sure u took it with a "pinch of salt"??
Exactly!!srivirus said:
Nope just a reflection of what we r dicussin!
U need more insight of Ayurveda then. How does a simple mix of Tulsi,Badam with milk translates to a "Formula". Wud u like to explain??vyasram said:
Are u givin me a laugh now??
And its not spirituality?? Funny!!
Source
Source
Source
Mocking the ones who do such stuff doesn't look good form a mouth that himself doesn't know that very basic definition of meditation. It only makes u look idiotic!!vyasram said:
and then go on to claim, it still works AND its not PLACEBO. Then cite examples of less/little known phenomenon to justify it all, that since there are things unexplained, don't expect an explanation here.
When, where, under what circumstances, did he say this. Because tell u the truth, i am not convinced that he said something like this. As far as i know, thanks to, Richard Dawkins and Max Jammer, Einstein's god was "pantheistic" and certainly not "theistic". It was he who commented:
What a waste! It seems u didn't read my previous post. Sorry for not having posted the source of it.
U can't even comprehend what I said and relating spiritual healing with ...<wateva> was really childish!
vyasram said:
vyasram said:
vyasram said:
Amazing!!vyasram said:
Disappointment!karnivore said:
I have lost the count of times when I have told that I am atheist myself!! And that means I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. But if u have experienced or even read properly then u must have understood pretty clearly that even an atheist too can very well be spiritual.
K : I guess this absolutely removes the necessity to explain why something, which is, un-provable, un-reachable, and essentially a "sky-fairy", is essential for it. Why does homeopathy, whose elements are all "material", need something "non-material" to work upon ??
K : Sir, if science is not relevant in anyway, then why is it acceptable to believe in "memory of water", which is nothing but a "scientific" attempt to prove homeopathy. Shouldn't we say, who cares about "memory of water".
K : But so is astrology, numerology, voo-doo and, if you ask a believer or someone who has "personally experienced" it, they all work. As with the procedure, isn't it the most dubious part of homeopathy. And yes, it "is found to be working wonders" because it is works not on the body, but on the psychology of the patient.
K : Of course it is user-Findlay. Something which does not have any effect on the body, is bound to be user-friendly. Wrong administering of drugs can hardly be termed as failure of "Modern Medicine". Although the side-effects of modern medicine is a serious matter of concern, it no way negates the principles of modern medicine.
Kids, if u r having a hard time understanding how classifications can be, you have a priceless example here n more if u research well!! A hardcore science believer trying to logic on the basis of "unexplained/flawed stuff"?? Science is not for chumps sir but for broadminded souls who can atleast "believe in what they see/observe/experience" and found to be holding true!! Your unfathomable trust in flawed modern science is really admirable!!
I am pretty sure no one is interested in reading tons of paragraphs you have provided from various sites and would like to stay ground on their understanding so far and not just change for the sake of this conversation. However, as I understand, the argument with you is not "Science Vs God", instead, it is "morality of Science Vs Peace in Spiritualism" or of the kind.
Ok, let me tell my views on Homeopathy. Its not different from what others might have mentioned here, or for that matter what you yourself have mentioned that science doesn't accept it as Science. How difficult is it to accept that it is not Science as it seeks evidence??
People who claim to have schizophrenia speak with people, think of characters which doesn't exist in reality and are even sometimes threat to society and are put in mental asylums when they are found harmful. Now why wouldn't I argue saying that I have not experienced it and so I don't know if its true or God is communicating with him or he is in his own spiritual world, he has attained a stage where he can see things?? There is a limit to using the term "because you can experience it, you can not deny it".
There is no term as Twisted Logic. Its an oxymoron which you have used. When there is logic to something, it doesnt matter if its twisted or not. coz, there is LOGIC to it!!
Nope the argument is not that either and I'm certinaly not forcing anyone to read the "tons of paragraph", but wud have been nice if u did!!legolas said:
1) After giving that "tons of para" and then u talking of principle I'm only left wit ha feeling of despair and sympathy!! I don't request anyone to read my posts thoroughly for no reason!! So I'm certainly no going to repeat/post those whole "tons of para" I posted for another "tons" if time!!
So u may be happy to pay whatever is the rate for science based medicine which claims and proves how the drug acts. I really do not doubt it!
I hope u can read atleast this small para! And then upon this and those "tons of para" I reflect the bold part back to u!!
Do u mean the "Apollo Moon Landing" where the big ones "claimed" to have landed moon??legolas said:
I wonder why they r still roaming out there, not put in mental asylums and degrading the meaning of science. Pallease! I know english is wierd!!May be to u, Or May be u wud like to read those "tons of para" so as to stop repeating what others have already said!!! I'm not justifying any of em and not even saying that our fancy modern science "hold all the answer"!! I'm simply telling homeopathy etc have been used for 100s of yrs and found to be working nicely. And even though modern science is just speculating on it, our dear friends here have taken a step further from their more knowledgable scientific colleagues in big reseach centers and already given there "A BIG NO" on it!!
And I thought that the scientific minds read the history first before progressing further. I'm really not interested in ur same old typical opinions and on what u think. But u cud have saved my from repeating much by ethically reading the whole thing!!
You question to this extent something that researches for 20 years and writes the side effects of the drugs on hte cover itself. My question is, why would you believe the claims of Homeopathy just because it CLAIMS to work without doing the least of what allopathy does?? They have nothing... none of these tests... utterly nothing, other than basis of a belief that it works. Instead of questioning the credibility of something that doesn't do anything to prove its efficacy, you question something which takes immense efforts to deliver the best possible.
I am agnostic too. But, I would rather have an argument against one's beliefs which would better me in gaining more perspective than obtaining the final conclusion of this debate in a much earlier stage.
I wud like to ask why the reviewer is trying to bring something hypothetical as "Dark Matter" to make things work out??
May be someone can explain this whole para in clearer terms!
In the review the reviewer explains this by first, telling how permanent magnetism works, then how electrons move, then how light goes, little about light coding but where in clear terms is he telling what marc is asking?? Then he says, "There is really only one photon -- The Light. We can also call it Undefined Awareness." May be @karnivore wud like to say something here.FT said:
But do they cling forever?? In my simple experiments they cling temporarily and the one I'm not holding drops off. May be I understand what Marc is trying to say.
Please read the part I am quoting toooo!reviewer said:
People here are asking questions how homepaths can practise it without knowing the science behind. I wud like to ask in similar fashion how law of conservation of mass and energy becomes a law if it is not well understood in the first place and "limited" only to the closed source systems??reviewer said:
In favour of Marc!reviewer said:
@karnivore dear, it seems u r being utterly sarcastic!! Also I bet u haven't read any of the links I gave until now nor managed to take a peek in the world of spirtualism. Firstly u r telling me about sci-forums?? I thought in any debate we oughta source from standard sites! Secondly, even science doesn't ridicule spiritualism,intuition,ayurveda etc that much whereas u called it a crap straight away?? Thirdly, The author of Final Theory has been agreed by the reviewer i.e Douglass A. White, Ph.D, to some extent. IMO, he is quite intelligent to be called a 'lunatic'. So it certainly doesn't take long for anyone to observe who the real lunatic is and with such lunatics I guess the world is becoming a dangerous place which might get filled with another "tons of superstition".karnivore said:
The question u r asking are the general ones and best explained by professional sites! I hope @karnivore wont mind.legolas said:
Mediator, I did not actually have to read that site because, Richard Dawkins asked the same question to the guy who prescribed NaCl as medicine which is diluted 100 or 1000 or any other times for Knee Pain, he could not answer.The question u r asking are the general ones and best explained by professional sites! I hope @karnivore wont mind.
Please read!
, ergo my questions,If he discovered something beyond doubt, then this concept itself should have fetched a Nobel Prize??
really?? I mean, really?? A scientific explanation?When you don't even know how or why the drug works, how can you possibly tell there is no side effect??
Seems Mahatma Gandhi has been commenting of many things!
This is really a sad fact about homeopathy just begging for a reason for its non-popularity. In this telecommunication driven world, if you still say you can't even establish this... you are just another pathetic bragger.Did your understanding in other subjects of science including homeopathy that deep enough to talk about?? The second block is bold to denote that this itself is against God's free will (to those who believe in God). But since you are an atheist, then by principle there is no God. But astrology (Indian astrology at least) claims that God has descended and given means of astrology to help ourselves. How do you justify this???
lol next come the aliens from mars ??
Like I have said before also and which u repeating again, I wud myself like to quote again that "Modern science rejects the idea behind homeopathy". And u r asking scientific explanation?? Please READ where we started from.legolas said:
Bringing faulty modern mathetmatics, lack of understandng of expressions like division by zero, bringing on hypothetical concepts like dark matter and dark energy to explain things.....If u still can't understand what I have said then u r just more than a pathetic bragger.
Again I don't even udnerstand how hypothetical subjects, laws bounded by "limitations" can be used as a base to explain a topic further! But yes I understand homeopathy quite well and how body can heal itself with principles behind.
I think ur defintion of God is very limited one (the one who controls everything??). Modern science calls that god u r referring as "infinite consciousness". So how do u justify that?? Here's an interesting article!!
Read it all. It again reflects the question I raised in previous post and approaches led by modern science!!
I don't reject the possibility of aliens. But seeing the episode of apollo moon hoax, where big western guns from mental asylums made a huge sensation and intoxicated plenty of gullible souls, I guess aliens will soon be coming from mars!t159 said:
I am not even going to argue about this anymore.
Before continuing the argument, if at all you are interested in continuing with this "pathetic bragger"
then I would like to clear my confusions. Read them completely and provide answers to every question as much as possible (there wouldn't be any external links to these questions, I believe, which delays my reply )Q2: Can you please explain me why you dont believe in a supreme force, the God (This is not my definition of God as you had misunderstood in the earlier reply. This is what religionists believe is God) and you believe or in fact you understand vital force??
Now, here you have misunderstood the explanation, Q3: haven't you? And you should have read the reply by Sreevirus here too. I am happy to see another person who understood the quote.
Don't mind again n again u terming God in the most typical context. I don't mind it. But neways yes I am religious and if u can't even read my past replies and like to make me repeat that frequently then ofcors I won't even explain myself. Read my replies and I assure u will have some idea on "how an atheist can be religious and spiritual"!!legolas said:
Supreme Force? U mean something theoretical as unified field theory ( coined by Albert Einstein? ) as modern science states?? And yes I 'may' or "may not' believe in supreme force depending on my level of understanding. So I am certainly an observer here. Also, I believe in vital force like chinese believe in yin and yang. Further I believe in intuition tooo. Is that sufficient for ur questions??legolas said:
Strange hun? I'm not having "infinite consciousness". BTW, I'm really curious of finding how u percieve "religion' to be?
Before characterising anyone, I wud really request u to go and read where we started from. Don't mind u jumped in between a hot topic and started questioning what already was debated. That makes u a lunatic from "mental asylum"?? And if u think I'm a hypocrite then I guess those who r pursuing/teaching or shud I say preaching the subjects of modern science based on their "flawed/limited concepts and "limited laws" are far bigger hypocrites. I guess here we have an oxymoron now, "limited law".legolas said:
Are you really kidding? I have been reading all your replies and the thousands of links that you have been providing. My questions are not to the sites that claim them, but to you who is no more than a person who believes in something and then reads a 1000 sites which tells what he thinks and then get brainwashed to prove his point. There is no rationality in those arguments. I can refer to 1000 sites to again prove there are that many people who agree with me. I read some of your previous replies where you mock a person who has provided links to sites as communists without no brains... ?? :O And what, all the sites you refer to are buddhists or what?
I mean this: "Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, jealousy, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".
Just to make sure I dont get a twisted answer, Why don't you believe in God in the first place?Abusing and beating were from the people who believed in Religion and God and questioning against him was considered a sin and punishment is death. Don't you remember Galileo was the one who told Sun doesn't go round the Earth and it was the other way round??? Why are you pointing to me which I have to say and you have to object back at me?? Some sort of conversational wizard technique??
)Please tell me how limited law is an oxymoron.Before characterising anyone, I wud really request u to go and read where we started from. Don't mind u jumped in between a hot topic and started questioning what already was debated. That makes u a lunatic from "mental asylum"?? And if u think I'm a hypocrite then I guess those who r pursuing/teaching or shud I say preaching the subjects of modern science based on their "flawed/limited concepts and "limited laws" are far bigger hypocrites. I guess here we have an oxymoron now, "limited law".
but, , basically opposing Science). lets begin arguing again!!
Your poll states either this or that.
I am not really sure you have read all my replies. Even if u had read the first few of those "tons of para" then u wudn't have repeated so much. Neways whats wrong in reading the sites? @sreevirus posted a pdf containing 33 pages. I didn't mind reading em. If a shorter pdf had been given, then it wud have been much better. And my links aren't even 3 pages long!! BTW, u must really be kidding that I'm brainwashed. I myself take homeopathic pills for the incessant cough I had been having for about 4 months and I must admit that it had been working marvelously from the day 1. It was becoz of this and few pills I used to take some years ago that led me to find more about homeopathy online. Similar is the case with intuition. You can laugh if u want to, I wont mind coz I pity the scientists too who laugh when they hear Indian yogis can stop heart beat for certain period of time which according to "modern science", a person is declared dead if his heart stop beating....no pulse!!legolas said:
So u mean scientists who argue and base their subjects on limitations and theories like "dark matter" to make things work out shud also believe in GOD?? But it seems u don't even now what Vital force is. Forgive me for quoting another small para and adding to that tons of para.legolas said:
Source
Nope all I am saying is that only a few people observed what was really true. The rest, like followers of modern science not willing to question it, thinking science and our modern scientists are gods and know everything, only followed the tradition. I wonder how much scientific stuff have u questioned.
Sir, I didn't source the definitions and quote the reviewer in the pdf file given by @srivirus for no reason. U can't even follow the train of events that is taking place. And u say u have read it all!!legolas said:
This is how it works. The thread continues for 6-8 pages and then stalls, then in another season it flares up again. So definitely I have not "saw your posts" and therefore not questioning on what u said. But since u r questioning me, then u oughta read where I started from. In the past I discussed homeopathy, but since it wasn't this much entertaining I didn't mind quoting that para again.
I think u really have no idea how this all started do u?? The corresponding reply to this para goes like this : The problem is I really don't know how homepathy,accupuncture are so successful even though we don't know the exact science behind it!! U really are behaving like an entertainer now who is bored of discussing and bringing nice little terms like "fart" again n again, repeating again n again and yet telling u have read all my posts, which I guess are representing ur true character in general. So that certainly tells that u r full fledged lunatic. No offence just inference!legolas said:
Yes, I agree. but still, practicing on humans with out adequate proof is nothing more than an "experimental drug" which people with no other choice adhere to and participate in clinical trials with the last ray of hope as guinea pigs.@legolas : Thats more like a general view of yours.
Sure if there's a proof to homeopathy then science will definitely hail it. I don't doubt it. But in today's time, it doesn't!! And calling it a waste or a crap ignoring its success and all that I posted wud be a blunder/stupidity I wud say. But neways, u may rest with what u believe in and I wud question what might intrigue me.
Guinea pigs?? Modern medicine or homoepathy? U decide!!
I have been quoting each n every line of urs, n u say I haven't read ur posts? BTW why r u replying only to the part in which I quoted u, why not the part I quoted others? I too asked a lotta questions. It really doesn't matter whome I asked. OK, don't read my links atleast read the para I quoted "from" the links. And then u say, u can't even do that making it look like "tons of paras" have been mounted on u.legolas said:
legolas said:
Ur scope of thinking hasn't improved yet. Please define what is intelligence, behaviour, common sense etc. What are emotions? "How and why" is it that physical health affects mental condition and mental condition affects ur physical? One of the symptoms of diabetes/pimples AFAIK is tension. But is taking too much tension physical?? Why shud it have effects on our physical body??karnivore said:
Like I said before, I had a tough cough for 4 months and ,had it in winter season a few yrs ago too, that was literally cracking me apart. I really didn't know what medicine the doctor gave me. But since it was highly effective from the day 1, it made me eager to know more about it. I don't think there exists any exploitation or if I was being "fleeced for money"!!karnivore said:
This again leads me to repeat a small copy....repeated said:
I have never said the whole of science is flawed. Don't make me repeat what I said. But ur argument can be used against u too. On one hand we have cases of thoroughly tested modern medicines and yet failing. On the other hand successful homeopathy, but not scientifically explained. If ur argue as bolded, then tell how can u term anything that is working, successful as crap?? A true scientific soul doesn't disregard anything like that u know.karnivore said:
/Source
U dont need to say any of this.karnivore said:
@mediator, 1) if cyanide is diluted a million times, will it get stronger??
2) if homeopathy is based on spiritual claims and vital energy which you and I understand to be hypothetical enough for science to not validate the claims, then why call "homeopathy" as "science"?. call it a spiritual mojo or whatever.. when it doesn't fall into the premises and bounded rules necessary for the "even not idealistic or perfect" science, when why claim so?
why did homeopathy treat a cough for 4 months (tough cough i understand the term, still even if its penumonia, it doesnt take 4 months).
the problem is, the doctor himself doesn't know why he gave you that particular medicine!
Now this is being so wanting to prove homeopathy is the best. while they claim to cure only certain diseases.
Ah I don't think I read bt Big Bang theory on the net, magazine or any newspaper. Textbook? Ah yes!! I think u r not sure of what u just said!!legolas said:
Seems u don't understand plain English! Where did I say that it took 4 months to cure?legolas said:
You really are something!!And now I think u never ever read any of the links!! Is English really that hard??legolas said:
YEs, everyone can see who's being desperate. It seems u have done nuthing in this discussion save criticising hemoepathy in a typical manner n makin me repeat again n again!legolas said:
Judging by ur chldish posts, and the quality of terms like "fart" u were bringing again n again in between randomly, I think I shud have been asking that question. But sorry for being that polite!!legolas said:
I got some time today and I’ve gone through the threads very briefly, so I hope you will excuse me for anything overlooked. But anyway, I’ll try to answer as much as I can.
I couldn't agree more--and you've put it better than I did.
I don't claim to say anything ground-breaking or radical. And I didn't mean to imply a "home-grown theory" by saying it it was "my own current theory" -- merely that it was only the theory I currently subscribe to, and that that I'm not claiming to have any final answer.
I would really appreciate if you could answer to this question. This is the 3rd time I am asking the same question and you have nixed aside.
My comment was based on the documentary "The Enemies of Reason Part 2" year 2007 by Richard Dawkins where he monitors a Chief doctor of Homeopathy in the UK where he questions a patient and then prescribes NaCl for her Knee pain and when Richard Dawkins asks him "how can NaCl cure her knee pain, and even if it does, why can't she herself have the common salt? on what basis do you prescribe this?", the chief doctor replied "The truth is no one knows, I don't know it." I don't have to refer any site after hearing this!! Would you?
Ok. I dint know your senses aren't tuned enough to distinguish and appreciate a little sense of humor or subtle criticism. I am sorry for that.Judging by ur chldish posts, and the quality of terms like "fart" u were bringing again n again in between randomly, I think I shud have been asking that question. But sorry for being that polite!!
The reason I didn't answer it becoz ur posts are becoming more childish over time. I'm not a homeopath myself, but it seems u still haven't understood that homeopathy employs the use of poisons also to cure.legolas said:
Sire, we are not interested in the "most satisfying" explanation that it expanded and then contracted, "where when how??". Like I asked science doesn't reveal boundaries, it doesn't explain universe, it doesn't know what lies beyond universe. Are there more universes like this one?? Simply puttng, it really doesn't know what universe is!! But we still see it in our textbooks that universe is this and that, it has this and that!!legolas said:
If u r telling me to be real, then u shud know that people really do not know what is homepathy and if it a science or not. They really don't know "how" the scientific medicines are developed and if they r tested on "animals" also. People generally take medicine on doctor's prescription and as a faith that doctor is correct. Doctor on the other hand monitors his patient. If the patient doesn't improve like he wanted then he gives him something else. So was the previous medicine ineffective?? This is what many people percieve to be!!legolas said:
If u like to go by such statistics, then only u can help urself and not even "modern science" can help u coz like I linked even "poisons" can be used to cure.Again a repeat. It has passed through the age when most of the laws and theories were being formulated. Interested scientists have researched a lot, but still haven't come to a conclusion. Some have even formed theories.legolas said:
If thats what u call "outcome of understanding" then why r there so many deaths taken place with the use of many modern medicine?? I wonder why r u making me repeat again n again....do u have have nuthing else to say now??legolas said:
Homeopathy, if u really have any idea, works on laws of similars and hence about similar symptoms and conditions. U define poison as something that can harm or kill someone. But how does homeopathy use even a poison to cure?? It doesn't believe in concentration, but dilution. And if modern science can't find that out then I think it needs another remodification to form another set of theories, laws to fit/justify itself!!legolas said:
Are my repeated request to read having any effect on u?? First I put that only as a link, then I put it as a para where @kalpik honoured me for the biggest post titlelegolas said:
. May be we shud honour u with "reluctant to read" title!!Atleast u have the guts to admit u didn't read something. But neways I too didn't believe in the milk episode and thats whats all is written in the previous post of mine. Please take a look.srivirus said:
@srivirus: I wud request u to give a little more thought on what u post. And thats what modern science has been doing, it has invented hypothetical terms to make things work out. I hope u read my whole post from the start and not just the part I quote on u.srivirus said:
What u explained about energy and mass isn't new to me. Science is trying to explain something practical, something that holds true using hypothetical terms to make things work out. Similar is the case with homeopathy. There is no explanation, but principles and methods. And it works!! Will u find it "not crap" if I insert some hypthetical terms. There r theories being put forward already. My continuing further in this post with u will bring nuthing new.srivirus said:
Don't let this discussion ruin ur work. Take ur time. But I wud really find it nice and kind if u read all of my post+the links 'I' put forward+the links 'u' put forward!!srivirus said:
Was this an intended answer for the quote? This was in response to my quote "the doctor doesn't know it himself" for which I quoted the documentary. And it is true. He doesn't. You can check it out yourself. But I don't understand the premise on your reply reg. Venom and law of similars, for the doctor not being able to explain why he prescribed a medicine. So, again I tell, the doctor himself dint know and he is the chief of medicine in the UK homeopathy.
Finally!legolas said:
First ur question. I wud like to ask u are there any boundaries to universe? Are there more universes like this one?? Do u know the answer?legolas said:
It wud be nice to know how it was "accidently". He might have done something wrong?? These kinds of accidents are quite common in "modern medicine" too.source_ by_lego said:
Source
Do u mean saying something like "more realistic theory" like it has been known now that the laws which r supposed to be "universal,absolute" can be limited also and hence "limited laws"?? First time, but it seems it has been quite a time now.legolas said:
My answer was intended to question modern science not homeopathy. Since accupressure, homeopathy all have their own principles and methods I won't question them in the light of something that has its own different approach.legolas said:
I don't understand why r u going nuts. Simply tell u haven't understood homeopathy or its principles yet.legolas said:
Is it hard to understand that homeopathy recommends the use of dilute form and tells itself that the medicine becomes strong in dilute form?? Gosh, Do I have to repeat 3-4 full fledged pages again just for u now or to bold lines even in a 3 line quote??source_by_legolas said:
All the these alternative medicines that science rejects have their own principles, their own base, their own understanding. Its on this base that they flourish and get success. I won't simply reject them becoz our so called "modern science", which is changing itself, modifying to its needs, forming theories and "limited laws", rejects them. Again I repeated this. So thank you!!legolas said:
Yes modern science tells that the theories aren't the entire answers and yet to explain those theories it is bringing more n more hypothetical terms and equations and speculating on the missing ingredients and then modifying itself to its likes with "limited laws" in place. On the other hand we have scientificically rejected alternative-medicines which atleast have their own static principles and their base.legolas said:
Only your word seems so. But you have littered with sarcasm through out the post. Lets continue it that way!
Could you kindly answer these questions? or are you saying you would accept to whatever their claim is or however they wanted to prove it? rather than answering superficially using your vital energies as homeopathy does.
May I also remind u that the patient is under close examination and patients whose overall condition consisting of emotions, physical responsess,personality differ but not the symptoms may be given different treatment.
*www.elixirs.com/principles.cfm
Isn't that awesome! but, I am really blowing into deaf ears, that is for sure, yet I try. The thing is, I am not at all questioning the results of homeopathy, even though I personally don't conclude it as a medicine, for your innumerate links and statistics may have been/are true. Its the means they employed to get this claim into practice by trying on subjects without definitive proof that bothers me. Its alright it turned out good. But, if it hadn't, then you will be one of those who laments over the lugubrious outcome a non-scientific fictional medicine has tormented!!
U r wrong. Its a theory becoz science simply can't "explain" it of why it happens. Homeopaths on the other hand have been practising the methods marked by certain principles. Big Bang on the other hand is simply a theory because thats what scientists speculate to be. They don't have any physical evidence if the universe was concentrated at t=0. If it was there, then what was before that?legolas said:
Source
I think u r trying to deviate what I said. Homeopathy has its own principles and methods. If u tell anyone after makin him learn the term "vita force" then ofcors he will understand. Atleast homeopathy goes constant for him. Like chinese coined the term "yin-yang" to practise accupuncture, same is the case with homeopathy. The fields are practised and the effects known. If not, then they r tested atleast/proved in a humane fashion. On the other hand we have "modern science", which has coined a lot of "hypothetical" terms for what? To explain theories? And to explain those theories another garbage of theories are being put on. Do these theories have any physical evidence, if it is true or if it works? If it started, then where's the end? "How and why" will it end?? What actually is universe? Science tells earth has north and south poles. Do these poles exist in universe also? What if universe is also rotating?legolas said:
Many things!=everything...seems u need to meditate on the difference first.legolas said:
U can't overdose with homeopathy. Its against its principles. The methods of testing for homeopathy are known to be harmless. The dilution is such that if u take 10 tablets at one time, then is still considered 1 dose. I dunno why he tried heavier doses or what the "accident" was. If he had intentionally taken it or increased the dose then it wudn't have been termed as an "accident".legolas said:
Why not?..as per the reply to the question u put (in prev. post).lego said:
Neways ur questions are more like : Wud u like to be an astronaught after witnessing the episode of Kalpana Chawla?? I can ask plenty of questions like that where a medicine failed and tests killed many. I think u r diggin deeper into morality now which is quite degraded as far as modern science and modern medicines are concerned!
U call that sense of humor? Then sorry to tell that u really need to develop some to understand what humour is! The terminology that u have been using simply reflect ur personality and character and most importantly speak how 'broadminded' u r.legolas said:
What did I say wrong here? Modern science doesn't explain everything and it can not, even you have given many explanations... Many things is definitely not equal to everything. What is your problem??? Are you reading at all??? for the person who quibbles that others don't read the links!! Come on.The only thing is that both Kalpana Chawla and NASA/the mission people know the risks... while the "guinea pigs" are guaranteed cure while they are monitored and observed for side effects.
Thank you, I respect your answers here which is exactly which is going to put a full stop to this session. The point is I differ in opinion in these regards. So, now that we have settled our differences, we know why you support and I dont, regarding Homeopathy. Hope you got what I am trying to say, we are not going to sway from our points of view here. I am glad we sorted it out.
Read more here or here
says Pauli's 4th cousin
He thought he was one of the "chosen" ones to decipher Biblical scripture. He even predicted that world will end "no sooner than 2060 A.D". Jury, however, is still out. Whether he was playing to the gallery or genuinely loved to delude himself, is a matter of debate.
loglas said:
Source [We meet again, Rense.com]Rense.com said:
A casual reading will give the impression, that the sites at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro were littered with skeletons and were found in such position, that would suggest an instant annihilation of an entire city.link said:
Again, a casual reading will give the impression, that the skeletons that were found, had flesh attached to them and that the deaths were due to some physical violence, the cause of which is mysterious.link said:
Later excavation unearthed more Skeletal remains in other Indus valley ruins like Harappa, Dholavira, Lothal etc., which numbered a little more than 300. [I am not sure of the exact number.]
If it indeed was a nuclear explosion, then it must be of a kind, that we don’t of know yet. Here’s how Mohenjo-Daro looks today (Great Bath, College, Courtyard, Wall) after a couple of thousand years after the alleged explosion. And here’s how Hiroshima looked, after the actual explosion. Notice the difference. In case of the archeological remains of Mohenjo-Daro, the city is remarkably intact, except of course corrosion, and vandalism. Hiroshima on the other hand is practically leveled to the ground. True, that more that half of Hiroshima was made of wood, nevertheless, is it possible for primitive brick structures to remain erect, the way it is found in Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, after a nuclear blast ? The other possibility is that the bomb used, killed only biological things and left the infrastructure intact. But that is highly unlikely.link said:
link said:
Radioactivity may actually remain for over a few millions of years, depending on the presence of the amount of radioisotopes. Normal radioactive exposure is considered as 300 millirems, at sea level, but permissible limit for an adult is 5000 millirems over the normal. 50 times normal would mean 15,000 millirems, which is fairly high. However, current background nuclear radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just as normal as entire Globe. This level was reached in just 60 odd years. If a blast of the nature experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was responsible for such annihilation, how is it possible for the skeleton to remain so much radioactive, even after a couple of thousand years ?link said:
I can’t say with reasonable accuracy, if Mr Kisari Mohan Ganguli, actually Babu Kisari Mohan Ganguli, was a historian or not, but I can tell with absolute certainty, that he did interpret The Mahabharata into English. But there is a catch. The interpretation was done between 1883 and 1896, a good 50 odd years before the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and a good 90 odd years before the interview was included in the apparently fake news mag or site.link said:
How many times have these quotes been rubbed in your face as sure evidence of description of nuclear explosion described in The Mahabharata. Well, guess what. The quotes don’t appear in Mahabharata at all. Search for your self. The Mahabharata at SacredText.com is the one translated by Mr Kisari Mohan Ganguli and is the only publicly available translation of The Mahabharata.Rense.com said:
Last paragraghsacredtext.com said:
Ancient cities, roughly connected to the Indus valley civilization, are actually been discovered, rather unearthed in Rajasthan, by ASI. And it is true that the region actually has high level of radiation, although ASI does not mention of any archeological site to be radioactive. The reason of such radioactivity is entirely different than what is been suggested. Indian Nuclear Project/ Power plant/ Testing sites/ nuclear waste dumping site, are all located in those areas of Rajasthan. This might help understanding.link said:
Source
Source
khaghalmandal.com said:
[WTF ?] [WTF ?] [WTF ?]
Hello sir,
I dunno about all these evolution theory, big bang theory . But All i believe is there is some mysterious power which is making the earth to make rotation and revolution. There is some power which is making cell division in the mothers womb. Some call it as mysterious power and some call it as god. After all we can conclude that there is a unknown power in the universe which is making all these things. I mean which, science has designed to make humans respire only oxygen and tress only carbon-di-oxide. Thus making us dependable on the trees and trees to human.
More over the world has already witnessed some gods namely Jesus christ, Prophet mohammed and all others. the world has witnessed some of the phenomenon which we assume as gods play to be only some scientific phenomenon.
I believe in god and i believe in science. There is no human without science and there is no science without god.
What makes you think that I am not aware of the other side. Skepticism, for me, is not a fashion statement. I did not become a skeptic, because it looked good on me. You may be surprised, but it was that "other side" that made me a skeptic.T159 said:
True.T159 said:
What else can I rely on, other than science.T159 said:
It is how one reaches the lofty heights of perfection - self criticism and correction. Isn't that the best part of science - that it is constantly trying to be perfect. Next time when you mock science the way that you do, think of yourself in 2008 AD and a man in 2008 BCE. The difference is a gift of a constantly evolving process of science.T159 said:
Life is indeed all about possibilities. But not about absurdities.T159 said:
Science is all about knowing and the process of knowing.T159 said:
True159 said:
True. But a friendly advice - "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls off."159 said:
karnivore said:
Relying on science is good! But u need to know how science goes & progresses then.karnivore said:
But believing theories, like big bang having so much boom n that of evolution, as facts is a sign of a mind that needs plenty of help n rest.karnivore said:
Study for now and leave the questions till tomorrow
Good luck for exams
Yeah am ready fo getting answers for my all doubts and questions
Add few more, what causes superconductivity ?
want absolute answers and no theory or assumptions
How can u tell what happens after death? Have u experienced death? Then how come u r here? If u have read other people's experiences, it implies that they r not dead neways! Then what's near death experience?naveen-preloaded said:
O'Reilly?naveen_preloaded said:
Since u r an expert in following & putting up digg.com articles here as a general source of reference to be considered, then here's some food for thought from not the best source but atleast better than digg.com.naveen_preloaded said:
maybe its a myth, may be not.wiki said:
naveen_preloaded said:
U r crossing ur limits nows!naveen_preloaded said:
yeah i was a bright biology student, used to crunch reference books to the last bite
yeah i was a bright biology student, used to crunch reference books to the last bite
Opted for Engg just for the sake of less headache. Now am just an average Joe.
There is one simple question of which i still haven't got any answer.
if there is matter then there is antimatter.
So if I die then will that be the end of everything or beginning of another cycle, as I was dead before i was born and will be dead after I die . look at the fraction of life compared to death, is it that minuscule in amount. So there must be something in vast boredom of death
Isn't death is another state that favors the least energy?
Sleep is an opening to surreal world, you can't control your dreams, may be someday i will be able to. But imagining is different where u are not in deep sleep and can imagine controlling the sequence.
I have more than three reference books with me, man i love biology
Logic is a subset of information representation. Its best in maths and other things. But not where your instinct comes to rescue.
so isn't that mean the same am talking about; you were something before and will be something after.
bizarre and oddities serves as a mean to find new things and exceptions
Yes, believing in reincarnation/ OBE/ Spiritual Hypnosis and all kind of imaginary pink unicorns make perfect sense.mediator said:
In other words, I have to know everything about physics, chemistry, biology, bla and bla. Otherwise I will have to follow some kinda herd, which, we are given to believe, is a sign of mediocrity.mediator said:
Nope, not rejecting is not equal to believing! Its high time that materialists start passing a few aptitude tests now.karnivore said:
Skepticism only looks good when you actually know even remotely about the subject! But heck, here we have someone who forwarded James Randi n the "randomised trials", even though having told N times that its patient specific! So, yes u actually lost complete track of ur herd.karnivore said:
Well I don't think materialists are that retarded to have any problem to understand that. Do u form an exception?karnivore said:
Let me get this straight. You are not rejecting pink unicorns ? Instead mocking science ?mediator said:
Guess, you have never heard of MATERIA MEDICA. Also, I wonder, why are homeopathinc medicines sold, off-the-shelf/ over-the-counter. (Are you saying that the largest homeopathic medicine manufacturing company, Boiron is wrong and duping people ?) Don't think you are even aware of the fact, that in USA, homeopathic medicines are sold as health supplements and not as medicines. Which means, that anybody can walk in a store and buy it. *sigh*mediator said:
Want me to copy/paste your memorable comments ?mediator said:
No science does not explain everything. But, science can explain everything.mediator said:
Now who told u that I'm mocking science? Not believing blindly is not equal to mocking science. Not treating theories as facts does not mean one is being unscientific. I wonder how naive materialists can be.karnivore said:
Forget about "double blind" and 'randomised trials", it seems u didn't even get the basics of "proving" and medicines that fits the cases also to be asking some silly question as in bolds!karnivore said:
Ah sure, entertain me as u wish, that u will!karnivore said:
Ah, the faith of a materialist!karnivore said:
"Mom see...I won, I won"? How cute! U r sure high on psychedelic drugs, that u r with serotonin levels on the loose again?karnivore said:
Okie dokie. So you are not rejecting any pink unicorn ? In that case....mediator said:
Thats mediatorspeak for "I don't know what hell you are talking about, so I will pretend to look the other way and bring in a staw-man argument."
Okie dokie. Post #35, #36, #37mediator said:
Lets see now. Should I have faith in something that has given me this notebook or this internet or that aeroplane or this car or that refrigerator or this microwave oven or that fMRI or this cell phone or.....?mediator said:
Mom see...we won, we won. YABA DABA DOOOOOOOOOO.
Of course, why not. I see yours splattered all over the threads you post in.
Have you been....
I can't recall the meaning of the word scientific now! DAMN! I've developed Alzheimer's.
LOL n u win the great INDIAN laughter challenge! May u cud not "comprehend" the words in very simple English.....karnivore said:
I clearly told that people can watch much worthy/serious ongoing debate. It doesn't mean a "source" or a "reference" that I don't remember to have put up to back up my claims/posts, but a debate that one can look at instead of a troll thread.mediator said:
Oh da baby whines! SHould I also have faith in something that is depleting ozone layer, causing serious side effects, health hazards, polluting the rivers and all? And so u shud understand the reality, how science works, how things works and how ur body reacts accordingly! Psychedelic drugs....hmmm?karnivore said:
Rather ur post has made me even more hungry and dig deeper into what is original! Thanx for that.srivirus said:
It wud be better if u limit ur role on to that instead of giving expert opinions and marking it with ur limited vocablury like "crap/garbage/wateva" where the peers r still exploring on the subjects, n then the materialists say "Lets wait for the peer review". But heck "Forget the peers, we shall give the expert opinions and remarks ourselves". Srivirusaya namah!srivirus said:
Ahem...where do i collect my prize ?mediator said:
Now its time for my favourite Panda.mediator said:
Exactly what was expected of you. The ill effects are because of how WE use our scientific knowledge. E=MC^2 can generate power and light up millions of homes or kill millions of people. How it is used is not Einstein's fault.
I though Final Theory was dealt with.mediator said:
Whats with that. Remove spirituality and it might work, at least not as bunk and baseless as homeopathy. Asprin is made from the bark of willow tree, belonging to the genus Salix. Digitalis is derived from a category of foxgrove plants. Neem is one good example. As long as its about using natural ingredients, it may work, although limited to common ailments. Complex diseases and modern viruses or bacteria can't be dealt with primitive knowledge.mediator said:
Thats something that comes out of a bull's behind.T159 said:
We did invent the ZERO, and contribute to modern mathematics, but there is no such thing as Vedic maths. Maths is maths. You never hear Egyptian maths, although we are all aware of Egyptians contribution to geometry and trigonometry.T159 said:
Again, confusing the knowlege with practice.T159 said:
Welcome to reality. Everything except science is indeed a big pile of BS.T159 said:
Nature wrote it through a process of natural selection. There is extremely dim probability for another life above us.T159 said:
OK, you are watching to much science fiction movies. Its all natural selection. And rest assured there is no matrix other than one in which Keanu Reeves starred.T159 said:
Your usual childish tone is less intense here. Neways, The same can be said for the "pink unicorns" that u like to christen that u do. Even with the so many evidences, people like to ignore it and few even go one step beyond and call em as crap. Just like u did some research of that nuclear evidence in ANCIENT INDIA, u could have done the same for HOMEOPATHY. Just like people be skeptic, they can read the originals of vedas too instead of relying on some sites to "prove" their frustrated agenda. I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago, but it wud have been better if u had actually posted from where u copied all that stuff instead of marking it as your own. The ill effects are also because how we form that scientific knowledge. Just to painfully repeat again, how drugs are tested! Some tested on animals to create for humans and even among humans we have varying immunity levels, not the same. Just go back and read all that we discussed and how much death has been caused by "modern scientific medicines" as against homeopathy. Getting cured and having plethora of side effects isn't called cure in the first place.karnivore said:
I think u were down with chicken pox when I quoted that reviewer's pdf of 33 pages and asked a few questions, all of which remain unanswered!karnivore said:
And thats where u witness ignorance at its best. That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs where we have plethora of side effects and then u take another medicine to cure that! U can do ur homework well in this regard and actually learn something if ur agenda is not to mock Ayurveda in the first place!karnivore said:
If I use a pencil to stab and murder someone, who is evil, me or the pencil? If you can't fugure out the obvious answer, then there is no point in taking this matter further.mediator said:
Likewise, no one is here to win or lose. But the only thing we are doing is debunking pseudoscience.mediator said:
How many times do I have to tell you? I read things that were scientifically critical of the Final theory. I do not necessarily have to agree with any other nonsense that a reviewer might have said. I guess I know how to filter out stuff.mediator said:
OK, time for a refresher course in SCIENCE. The word theory in this context is a "scientific theory". So, from Wikipediamediator said:
and
ALSO
I hope you can comprehend the differences in the usage of the word with respect to the context now. Don't confuse the word theory here with its literary meaning.National Academy of Sciences said:
So? Every civilization had scientific minds. The answers/inventions they came up with are nothing supernatural, to be in awe of.mediator said:
Heh. Talk about presumptions! I'd have been skeptical even if my mom told me so. And my school incident was just a one-day incident, where the teacher told us so during one of her lessons when I was 14 years old. And my exams are over. So stop harping about it.mediator said:
One of a skeptic’s roles is to debunk pseudoscience. I hope you didn't find my work as a just a biased tirade, because I found it hard to see anything subatomic in those verses in the Atharvaveda. One of the reasons I consulted an expert then was because one could accuse me of not knowing the Vedas well and that my judgment could be highly opinionated with wrong knowledge about what I found while searching for the verses. But still, Vritasuras are not the atoms in any element nor is the bone of a Dhadyach a neutron. Only highly biased wishful thinking can come up with an explanation (infused with some scientific mumbo-jumbo of course) that seemingly make a personal interpretation of verses in a scripture appear like modern science for anyone to see it like that. And we can all see the “unbiased scientific person” who sees it that way. (HINT: It’s not me or karnivore or legolas)mediator said:
You think Vedas are written in your high school Sanskrit. Don’t you. That’s why you expect everyone to read “the originals of vedas”, although you have yourself, not bothered to read even a translation.mediator said:
Who said there was no science in ancient times. But it was limited to as far as they could see with their naked eyes, particularly the night sky.mediator said:
Although, testing drugs contribute hugely to the scientific knowledge, it is actually an application of scientific knowledge of chemistry and biology. If we did not know the chemistry of the drug or the biology on which it is supposed to work, we could not have produced the drug in the first place. Testing that drug is the process of validating, that we got it right.mediator said:
Another useless comment. Humans do have varying immunity levels. But that does not stop homeopaths from comparing the symptoms of one human, recorded during proving, to another human, the patient. If “individualization” is all that makes the difference, then why aren’t the proving subjects considered on individual basis. Why are the symptoms recorded en mass. Because, that will create infinite possibilities, too large to deal with mediocre brains of homeopaths.mediator said:
Say this to a person whose only hope of living is dialysis, or chemotherapy or one who has done a laser surgery or…..mediator said:
Yes. So, now we should throw away our ECGs and MRIs and X-Rays, and go back to stone age where people died of small pox (now they no longer do) or plague (in west, they no longer do) or …… Hail stone age.mediator said:
I think, I had placed ayurveda a little above that junk called homeopathy. I think I had said, that ayurveda may work, although limited. I think I had said, that the naturopathy part in ayurveda has some basis.mediator said:
Once again. Science DOES NOT explain everything. But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.mediator said:
Forget about harming the body, homeopathy effects the body just as water does. No sane person would claim that distilled water kills.mediator said:
The vedas are not at all useless. Show me who said that. They are a treasure trove of information about the lives, the belief, the thoughts etc. of our ancestors.mediator said:
I don’t think he mocked vedas. He ridiculed, quite correctly, the hindu apologists and their pathetic attempt to retro-fit data.mediator said:
Yes, I want to win over LIES. I want to win over MISINFORMATION. I want to win over HYPOCRISY.mediator said:
Whatever that may mean. Let me ask you once again:mediator said:
If you had actually read that post of mine, till the last line you would have come across this line:mediator said:
Once again, you are bluffing. If you had read about “nuclear stuff some months ago”, why the hell did you then post that link, just ONE month ago (06.05.08 ), knowing fully well that it is misinformation. You are then admitting that you have made a conscious attempt to mislead people.karnivore said:
In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?
What is ridiculous about the explanation and how is it unscientific "to say the least"?srivirus said:
You r treating modern science too religiously! We need to find the answers from the dark coz its time we stop being arrogant and blind towards the success of those "mumbo jumbos"!srivirus said:
Please don't make me laugh. You want vedic terminology to be the same as that of modern science n then have the same assumptions and theories?? Do u even understand who a skeptic is?srivirus said:
And so I checked out. U actually gave the link to sacred-texts.com where along with "Max Muller", the christian bias known for "mistranslating and misleading" people on Vedas, a few others similar souls have contributed to those mistranslations! WTH, and u call urself a skeptic?srivirus said:
Can u stop lying now even after exposing how much u have read that pdf u linked?srivirus said:
U shud atleast thank me for not posting for sometime n letting u celebrate the end of ur exams. Besides I don't even feel like giving petty explanations like "Exams/chickenpox" or wateva statements the materialist brigade made to generate some sympathy from me. Also, that thread was about hypnotism and where u started trolling from nowhere and deviated it altogether to a discussion regarding Vedas. Who made u a mod here anyways? U talk of bulletin board, do even know the forum rulezzz???srivirus said:
Lolz, when will the materialist brigade ever learn? Using wiki again? Guess I too shud start using wikis and diggs.com i nevery post of mine now. But neways, here from the wiki page u linked....srivirus said:
Do u even undertsand the meaning of lines in bold? And here u r treating all those theories as if it were a fact. Get ur facts straight first and then think what a skeptic role shud be. Ur mere guesses of how a skeptic shud be is itsef a theory!wiki said:
And science can predict the future of Universe, can it predict Universe itself, can it predict whats beyond it? Are u saying modern science likes to go by some abberation?wiki said:
Who is saying about supernatural stuff? Materialists have a very bad habit bt guessing. And yeah, u must understand that the Vedic collection is toooo large to be read by any one person and I'm not that old yet! But it seems u don't even know about the attempts to mistranslate the vedas and mislead the world, do u?srivirus said:
U r just a disgrace to the skeptics batch, and let me tell I'm not abusing before u start guessing again.srivirus said:
But I think true way of science doesn't reject what can be tested, reproduced or has successes for many years!srivirus said:
Amazing, and when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science, the herd of materialists is treating it as a "pseudoscience"!srivirus said:
And I thought u were having exams! But neways, I told u to read the whole site, but it seems u have bad habit of reading between the lines or a first few paras!srivirus said:
I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!srivirus said:
Can u quit whining....ever?karnivore said:
Bloomfield, Griffith etc known for their mistranslations?karnivore said:
Do u even understand why the difference occurs? U could have atleast Sourced what u copied from. Like I said, skepticism is fine when u know even remotely on the subject!karnivore said:
*www.vibrantskin.net/2/p14a.htmkarnivore said:
And boom, the plethora of side effects!karnivore said:
Infinite humans does not mean infinite possibilties. Its not like fingerprint. "Provings" and best case fit? Guess ur brain still looms at large having so much trouble understanding even the basics!karnivore said:
Sure, those who wish to live simple and natural life and those who don't want to spend the huge $$$$ on modern medicine are already coming to INDIA for ayurvedic treatments, resorting to yoga and spiritual life and homeopathy!karnivore said:
I think u can do side along with Max muller,griffith etc. I certianly didn't say that. Funny materialists!karnivore said:
I understand u r quite a peer!karnivore said:
Finally we r starting to here the golden words. Can u now tell why it doesn't/can't explain everything?karnivore said:
Someone told me the difference between a skeptic and a fanatic and that a fanatic wont listen no matter how much evidence u give to him. I'm only witnessing the latter with an aim to demolish this wonderful field of homeopathy, just because science can't explain it at present!karnivore said:
karnivore said:
U forgot what I replied with back in that thread!meeraji said:
Nice jokes out there.karnivore said:
Funny, that when explanied bt homeopathic techniques and all, u first talked bt "double blind" and "randomized" trials. Next when told bt "best case fit", u talk about infinite possbilities. Its like minimum to maximum, the extremes.karnivore said:
Do u even understand what I posted! Compare and Take ur time to understand.karnivore said:
.
And yet, most of the links that you give, use Griffith as their reference. CCCHOOO CCCHWEEEEET.mediator said:
I think I gave the answer as to why the difference occurs. Because of the antiquity of the language, because much of the rules of grammar and syntax are lost forever and one has to depend on a cocktail of permutations and combinations.mediator said:
Quotes many famous authors, Max Mullar, being one, and famous scientists, Carl SagaN, being another. Isn’t it nice to see Max Mullar, so hated for “mistranslation”, being quoted in an apologist site. Oh I get it, he said something that suited our horsetard. Temporary amnesia. But it is equally disgusting to see Carl being bundled with those horsetards. How wonderful it is to cherry pick quotes.mediator said:
And boom, no polio, no chicken pox, no plague, no hepatitis C, no………mediator said:
You don’t have a clue as to what I meant. Don’t you ? I did not mean “infinite humans”, I meant “individualization” of proving subjects. And since each individual is different from others, with much claimed varying immunity levels, the results are bound to be infinite, even if tested within a finite group of people. The infinite possibilities arise from different lifestyles, varying idiosyncrasies, varying hereditary traits. Imagine the permutations and combinations.mediator said:
AHA………finally. So if, the homeopaths are relying on symptoms, just like modern medicine, where does this thing called “individualization” fit ? AFAIK, Mataria Medica, only lists the symptoms and the possible medicines. It does not say a word about symptoms specific to an “individual” characteristic.mediator said:
Sure modern treatment costs. That’s precisely the reason why people are turning to alternative meds, not because alt. med. works. Then, who is doing the follow up ? No one.mediator said:
Tch Tch Tch. Aren’t those sites, you linked to, quoting Max Muller and Griffith ?mediator said:
How does “that primitive knowledge” hold “the key to actually cure a patient.” (Errrr…you do realize that, “that primitive knowledge” did not involve understanding of virus or bacteria or did not involve pathological tests)mediator said:
Peer of whom ? Certainly not yours [would rather put a bullet in my head]mediator said:
I don’t think this is the first time that I have said this (if you only bothered to be a little attentive). The reason is simple. Because of our limitations. We are gradually overcoming these limitations and accordingly science is gradually progressing. No body claims we know everything that is there to know.mediator said:
That someone probably never debated with you. Errr……evidence has been given ? When, where, how ? Shoot……we have been sleeping all the while. Oh I get it. You are referring to anecdotes and claims.mediator said:
So, “pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science” means she was referring to the effects of BRAHMI ? You couldn’t be further from the truth. But that’s what happens when you cherry pick comments, without reading anything else, and forming opinion on that basis. You will be surprised to know, that she does not entirely dismiss ayurveda. So go back, get her book, read it through and see what she means by that comment. Then come back and start debating. OK.mediator said:
First, why would, “other” be fiction, if “something” is fact. Please explain, in the context of my understanding.mediator said:
Evolution = Fact, if not, then please explain how a virus becomes antibiotic resistant.
Can you please tell me the meaning of “NOT REJECTING”. Although I am not new to mediator land, I am still learning the rules.mediator said:
What……come again………did you just say “EVIDENCE”. Errr………Well, here is the evidence. I have seen a pink unicorn. It was grazing in my backyard. All my neighbours have seen it. I took a snap, but unfortunately the pink unicorn did not appear on the snap. We are doing some serious research. We have invited some scientists from Jadavpur University to do the research for us. But it is a secret research.mediator said:
Make me understand:mediator said:
If, some months ago, you had read whatever I had posted, debunking this link, then why did you post that link on 06.05.08, being aware of the fraud ????mediator said:
Good question. What is NOT ridiculous about the explanation and how is it scientific “to say the least”mediator said:
…and pigs can fly and pink unicorns graze in my backyard.mediator said:
OHO……anecdotes and claims = evidence. OK. Point taken and forgotten - thankfully.mediator said:
…but those nuke thingie and all are based on Griffith’s translation. *scratch*mediator said:
I guess you will not reject the scientific evidence in, say, I don’t know……, say BIBLE or KORANmediator said:
Do you even understand what you are asking. Can you please explain what does “predict Universe” mean ?mediator said:
You mean, your peers……mediator said:
It is precisely the question that we are asking. What is the basis of this parallelism. Numerical coincidence can’t be the basis. [Because the number 5 and 3 appear quite a number of times. There is no point in pick-n-chose, because then one has to explain those numerics in their respective context as well] So what is the basis. Why is head = dimension, or eyes = solid dimension [BTW, 3 eyes each on 5 heads would make 5 x 3 = 15 eyes, and the author conveniently neglects this], arm = boundary components, heart = origin (this makes sense, though), and the rest………only lord shiva knows.mediator said:
……and it was based on Griffiths’s translation. [CCCHOOOO CCHWEEEEEET]mediator said:
There are 2 threads in FIGHT CLUB. One is this one and other about hypnotism. Please read the 2 from beginning.karmanya said:
Is that a peer review?karnivore said:
And u were told about the mistranslations and misleadings by a bunch of christian biases. And when the peers acknowledge that Sanskrit the language with most scientific formation of words and grammer, still present today, u r guessing much its rulez of grammar and syntax are lost forever? WTH!karnivore said:
Actually those apologists sites tell what and how of the destruction of INDIAN texts and who all had an agenda and part in it.kanrivore said:
And No AIDS?? Besides I would like to read the research that says about the line in bold. Also, do u even understand what contributes to a longer life expactancy?karnivore said:
And I think I briefed about it quite nicely. I remember having told that its not like fingerprinting. The patient needs to be under an examination of homeopath to see all the related "factors" (check out what all factors), then checkout for materia medica and if an adjustment is needed in the remedy! I wonder if materialists even put their brains unbiasedly to understand something that science cannot explain at the moment!karnivore said:
Do even understand the "factors" that contribute to those "symptoms". Its not just physial symptoms that modern medicine relies on! Again leading to repetitions now? Look back what we debated, use the "keyboard commando skills" and u just might get it.karnivore said:
Repetition. U cud have simply refreshed ur memory on the past discussions instead of zeroing in on t=0 discussion i.e from the start. Pseudo-skeptics!
I was told fanatics don't even try to get it. Indeed!karnivore said:
Oh well, it seems u only read where I quote u whereas they like to form some kinda team here.karnivore said:
Live with the nature and njoy! I can give u more with such data, if u want. Whats the point even after such prolonged discussion?link said:
Tch Tch. Take ur time and read correctly this time. I'll show it like I always do when ur comprehension fails u!karnivore said:
And the things that are yet to know, have evidences for them be rejected? Again I say, understand how science progresses!karnivore said:
Again a peer review? Peers might be abusing themselves to have such a blind fanboy following in their herd!karnivore said:
Ur understanding is quite absurd and u treat it as if there exists only "yes" or "no"! Thats why I asked, if its not a fact, then in ur understanding, it must be a fiction. Answer straight Do u treat all those theories as facts : Yes or NO?karnivore said:
I am delighted! Lets see if the questions can be answered. Funny materialists, instead of answering they like to entertain, "u will have a surprise"!kanrivore said:
Evolution = Then please give atleast the evidences of "fossils" of each n every species that might have "gradually" evolved! Can Humans fly? I want an answer with a high degree of cetainty to mark it as fact.kanrivore said:
Like I said, I am a spiritualist, a person who likes to go with the nature and not take psychedelic drugs and toilet cleaners. To add, I'm a vegetarian! I wonder if I will have any cardiac arrest in the first place! I may be willing to donate an organ though.karnivore said:
Down to English basics now?karnivore said:
The mediatorland is quite compassionate towards such people.Funny. Is the case happening again n again, with similarities? "Secret" has no meaning! What is happening can it be confirmed, world wide? U don't even produce analogous examples!karnivore said:
I surrender!kanrivore said:
You aren't much of a skeptic are u. Firstly, google seems to be a convenient way to confirm ur skepticism, isn't it, on issues related to archeology? Secondly, plagurizin skepticism isn't much of skepticism. Thirdly, how come the case of the name "francis taylor" is judged by a mere "google search". How sane is that??. WTHkarnivore said:
U can stop trolling if u have nothing better to say.karnivore said:
Homeopathy is rising and its going to rise even further beyond!Sigh making me repeat again! "Boundaries of universe", "rotations if any", "revolutions if anything beyond universe", "Where all of it came from", "all the phenomena, are they even testable" to name a few? In short "predict universe"? I had asked this last time toooo! You r making me yawn now.karnivore said:
LOl, may be u didn't get that the site actually explains the connection between the dimensions and it is quite clear in doing so! And materialists like u will keep making remarks like "only lord shiva knows"! There r a lotta such poetic references, hymns etc in puranas, Vedas which I think is really beyond the materialists to comprehend!karnivore said:
LOOOOOL. And what do u think @srivirus posted was from? Err, griffith?karnivore said:
How much can those sites be trusted. I have only given a cursory look, and voila, already an anomaly.mediator said:
Carl Sagan does not say that in that book.vibrantskin.net said:
What impression do you get ? That the author of the site has quoted Sagan word for word. At least there is no indication of any edit or anything. Once again read that part bolded. Now read the originalvibrantskin.net said:
I’m treating science in the best possible way I can. You, on the other hand, don’t even know the basics of it.mediator said:
Not something that doesn’t even have a spark of semblance. 99 Vritasura’s != 99 Elements. Bones of Dadhyach != neutrons. And what I used was Ralph Griffith’s translation, not Max Mueller’s.mediator said:
The question is, do you?mediator said:
Science does explain why things work with practices like homeopathy and ayurveda (where even the effects of herbs and plant extracts are explained), but the problem with you is that you do not find those answers convincing because of some personal incredulity, and harp on such things are unacceptable to science.mediator said:
Back to the prejudice against the west and the white man I see. Why is it that you employ selective amnesia whenever anything goes against you? And FYI, the verses I quoted were indeed from Griffith translation. Didn’t do your homework, eh? Didn’t read well? Oh I see, you just wanted to find something in desperation. So you searched for critics of translation of the Vedas and came up with some ugly stuff about Muller. Go check sacred-texts.com again. They have specifically mentioned that they have used Ralph T.H. Griffith and Maurice Bloomfield, not Max Muller.mediator said:
I do understand that. If anyone asked me to take a word about Hinduism as interpreted by Zakir Naik seriously, I’ll have a good laugh. The problem is, you are highly biased and selective in that aspect. If something goes for you, you will gladly accept it, but will be forever skeptic if something is proved against you. Even if Osama bin Laden or the Pope will extol the greatness of the Vedas, you won’t have any problem with it, because you have accepted your beliefs as reality beyond doubt. Well, Stephen Knapp doesn’t agree with Griffith, Bloomfield or Muller, but I guess you quite comfortably agree with Knapp. And ironically, you don't even know what you are agreeing to.mediator said:
Can you stop bluffing about telling how much you have read things? I went through that PDF and that is why I told you last time that I don’t have to accept the personal beliefs of the reviewer. I only wanted the scientific flaws in the theory. The reviewer gives a lot of explanation of the scientific infeasibility of the expansion theory, but at some instances, like where he felt there could’ve been an alternate explanation which involves a knowing hand in the creation of the universe, which of course, he gives his personal opinion/belief. The reviewer obviously is influenced by some set of beliefs similar to what T159 said, a universe within a universe, a higher consciousness, etc. These are just personal beliefs of the reviewer. That said, however, the review was indeed not in agreement to McCutcheon's theories.mediator said:
Yeah, and if I had left without mentioning anything, you’d have really been silent about how chicken I was to make a hit-and-run post, too scared to come back and answer your so called questions, right?mediator said:
Go ask raaabo. I guess he believes that I know the rules.mediator said:
Yeah, I suppose I should take a leaf out of your book and start taking references from personal opinions of some Tom, Dick or Harry out there with a website. Science and scientist and their works, RIP.mediator said:
Let’s see. Empirical observations/evidences like background microwave radiation, red shift, etc. which supports the idea of the universe being denser in the past, which agreed to mathematical theories made earlier implying the occurrence of a big bang don’t account for anything for you right? Fossils discovered which shows a trait of advancement of features don’t mean anything, does it? Your problem is that you can’t even comprehend the works of astronomers and biologists to even understand what they mean. To do that, you will have to come out of the realms of ancient texts.mediator said:
Testable indeed. Still, it yielded no poitive results in a falsifiable randomized test.mediator said:
I did. And I saw the attempts in which the nukes were described.mediator said:
You are a disgrace to the so called spiritualists who call themselves intellectual. I ain’t abusing either.mediator said:
Any rational being would term Knapp’s work as pseudoscience. Only you and your peers can see anything otherwise.mediator said:
I did read these junk in that site. Which was precisely why I asked how you can take the properties of a mythical being like Lord Shiva as axioms in a problem of geometry? Where is the proof/implication that his five heads represent 5 dimensions? How does his three eyes represent the solid dimensions? Just because a deity has 5 heads, 3 eyes and 10 arms, it doesn’t come as any solution/proof of hypercubes. There is absolutely no parallelism, as karnivore said. If you accept it as true, then you have to accept that Lord Shiva is indeed a god who exists. And that again goes against your earlier claims of you being a spiritual atheist. Make up your mind.mediator said:
Of course you’d think so, otherwise it would mean that you have actually learnt that it was unscientific and would have to admit to it being wrong. But you won’t. Its all Stephen Knappaya Namaha now I guess.mediator said:
True indeed. You don't.mediator said:
U have been shown how modern medicine rejects many things that could have lead to a revolution and thats what I have been saying from the start, is flaw in modern medicine and science and the way it has been going! There is no secret that ayurveda has the cure for AIDS and it has been on newspapers, magazines too. Case Studies are also there. How would a revolution take place if modern medicine is rejecting many things at a dramatic rate? What even more sad is that people like u spreading rumours and their expert opinions that "It's a fake", even when it is known to work.srivirus said:
Unfortunately for u, ayurveda has it! Keep bragging bt modern medicine, which neglects so many things, if that makes u feel better.srivirus said:
You sure are guessing again. I don't consider memory of water as a fact to back up my statements, but as a theory which has been forwarded by scientists. But I believe in homeopathy since it has cured my incessant cough. A prolonged discussion on homeopathy here itself has even strengthened my belief since placebo cannot work on babies who get plenty of love by default and that on plants! The usual skeptic reply that homoepathy works on babies is because of placebo and that babies get "more" love and thats why get cured is simply ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is that skeptics like James Randi testing it with usual methods of modern medicine when it has been acknowledge that "double blind" and "randomized" trials don't work. What works is that the patient be in a "thorough" examination of a homeopath who checks out not just the physical, but also the psychological factors that form the symtoms somethin that is missing in modern medicine. For further read, u can simply check out the pass history of this thread.srivirus said:
Now where's exactly the "prejudice against the west and white man". Care to elaborate? Having acknowledged that its no big secret that chirstian biases like Max Muller, Griffith etc are known for misleading and msitranslating the Vedas, how come u se "prejudice" there? OR do u think christian necessarliy means "white man and the west"?srivirus said:
Why do u say "Western white" nutter. Now shud I reflect ur statment of "prejudice against the west and white man"? What u will find is that the peers acknowledge quite a lot of what I have been saying from the start. U keep whining of the peer review, so then go n check out what peers talk about Vedas. I have given few links itself.srivirus said:
U r wrong! U don't undertsand why I am still discussing it here. Had I been biased, I wudn't have accepted about final theory in the first place where I thanked you, remember? But I asked a lotta questions back then, where u still shy to answer them back and vanished randomly saying "Oh, I have exams"!!srivirus said:
Can u simply answer (quote me) what I questioned instead of whining? I quoted that pdf all over. It's not hard to see that post of mine. U can then answer the other questions about Universe that I asked. So show me how great science is that it can explain everything!srivirus said:
LOOOOL, u r going ur comrade way! What u showed about "20.41.1-3, atharveda" is by griffith, which is not the same of what I showed. What u showed is the work of griffith => a known christian bias, a person known for misleading Vedas! So before pursuing ur pseudo-skepticism again, understand how much misleadings are there already on the net.srivirus said:
Guessing again? Sorry but I don't make flimsy excuses like the materialist brigade like "Chicken pox, Exam". On contrary, I have been saying from the start to take ur time and reply wheneva u want. @Sen_sunetra didn't reply for a week and I wasn't "guessing" on anything. He took his time and replied. U on the other hand were telling me something bt bulletin board etc?srivirus said:
And u started trolling in that "hypnostism" thread, copy and pasting the gem of meera nanda on "Vedas" and then saying u were only passing on her work? Quite a "mod" like behaviour! I don't even feel like making a complaint, but I hope u will understand and improve.srivirus said:
Both row the same canoe.srivirus said:
U don't have to whine n I don't havt to repeat!srivirus said:
LOOOL, If I don't have an answer, does it means that I have to speculate on one and others to "accept" on it? Science progress doesn't mean we necessarily and forcibly need to have an answer even if the "most satisfying" has plethora of flaws in it.srivirus said:
When we view the stars, tell me do we view the future, present or the past? Answer me straight. Just like the answer u r also living in the dark and the <answer>!srivirus said:
LOL, again a sample where instead of learning about the field itself u learn about the "skeptics talk" first! Of all the prolonged discussion u still talk bt "randomized test".srivirus said:
I told you a statement like "Sun god is the essence of whole life on earth". And now u show u don't even undertsand statements like such. The site clearly tells about the "geomatric formats". And thats why u r a disgrace. U simply like to read skepticism and not use ur own mind in many matters. WTHsrivirus said:
!Oh, like AIDSsrivirus said:
. U r full of guesses, that u r!Again ur guessing and then questioning like silly only tells how much u r an enemy of reason. I didn't give those links as criticism, but simply to ponder if Universe is predictable! U can have more food for thought likewise. But what ridiculous is, to explain something like universe on the basis of mere puzzling theories itself!srivirus said:
You are replying to an imaginary question that I have not asked. That is called a strawman argument. My question was simple. Provings are the fundamental basis for understanding, which medicine will work for which symptoms. In the process of proving, the medicine is first administered, where the potency is increased gradually, and the symptoms it generates are noted, reviewed and finally recorded in MM. But these provings are not done on "individualized" basis. In other words, there is no experimental basis to know, which psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc will illicit what symptoms in response to the medicine under consideration. So when the basis i.e. the knowledge of the symptoms, itself is not individualized, how and why does the application of this knowledge depend on “individualization” ?mediator said:
and…mediator said:
also…mediator said:
(Emphasis, all yours)quoted by mediator said:
Assume, that both the plumber and the poet have all the same symptoms, recorded under ALUMINA. Now, how will your homeopath determine who would need what medicine and in which potency.mediator said:
and……mediator said:
A few lines above this comment, you were arguing about “individualization” and now you are talking about homeopathy on plants and babies too. Don’t you feel embarrassed to contradict yourself in every second paragraph.mediator said:
In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?Boiron said:
Aren't u done already ? First u ridiculously brought James Randi, then talked about evidences n now...... WTHkarnivore said:
*www.fhsc.salford.ac.uk/hcprdu/projects/homeopathic.htmlink said:
karnivore said:
alumina said:
That would obviously be decided by the homeopath. I told already I'm not a homeopath. I suggest u goto a homeopathy forum ask this question there and post the answer here. Skeptic?karnivore said:
What is there to contradict in case of plants and babies? ELABORATE!! I only talked that homeopathy works on plants and animals too as per the evidences. Is that hard to understand?karnivore said:
Guessing again? I didn't say everything can be treated by homeopathy. Ofcors it has its limitations of what it can cure and what it can't. Neither I am saying modern medicine is useless, but the way it has been progressing that I showed a number of times. But rejecting something that has evidences, cures and its testing done by skeptics via flawed methods, is simply foolishness!karnivore said:
The only notable thing in this excerpt from ur post is that he says, "He says, 'I never cure'". I won't even guess why he says that, but what notable is ....karnivore said:
Read it! Destroying the virus? Tested negetive after the treament?link said:
Quite sad. But u must understand INDIAN media is such that the victim of a rape incidence is not disclosed, people have high moral backgrounds with notions like "what the families and neighbours will think"! U must understand cutural and tradition is not the same everywhere else we wud also be witnessing rape every 90 seconds like in US. If something good is there, then why even mock it? The treatment procedure is out there. Why not verify it?karnivore said:
Another web site, another claim. Now, should I take a homeopath's word for this or someone who manufactures the medicines. Oh wait, BOIRON doesn't give any information on how it conducts its provings.link said:
I am not sure I got your answer. You have emphasized the following [not sure if copy/pasting the entire site was necessary – yeah, I know habits die hard]:mediator said:
and...MM said:
and……MM said:
How do these quotes even come close to the vicinity of answering my question. I had asked you to show, where, MM records the symptoms on the basis of individualisation, in other words, the individual CAUSES of the symptoms.mediator said:
Here is the ELABORATION.mediator said:
and…mediator said:
I hope now you will elaborate why the James Randis and their methods are flawed. If its “individualization” that you want to stress on, then on your own account, you will be nullifying all the “positive non-individualized tests” and also the “evidence” that homeopathy works on plants, babies and cows. Lets see what excuse you can now come up with, other than, “It works, hence it works”.[Man, I hate it when I sound like you]mediator said:
So the cat is finally out of the bag.mediator said:
Disappointed that the colourful bubble of yours is busted, and that too, by your own link ? Besides, that bit of his comment is not in my excerpt. When I copy/pasted, I did not notice that, that bit was not selected.mediator said:
and…link said:
also…link said:
(All emphases’ are yours)mediator said:
Not few cases, but many. Current allopathic treatment enables a AIDS infected person to live a lot longer, and much healthier life, than was possible even 5 or 6 years ago.karmanya said:
I think I recognized the problem…mediator said:
But, what you are intentionally avoiding to answer is, why hasn’t any evidence been provided ? No body has to know the patients name at all. He could have presented the patient to media as “anonymous” (and you very well know how it can be done for AIDS patients have been interviewed on Indian TV channels, as well) or given the details to independent doctors who could have easily verified his claims. Has he done that ? Has he made his data available to them ? Hell, has he even recorded any data ? Has he agreed to any randomized, double-blinded trials ?karnivore said:
Yes, even people claim to see ghosts. So lets waste public money and find out if it exists or not. I am not against verification or research. I am indeed against chasing wild goose on public money.mediator said:
Anything that is made available on-line can indeed be “found using mere google search”. But I do understand your frustration. Every link that you are posting is turning out to contain errors and misinformation, and we are detecting it by only casually skimming through and 2-sec googling. I can understand why that tsunami is raging over your tiny serotonin pool. But you can save yourself all this humiliation, if you, yourself do a little bit of research before clicking on that “Reply” button. Just a suggestion. You can continue to do what you do and merrily ignore that.mediator said:
and…mediator said:
I have always wondered, do the new born babies think ? Thanks to you I not only now know that they do think, I also know what and how they think. Well, @karmanya has answered to the point, anyway.mediator said:
Let me first answer it in your own words, although paraphrased. And bt <all the questions you asked>, sure go ahead and ask <those> in a good <science> forum if u really wanna know <those> as per ur use of the term "<answer>".mediator said:
Agreed, point taken, keyboard locked and keys thrown away.karmanya said:
Sorry dood, seems u r hard of reading. I already said I'm not a homeopath to continuously entertain ur silly questions that r not for learning basis but to promote mindless skepticism or fanatacism. U must understand what skepticism is, and when it look "healthy"! Besides, u forgot bt the "adjustments" of the prescription that I have been talking of.karnivore said:
Again an instance of mindless skepticism! "Low spiritedness", "restless sleep" are not reasons but symptoms! Why a person gets "low spirited". Its not "like" "losing gf etc", but may be because of "losing gf". Why he gets "less sleep", is not "like insults" but may be "becoz of insults"!karnivore said:
Lol, again a waste/repitions! Care to explain the questions I asked in the previous posts itself? Show me how greate modern science is now.karnivore said:
JAmes Randi seems to be lunatic who doesn't even understands the basics of homeopathy and thus it seems talks of $1 million since he knows "randomized" and "double blind" methods, (that don't adhere to homeopathy), will fail. Besides, you actually sound like James Randi!karnivore said:
I think having tested -ve and detroying the virus is itself a lotta work done. LOL, u talk big....."busted"! Besides, u had some AIDS victim in ur victinity. Get him treated! Modern medicine or ayurveda?karnivore said:
Skepticism is not bt having all the homework in hand! What genuine is, that he has given the precise method of the treatment, given symtoms and what all needs to be done. Why not verify it?karnivore said:
Ur replies r quite predictable now. Besides ayruvedic medicines and treatments don't even cost that much as modern medicine does that u r whining bt the money all over.karnivore said:
Its not called frustration, but entertainment! This debate has quite nicely been debated over n ur merely repeating!karnivore said:
Skeptics don't just rely on google searches neways. Do u think in INDIA science/medical journals and all such publications are published on the net? Understand that everything in INDIA is not published on net.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
LOL, thats what u call "busted by ur own article"!link_24_myths said:
link said:
But we see u n ur materialist brigade treating it as one with statment like "we had one common ancestors, we evolved from.....this n that", "big bang...already had much of it" and u sire, "Its all natural selection"!karnivore said:
Two of them i.e big bang n evolution are already flawed!karnivore said:
Tell me when u r done explainin bt the "revised flaws" n giving evidences of that "gradual evolution"!karnivore said:
Big Bang is testable? LOLkarnivore said:
You r too emotional for that, with serotonin levels on the loose and I can predict that u'll return! => KARNIVORE RETURNS!karnivore said:
I agree completely. But I wonder why people call for "peer review" in many cases and then stumble upon giving remarks and expert opinions by themselves alone like "Its garbage/crap/pink unicorn", forget the peers.madjeri said:
Post 585.karnivore said:
Do you even know how to read?
So you want us to catch HIV, visit a quack and get wierd treatments just to "verify" randomn rants?
Modern science is so great that even homeopaths rely on blood tests given by modern medicine and modern science to prove their so called success stories.
Because it's complex you assume that someone had to create it? what are you, twelve?
Yes natural selection is not the only means of evolution, theres also artificial selection, drift, and a variety of other factors.
Planaria developed eye-spots and various creatures have eyes, if that isn't an obvious proof of evolution, then call me crazy.
Yes it is. ever hear of something called the LHC?
He is so detached from reality, that he does not realise, that the world has zipped passed him long time back and he has missed the bus, probably for good.The Telegraph said:
Note carefully, that this argument, excluded EVOLUTION, but strangely enough, you have still considered it in your reply.
wiki said:
wiki said:
I must put a rider here. Redshift is not Doppler shift, which is often referred to in this context.
astronomycafe said:
Again an expert opinion? I wonder why people call others a "quack" so casually and the treatments as "garbage/crap/pink nicorn/wierd treatments/etc" which come under alternative medicine. Guess u don't even read what he says.karmanya said:
Read Carefully!Shanthakumar said:
Modern science is so great that yoga,ayurveda,homeopathy etc are rising everyday! Besides, I'm not here to mock modern medicine like the funny materialists here who r present to mock the alternative medicine like a fanatic. I'm simply saying that modern medicine is not without its flaws.karmanya said:
I'm not playing an apologist for the creationist theorists! When did I ever say that "someone had to create it", or are u blind? I'm not a theist either! U gave me a pretty good laugh though, but it seems u don't appreciate philosophical questions very well.karmanya said:
Fine, U r crazy! U don't undertsand very well when a theory needs to be considered as a fact which the materialist brigade here is fond of treating many as such.karmanya said:
Don't make me laugh. U r telling as if it has been used many times. So don't babble already! Also tell what existed before big bang then.karmanya said:
Amazing of how ridicilous the replies can be! Since science shud be able to explain everything, then it shud be able to measure the boundaries of universe tooo. If not then tell, why there is no boundary, if yes then whats beyond that boundary. And so does it revolve? Ur analogy with pond atleast tells, that pond has a boundary! If u simply can't answer then there is no need to speculate ether. Its fine with me.karmanya said:
O really? and whats the proof?karmanya said:
Sorry for givin Wiki but a few people like to read wiki.wiki said:
Again, I'm not playing an apologist for religion either. But why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence etc?karmanya said:
Some fine guy used digg.com article in FIGHt CLUB to base his opinions or shud I even say that it was "his" skepticism? Another day a wise guy called for James Randi without even "learning" bt homeopathy etc. How sensible!karmanya said:
And I was wondering why u r posting randomly. Don't mind, but it seems u too r just here to troll.karmanya said:
So now u r whining bt the difficulties! "wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm. Besides, the E.coli experiment is just to witness how the bacteria "evolves" but doesn't show it turns to more complex life forms! Even so, we see birds flying. Why couldn't the humans fly n still remain the most intelligent species? Lets wait n watch the E.Coli for some more years?karnivore said:
Thats more sensible actually!karnivore said:
And since the universe supposedly big banged, its expansion shud have been slowed which some hypothesize to be due to gravitational effects?? But note its expanding even faster and now the scientists pour in some "dark energy"! So note there are flaws toooo!karnivore said:
I call them quacks because i've tried all of the wierd acupuncture, homeopathy and various other **** for my asthma. Never worked.
I'd suggest you follow your own advice instead of paraphrasing and removing quotes out of context.
I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. Do you even know what skepticism means?
Philosophical questions? You posted some random article, and i replied. theres no philosophy involved.
You asked a question. to try to prove your point by asking if the big bang was testible, you obviously thought that you were picking something so implausible that it would make karnivore seem stupid. As it is, you fell on your face so you try to divert attention.
I never said science is complete, while the universe expands its virtually impossible to define a clear cut boundary. There may not be much proof to say that the universe doesn't revolve, but you're not exactly overflowing with proof to say that the universe does revolve.
please avoid ambiguous statements. Reasons for rejection of the steady state theory are numerous, the most simplistic being gravity. Read "a brief history of time" and "the theory of everything" by stephen hawking for further articulation. If you're asking about the point of infinite curvature, density and pressure that is THEORIZED to have existed before the big bang, i agree there is no proof we have because classical physics disintegrates when t ~> 0, however what i fail to realise is why religious people can so blindly put thier faith in God(an abstract concept) but can't even think of accepting that there might be something correct in a theory that is not only plausible but probable.
you so obviously didn't get the point i was trying to make there so i won't even bother elaborating.
At the end of the day everything needs further work, science constantly evolves, a long time ago science thought the world was flat, now we know different. Even early christianity believed that jesus was mortal, current day christianity says he was a god.
Oh....so you think that fossils are cooked in a chef's kitchen in a microwave oven and all we have to do is look up the menu and order one, or is it that fossils grow on trees and plucking is all we need to do, or is it that fossils fall from sky ?.....I keep forgetting which one.mediator said:
That is exactly what is so wrong with your understanding of evolution. (That however does not stop you from directing others to learn about the subjects, they talk about).You think, that evolution is all about turning into complex life form (amoeba today, rats tomorrow; rats today, jackass tomorrow) and the path it follows is linear. Not at all. You may take a look here or here or......nowhere.mediator said:
Szkeptik said:
One more IDiot, OOOPS, IDist and one more crackpot, OOOOPS, "Chaotic" theory.mediator said:
MUHAHAHAHA....TEEHEEHEEHEE......AHAHAHAHA.....OHOHOHOHO......Andrei Linde said:
When you replied that you are not a homeopath doctor, I figured that the answer was pretty fair. After all, you are not a homeopath doctor and expecting you to answer every single question about homeopathy, is not fair. Thought I would not ask any more of those questions to you anymore. But I stand corrected now. If someone, whose only claim to the knowledge of homeopathy is that, he was once cured by it, can have the right to defend homeopathy and lecture others to "learn" about it, then someone, who was not cured by this shite, has also every right to criticise it: And so I continue asking the questions I had raised earlier.mediator said:
Thats exactly what you are playing, by quoting creationist's arguments as flaws of evolution. I don't blame you of course. No self respecting scientist disagrees with the theory of evolution and so no valid scientific criticism, questioning evolution itself, is available - other than self-criticism to fine tune the understanding. As a result, when you are googling for the flaws, you are ending up on creationist sites and with their idiotic arguments.mediator said:
The same goes for my cough. Simple modern medicine ain't worked and homeopathy worked. So shud i say modern medicine is quack. I have given more about mdoern medicine in the previous posts that u might have missed n I hope won't make me repeat!karmanya said:
Stop trolling if u can't read. Those were psychological symptoms that they r.karmanya said:
It seem u don't. To be even skeptic of some subject, I believe u need to know and shud have read that subject. Its not like I will raise my doubts before reading anything over.karmanya said:
First u ask where r my questions, then I tell u to read the threads, then I even give my questions clearly since the materialists were shying to debate them. Now u say I posted some random article? LOL. So, "where did all of it come from?". The only thing u did, is giving some remarks like "12 yr old, baby" and at wateva similar level u could think of.karmanya said:
You don't get fast. Atleast karnivore showed that "I will have a surprise". That will be discussed, when it "will be". So don't whine already! It seems u didn't read the thought provoking article on Big Bang theory neways.karmanya said:
Like I said, u shud have read the threads when I said it first. It only helps make u look, well, not foolish. I'm not giving any proof, but simply asking questions and I hope u appreciate that its the questions that helps science to progress. A few here say that "science can explain everything". Therefore u have my questions! Some say " wateva can be explained is science", so shud we narrow ourself to that "wateva" and neglect everything else?karmanya said:
Exactly my point of view! Its a theory which theorizes something that cannot be marked as "fact". What it "theorizes" is just 'probable' and is "based" on something 'factual'. But there r arguments that reduce that probability also and obviously we don't have evidence yet.karmanya said:
I have nuthing against ur "faith"karmanya said:
N I asked u to read from beginning! Besides, I have given the questions clearly this time if u cared to read them and materialists missing them deliberately in the past, becoz of which I had to recompile it for newcomers like u.karmanya said:
U can simply stop whining.karnivore said:
Rise from the oceans to land, and than land to air, The wings that evolved "gradually", the fins that formed "gradually", the human form that rose "gradually" i.e fossils of each n every stage. The question is not if it "fits", but if the fossil's discovery is "complete", though there r other arguments against the evolution theory too that u missed!!karnivore said:
LOl, u think I didn't know of the articles u linked here n there? Earlier one of the materialist brigade member talked of a common sea ancestor of all vertebrates, then another shows up E.Coli as an evidence of evolution. It seems the materialist brigade is hard of synchronizing itself!karnivore said:
And finally if its not a ladder, then where did all of the creatures come from?link said:
LOL, it seems u don't even try to undertsand the question! Let me rephrase, the questions of one u call "One more IDiot, OOOPS, IDist and one more crackpot". Since u call Andrei Linde "idiot, crackpot etc" then it seems u must be knowing more than him to honour him as such. So then enlighten me about some his questions (@karmanya, u tooo).....karnivore said:
So with LHC, I think we r "creating" a Universe like situation, with some "external energy". Don't u think so?Andrei Linde said:
Andrei Linde said:
And so u do agree, that people have the right to criticise modern medicine. After all modern medicine has its flaws too. Besides u didn't tell me, if u'll get ur friend or whoever was infected in ur victinity, treated with "modern medicine" or try ayurveda!karnivore said:
U r whining often as compared to discussing on science! I'm obviously not debating in favour of creationists as I wud ask that same question to them i.e "Who created God"! But many scientists it seems ask the same question "where did it all come from". And if u find those arguments that conflict with ur beliefs as idiotic, then all I can say is that u r pretty full of urself like a typical fanataic who laughs at what other person questions against his beliefs instead of giving fine answers and laughs at everything else also which don't adhere to his beliefs! Ur ridiculous appendings of "WTF" and "crap/garbage/etc" like I showed simply tell the whole story!karnivore said:
Fixed for u!karnivore said:
Thats medaiatorspeak for, "I have once again put both my feet in my loud mouth, this time upto the knee, and I don't know how to get those out"mediator said:
Errr.....weren't you supposed to show me "wateva fossils", that "HAVE BEEN FOUND", which "do not seem to confirm" to prediction. Instead, what you have done is point at the missing links, which are fossils, that HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND. How dumb can that answer be.mediator said:
And that E.Coli experiment is not evolution because..........mediator said:
Yes keep your questions as vague as possible. Are you referring to beginning of life itself or the diversity of life. If it is the beginning of life you are referring to, then the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" is NOT an explanation for the biginning of life, but an explanation of how life has evolved or is still evolving. If it is the diversity you are talking, then there are plenty of reasons, primary of which is natural selection. Instead of making snide remarks, read those links, particularly TalkOrigin. You will find those answers. You can refer to any book by Richard Dawkins, as well, if you are willing to learn, or you can simply ask random questions picked from creationist s(h)ites.mediator said:
Enlightenment is something that has a different meaning in mediotorland. Nobody claims that theory of Big Bang is perfect from "P" to "T". The theory has its problems, least of which is the Bang itself. Inflation theory does explain homogeneity, but does a lousy job with background microwave radiation. And even if Inflation theory is right, it would still need a CREATOR, which will further need to be CREATED.......and Mr Occam will be more than glad to shave off that creator with his favourite razor.mediator said:
It may provoke thought in you.....it only provokes shite in us. Too bad.mediator said:
Ahem....misrepresenting my quotes again. Naughty, naughty.mediator said:
This was THE explanation to an earlier comment of mine, which you have conveniently ripped out of context.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Of course I do agree that modern medicine is not above criticism. If you have cared to keep track of modern medicine, then you would have seen, how this criticism is carried on by the peers. And again, nobody claims that modern medicine is all free from its flaws. But modern medicine is the best that you can get, in spite of all its flaws.mediator said:
So, even you are ignorant about the practice that you are rooting for. Shouldn't you be ashamed of yourself that you still continue to ask us to learn about things which even you, yourself have no clue of. When, your are yourself not informed enough, how can you even judge, if we are wrong or not ? Somking pot, again ? So stop being a lousy hypocrite.mediator said:
It is irrelevant if you are debating in favour of creationists or not, but what is indeed relevant is that you are using the same arguments that those morons use to prove that GOD is the answer to all. Comments like, "The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence." or "They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created." are not criticism of evolution, but arguments in favour of GOD theory. And people who confuse "entropy theory" with "evolution" or expect amoeba to turn to man, are anything but scientists .You are just turning out to be a fine specimen of preposterus ludicrus (See picture above, post#631)mediator said:
Indeed so. Too bad, that to give his explanations he has to constantly, twist, misquote, misrepresent, misinterpret and make out of context reference to our quotes, and in the apparently simple process of replying, shows a dying need to get himself enrolled in a kindergarten, not only to relearn English, but to learn how not to contradict himself in every second line or second paragraph or second post.T159 said:
So tell us...what have you discovered lately or about that theoretical explanation that you have provided, that took the wold by storm.T159 said:
So have I, about those pesky pink unicorns. They have now started to steal all our jackfuits. Grrrr......T159 said:
Agreed again. But if you leave one liners, then the prospect of different interpretations rises exponentially.T159 said:
I know very well that you have not discovered anything and I also know, you prefer faith over evidence. I have no problem with your personal believe, as long as you don't try to force it on to others.T159 said:
End of the month, out of bandwidth, will watch later.T159 said:
am too lazy to write essays
I prefer my instincts. Try it, it never fails
as u wish
HE HE HE.......i understand.
I prefer my instincts too. But it seems our instincts follow 2 separate sets of rules. Yes, glass can be half filled or half empty. I am the sort who likes to see the former.T159 said:
Running the risk of being limited by language and misinterpreting you, those two are two separate branches of research. When you say "we" it gives the impression than marine researchers are researching outer space as well.T159 said:
So, don't get hard on me straight away....
So may be, I should really stop posting here. But the provocation is tooooo tempting.NY Times said:
We have seen that already in hypnotism thread where the funny materialist gives his opinon n says "case explored"!karnivore said:
The dumbness arises when the person cannot understand the question in the first place. I have been stressing on "gradually" continously, but it seems it overflows in ur hollow upper shell filled with dark <waveta> which is leading to faster expansion.karnivore said:
The line in bold is exactly my point of view that adds to my question! But it seems u r dodging the other arguments against evolutionary theory. Why?karnivore said:
Now how exactly we have an ancestor from the sea? That E.Coli experiment only shows how the bacteria adapts to the surrounding and yea it didn't turns into a hippo or even the generations of it didn't turn into one! How did we get a hippo then?karnivore said:
Since u mentioned the "beginning of life" then that also raises a very fundamental question. "What filled life in lifeless particles after all we r all made up of electrons, protons, neutrons?". And yea, I know evolution doesn't explains bt beginning of life. Thanx for reminding bt the origin also.karnivore said:
Instead of making expert opinions, remarks, mocking other's beliefs and practising for great INDIAN LAUGHTER CHALLENGE publicly, u can discuss science in this relevant thread. Its not for trolling u know!karnivore said:
U think I don't know that or were u blinded by arrogance when I said the same thing in the past that evidence for t=0 is not there?? Guess I shud raise the font size to make it look better, may be u wud understand better that ways?karnivore said:
LOL, actually yes its not close, coz what u wrote is how science progresses and thats why I asked u to understand how science progresses! U don't even understand what u talk of.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Where did I say, it will create "Universe" in LAB? LOL, comprehension is something I asked u to improve on long time ago.mediator said:
Another sample that fills the already overflowing pot that marks ur arrogance and behaviour that mocks others who questions ur belief. But u on the other hand like to mock everything else that is incompatible with ur belief!karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Sorry to burst the bubble gain, but Take ur pick. Both r correct!mediator said:
Actually I can continue my journey to make u a full-fledged literate who can then actually pass some aptitude test also. But I don't know how to teach arrogant little whiners who only mock the stuff they don't want to learn and believe and already remark it as "crap/pink unicorn/garbage/wtf" wateva! First u whine bt "random n double blind trials". Then I teach u that homeopathy doesn't work that way. U mock it from beginning, that u did even after that. U know teachers actually call the parents of such children and make them punish and then they cry, weep, lurk and then moan and finally they turn violent and destroy the society.karnivore said:
Abusing those who believe in GOD only shows how much frustrated u r. The repeated usage of acronym "wtf" in this fine post of urs confirms the matter that ur brain is literally losing its already lurking benevolence n stable behaviour too. Those who already question like "Where all of it came from" are only curious to know it. They might be theists and might not be as it is a very philosophical question. If Universe really had a beginning, then what about its end? If there is no end, then how can u say with sureity that it began? Since we don't have evidence, it remains mysterious that it does! You can whine as much as u want. But u cannot ignore the truth.karnivore said:
Andrei said:
My chances of winning the challenge are indeed going up with every single post of yours. All i have to do is read your posts aloud......it will be cake walk. So keep posting and adding to my collection.mediator said:
That would be Rs 1000 for an ab. I will have it in cash, in Rs 100 bill. Thank You very much.mediator said:
Come on. We are not interested in your life story. But if you insist.......ok......we are all ears......go on.....then what happened ? Did they put you in jail ? Did they do that thing they do with inmates ? Is that the reason why your *bleep* is numb and doesn't heart when *bleep*.mediator said:
Haven’t we. Actually that was the thread, that made me think, if you would need to re-enroll yourself to a kindergarten or not. Now I am convinced, that you do.mediator said:
Well lets refresh your memory. I had earlier [post#631] commented, “The fact that whatever fossils have been found, have CONFIRMED to the prediction, is more than enough proof of evolution.” Your reply [post#634] was a typical denial, “"wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm.” My reply [post#636] to that was, “And which fossil do not seem to confirm……Can you please give examples where fossils don't fit in as predicted.” You come back [post#637] with your typical strawman, “Rise from the oceans to land, and than land to air, The wings that evolved "gradually", the fins that formed "gradually", the human form that rose "gradually" i.e fossils of each n every stage. The question is not if it "fits", but if the fossil's discovery is "complete"…” Instead of giving me examples of fossils, that do not seem to confirm, you ingeniously, came back with “missing link” arguments, which was NEVER my position, to begin with. My position was that fossils that we have been able to unearth, DO CONFIRM to the predictions of evolution theory. You first denied that position, and when realized that your frantic last moment googling would not yield any such fossil, you swiftly changed your stance and started arguing about “missing link”. “Missing link” was never the bone of contention.mediator said:
Ahem……what about this piece of rider, “But what IS claimed is that all that have been found show a gradual evolution, and I have already given you the example of tertrapods.”mediator said:
I, of course, do not have to respond to every single idiotic arguments that every douche bag, puts up. A creationist argument is so lame, that those are not even arguments. Only if you had taken the time to visit those links, or use Google - your friend turned foe - you would have found your answers. But since you have pushed it to limits, well here you go:mediator said:
How exactly we have an ancestor from the sea or for that matter, how did we get hippo ? Well we were all delivered in a giant tote bag, carried by my pet storkosorous. Prove me wrong.mediator said:
I don’t have your habit of selectively misquoting and twisting it for argument’s sake. I have quoted that first part [“A few here say that "science can explain everything"]because, I did say something like that, but with a rider and an explanation. I have never said the second part [“Some say " wateva can be explained is science"], neither did any of my comments imply that. So quoting that part was irrelevant. But if you mean that, “But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.” means “wateva can be explained is science”, then I have a pocketful of pity for you. Come kiddo, get it before I run out of stock.mediator said:
Now now. Should I start posting those homeoPATHETIC trials, that were randomized and double-blinded and yielded positive results and posted in some of your homeoPATHETIC forums as a “Gotcha”. [Just to deny you the joy of misquoting the above, let me also put a rider. Those trials, when repeated with tighter control, never got past that placebo barrier. The word to be noted here is “REPEATED”.]mediator said:
Naaa………everytime I read your posts my brain goes into a temporary cryogenic freeze. Then when I get out of this thread, my brain reboots.mediator said:
I don’t think so, I know so.mediator said:
Yes you did say that, but, as usual, used this lack of pre-bang data to mock the theory of BB, not being able to distinguish that lack of pre-bang data and existence of post-bang data are on two different planes. It is a fine example of gobbledygook. You can raise the font size, but that will put your folly - which lay hidden in the sea of words - into too much focus.mediator said:
No, you did not say that, and when I was replying I had Linde on mind.mediator said:
Nevertheless, it will still not create Universe like situation. It will simply create the physics that might have existed immediately after the bang. And what I said was, that, if it is able to recreate that physics, then it will be the proof of BB, not that any self-respecting scientist doubt that. However, as science is all about testability, it will be giant step in that direction and probably silence some perpetual whiners.mediator said:
How can something be HOLLOW and FILLED at the same time ? Again contradicting yourself in the same sentence ? Told you, not to smoke pot. It will kill all the butterflies that you are harvesting inside your skull.mediator said:
U can save ur time on digging the past of what I said, and then what u said, if u simply even "try" to "comprehend" of what I said. Rise from sea to land and so on...."gradually"! I alread ysaid fossils of each n every stage and that obviously and simply means the "complete" fossil records!karnivore said:
It seems u don't understand what "gradually" means. Does the example of "tetrapods" show the fossils of the body with limbs that evolved "gradually"? That means if one the species had limbs a few centimetre of size in a fully grown one, then the next generation having longer limbs i.e limbs, wings, fins of the fully grown ones evolve n grow a little by little! And that goes for all the species and hence my reference to "sea to land","land to air" and stress on the word "gradually".karnivore said:
If u can call other's arguments lame and wateva u can think of, then u shud make them realize also why its lame! Its seems the battle between creationists and evolutionists is never ending. SO, u can have some rest as I read those articles! I admire ur "keyboard commando" "service".karnivore said:
Ofcors, it mutates also. When did I say it "only" adapts?? How childish! Now don't misunderstand that by "bacteria" I'm refering to one bacteria but "generations" of it! U still didn't anwser how did we get a hippo then if its not like a ladder?karnivore said:
Like I said, can u quit whining?karnivore said:
I'm not interested in 'gotcha', but the correct way of testing homeopathy and thats obviously not "random and double blinded trials"!karnivore said:
Criticising a theory is not called mocking. But labelling something as "pink unicorns/garbage/crap/wtf" is certainly called mocking!! So simply saying, we don't have any evidence for t=0, but we r simply theorizing something that cannot be marked as a fact!!karnivore said:
Sure what "will" happen will be seen. Why speculate? We r "creating" a model with the aid of "external energy". Was the original model as such? Yes or no? On one hand u r rejecting a "creation theory" and on other fervently advocatig LHC i.e a model that will be created with the aid of "external energy", something and someone?? I'M not advocating creation theory, but just wondering bt the irony here!karnivore said:
I think we r discussing BIG BANG at the moment or u forgot?karnivore said:
Like I said, u can whine as much as u want!karnivore said:
It seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air!karnivore said:
You sure are somethingIt seems u don't understand the definition of "hollow". Even a "hollow tree" is filled with air!
Your interpretations about things are the world's interpretations definition of hollow . Ok. noted. ). But you buggers the moment you get hand on a document... every thing obviously will be there already and has been discovered 100000000000000 years ago!
Ignorance is bliss or piss ? (Baaah........i keep forgetting)
You find it ironic, because you have toooo much iron in your head. LHC is neither creating a universe, nor is it creating any model for universe. It is simply simulating the CONDITIONS (i.e. the physics) that existed immediately AFTER the big bang.
The current Big Bang model, does not need an external energy source. And besides, there is an obvious flaw with CREATOR hypothesis. Even if you consider, that someone created this universe, in his lab, it creates the "First Cause" problem, i.e. who created the lab, then who created the creator, who created the lab, so on and so forth. Thus an infinite regression begins. Instead of solving Big Bang's philosophical problems, it creates some more.
I think the word you're looking for is empty. Not hollow. for example, all human heads are hollow; mediator's head is emptymediator said:
Yes, the tetrapods show the fossils of body with limbs that evolved gradually, from fins to limbs.
@Legolas why don't u just read the posts "carefully" n "slowly" instead of showing time n time again bt ur childish trolls.legolas said:
Amazing, one materialist smells fart and another proves it by farting again to tell how it smells n that it is indeed a fart....a confirmation! Though there may be variation!karnivore said:
Is that ur "answer" to a question by marking it with "more questions' that I already asked? I already told that I wud ask the creationists the same question of who created the "creator"!karnivore said:
I think you are less acquainted with basic physics and engineering drawing and more to books like "Brief history of time" although it asks a few questions like I do! Even most of the Universe is empty but scientists use the "puzzling" terms dark <wateva> to aid themselves! U don't seem to appreciate how and why I used the term "hollow"!karmanya said:
It does not necessarily means having a vacuum n hence grow up!google_meanings said:
AUTO SPEECH -> "Mediator talk detected... Not giving a d*mn and skipping it"
You know!So before coming next time for one n only purpose of urs i.e troll, u must read, read n read!
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image02-1.gifAmazing, one materialist smells fart and another proves it by farting again to tell how it smells n that it is indeed a fart....a confirmation! Though there may be variation!
Guess this statement will rule ur next post.
Is it that u don't understand what I ask even after trying hard or u don't even try? Take ur pick!
How were those CONDITIONS created?? How precisely can u say? DID we get an "external energy" to create the circumstances? It seems u simply learnt bt LHC and "hurray, another 'mindless' herd following"!!
Is that ur "answer" to a question by marking it with "more questions' that I already asked? I already told that I wud ask the creationists the same question of who created the "creator"!
LOL, so where did the matter came from? What was before Big Bang? Proof of t=0 is not there! Where is it going to end? is there any boundary? YES OR NO? IF NO, then how can u say UNIVERSE was created? If yes, what beyond the boundary? CAN SCIENCE EVER EXPLAIN IT ?????? Answer me line by line, why O' why do u shy?
It feels like I am singing bed time song to a few materialists now! U still didn't answer if u will "treat" ur friend suffering from aid via "modern medicine" or "ayurveda"?
Neways, ur post 652 is exactly what I expected, some worthless efforts that is. Centimetre by centre is one point. Next Sea to land, land to air "gradually" is another point both which don't have "complete fossil evidence". If its "gradual" then atleast we shud get complete fossils n evidences of that "gradual" change. Don't u agree? Next, do u even realize what the E.Coli experiment reveals? And here we are discussing bt fossils and "sea ancestor". "Evolution" seems to have denied u of the most basic intelligence needed for a basic discussion n comprehension!
U also don't seem to reveal how we got a "hippo" if it's "not like a ladder"? May I shud talk bt "Dinosaurs" too to add to ur fantasy, their "mysterious" extinction and if there was any evolution from whales and dinos and that where did they come from if its "not like a ladder". Do u even understand why its called a "theory"? Tell me why!
Did u forget that I asked more?
Where did life come from into lifeless particles? A few Scientists say that life might have come from outside earth. What do u say?
Can science explain "the placebo effect"?
Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs?
I think you are less acquainted with basic physics and engineering drawing and more to books like "Brief history of time" although it asks a few questions like I do! Even most of the Universe is empty but scientists use the "puzzling" terms dark <wateva> to aid themselves! U don't seem to appreciate how and why I used the term "hollow"!
LOL, here I'm explaining in a childish manner to u bt the term hollow!
It does not necessarily means having a vacuum n hence grow up!
But neways, I hope u read atleast the stuff I posted bt "modern medicine". If u can't talk ON-TOPIC, then u can create another thread on ENGLISH terms and their meanings!
No, my definition of not knowing points towards another modification that science needs to explain how things work. U really don't have a clue how science works do u?legolas said:
And u think explaining stuff like expanding universe on basis of "puzzling dark <wateva>" is science? Its like u can't explain things, but u r forcing urself to find an answer no matter how absurd it is. Note, there exists "experimental n observational" evidences of things that science "can't" explain. Will u disregard those? May be we shud forget then that universe is expanding even faster than previously predicted, may be we shud mark it as a fact that life was there 'since the beginning' if science can't explain the "origin" of life and if thats the case, then was life there during big bang too?? Ah well, did it really banged that big? NO evidence again!legolas said:
U seem to be out of words. But u can become a fine entertainer!legolas said:
All said and done.......you still haven't been able to provide any proof against my hypothesis.
Lets see how long does it take for you to disprove my hypothesis.Nooo........we can't possibly beat you. You have raised the bar so high.....mediator said:
Oh Ya... Is it... really..>!!! Well you are definetely into a deep ignorance... you might possibly no be knowing the spiritual science... What logic does science give you ??? Does It tell you the reason for your inhernt suffereing ... does it tellyou who you are what is life???/ Science fails in this basic facts and you claim that its logical and you want logical answers for everything going around...!!! Dude.... Spiritual science is definetely logical...!!! Please read some good authorised books which I will mail you if you want... and You will definetely appreciate if you are genuinely seeking for logical substance and not just trying to bet on your point and be a dumbstick(no offence its a otherwise case).... There is so much of logic and believe me logic will drive u crazy after some extent cuz you are just a tiny mortal human and so should not think that you can understand everything..>!! Plz follow me up if you are genuinely interested...>!!! and dude...>!!! first when you are clear in these concepts then you will definetely understand why are they dontations and why are many people suffer ... Its all the creation of God... Science is just a mere ant trying to get a glance of the tip of the nail of the finger of GOD>>>>!!!Hi,
I was reading this thread for quite a few days and finally couldn't resist myself to post my views....
Science vs. God is always my favorite topic.......and voted for SCIENCE and I'm a proud ATHEIST.
The thread started with a noble idea people were posting independent views and suddenly I found u all have come down to personal level............lets not do that.......we are a big happy family..........bahar sadak pe jo ho raha hai....lets not bring it to home.........PEACE........
I've read 3 pages of this thread and without reading further I'm posting........so, if my views seems matching with others........welcome.......geniuses think alike
I do not believe in God cz I want logic for everything happening to me or around me........and God or any Godly things doesn't care of logic...........science can give me logic, answers, reasons ,whys and hows all of these. The things, that science can't explain, I'll wait for it rather blindly believing dat someone up there is responsible for this.
IMO......God is created by weak hearted......who have less faith in themselves........for every step in life, for every risk they take, they need someone to save them if any mishap happens. I ask why, why do u want to be saved, why not bear what u've done, why not accept dat u r getting accordingly wat u've acted, how u've responsed and how well u were prepared to tackle dat situation. There were no God to create dat situation for u or none is responsible for wat u r today.
U know wat I most dislike about this GOD...........people forget to give due credit to the deserving one when thanking. When someone has succeeded in any task or any difficult situation, it might be that some other people have helped him or he himself has helped him. But..when he'll thank anyone, he'll first thank GOD not d guys who helped him. Why........??? Its d people who helped u, who made u out of crisis and they are remembered later........
I get pissed off more when I c how this GOD is sold everyday.....every moment......The temples, masjids, churches are getting donations everyday but not d needed one.......if u want to help someone why not help him/her directly........rather donating it to any religious place donate directly to where its required......there are a lot of "NGO"-s today.......everyday u get to hear about them, encounter them on the way home why not donate the "offering" to them...........I don't know how the temples helps poor or needy........but some times it comes news paper that some temple is turning their idol in gold(where's the money coming from??), offering a gold throne( again same question) etc etc......answer me once can't d money be utilized in helping the so called "poor country".....???
My post is getting bigger...........none is going to read it.......I'll rather post sometime else.......
Actually theres a lot more in me when I start talking on topics like this.........
No, my definition of not knowing points towards another modification that science needs to explain how things work. U really don't have a clue how science works do u?
May be another set of new theories and refutation of old ones. Like I said an accidental expermint by German students lead to discovery of speed greater than that of light. I hope u know what that means! The definition of science u have formed in ur mind is ideal, but what is being practiced is "not" ideal & many follow that blindly. Many even please themselves that science can explain "everything", then sure go ahead and answer "all" my questions. If u r taking it for granted, then its nuthing but "faith", something that plays a very important part in human life!!
And u think explaining stuff like expanding universe on basis of "puzzling dark <wateva>" is science? Its like u can't explain things, but u r forcing urself to find an answer no matter how absurd it is. Note, there exists "experimental n observational" evidences of things that science "can't" explain. Will u disregard those? May be we shud forget then that universe is expanding even faster than previously predicted, may be we shud mark it as a fact that life was there 'since the beginning' if science can't explain the "origin" of life and if thats the case, then was life there during big bang too?? Ah well, did it really banged that big? NO evidence again!
U must observe urself that there is simply too much that "modern science" is ignoring. Also, giving a theory is not wrong as science works that way, but treating it as a fact is wrong and ignoring too much is simply foolishness!
So repeat it a gazillion times if it makes u feel better & if u think that will make any difference. There r many like u and doing better than just trolling n laughing around. But ultimately the thing that "works", "cures" and has a history of success for 200+ yrs cannot be beaten just by saying "Science can't explain it" or by "laughing". But surprisingly like I showed, its growing, more people are accepting homeopathy and more are practising it.
What do u think then, that earth is getting depleted of "knowledgable and wise" people with the materialist brigade on digit forums being the fine ones who hold the authority to make "expert opinions and remarks" like "crap/garbage/jibber jabber/pink unicorn" & at the end seeking for "peer review"? LOL," I call for 'Peer review', but its crap neways". How wise! I'm not a theist, but learn how many scientists were/are theists. But someone from ur gang called theists "morons"! Its not "Mediator/Mediator/Mediator"!
So, if u r against homeopathy, then thats gonna hurt to u and if u have true scientific thinking then u won't even reject it!
But neways I will make people see to the side effects of modern medicines & how many are killed by it just like I did here. Wise ones who don't carry the mark of "Oh, 'only' this thing works" will surely find a better alternative. Its the "better/best in each case I'm talking of". I'm not against "ideal" science after all, like I have been saying from the start!!
And BTW, u may like to visit many hospitals in INDIA alone where many doctors who not only trust homeopathy but practice ayurveda also and give simple ayurveda medicines to the patients not just becoz they acknowledge the side-effects of modern medicine for which u need to take more medicines but also becoz of the cost factor where the poor can't "afford" the modern medicine!
So don't shy and answer the questions I asked in my previous post. Its not a private chit chat after all!
U seem to be out of words. But u can become a fine entertainer!
Answer my questions that I asked which makes this discussion more relevant or simply shue away and vanish instead of whining n trolling!!
....for that u would need to grow a little something called brain.And I donno what legolas is talking about..>!!
of me. The question was asked to know if u r mature enough to understand the FACTS of life rather believing anything that is poured on u.
Hmmm....may be I should reset my "rusty tickety clock"....BTW, since you think pink unicorn is utopia, meaning non-existent, aren't u contradicting your pet ideology which u have trumpeted so much in this thread - REJECTING WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY. I wonder why.^^Look who's talking bt the brain, a materialist who couldn't answer even a few questions that I asked, and left me with nothing but his own rusty tickety clock and some funny hypothesis from his own utopian island filled with nuthing but blind following and science of "dark wateva".
Logic surely surrenders itself before reaching to u. So leave the chaps alone, will u.
Neways, reply to the relevant part abandoned by ur brain long ago before setting up a new antiquated clock and leavin for ur utopia!
666 u sure are antichrist....
[YAWN]Scroll back and read, if u want to [/YAWN]
I had read the book when u were in your diapers. Now, since u r a kid, I will ask u a simple question. Short and sweet. Homeopathy does not recognize bacteria.Please explain that (that is, if u can).
Nope, I'm not contradicting and I gave the detailed explanation of ur flawed logic during the long course of our collective peaceful discussion which again as I presume is a victim of ur repeated alzheimer attacks. And do reset ur dilapidated clock which perfectly reflects urself. If u anyhow find the time or if the 'puzzling dark wateva' causes some motion in ur hollow upper sphere, then do answer the questions I presented instead of taunting everyone who doesn't agree with ur materialist theories n fancy terminology like puzzling dark...wth!karnivore said:
I'm still waiting to see ur discussion regarding the deeper concepts about homeopathy in some professional homepathic forums.karnivore said:
AHA....lets see now. A "detailed explanation of flawed logic". Where, post no ? My pink unicorns have turned red, waiting for ur explanations.Nope, I'm not contradicting and I gave the detailed explanation of ur flawed logic during the long course of our collective peaceful discussion which again as I presume is a victim of ur repeated alzheimer attacks. And do reset ur dilapidated clock which perfectly reflects urself. If u anyhow find the time or if the 'puzzling dark wateva' causes some motion in ur hollow upper sphere, then do answer the questions I presented instead of taunting everyone who doesn't agree with ur materialist theories n fancy terminology like puzzling dark...wth!
Besides, another lapse in ur comprehension. I never said ur pink unicorn is utopia. What a simply wonderful world where everything can be explaned via materialistic approach!
So, I contradicted on the mere use of "hollow upper sphere" too didn't I?
U really don't have a clue what the term 'contradiction' means, do u?
And so the evolution occured. Single cell to multicell (small to big), sea to land, land to air. Large Dinos came and then short animals. Big to small? So, what next...evolution having a relapse on ur upper sphere....?
So answer n 'evolve' this thread if u must, instead of trolling & taunting everyone. Let them have some discussion, if can't get ur tail straight. Now say ur fave 'yabadabadooo'...wth!
I'm still waiting to see ur discussion regarding the deeper concepts about homeopathy in some professional homepathic forums.
So science can't explain origin, universe etc & the puzzling dark wateva which scientist use to conjecture something further . Please explain that (that is, if u can).
Why do u want others to do ur homework everytime?karnivore said:
Materialists seems to be laughing often than answering genuinely.karnivore said:
Since u referred me a 'no. of books' which brainwashed ur upper sphere, then thank me already for only referring to professional forums. But u already showed that u aren't much of a skeptic, but a taunter who has undoubtedly installed before his limited vision the popes of modern science who he thinks are unquestionable!karnivore said:
Don't be so emotional to be linking to experiments and guesses of what dark matter could be....aah puzzling as always! I asked, and u gave guesses. Is that what materialists call an explanation? If thats so, then even pink unicorns, "in real meaning", shudn't be too much for the funny materialists to believe in. What hypocrites!karnivore said:
The unquestionable popes of modern science?
Yes Dark matter is currently just a theory. But a theory based on sound physical data.
Ah, @karmanya has already replied to your rants, so no need to comment, except for the LHC part. The line in bold is exactly what is wrong with people with semi or no understanding either of Big Bang or of LHC. LHC is NOT recreating Big Bang. It is trying to detect the elusive Higgs Boson particle and in process recreating the physics that existed a few micro-seconds AFTER the Big Bang. If u get ur facts right, u can save some embarrassment, although I doubt, if u have that bone in any part of ur body. (That, after countless number of times that u have been shown to deliberately misquote, misinterpret, misjudge and mislead, u still find the gall to show ur ass, is proof that embarrassment is not something, u have ever experienced.)Why do u want others to do ur homework everytime?
Materialists seems to be laughing often than answering genuinely.
Since u referred me a 'no. of books' which brainwashed ur upper sphere, then thank me already for only referring to professional forums. But u already showed that u aren't much of a skeptic, but a taunter who has undoubtedly installed before his limited vision the popes of modern science who he thinks are unquestionable!
Don't be so emotional to be linking to experiments and guesses of what dark matter could be....aah puzzling as always! I asked, and u gave guesses. Is that what materialists call an explanation? If thats so, then even pink unicorns, "in real meaning", shudn't be too much for the funny materialists to believe in. What hypocrites!
The "etc" after "orgin, universe" doesn't mean u get another alzheimer attack after reading it and forget bt the rest. I asked in plenty and here u r laughin like a true materialist and linking to guesses. So stick ur face to TV sets these days instead of poking around randomly with new entries to the forums who do not agree with u. So did the situation created immediately after Big Bang have a foreign hand like humans doing now with LHC with some "external energy"??
What hurting humanity is the people who carry the materialist holy book, with popes like Randi to listen without a question and start their silly taunts when someone questions. They perceive it as butterflies. How beautiful!!
Alas, science reduced to religion 'with blind followers' around!
Forget what we believe. Ur whole point of debate is that we are wrong. So why don't u prove that the pink unicorns are not in fact flying blue giraffes. Go ahead shoot.Makes no sense.
Can't expect anything better from something which is based entirely on faith.
Aha...that vedas gambit.
No its sounds stupid, because it IS stupid.
Ah, @karmanya has already replied to your rants, so no need to comment, except for the LHC part. The line in bold is exactly what is wrong with people with semi or no understanding either of Big Bang or of LHC. LHC is NOT recreating Big Bang. It is trying to detect the elusive Higgs Boson particle and in process recreating the physics that existed a few micro-seconds AFTER the Big Bang. If u get ur facts right, u can save some embarrassment, although I doubt, if u have that bone in any part of ur body. (That, after countless number of times that u have been shown to deliberately misquote, misinterpret, misjudge and mislead, u still find the gall to show ur ass, is proof that embarrassment is not something, u have ever experienced.)
In fact, the whole LHC affair is proof, that nothing is sacred. It is another proof of how science is constantly striving for perfection. Unlike your pet theories, which don't even provide any fundamental basis for formulation, which is atleast coherent with current science.
If u could read even a fraction of the "no. of books" that I recommend, u would not have spewed so much of garbage around here.
Please mention the name of the "materialist holy book". I can walk barefoot for miles just to hear that name. Randi a pope...? Ah that frenzy of laugh.
You asked and I gave u answers. You don't like them. Fine. Who gives a rats a$$. But do you see the logical fallacy here. "Guesses" like Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter etc. which are based on sound physics, are unacceptable to you. But "Guesses" like Universe built on external energy, or MOOOeopathy, or Hypnosis or bla bla, are perfectly acceptable.
So u still can't prove if Pink Unicorns exist or not ?
Alas, one more failed attempt to elevate hocus pocus to the realm of science, with frustrated followers around.
Makes no sense.
Can't expect anything better from something which is based entirely on faith.
Aha...that vedas gambit.
No its sounds stupid, because it IS stupid.
First .............mind ur language.............has anyone abused u here.......not even the person whom u r replyin............
@keshaviya : I agree with rhitwick, please do not abuse......although there are some who christen theists as morons, live with their own self-righteous beliefs, can only rant n fume when questioned and have zero tolerance towards the belief of others. Those are the ones more dangerous to the society than even the religious extremes. U don't have to be in line with them.karnivore said:
Why don't u save ur rants and really improve upon ur comprehension?karnivore said:
mediator said:
An unquestionable one, the head of ur utopia may be where the materialist inspite of being told plethora of time bt the double blind and randomized trials kept whining bt the Randi n his bets like he is some sort of saviour of the materialist world!karnivore said:
Yep, based on sound physics and at the same time puzzling and may be not possible? And here we have the science fanboys playing apologist & celebrating upon theories and puzzling fancy stuff like the curious students of 3rd standard. How cute.karnivore said:
1. Reproducable?karnivore said:
Now what should I tell u................u've provided enough evidence to call u a n00b....
Homeopathy does not recognize any foreign body causing diseases. U claim to know homeopathy, but u don't seem to know anything about Miasmas. So can u explain what is this thing called STREPTOCOCCUS. Ask ur mommy to change that diaper. U are now pissing ur brain, whatever little u have, away.
Really science is crap. Strange. U are saying this over Internet which, in all likely hood, was a result of...I don't know...science ?
Hmmm....except that u can SEE electron under a microscope. I have one question to doG. Do you fart, oh doG ?
No perfection in science ? I guess earth is still at the centre of the universe. And the moon is made of Swiss cheese. Oh well....
U will never change ? Will ya ? Again selectively quoting without any reference to the context ? That was directed at the moron, u referred to, to nitpick with the theory of evolution. It was neither directed at any member of the forum nor to any theists. It was directed at people who try to confuse others by their own stupidity and ignorance, and try to put their doG in every GAP they can get their hands on. It was directed at people who would rather have Creationism, or in Indian case, Vedic psuedoscience, been taught in school, than Evolution or real science.^^
karnivore said:
@keshaviya : I agree with rhitwick, please do not abuse......although there are some who christen theists as morons, live with their own self-righteous beliefs, can only rant n fume when questioned and have zero tolerance towards the belief of others. Those are the ones more dangerous to the society than even the religious extremes. U don't have to be in line with them.
Homeopathy does not recognize any foreign body causing diseases. U claim to know homeopathy, but u don't seem to know anything about Miasmas. So can u explain what is this thing called STREPTOCOCCUS. Ask ur mommy to change that diaper. U are now pissing ur brain, whatever little u have, away.
Really science is crap. Strange. U are saying this over Internet which, in all likely hood, was a result of...I don't know...science ?
Hmmm....except that u can SEE electron under a microscope. I have one question to doG. Do you fart, oh doG ?
No perfection in science ? I guess earth is still at the centre of the universe. And the moon is made of Swiss cheese. Oh well....
U will never change ? Will ya ? Again selectively quoting without any reference to the context ? That was directed at the moron, u referred to, to nitpick with the theory of evolution. It was neither directed at any member of the forum nor to any theists. It was directed at people who try to confuse others by their own stupidity and ignorance, and try to put their doG in every GAP they can get their hands on. It was directed at people who would rather have Creationism, or in Indian case, Vedic psuedoscience, been taught in school, than Evolution or real science.
Nice try but.
Since u have taken umbrage of that, may be I have hit the right target.
Hmm, so what theists say is crap, creationists are morons, vedas are pseudo science and whats real science may I ask? The theories and fancy terminology as dark wateva which some think is sound and at the same time puzzling and debatable or the modern medicine which causes more death, pain n suffering than ayurveda and homeopathy combined?? U shud be a politician instead.karnivore said:
^^Dude I just repeated the words he used.... WTH u r gonna report..? Report him b4 u do report me.! and I always minded the tongue and hence using typing.! Respect if you wanna receive respect!
First congratulations. second, thanks for the complementsT59 said:
. Its better to be a science fanatic that a doG-fanatic or woo-fanatic.I guess I am not a zombie. Or am I....?T59 said:
U don't have a clue of what u r talking about, do u ? It happens with babies. Don't worry.keshavasiva said:
First the answer - NO. Second, read slowly and if necessary spell it out as wellmediator said:
Pope Randi ? Hey thats catchy. But..mediator said:
. OHO....then how r the animals and plants (another laugh attack) individualised.Well 3rd standard is still better than illiteracy.mediator said:
mediator said:
Aha...some fine philosLOPPY.mediator said:Halting the revealment of ur childhood sorrow & misery would be an appropriate time now I presume! Like I said in post #617, "The definition of the "pink unicorns" that u have formed in ur mind, as so clear from the example, don't even match of what u call "pink unicorns" in this discussion.".
So answer what has been left unanswered or simply shue away!
Am sure they teach 2 + 2 = 4, other than Big Bang or other matters of astrophysics or astronomy. One would get the feeling that BB is the only theory that is taught in school.mediator said:
I knew it. I knew it. You are a creationist. So much for your ATHEISM. So u are a lair as well.mediator said:
Karni if I had to, I would've but I warned him twice................
@rit
Common. Let him have some fun. Don't report. Its fight club after all.
First congratulations. second, thanks for the complements
I guess I am not a zombie. Or am I....?
C karni, I told u he's a n00b........he again proved that........
Man.......u r hopeless.........
agreed..............rightly said dude..........
If faith is not blind then what else is it?? not blind faith?? faith and blind faith are same!
IGNORING...? *sigh* no wonder.
Even ignoring your thinly veiled attempt to question my literacy, there are quite a few things wrong with this post.
You just don't understand the importance of this experiment. Understanding the Universe is important for the survival of the Human Race. The Earth won't last forever. You think 'God' is going to save us all? We have to save ourselves and such experiments are absolutely necessary for the Understanding of the world.
Thats the complexity of the subject.
Reading 5 posts +/- from post #617 wud be a nice idea for getting some clue on modern medicine! Although refreshing urself completely on this thread wud be a superb idea. Just like @t159 said, humans also have tendency to start things from t=0.karmanya said:
So FINALLY we hear the answer that universe didn't have an external energy or hand as in LHC model. U can save the rest of ur rants. How? CLUE : IMPROVE UR COMPREHENSION.karnivore said:
Leave the plants n animals and first understand bt humans alone if u can get that in that hollow shell of urs. I bet 1 $million if u can ever understand that.karnivore said:
Good point for a science fanboi who plays a funny apologist for theories n treats em as facts.karnivore said:
But u said its only in ur courtyard! How sad, that it isn't much of a worldwide activity or is it that ur supreme saviour Lord James Randi came. Are u sure its reproducable, data consistent?karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Ah, the expert on Ayurveda spoke! You seem to be out of words to be imagining "all questions answered" & now this.karnivore said:
Amazing! Hats off to u. If u question materialists, u automatically become creationist invoking the wrath of materialists who wish to yawn n laugh than to answer genuinely. Most of ur logics cannot make it without a heavy flaw, can they? Just spoon feed the funny materialist that something has been said by scientific world and aha, end of reasoning!karnivore said:
Again an instance of u to be referring to another book? It seems u don't like to rationlize anyhow, save reading books and getting ur thoughts affected without much thinking! And when u try to rationalise, alas we get flaws!karnivore said:
Thank you very much, the 'theory of bizarre' is where science heading n discussing these days.karnivore said:
No, one does not become a creationist by questioning materialists. One becomes a creationist, by subscribing to a creationist point of view, and thats what u have done, not once, but twice. But i understand ur problem. There is no proper scientific criticism against EVOLUTION, per se. So ur frantic googling is always landing u on creationist sites. And since u have never ever read on evolution, u can't differentiate a true scientific criticism from a creationist one. Hence all the bungling. But keep trying. Don't give up so easy. I am having too much fun.mediator said:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/doglaugh.gifmediator said:
OHO...so i am now to leave animals and plants. I get it, when it is convenient, grab hold of them, and when it is not, leave them.mediator said:
Yup...keep saying that to yourself.mediator said:
Now, that is sheer talent.
Its a real pity that the questions that I ask 'of my own' cannot be answered by materialists & some questions from even the creationist sites are left ignored. I understand ur rant bt 'no proper scientific criticism' since it needs a proper processing from brain in the first place to understand that criticism which unfortunately the funny materialist lacks! Just like a color blind cannot see many colors, deaf cannot hear what others say, the science fanbois blinded by the loss of rationality cannot reason what skeptics say bt their favourite beliefs regarding science theories. A subject "accepted by most" (add the term scientist "who accepted"), is all that they desire for proper spoon feeding. Forget about the loss of rationality, they clinch to the mere faith that science can explain everything!! For them anything that science cannot explain is "crap/pink unicorn" and every thing else is an unquestionable fact be it BIG BANG or evolution theory!!karnivore said:
Ah, the inner fish now. It was becoz of survival right?karnivore said:
U still didn't tell that even after all the threats, why the humans n animals can't or evolved to fly? Seems like u r landing more on evolutionist sites than using ur own....., I forgot its hollow! M extremely sorry. Spoken like a true materialist!karnivore said:
*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/3.png
*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/3.png
So this is your latest strategy. When things get hot, lie low for few weeks then come back on one pretext or the other and start repeating same ol' same ol' expecting everybody would forget everything and you can continue with your merry way of BSing. Nice strategy. Doesn't work though. U have been given plenty of links to sites that discuss just these issues. U may not like them, as we don't like yours, but to say ur queries have not been answered, would be lying through your teeth. And you are pretty good at that.
If that gives u a good night's sleep...I am coolIts either u r fooling urself or the people in this forum who u think do not read abt their favourite subject n then saying, "I already ANSWERED EVERYTHING", thinking that they will look upon to u! Take ur pick. Its a gambit thats used in politics buddy, but a good try!
Flight was necessiated from the need to either flee from predators or to reach higher branches of trees or normally unaccessible areas, like hills etc, for food or for both. Flight gave added advantage, because that enabled the animals with flight, to access food, which can't normally be accessed by bipeds or quadrupeds without flight.Ah, the inner fish now. It was becoz of survival right?
You would'nt know it even if it hits you in the face...Spoken like a true materialist!
Thats all for today I guess, as I'm clinching to the faith that someday some materialist who thinks science can explain everything, will indeed answer all those questions I asked instead of pretending that he started a discussion, and then fooling around like the funny materialist here!!
Are you suggesting that since we evolved from apes and monkeys, there should not be any hopping around. They all became humans...oh sweet.
You are turning out to be a fine clone of @mediator. Quoting people, you know jack about. Clarke had his own theory of EVOLUTION, which of course ran counter to Darwin's, but he did not reject EVOLUTION per se. It was an alternative theory, but EVOLUTION all right. And one more thing. That was 1930 and this is 2008. Thousands of new fossils have since been discovered. Before blindly copy/pasting, just like @mediator, make an effort to actually learn.
Know enough to know not to know it...
People can either be right or they can be wrong. You are not even wrong. Try Dawkin's Great Boeing 747 gambit. It tastes good.
I luv it when kids loose their heads The question is, did u have it in the first place.. Guess how I know it.
Oh, so u r not answering coz I was absent for few weeks? To be precise around 12 days. But neways, since when did that become an excuse for not answering? Even when @sen_sunetra answered after a week, I aint get angry or stopped answering to him or is that your new excuse to shy away from answering the questions? You act so feminine.karnivore said:
Is that what another book spoon fed u with? Nice theory. But then again u r not using ur upper.....m sorry again! Its hollowkarnivore said:
U r wrong when u answer wrong. But so far u have done nuthing but plaguirizin and giving essays on evolution, let alone the rest of the questions ignored by ur "yawn" n trolls long ago!! Neways its quite surprising to see a materislist science fanboi who vows that science can explain everything bouncing off the same question to me.krnivore said:
link said:
I guess u were conniving urself when u asked @rhitwick to let @keshaviya continue with his abuses. Tragic effects of evolution!karnivore_to_keshaviya said:
So u r blind as well...good. And I bet 10 bucks u don't have $ 1 million dollar to bet. In legal sense, thats a FRAUD.Oh, so u r not answering coz I was absent for few weeks? To be precise around 12 days. But neways, since when did that become an excuse for not answering? Even when @sen_sunetra answered after a week, I aint get angry or stopped answering to him or is that your new excuse to shy away from answering the questions? You act so feminine.
C'Mon I bet $1 million. Its like luring a 'yabadabadooo evolved materialist', who displays his laughing pic reflecting himself, with a bone!
$1 million or a bone. Take ur pic, but please answer!
You obviously do not know why, Europeans have sharp nose, white skin and tall height, while in the tropics it is usually flat nose, dark skin, short height. Adaptation to various conditions. Natural disasters etc. so effect humans, but not as much as it affects those who are solely dependent on nature. Humans know artificial selection. Humans can innovate. If there is lack of water, human can irrigate to bring in water. If there is lack of food, human can provide relief to the hungry. Diseases, epidemics, etc can all be more or less countered with modern medicine. Where it can't be patients can be quarantined to stop epidemincs (case in point CUBA during the pre-AIDS epidemic). Also, evolution is not a matter of decades or few thousand years. It is a matter of few millions of years.
It was not required on land. It was more important to adapt to terrain conditions than to retain marine abilities. For example, for a gazzale, it is more important to adapt itself, so that it can sustain speed for longer period of time. Hence its lungs can take in more air than a number of animals. It would be uneconomical to retain its underwater breathing ability, for example, on land. Economy. However during the initial stages of migration from water to land, the marine abilities were retained, till it became a burden and animals became complex. Besides u r forgetting hippos, crocks etc.
Not that I do not know, but i am not convinced.
Not even wrong. Evolution did not endanger them. Evolution actually allowed their genes to survive instead of being totally extinct. True the species went extinct in many cases, but their genes lived on. Thats why "gene" is considered as the unit of evolution and not "species".
Scroll back. The images are still there, if u r not blind.
Closest cousin of hippos are the whales (genetic analysis confirmed this evolutionary prediction). Not much is known about hippos, because there is a gap of few millions between the current hippos and the earliest fossil, with nothing in between. But hippos and whales do share a common ancestor.
Your point here ?
This is exactly what is so wrong with your own brain. Having brain DOES NOT mean living a happy life. It means having an added advantage in survival crisis, when compared to other species. For example, we can think of how to artificially protect us from the different vagaries of nature, eg dams, dykes etc. Animals can't (some animals like beavers do build dams, but for different purpose). Besides, can u define "happy life".
Thats called myopia. Scroll back u will see the reasoning.
First learn its meaning. I can smell your frustration right from here.
Only you know what you are talking about. You ask for answers. Then when it is given you will completely ignore it and ask once again, while accusing of plagiarizing. Ask your parents to take you for CAT scan. Something is leaking.
Don't know
No data no proof
Why is it that something HAS to come to an end ?
YES
No data no proof
Not in its current avatar.
Yes my lord. Your wish is my command.
Amino acids + chemical reaction. Life may have come from outer space. Can't completely reject the idea, although chances are slim.
No, at least not in the sense that can be replicated. Yes, in terms of correlation.
Don't get too exited. So far they have not been able to replicate their own experiments or provide data to others so that it can be repeated by others, and current status of their experiments is that of JUNK.
*www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4584
Half-lies, wifull misstatement, wilfull distortion. Modern medicine does not ignore anything. If u pick up any random Medical journal, u will see, how peers discuss such issues.
He is doing fine, thank you modern medicine. Anyway, I don't decide for my colleague. His family does. And they chose Modern medicine over faith.
Look who's talking, Lord mediator.So either scatter n shue away, or answer genuinely or let this thread go peacefully without taunting anyone who disagrees with ur funny utopia. I can predict ur next post won't go without the use terms like "yawn/pink unicorn or similar terminology" in the most typical way like it has been in a way to either digress or ignore the relevant part!!
U say that because.....?I guess u were conniving urself when u asked @rhitwick to let @keshaviya continue with his abuses. Tragic effects of evolution!
So the patent for all emotions and sensibilities are with the HAVEs. And HAVE NOTs are machines.
So this is your latest strategy. When things get hot, lie low for few weeks then come back on one pretext or the other and start repeating same ol' same ol' expecting everybody would forget everything and you can continue with your merry way of BSing. Nice strategy. Doesn't work though. U have been given plenty of links to sites that discuss just these issues. U may not like them, as we don't like yours, but to say ur queries have not been answered, would be lying through your teeth. And you are pretty good at that.
I guess my pink unicorns have done just what they were supposed to do. Good job boys...extra candy today.
If that gives u a good night's sleep...I am cool
Flight was necessiated from the need to either flee from predators or to reach higher branches of trees or normally unaccessible areas, like hills etc, for food or for both. Flight gave added advantage, because that enabled the animals with flight, to access food, which can't normally be accessed by bipeds or quadrupeds without flight.
Human evolution went through a phase when a large part of its habitat was steppe like region, with little or no trees and certainly almost no high lands which can't be accessed on foot. Being a quadruped was a disadvantage here, because it will severely limit sight, which was needed both for protection and for hunting. Early humans did not need wings to counter the problem. They needed to stand on two feet so they could scan the horizon (Case in point - Prairie dogs). And thats exactly what they did. The fist batch of early humans stood up and took the first bipedal steps. Standing upright was the easiest next step that to develop the complicated process of flight.
Evolution then took a different turn to make human body suitable for upright posture, which was quite contrary to what it was originally desinged for - quadrupedal life.
Also, the evolutionary path that humans followed gave them a physic which was also unsuitable for flight. Remember evolution is not about future or it is not about what is best. It is about NOW and what is needed to survive. (To this day human body carries signs of flawed design of spinal chord.) This is also the reason why flight originated only among handful of animals and not all. Flight requires special flight feathers. It is however not known, if these type feathers came into being before flight (read glide) or after animals took to air. What is however known, is that some of the first animals, rather species, did have feathers on them well before they took to flight.
First the need to fly, second being fit to fly. Combined u got flight in birds and not in every animal. Remember flight did not come one fine day. It came gradually and started with gliding (there is a difference of opinion here, if it was bottom-up or not. Meaning if flight originated from ground or from trees - majority though subscribes to the fligh from trees theory.) and gradually moved to true flight. There is evidence of nature's failed experiments with flight. Line of species which stopped evolving or could not evolve as rapidly as it should or used a very different method of flight and became extint.
There is one more point I would like to make here. Wings are TOOLS of survival. Humans have the best tool of survival that was ever developed. BRAINS. Prey-predator relationship also plays a huge role in deciding survival strategies. Thus a gazzale learned to run faster and for longer distance than its predator, etc. Early humans learned to develop weapons to ward off predators and hunt.
This is futile attempt to compress hundreds of pgs in few lines, and having to drill into the skull of someone who thinks he has so much brain that he does not need to read any book, isn't making it easier.
If u REALLY REALLY want to learn make an effort to do so, instead of making dumba$$ comments from ignorance.
You would'nt know it even if it hits you in the face...
Well I have tried to answer. But since we are all wrong and u have oodles of brains, please tell us, why can't humans fly. I am sure, a cognoscente like u will have some theory. Would luv to hear that, with popcorn of course.
Are you suggesting that since we evolved from apes and monkeys, there should not be any hopping around. They all became humans...oh sweet.
Correction: We did not evolve from apes and/or monkeys. We ARE the apes, and our closest cousins are Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Gorillas, all of whom are apes. The entire ape family evolved from a common proto-ape, a few million years ago and has since gone extinct. It is this proto-ape that is called the missing link.
You are turning out to be a fine clone of @mediator. Quoting people, you know jack about. Clarke had his own theory of EVOLUTION, which of course ran counter to Darwin's, but he did not reject EVOLUTION per se. It was an alternative theory, but EVOLUTION all right. And one more thing. That was 1930 and this is 2008. Thousands of new fossils have since been discovered. Before blindly copy/pasting, just like @mediator, make an effort to actually learn.
Know enough to know not to know it...
People can either be right or they can be wrong. You are not even wrong. Try Dawkin's Great Boeing 747 gambit. It tastes good.
BTW, doG's mom is really good in bed
."A fool can ask more questions in one hour, than 7 wise men can answer in 7 years"
- Anonymous
@mediator has obliged us proving the adage right. Nevertheless lets try.
So u r blind as well...good. And I bet 10 bucks u don't have $ 1 million dollar to bet. In legal sense, thats a FRAUD.
You obviously do not know why, Europeans have sharp nose, white skin and tall height, while in the tropics it is usually flat nose, dark skin, short height. Adaptation to various conditions. Natural disasters etc. so effect humans, but not as much as it affects those who are solely dependent on nature. Humans know artificial selection. Humans can innovate. If there is lack of water, human can irrigate to bring in water. If there is lack of food, human can provide relief to the hungry. Diseases, epidemics, etc can all be more or less countered with modern medicine. Where it can't be patients can be quarantined to stop epidemincs (case in point CUBA during the pre-AIDS epidemic). Also, evolution is not a matter of decades or few thousand years. It is a matter of few millions of years.
It was not required on land. It was more important to adapt to terrain conditions than to retain marine abilities. For example, for a gazzale, it is more important to adapt itself, so that it can sustain speed for longer period of time. Hence its lungs can take in more air than a number of animals. It would be uneconomical to retain its underwater breathing ability, for example, on land. Economy. However during the initial stages of migration from water to land, the marine abilities were retained, till it became a burden and animals became complex. Besides u r forgetting hippos, crocks etc.
And here is noansweringenesis for u.
Not that I do not know, but i am not convinced.
Not even wrong. Evolution did not endanger them. Evolution actually allowed their genes to survive instead of being totally extinct. True the species went extinct in many cases, but their genes lived on. Thats why "gene" is considered as the unit of evolution and not "species".
Scroll back. The images are still there, if u r not blind.
Closest cousin of hippos are the whales (genetic analysis confirmed this evolutionary prediction). Not much is known about hippos, because there is a gap of few millions between the current hippos and the earliest fossil, with nothing in between. But hippos and whales do share a common ancestor.
The ladder concept assumes that evolution has a plan and its objective is to become something better than a species already is. Wrong.
Your point here ?
This is exactly what is so wrong with your own brain. Having brain DOES NOT mean living a happy life. It means having an added advantage in survival crisis, when compared to other species. For example, we can think of how to artificially protect us from the different vagaries of nature, eg dams, dykes etc. Animals can't (some animals like beavers do build dams, but for different purpose). Besides, can u define "happy life".
Thats called myopia. Scroll back u will see the reasoning.
First learn its meaning. I can smell your frustration right from here.
Only you know what you are talking about. You ask for answers. Then when it is given you will completely ignore it and ask once again, while accusing of plagiarizing. Ask your parents to take you for CAT scan. Something is leaking.
And why can't u be asked the same questions. If u think science can't answer anything or is flawed, then it becomes your responsibility to provide those answers as well. Or u will continue to be a parasite. This is seer intellectual bankruptcy.
Don't know
No data no proof
Why is it that something HAS to come to an end ?
YES
No data no proof
Not in its current avatar.
Yes my lord. Your wish is my command.
Amino acids + chemical reaction. Life may have come from outer space. Can't completely reject the idea, although chances are slim.
No, at least not in the sense that can be replicated. Yes, in terms of correlation.
Don't get too exited. So far they have not been able to replicate their own experiments or provide data to others so that it can be repeated by others, and current status of their experiments is that of JUNK.
*www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4584
*kasperolsen.wordpress.com/2006/06/01/amazoncom-and-the-final-junk/
*www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2972
*www.physicsforums.com/showthr...p?t=37245.html
*forums.hypography.com/books-m...al-theory.html
*www.bautforum.com/against-mai...al-theory.html
(most of the links, courtesy @sreevirus)
Half-lies, wifull misstatement, wilfull distortion. Modern medicine does not ignore anything. If u pick up any random Medical journal, u will see, how peers discuss such issues.
He is doing fine, thank you modern medicine. Anyway, I don't decide for my colleague. His family does. And they chose Modern medicine over faith.
Look who's talking, Lord mediator.
Did i miss pink unicorns. There you go. Had to make your predictions come true.
U say that because.....?
A NOTE: Before anyone gets too excited over the answers which are "NO" or "No data no proof" or are in the negative, I need to clarify a thing or two. Where science can't answer definitively, it says it can't. It searches for more data. Scientists would go to extent of spending over 3 billion pounds to build a contraption so they can capture a particle, that has always been theoretical. Thats the spirit of quest. And those who underestimate that spirit, are seriously harming their own crediblity. Science does not put a blue giraffe at the top and start explaining everything and then start shoehorning data or where unavailable, manufacture one. It is relenless in its pursuit.
And what is more important is the niceties that science has provided us with. The comfort that surrounds us, is all because of science. Whether it can explain every single phenomenon, to the full satisfaction of some alternative theorists, is really a minor matter.
Thanks @mediator, for your mental masturbation. I am sure we have thoroughly enjoyed it. Now I can point to this post, everytime u say ur queries were not answered.
And one more thing...I don't think I am answering any of ur queries anymore. Unless, that is, you have provided answers to all the questions that u have thrown at me.
So happy answering.
A little humour for those who understand
*4.bp.blogspot.com/_BtqUSG7RCA0/SLNnMDl2aAI/AAAAAAAAANw/4Pc5svDBHqs/s1600-h/al-evolution-00.jpg*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/al-evolution-00.jpg
So the patent for all emotions and sensibilities are with the HAVEs. And HAVE NOTs are machines.
Common, I used to think you r at least better than @mediator.
...and she sends regards to u. But she says, that you need some more practice...
Not even in any nightmare....
Lolz...wasn't it you who said it when I asked.
So the patent for all emotions and sensibilities are with the HAVEs. And HAVE NOTs are machines.
Yes. The point I was trying to make is that people who live without faith in an imaginary guy inside or upstairs, can be just as much human as those who live with it, and may be a lot more free, because he does not have to care for shackles that come free with such faith. Hope am clear now.
Wrong. I deny the lies that are perpetrated in the name of Vedas etc. I do not deny Vedas. There is a subtle difference.
First I too had biology in +2, like you, before veering off to a completely different stream. But that was looooong time back. Second, telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance, etc, are more than just brains. Even if you discount brain, i.e. assume that brain is indeed capable of those, the problem lies on a philosophical level as well. Besides, to this date, no one, absolutely no one has been able to show that ability in a controlled environment. Even if you want to do some research on these, I mean scientific, the first step would be to provide some basis. So far no one, not even the believers can provide a paradigm. Problems are many. Its one thing to fantasize and another to actually see the problems.
Agreed. In many cases, that is the first approach. Side effect is a serious threat, and no one denies that. But tell me what will one do, if one has a cataract in an eye, or a blockade in one of the arteries of heart.
Sorry can't agree here. In limited cases, it may. But not in all cases. Placebo will not kill the germs or bacteria or the virus, any more than the immune system is capable of.
Wrong idea. But hey....doesn't matter to us.
When I say I am an ATHEIST, I mean it, and I don't pretend to be one, as some other members. When you say that "it will come back to you, there is no one to bear the load of it", you bring to forth, the very faith, I am against. And also, remind me of the shackle that I am living without.
Doesn't that embarrasses u to be saying "we" answer? I asked u something to read and answer n here u r like a true troll to be only judging everyone! Neither u r posting anything of interest or entertaining me like ur funny comrade. WTHkarmanya said:
I also know why sherpas or the peole born on mountains have great stamina, people in gym develop great bodies n power, swimmers don't have much straight bodies but cuts becoz of muscles throughout n people adpat so much to spoon feeding that they lose intelligence and ability to comprehend properly. Yes adaption plays great role.......NOW WHAT DOES THAT HAS TO DO WITH DEVELOPING EYES/EARS/LIMBS/FLYING/EVOLUTION FROM LAND TO SEA, SEA TO LAND????karnivore said:
Who told u it was not required on land. Another one of ur theories that u putting up as facts??karnivore said:
Reasons for ur not getting convinced? Please do tell what u know.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Again a digression or lack of comprehension. How is that related to limbs/wings and flying of the humans that we talked discussing the "survival"?karnivore said:
The "reduced scaling" of creatures which have an original length of like 6 feet in reality to 6 cm in this thread in the form of pictures doesn't mean u hallucinate that they grew cm by cm!karnivore said:
Which whale to be precise may I ask, white whale, blue whale? As I recall whales have a rather gigantic size as compared to hippos! Besides, the part in bold itself speaks about the weight of uncertainties. So much for the facts to consider evolutionary theory as a fact.karnivore said:
The point is jolly simple. "The survival", the chances of which are getting less as humans 'evolve' in knowledge. The factors are many for humans to fly or why they shud have the ability to 'survive' under water as discussed previously! So the humans can't fly or survive under water? So much for the flawed theory of evolution!mediator said:
Forgetting n not bolding an "if" before the clause "having a brain" & quoting selectively doesn't mean u get another chance to digress! U must read it completely where both advantages and disadvantages of our intelligence have been put forward. U don't leave any chance to digress do u?karnivore said:
All I see is heavily flawed and twisted logic which u r unable to backup save plaguirin evolutionst sites and quoting what is already known than using ur own upper....ah well!karnivore said:
Questioning is an integral part of science evolution! If an answer cannot be found, then its only foolishness to force urself to find a theory no matter how absurd n inconsistent it gets. Although thats how science works "by observing & conjecturing" but treating a theory as a fact and playing apologist for it rather defines the threshold of foolishness! May be like universe this foolishness has no boundaries for fanatic fanbois!karnivore said:
Was it ur ego that was preventing u from answering all these simple questions previously? So it seems science cannot explain many things currently or is having trouble in doing so!!karnivore said:
Explain about the boundary then. I hope its not 'observable' or a mere guesswork.karnivore said:
If it doesn't has to end, & if universe is expanding even faster than previously predicted bcoz of some fancy n puzzling dark wateva, doesn't that mean the 'boundary' is rather not defined??karnivore said:
Amino acids?karnivore said:
Do u even understand what amino acids are? Have a second try and re-read ur sources again!Why shud I get excited? I only asked what will happen. So what do u think will happen if it confirms?karnivore said:
Amazing, I quoted the pdf and here u r linking to forums n blogs yet again to back urself up! I guess thats how u get ur spoon feeding done. Answers from physics forums or any person with the term "scientist" prepended to him/her, & aha, end of reasoning!karnivore said:
Again it seems u r either foolin urself or u think people here are gullible enough. You do understand the status of modern medicine on AIDS even after repeated quoting don't u? Atleast read it once.karnivore said:
A man(?) of ur age doesn't have to feel proud after abusing someone like that.karnivore said:
There is no need to be emotional to be writing a small note so that people can remember what science has done or provided us with. After all, its not that I am trying to mock science which u r trying to potray me like. Understand the difference between a being a fan and a fanatic fanboy! I am a science fan (not a fanboi), but that doesn't mean I don't look beyond what has been put forward or see both the sides of the situation. Also u lose the weight of ur posts in the first place when u label creationists or theists as morons or abuse those who differ with ur opinion. Understand how many scientists who lead to a major revolution in science were theists. But I guess that won't make it through ur head since u need spoon feeding all the time. Courtesy some comrade, some site on ur favourite theory or some scientist perhaps??karnivore said:
I can understand the scope of ur limited dictionary. Seems like u fulfilled my predictions about ur terminology!karnivore said:
Ability to plant seeds and have food, ability to have weapons to hunt and ward of wild animals, ability to build cities and civilizations, ability to save lives through medicines, ability to mimic nature, all taken together would not tilt the scale even a wee bit in favour of your, really really week argument. Keep trying. The pros far far far outweigh the cons of having a brain.I did not play the age card in an actual debate, if u carefully notice, cause I will never do that where technicalities are concerned. But something which is a matter of general understanding, age, which is of course a hyperbole for experience, matters a heck of a lot. Trust me on this.karmanya said:
Thats a convenient way to end it. Fine with me lets have a truce & respect each other's opinions n beliefs.karnivore said:
Thats a convenient way to end it. Fine with me lets have a truce & respect each other's opinions n beliefs.
For ur question, sorry to say, but its a rather lame one actually. For "How much" what shud I answer, a lot? But, its one of my favourite subjects rather I shud say interesting one. If u ask me how much I have read on mathematics, computers, Engg. drawing, science etc etc, it doesn't necessarily means that I will remember the name of the books too, but what important is the content which needs to be pondered properly so as to understand what is available be it from books, library, newspaper, internet etc. So then, u gonna taunt me, "He doesn't remember the name of the book?". Thats fine with me. If u had actually discussed this subject properly then I guess this would have been over much earlier, than putting up extra lines to taunt each other n repeating again n again. Well who likes to read with the taunts anyways? Though, I understand its FIGHT CLUB.
For the second part, it shud be consistent in each n every aspect. Not just bt the animals, but also dinos etc. U have already read my skepticism, there is no need to repeat! So lets learn not to taunt anyone who differs in beliefs or opinions. I hope m not asking too much.
Edit : U added extra part! wth
NASA belongs to a country and is not responsible for the rest of the world just like ISRO or ESA. In any case, what they r secretly cooking up, if at all they are, should not be our concern, just as ISRO's secret endeavors are not.
Many of the ancient monuments were built either to commemorate victory over enemies or as offerings to god. The Great Pyramids of Egypt or the pyramids of Inca civilization, were all influenced by the believe in their respective gods. The reasons why Mayans drew up their precise calenders were agriculture and to make offerings to gods at the precise time. It was precisely FOR the gods, and not DESPITE the gods, that they drew up their calenders.
Agree completely. Not many knows that the theory of evolution was arrived at independently by two people, not one. Darwin and Wallace. But time has faded Wallace from public memory.
As far as I know, "FAN" is the shortened form of "FANatic". So maybe, u would want to rephrase that. Anyway, you would be a fanatic, one way or the other. Your insistence on theories that have no basis makes you a fanatic for those theories. It is just the flip side of the same coin. The more u would advocate or insist, the more you would prove my point. But yes, normal is boring. You would need to spice it up a little once in a while. However, never at the cost of credibility.
So the whole technology they had was devoted to GOD !!! So they were orthodox but not completely...lolz
How abt a Zealot ? I know words are twisted but then one can understand easily in context.
Rhere u go..........answering urself.......
Glad to know...but i hope that u can walk the talk.
Exact time of 'when' scripting started is still debated. They say, that the first seers in vedic age used to 'remember'/'memorise' all the vedic teachings and used to pass that knowledge to their disciples 'orally'. Scientists who are interested in INDIAN past are still debating the exact age of vedic origination. Also, You must understand archaeology & that humans have a long history of creating temples, statues of people, art etc. Today we make statues of Mahatma Gandhi, a famous figure throughout the world, who's name has been embedded in several history books now. Why? So saying that these holy books like Ramayana, Bible, Iliad, Koran etc are 'stories', is simply something which cannot be affirmed. Although there can be twists and deviations from the original scripture. In case of ramayana which is much older than mahabharata, we have many versions of Ramayana. Indians have their own, Thais have their own etc. But this is not a case in mahabharata.rhitwick said:
^^ Now this is what i call substantial talk ...
Doesn't that embarrasses u to be saying "we" answer? I asked u something to read and answer n here u r like a true troll to be only judging everyone! Neither u r posting anything of interest or entertaining me like ur funny comrade. WTH
I also know why sherpas or the peole born on mountains have great stamina, people in gym develop great bodies n power, swimmers don't have much straight bodies but cuts becoz of muscles throughout n people adpat so much to spoon feeding that they lose intelligence and ability to comprehend properly. Yes adaption plays great role.......NOW WHAT DOES THAT HAS TO DO WITH DEVELOPING EYES/EARS/LIMBS/FLYING/EVOLUTION FROM LAND TO SEA, SEA TO LAND????
Do u even try to understand what I am asking?
Who told u it was not required on land. Another one of ur theories that u putting up as facts??
After all it can help people during the times of tsunamis, floods ....survival sire survival! You r forgetting the very foundation of ur theory! Is the theory of evolution that weak that u randomly pick the animals like hippos, crocks? Why not humans & most of the animals? Even the hippos n crocks hold their breath for long times and resurface to breathe. Even Phelps can do that. And so? may be another digression u may be aiming at from the actual question? Is that how the funny materialists answer a question? Thats quite an imagination that "It was not required on land". Now please tell the book that brainwashed u on this or may be another evolutionist site that u landed on instead of using ur own upper....M sorry. Its hollooo..
Reasons for ur not getting convinced? Please do tell what u know.
Again a digression or lack of comprehension. How is that related to limbs/wings and flying of the humans that we talked discussing the "survival"?
But even in this deviated P.O.V of urs, why would predators i.e the successors or predecessors in an evolutionary chain harm their own heirarchy i.e the parents as in predecessors and then the evolutionary successors?? "Flee from predators", "Evolution allowed them to survive"? So evolution made them predators to haunt their own successors n predecessors & that some evolved to be able to fly to survive?? But, as I recall predators are there even in the sky in the form of vultures, hawks etc! Seems ur logic is all mixed up yet again with flaws all around. I wonder if some gene has got extinct that humans have lost many qualities that sea creatures possess or is it still there as in in some special case as u said evolution allowed a gene to survive?? But again, its an amazing logic of urs which says, "It was not required to on land"!
So then why didn't humans started flying even after so much danger or retained the ability to survive under water??
The "reduced scaling" of creatures which have an original length of like 6 feet in reality to 6 cm in this thread in the form of pictures doesn't mean u hallucinate that they grew cm by cm!
Its like looking at a globe, u think INDIA is 15 cm away from Russia n 30 cm from US! Funny materialist.
Where is the cm by cm evidence of the development of skeletal system, limbs, eyes, brain etc etc??
Which whale to be precise may I ask, white whale, blue whale? As I recall whales have a rather gigantic size as compared to hippos! Besides, the part in bold itself speaks about the weight of uncertainties. So much for the facts to consider evolutionary theory as a fact.
The point is jolly simple. "The survival", the chances of which are getting less as humans 'evolve' in knowledge. The factors are many for humans to fly or why they shud have the ability to 'survive' under water as discussed previously! So the humans can't fly or survive under water? So much for the flawed theory of evolution!
Forgetting n not bolding an "if" before the clause "having a brain" & quoting selectively doesn't mean u get another chance to digress! U must read it completely where both advantages and disadvantages of our intelligence have been put forward. U don't leave any chance to digress do u?
An so, read the 2nd line in bold. Terrorism, incompatibilities, hatred, idealism(funny materialist) etc are on the rise, global warming which is a result of century old human practices of burning carbon based fuels cannot be solved in one day or even a decade which is leading to food shortage,ecological disaster etc, nuclear wastes which have no proper disposal solution are all factors enough that lessen our "chances for survival"! Ponder and u may find more.
So why didn't humans fly? Even if floods occur becoz of rising water level, an ability to survive under water would have been rather useful! The atmosphere gets heated up and people will use ACs/fridges/coolers which in turn will lead to greater heat up of the atmosphere. We have already lost much of the ozone that protects us from ultraviolet. So what does the theory of evolution say for ur survival??
All I see is heavily flawed and twisted logic which u r unable to backup save plaguirin evolutionst sites and quoting what is already known than using ur own upper....ah well!
That usually happens when u play an apologist for a theory.
Questioning is an integral part of science evolution! If an answer cannot be found, then its only foolishness to force urself to find a theory no matter how absurd n inconsistent it gets. Although thats how science works "by observing & conjecturing" but treating a theory as a fact and playing apologist for it rather defines the threshold of foolishness! May be like universe this foolishness has no boundaries for fanatic fanbois!
So don't be so emotional to be crying, "why don't u take the responsibility"! I'm only questioning genuinely, and not even yawning/ignoring like the funny materialist. Remember thats how science progresses by questioning and not by plaguirizin, blind following or saying thats what "majority have accepted"!
If people like u wud have survived in the flat earth era who don't have much of out of box thinking but only know about the foundations, then I guess that even the conjectures on round earth, revolution etc at that time would have been called pink unicorns even today!
Was it ur ego that was preventing u from answering all these simple questions previously? So it seems science cannot explain many things currently or is having trouble in doing so!!
Explain about the boundary then. I hope its not 'observable' or a mere guesswork.
If it doesn't has to end, & if universe is expanding even faster than previously predicted bcoz of some fancy n puzzling dark wateva, doesn't that mean the 'boundary' is rather not defined??
Amino acids?
Why shud I get excited? I only asked what will happen. So what do u think will happen if it confirms?
Amazing, I quoted the pdf and here u r linking to forums n blogs yet again to back urself up! I guess thats how u get ur spoon feeding done. Answers from physics forums or any person with the term "scientist" prepended to him/her, & aha, end of reasoning!
Again it seems u r either foolin urself or u think people here are gullible enough. You do understand the status of modern medicine on AIDS even after repeated quoting don't u? Atleast read it once.
It seems u missed one question!
7. Why do u think modern medicine is ignoring too much?? Please do refresh urself on the topic reading past replies too.
A man(?) of ur age doesn't have to feel proud after abusing someone like that.
There is no need to be emotional to be writing a small note so that people can remember what science has done or provided us with. After all, its not that I am trying to mock science which u r trying to potray me like. Understand the difference between a being a fan and a fanatic fanboy! I am a science fan (not a fanboi), but that doesn't mean I don't look beyond what has been put forward or see both the sides of the situation. Also u lose the weight of ur posts in the first place when u label creationists or theists as morons or abuse those who differ with ur opinion. Understand how many scientists who lead to a major revolution in science were theists. But I guess that won't make it through ur head since u need spoon feeding all the time. Courtesy some comrade, some site on ur favourite theory or some scientist perhaps??
I can understand the scope of ur limited dictionary. Seems like u fulfilled my predictions about ur terminology!
Besides there is no need to answer again save the unfulfilled questions, since u have shown that u r hanging on to the mere thread that defines ur fervent faith that science "can" answer all of that. Thats called blind faith which leads one to play an apologist for his favourite theory and then hallucinating all sort of possibilities to be uttering sentences like "This was not needed", "This might have happened" n then failing to answer on that very foundation n thus reducing science to religion!
So u see faith does play an important part in human life. !!
Bold 1: I've already posted it in my reply and I think mentioning it here u r not disagreeing me
Offtopic ..........now including all the abusing posts of Kesav and ur previous posts, this is really insulting..........u've hurt me...........I'm an avid moviegoer; when in college I used to be one of the "First-day-first-show" customer. Now I'm in job and first-show is impossible but try to catch the movies I "feel" I should c, at nightshow on first day; if able to convince my colleagues, they accompany me (which is once in blue moon
) or I go alone. That is my dedication to movies, watching them not being biased, no one accuses me on being biased to any movie........so plz, plz, plz take back ur allegations So what is ur point? The questions u’ve mentioned here are the questions science is asking and trying to provide answers and in most cases we’ve found it. We’ve answers for these not u, u r stuck(or stopped) to “GOD”, every question above is answered by you(theists) is stuck(limited, bounded) to “GOD”
What is philosophical here? IT IS FACT. Just explain one thing to me; u know bowling machines right? balls are thrown to batsman from it with various speed. Now imagine a straight road of 1 KM, a bowling machine is at point A of this road and it throws a ball to point B at the opposite end of the road. It takes 10 seconds to reach the ball from one end to another end. In between these 10 seconds if someone lifts the machine from that place (as similar to a star being blown or destroyed) does that mean the ball never had any source? Now tell me what is philosophical here?
…………the things u mentioned r scientific F A C T S!Sorry I’ve not seen ur vote, do I need to?
These are my imaginary conversation between a theist, a confused and a silent atheist.
Its time for you really... and I am very much thankful for such a non-MOd postGuys, time has come I should post (like I’m someone who was being expected to post) something that I believe is true. I was expecting Karnivore and Mediator to come to some conclusion but it seems they’ve gone too personal, from where independent response is impossible.
The post is going to be a little lengthy, those who are interested, requested to have patience……..karni and mediator, u r used to reading and replyin this kinda posts, u shouldn’t face any problem.
In my opinion God is a concept, a perfect idol that has all the ideal characteristics to be followed. When we are young (till age 8-9) we are taught u shouldn’t do this, should do that…….God will like it or God won’t like it. A lot of advice used to pour upon us like, God helps everyone (means u should help everyone), God doesn’t hurt anyone (means u shouldn’t hurt anyone), telling truth etc……we are supposed to follow that concept and try to be the ideal person……….
Let me go more root of the creation of this God concept………..in ancient ages when we didn’t have any knowledge of what are all the natural incidents like fire, lightning, flood etc. we used to fear them, if lightning struck anyone he/she died………it was something like miracle the person was live and kicking this time but is turned into ashes the next second. How is it possible? Yes we had this habit of questing in that time too, but there was none to answer, so we prepared the answers ourselves. Came to a conclusion that the person might not have died himself, someone must’ve killed him. But who, how, why, why can’t we c him, why can’t we hear, etc. Who= unknown, how=by lightning, why=must be angry on him, why can’t we c=unknown, why can’t hear=unknown. So we decided as so many characteristics are unknown and we can’t even c him, he must not be like us, he must be superior to us, have super powers, can vanish, can play with life threatening things (fire, lightning, water etc). As the incident was related to lightning we named the unknown after lightning, same applied to fire, water, earth etc…..
Then centuries passed we evolved technologically , education system came, which was mainly verbal, little or nothing was scripted then. People who were teacher and practiced these things, knew the truth of this concept and its main reason, but kept mum because till then this God concept was introduced in daily life, business started by God’s name, so many things were associated with it, was very tough to “Déjà Vu”. And more over God concept became very useful to make people frightened……..Just tell anything to anyone, do anything and add “God has told this”………none will ask any question. Everyone was told that God is almighty and thou shouldn’t go against God’s will, if so, something bad will happen to you. Nobody questioned and it became a legend. [Once my teacher told if one false theory is continuing for ages it seems to be truer than the actual truth].
This concept was practiced mostly by people in power. They knew if people start questioning everything that is told or practiced; his position will be in question. That’s why they became allied with people who control these (pandit, priest etc…). These priests or messengers of God or Godmen or men who have direct link with God were not in direct power but helped the then king to be King. That’s why they were given special privileges in all ages.
Then came the time when scripting started. People started writing everything they knew. But these Godmen couldn’t do same like anyone as the truth will bring anarchy. People now have started worshipping the concept like anything, forgot the reasons, ideologies, forgot asking why and how. They became blind followers like if the thing has God associated with it, thou shan’t question. So to prevent this and they wrote books but in form of story and with a lot of God and God related phenomenon in it. Thus born our holy books like Ramayana, Bible, Iliad, Koran etc.
BUT there were people in every age who refused to believe anything that is told to them, they were fed-up with getting the “sky” as answer to all their queries. They risked their life to bring us the truth. Galileo, Socrates died to bring the truth, Newton faced punishment to tell Earth rounds the Sun (it was against Bible u c) etc. Columbus was told why he wants to embark on a journey which doesn’t have any meaning. He was told, why does he want to c what is beyond the c, if God wanted to know us, God would’ve told us. But he did, he dared to ask why not? And he’s still remembered for that.
In any place u go against this question what is true, God or Science, we atheists are very few in number. We ask why, how, when; we irritate people so much by asking these. They are also bored to tell us the same reason for every question, i.e. GOD is in the root of these. That’s why they try to stop us by any means, by any absurd answers.
Who created us?
God.
How?
Don’t know. [But science at least has its version of the procedure of how were we created]
Why are we the only living being in the universe?
God made us and loves us so much (or may be too tired) that he didn’t create another earth. [But science at least has its version of reason why we are only living being in the universe ( or may not be “Only”)]
When did Dinosaur abolished?
God knows. [Science also knows and can tell u at least the probable time]
Why did Dinosaurs abolished?
God killed them. [Science has 2-3 version of the reason which may not be this like one line answers]
Why did God killed them?
Don’t know. He wished to kill, will that stop you questioning. [Science has reasons and would appreciate you for asking more]
How come crocs can live in water and even in land?
God made them like that. [Science can give you answer for that which may not be this like one line answers]
Why do birds fly but we can’t?
God made them like that and he didn’t want us to fly. [Science can give you answer for that which may not be this like one line answers]
That scientist n00b tells that 80% of my brain doesn’t do anything, why?
Ya this will have a few reasons:-
- God made us like that
- He’s a n00b, he doesn’t know anything, all part of our brain is working.
- 20% is for day to day work and 80% is reserved for God (For God’s sake stop questioning!!!) [Science can give you answer for that which may not be like this, which may require ur 20% brain to work more]
whoof........will post more later
.
Would luv to explain in details that evolution <> atheism or vice-versa, but will be a waste of time. Nevertheless the true quote is, "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Your source forgot to mention the part bolded. Prior to Darwin, the whole issue of atheism was a philosphical argument. Evolution provided the SCIENTIFIC basis to it. Thats all.
First, what Darwin was doing, when he wrote that, was providing a FALSIFIABILITY, which is a cornerstone to any scientific theory. But u would'nt know that, would u. Second, your source forgot to complete the quote. So let me complete it for you.
The part in bold was conveniently left out.The Origin of Species said:
Brilliantly spoken. What possible reward can there be by knowing, how we evolved anatomically ?keshavasiva said:
Would cloning and in vitro fertilization qualify as creating "living organism in a laboratory" ?keshavasiva said:
Thanx I'm honoredIts time for you really... and I am very much thankful for such a non-MOd post
Are finding urself a bit helpless as u cant find more resources. Alas, I can't help u in that case. I've already answered this question b4 u ask (C I can predict the future
, in previous post, plz read it once) some part of the post is given belowhmmmm, so u can't post without "these", but positive point is, at least using of "those" is decreased.
!!!!According to science I'm a bunch of chemical and lightning fast nuron and dendrons connecting to various hormone gland thiroid (controls emotions etc, I forgot u better research), pituitari etc gland.
Sorry I don't know. I've not yet hit google on this query.
Plz explain the answer to me. Then I would like to reply.First: Have u seen/experienced it urself?
Can u or can't?
Its of no gain, can u answer or not?
?????
Thats why I called u n00b, don't be angry, u r very ill informed about life creation in lab, heard about cloning (dolly, does this ring any bell??), test tube baby??!!!
Ah, in the whole post u've shown some amount on intelligence but that vanished here, talk logically I'm with u. This line explains ur state of mind i.e. whatever proofs u bring I won't be convinced and u r not ready to open ur eyes and ears. Sigh. Best of luck.
Thanx I'm honored
Are finding urself a bit helpless as u cant find more resources. Alas, I can't help u in that case. I've already answered this question b4 u ask (C I can predict the future
hmmmm, so u can't post without "these", but positive point is, at least using of "those" is decreased.
So by talking absurd r u trying to evade the questions?
Note, I'm not the first person to ask these questions, our beloved theist poster of this thread mediator and some other asked these questions in these 2 yrs of this thrd. And I'm just repeating those. Do u want to tell that, if "U" ask a question then its valid, the same is invalid if we ask?? Why?? Thats not fare buddy
The questions will be there, u can't escape. Take ur time and answer.
According to science I'm a bunch of chemical and lightning fast nuron and dendrons connecting to various hormone gland thiroid (controls emotions etc, I forgot u better research), pituitari etc gland.
What is theist's explaination for this? Plz don't say u r God. If u say, from that instant u should stop going temples(God is in u right? no need to go anywhere), don't curse him on any bad happening to u like how could God did this (God is in u right?), don't thank him everytime u do some good (ufff.....how many times should I mention God is in u), while doing "namaste" do it to urself infron of a mirror (again.....God is in u). Belive me if do this ur self-confidence would touch the sky (this is d side effect if believe in urself)
And plz don't answer I'm not God, God created me, cause it again comes to u, so what r u? Something like infinite loop, where u r stuck.
Sorry I don't know. I've not yet hit google on this query.
First: Have u seen/experienced it urself?
If yes, plz explain in details.
Socrates told how to recgnize a hoax, ask these questions:
1. Have u seen that?
2. What is ur business in that?/ Are you anyhow involved in that?
3. What is my business in that? /Am I anyhow involved in that?
Try to apply it in daily life.
Can u or can't? Its of no gain, can u answer or not?
?????
Thats why I called u n00b, don't be angry, u r very ill informed about life creation in lab, heard about cloning (dolly, does this ring any bell??), test tube baby??!!! Ah, in the whole post u've shown some amount on intelligence but that vanished here, talk logically I'm with u. This line explains ur state of mind i.e. whatever proofs u bring I won't be convinced and u r not ready to open ur eyes and ears. Sigh. Best of luck.
Sorry, if I overlooked it.rhitwick said:
No, you misinterpreting what I said. I am not talking about 'districts' but the 'holy books' which you think are "stories". Like Buddhism started after Buddha, Sikhism started after GuruNank, christianity -> Jesus. In all of these we find "same type of hands, expression, etc". Don't you think so?rhitwick said:
I respect ur theory for even I believe that they were highly educated, wise & intelligent people....perhaps true scientists? Yes, why not for even Vedas stresses on science. There is no need to laugh, every one has the right to put their opinions.rhitwick said:
You must first understand that I'm an atheist myself. Also, I'm not here to force my opinions or thoughts on anyone. But I do like to know what others think of, as it might tell me something new that I've never thought of.rhitwick said:
Please don't abuse me like I'm stuck to something!rhitwick said:
Aren't you doin an injustice to me by not supporting youself either with your logic or some facts & then asking like 'whats philosophical here'? Who questioned if the source wasn't there? Your ball example isn't much comparable to 'light from stars' as there is much difference between the physics behind "light" and that of a "ball". The simple philosophical points 'in addition' to ones that you didnt' support but merely called it "FACT etc", arerhitwick said:
Since, u said "I'm stuck to God" and portayed me like "you(theists)", then I guess that not only u shud have seen my vote but also researched on this thread.rhitwick said:
You must understand that I'm a completely neutral party much like an observer. A statement like "Theists : God killed dinos",(imagination), sounds as illogical to me as "Atheists : ITS a FACT, science can answer everything, whats philosphical in it, we already know it", thus either not answering the questions properly, or ignoring them or not accepting that science hasn't so far been able to answer them.rhitwick said:
Does that mean, in case of semi-conscious state, only HALF the soul is present and in no-conscious state (Persistent Vegetative Sate or Coma) NO soul is present, which would mean they are SEMI-DEAD and COMPLETELY DEAD respectively, although the patient is BREATHING and the heart is BEATING ?keshavasiva said:
But in every books (history or literature), places( countries, states, districts, rooms, foto frames) we c gandhi being painted or sculptured alike. U know the reson?? Because, once upon a time he was alive.
Wow!!! the great poster on behalf of theism is a self claimed atheist, even ur gr8 foe karnivore was not able to discover it.
Agreed, not discovered, at least not invented though
, so u believe that the truth is already there, we only need to DISCOVER it. Very true, truth can't be invented. And, the theories are based on a hell lot of research and convincing a hell lot of people; u know how much competition is there in scientists for just a name against a theory (this smiley is for those scientists)and
I'm a bit confused, I thought u r pressuring on the bolded part, hence comes the philosophical part. Again I'm lost, plz explain what is philosophical in that part of ur post.
Sorry I can't say. I'm really clueless on how to recognize which is what star, and how to tell if they are present or not. Scientists or astronomers can, u better research on how to recognize a dead star or such things.
at least more magnified than previously which helps to know what is the(any)thing.
awwww.......now u r kidding with me, u've pretty much understood what I wanted to tell.As for the light from distance stars not only involves distance, but also something which they call "bending of light". For the simplest negation of ur example n to tell that its not comparable, distance=1km,t=10s means velocity shud be equal to 100m/s (nearly equal to 1/3 the speed of sound) under the "assumed" circumstances that there is no friction from air, or from land that bounces the ball back. If u take the "reality" into account, then probabilty of ball not reaching 1km in 10 seconds (or stopping at half the distance) becomes much greater. And since u revealed that its a bowling machine for a batsman I hope it wasn't thrown like a missile at an angle of 45 degrees but rather properly like they ball in reality.
hmmmm.......
Now I'm really confused, do u know what r u or what do u support? I think u r an agnosticYou must understand that I'm a completely neutral party much like an observer.and u've most responses in this topicare.......jah....
why everything have to be philosophical?? Some are bold truth also. Accept it.
we, who r not scientists are not having minute details of everythig, so, sorry we wont be able to help u in that, but if want to know about something we can happily refer u links for better explaination.when we say we can't, means we can't. No involvement of ignorance in there. And plz, try to answer the questions in my imaginary conversations in ur language. Plz, now don't u ignore.
Oh yeah I've read till 18 pages{from first page to continuous 18 and then 21 to till now) of this thread and already posted a long time ago; urs and karnis post r most knowledgeable, at least u guys know what u r saying.And since u r feeling the energy to post and discuss, then read the thread from the start first. I have already put forward many of my points. Many others did similarly & I have no desire to change ur mind.
yes its true but wrong place..!! he is a living entity and what he was talking about was GOd .. there no question of he being alive... he is there all the time. Can you tell me the tip of the universe??/ where it ends... Don't tell me that scientists are going to identigy it... its waste... they think they identified it but again some or the other theory comes up saying it extends 10cm more cuz of a refraction which the other one didn't observe... ain't that funy??*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif
Isn't that the same I'm talking of?rhitwick said:
Say whatever you want. Being atheist doesn't mean u stop questioning & then surrender yourself completely to the emotional likes & dislikes of atheists. The questions I asked are asked by the scientists too. Does your logic tell you that all of them become theists automatically then?rhitwick said:
I surrender buddy! Sorry for interrupting, please discuss with @keshavasiva for I'm old n feeble now, n yes u can say I'm losing my senses if it makes u happy.rhitwick said:
U mean... my post made u laugh,..... oh man... go thru it carefully...!! '
What exactly do you want me to make clear?
LOL!!!*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/70.png
)God is person means?? Which person??
lallybhai! y turn out a dumbo! U don't even no about the huge topics personalism and impersonalism..! Dude.. I pity u!every time I think I won't reply ur posts, u do some blunders that I can't stop myself from posting, watever,
LOL!!!*s269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/Unismilies/70.png
What is a personal GOD?? Like this is my God and that is urs. Don't u dare to touch mine or c. (Similar example of students in KG classes fighting for pencils and books
God is person means?? Which person??
Like One of ur concepts (not ur, but of many many persons that God is in everybody, everyliving or non living element), do u agree this?? (Answer in Yes or No, don't try to elaborate, only Yes or No)
Then I again quote myself,
U nEEDn't be one!!
) and again impossible.
U r impossible.........
Every time I think u r getting to the point, u prove me wrong.
No I CAN NOT accept God as person, its a concept having some postulates.
U call me frog of well, at least I've kept my eyes open; and u r not even ready to open ur eyes, not for "three" seconds.
To u God will always be the almighty and to me God will always be a Concept, and concepts can't create universe and blah, blah, blah.
U r really impossible.
The best thing about @Mediator is, at least he uses his "brain" while reading and tries to c our points by putting himself in our shoe, u r not like him; u r stiff, arrogant( now less than previous
i would like to say even after 26 pages of posts...u guys proved 1 thing
1.guys who believe in god..will continue to believe
2.those who don't believe...wont....
please stop it.. its a self belief concept or almighty for all...
and still those who believe are always like the greatest majority...
so...no point in continuing this thread..unless u guys wanna knock yourselfs out...
but some posts here are highly entertaining....
God is life...Science is for living... these 2 will never be in tandem...
Not everyone! I don't know if astrology works or not, but considering the past of both i.e INDIAN astrology n astronomy, I think a lot is needed to be pondered upon.rajiv said:
Quoting the previous one too...
Who cares then for what you write?
U r so..so ignorant
/*Atleast this guy is +ve*/U r so..so ignorant
Please go through first few pages of this thread...and enlighten urself
Yes I'm damn serious on wat I told u.
Ya, we just don't want to waste our energy on such petty stories based as reason.
If u were a man from science stream u would n't ask this question.
That was a story, u found something that u wanted to find...hope u got me.
Only one thing for u, I don't believe in stories, show me facts. If u can't then believe us, because science provides facts with proof.
Dude.. you seem to be nothing... The story nicely teaches how we are using nature, minerals etc to make what we call creation... I know you guys just know to scream when somone qs.. or to refer threads.... I very well can imagine wat crap went in previously if this itself is too much to take LOL...
I am not furious but can ease ur mind off... but am not ready to close this thread or myself banned...!..... Stop talking about THAT person and start talking ABOUT SUBSTANCE again when u post THAN WASTING UR ENERGY IN MAKING THIS THREAD A ********... No Rational GUY Here... See yu atheists.. gud luck wid ur SCIENCE.. LOL
We are never proving that thesre is no GOD. To claim that GOD exists u've asked so many questions and we've tried to answer them and prove them wrong. Now, if ur questions are proved wrong, logically ur claim (That GOD exists) becomes invalid.
C, science is trying to answer questions. If don't know something we don't just stop, we keep on trying to find the truth. But that doesn't mean we wi'' bow b4 some imaginary concept only because we don't know d answer.
Ab tujhe kaya hua??
that was for him. Obviously he wont need facts. So no point in explaining. He has an assumption of everything. A sandbox.Ab tujhe kaya hua??
Not in good mood today?
Yes, my majesty. It's a privilege given to believers.fak SCIENCE ..
without science we would still be living like cave men...without what you call "god" we would be much better off without those interreligious wars and what not...
If there was no advent of modern science there wud have been no "nuclear tests and problem of disposal of nuclear waste, global warming & rise of water level, biological warfare, choking of water pipes by plastic bags, air pollution due to various reasons, cancer due to radiation....complete the list urself"! Time to rethink on this logic that has been pervading this thread throughout. I guess human is the worst and the most dangerous creature on the planet.amitash said:
What does that suppose to mean? Science doesn't prove that "everybody" was a caveman in earlier times. U might still find plenty of people fulfilling the definition of caveman in todays time. As for "we", we had good knowledge of astronomy, arts, geometry etc even in ancient times. But today the situation of INDIA is such that we are divided on the lines of religion, region, caste and colour. We honour one who is rich and shows off his assets, and many live under the spell of superstitions. Guess humanity has seriously degraded with time then. You do know that INDIA had great knowledge & wealth when science just started in the west, don't u?amitash said:
First of all, welcome back...Before replying, do know that I have already been flamed a lot. So have mercy n please don't roast me now. I wont ask to read the whole thread. Even better, goto advanced search and search for all my posts in this thread.
, I hope "he" will be here soon.
Disposing nuclear waste, if any where possible for now, will lead to another process that will require "energy" which will in turn require some form of energy that will heat up the environment or may pollute it. The same goes for the theoretical conversion of "CO to O2". What about heaters and ACs? Heaters give out heat which requires production of energy which in turn causes disspitation of lot of heat. Heat Heat Heat! And for his own comfort, man is screwing up the environment with science as a tool. So there can be pros and cons of both the sides i.e Science and God, the simple tools that the man uses for his own good both in true and ironical way!! Things related with GOD can calm ur mind, prayers may sooth u and it may fill u with wisdom. Its only the intolerance that leads to riots and Jihads! What essential is not letting ur conscience disappear either in case of Science or GOD!amitash said:
So, u think being atheist is a fashion now a days. Phew!!! at last we (atheists) have reached such a number where we are not counted as aliens or sick people, we are in such a number that our beliefs (or belief in no-belief) can be called as fashion.
Do u think executing these tasks, or being human needs to be believer in God? An atheist can also do this...(WTF am I talking!!!) anyone who has his sense at right place should do this regardless of what he believes in...
Any personal experiences where u were betrayed by an atheist?
Errrr....don't you know we atheists have babies for breakfast. You should try once. Its delicious.
this conversation is between 2 students and a professor, i am not sure if it really happened or not.
Alright, this is nothing but an exaggerated version of a SPAM mail. In the mail version (may be it was modified for India) the student who PWNED the professor was the same student (here the first student) and later he was claimed to be Mr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam Ajad (As was in the mail)
*www.godandscience.org/apologetics/professor.html
i stumbled upon it
There are more at the source. I just pasted the smaller paragraphs. You may think a description of the Kaliyuga is not relevant to this discussion. But the relevance is in the questions which you scientist fellows need to ask yourselves. I don't want an answer. Q's are only for you to think about
originally posted by afonofa........
. Science believes in present and works for better future
originally posted by afonofa........
Science dont predict future.its the work of religious gurus
and "BELIEVE OR NOT GOD DOES NOT EXITS".
Well some fights later turn into something really unwanted and unexpected...
The point is this human problems should be solved by humans one thing for me the truth says GOD seriously introduced the caste or religion to fight between humans ---->THEN IT I WILL TURN IN TO KRATOS - IT WILL BE GOD OF WAR <----
Mahabharatha, by Ganesha.
You got pwned
Mahabharata, written by Ganesha, narrated by Ved VyasaAnd I thought Mahabharata is written by Ved Vyas!!
Hasn't he written it??
if you think we are just a result of random errors in nature
see this video *video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-...WzDA&q=expelled+no+intelligence+allowed&dur=3
sorry i am not reasdy to waste my bandwidth on 1+ Hr video... sorry..
ok one logical question ... though..
if he is one .. who created him ?? he simply just cant appear as the universe did in your sense !!!
ultimate question is ... who created god ??
i believe that he cant creat himself...
if he has the power to split the atom and bring about the BIGBANG ( the biggest thing ever to occur in our universe .. mind it ) cant he just clean up the mess we are doing ?
change the mind of terrorist not to kill others ... is he running out of employee for removing life out of living being ?
cant he just stop the tsunami ? which took thousands of life ?
cant he stop katherina ?
cant he stop earth quake...
NO FOOL WOULD CREATE HIS LOVIEST THING AND SEE IT TO DESTRUCTION ,, if so then he should be a saddist!!
defend your post or joining the atheist club !! which is sooo coolllll
Oooh yeah.
Yeah, I should totally go and waste my time learning a language which isn't useful to me anyway. Vedas, Bible etc. are just figments of imagination by a civilization which didn't have any scientific knowledge at that time. Do you really believe that the sun is traveling on a chariot pulled by seven horses? Or an lunar eclipse occurs because Rahu swallows the moon?
LOL ) or did he discover india ? LOL
human dirt = human waste
I cant see any logic in what you are saying, but i try to answer.
So you are saying that only bad persons dies, not good persons???
..
90% indians believe in God too, so why you dont.
Yes he rediscover the vedas in its true meaning which are the books of immense knowledge. He sacrifies himself too for the betterment of society. He was murdered because he was destroying old/wrong myths and traditions of hinduism and other religions.
I don't believe in satya sai baba. Are you not reading my post or you mentally retarded. I have said God didn't take birth, and this satya sai claimed to be a God. Again opposite of my belive.
yes!!! I can see that what you know and dont know. I dont know even you read your science book serieously.
Again, out of logic showing your weekness and DEFEAT
Its hard to make a claim here. But Inventing nuclear bomb is not a clever move by the way.
Sorry, I do not understand what are u saying. Please explain this point.
I am talking about vedic civislisation which stays for 5000 yrs.
dude what do u mean it couldnt explain???
You low-minded fool, I was talking about the book written 2000 years ago, i.e. Vedas.The arguments you are giving here reflects how much do you know about the topic.
Judging be your remarks, i can say that u are an ignorant person who do not know about history and culture of india.
U dont even know when Dayanand Saraswati born as you have written it around 2000 yrs ago? He was born on February 12 in 1824
If you think that what Dayanand Saraswati had done is just foundation of arya samaj, then follow the link
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayanand_Saraswati
This is actually not ur fault. Giving arguments against anyone believe system hurts them.
Well, I have not commented on ur linguistic skills. I just said that you dont know sanskrit and i was not defending myself but Dayanand Saraswati.
I dont know sanskrit too so chill.
I too dont belive in sun pulled by seven chariots or rahu/ketu phenomena.
But I belive in vedas and belive me this things are not there in vedas again acc. to "satyarth parkash". This things are developed by some greedy brahmans to make money out of people.
I urge all the people in this forum/thread to read that book. It has the power to satisfy all ur inner voice questions.
Are you crazy? There are mentions of them in Rig Veda. Go read it before you talk about them like you know something about it. You're just rehashing what some Arya samaji has taught to you. Without thinking it for yourself.Sorry to burst your bubble but the oldest Indian civilization was the Harappan/ Indus Valley Civilization which was not Vedic at all. Our ancestors weren't stupid, yes, but we now know much more than they ever knew.Micro_vishal said:The arguments you are giving here reflects how much do you know about the topic.
Judging be your remarks, i can say that u are an ignorant person who do not know about history and culture of india.
....
I want to answer one more thing to you. Why the hell do you think ancient people had not had scientific knowledge.
This is a natural law, one who have a begning must have an end and civilisations too come under this law. Older civilisation were too very advanced because they have seen more than 5ooo yrs of prosperity. Our civiliastion is just 2000 yrs old with many important development have been made in recent 100 yrs.
Dont think people at that time were fools. Sceintific phenomena were there at that time to be discovered.
I hope I have clear myself, but if you have any doubt, then throw them at me.
...
I am talking about vedic civislisation which stays for 5000 yrs.
Dear trying-to-sound-intellctual,
nyaaaah
That true, Science and God go hand by hand, not opposite to each other.
You didn't mention it. Please mention carefully, what u are talking about. That is a sign of retarded person.
Stop talking like you know something. I'm agnostic so I am open to everything. Hard-line atheist are missing that it cannot be proven that God doesn't exist just like it's unproveable that God exists. I stand on a middle ground with my mind open about new concepts.
WTF, I dont belive in sun pulled by horses. I never say that i dont belive in surya(Sun) or Indra(Electricity).You don't say you don't believe in devas, i.e., Surya, Indra but you believe in Vedas.
This is actually very controversial topic in itself. You are talking of facts declared true by some british scientists like Max Muller. They had their own agenda for saying that. If you want to learn about this click on link:
Dont worry about my english skills btw.
ok.Dont worry about my english skills btw.
I can see that both of you have nothing logical to say, so do some homework first and then come back.
Again, thats poor logic....Just because something cannot be disproved doesnt mean its true....yes agreed that u cant prove god doesnt exist...but by that reasoning you cant disprove that superman exists....Its called a "theory"....in science, everything is a theory till its proven...eg: "theory of gravitation", "theory of evolution", "the big bang theory"....for theists, there are no theories...its blind superstitious belief that its true...eg: "God exists, accept it...if you dont blieve in him then hes gonna f***ing send u to hell"....Coming back to the point, theists are totally arrogant to proofs and new discoveries, and atheists are totally the opposite...aka nothing is true untill proven....and "agnostics" are not ppl who are open minded, they are just the average joe who is unsure about everything.
Again, this is just written in some book...how can u blindly believe it??
@micro_vishal: how come u are answering only to naveen_reloaded and not to my previous posts? Why are u just ignoring them? dont u have a suitable argument?Thats good if you open to new concepts, but what are u doing in a debate if u cant take a stance. Yes I can't prove God existance to you neither can science. I am just telling you my belive for the sake of debate and when you comment on it, then i have to answer.
You are an idiot, a low minded villager and you call me retarded? Hmm.
As everyone can see I made it pretty clear. It is not my fault that you are mentally retarded and cannot understand english.geek_rocker said:
That's all I am saying, if you can't prove it, what is the use of debating? I can say that I am God beacuse I believe it and it is there in a book I wrote; will it make it true? No. Also, your arguments are really illogical and retarded.Thats good if you open to new concepts, but what are u doing in a debate if u cant take a stance. Yes I can't prove God existance to you neither can science. I am just telling you my belive for the sake of debate and when you comment on it, then i have to answer.
In other words: Vedas are false, therefore I shall make my own interpretation of devatas, beacuse in reality it doesn't exist. And Indra isn't electricity. He was the rain god. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING?micro_vishal said:
LOL, Max muller wasn't a scientist you idiot. He was a german scholar and was interested in Indian culture. He respected Indian culture. Again, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING?micro_vishal said:
micro_vishal said:Dont worry about my english skills btw.
I can see that both of you have nothing logical to say, so do some homework first and then come back.
No. Agnostics are the people who don't completely rule the possibility of God's existence. They are logical. Theists mostly are idiots, yes. But an agnostic believes that God may or may not exist, and refuses to concern himself over it. Hard-line atheism is a little bit stupid, IMO.
1. Treating all religions as same is the most idiotic thing.amitash said:
Tell me as an atheist how much do you use AC, Oven, refrigerator i.e the things that generate CFC (ozone depeleting chemicals+huge amount of heat generation), vehicles that cause pollution etc? Do you really care about the world?amitash said:
LAst I remember science has still not been able to find the end, limits, starting point, before universe conditions and situations or life itself! Again it potrays how much of "faith" you have in science.amitash said:
May be like a third umpire, who is closely monitoring each and every situation. But I think it would be wise not to make generalizations which can be made upon atheists too.
Not Exist or not Exits! May or may not?dips said:
And the only job you think you are left with is "opining" rather than "verifying"? Thats quite a brave logic you have.amitash said:
Have you even pondered how "peope use science to commit dastardly acts"? Your ignorance of the matters speaks loud and clear. So if I compile a big list of how science is being used to screw earth and nature, will you convert to theism? Thats again illogic in itself.amitash said:
Who is using religion as a controlling tool? I don't see sikhs, buddhists, Hindus constantly fighting. Do u? Also, the Hindus who are aware about their scriptures are quick to identify the corrupt pandits. So again who is controlling?amitash said:
You did not answer my question, but instead you are ranting either emotionally or illogically which is irrelevant to my question. Here's my question again. I asked to you, about yourself and NOT SCIENCE....amitash said:
Please answer!mediator said:
amitash said:
amitash said:
1. I don't think Indian history had "cavemen" in it. Science was there in the past too. High, low. I dunno! But the scriptures and history themselves speak how luxurious a life "many" of them lived. Before continuing on your logic, do note the percentage of Indians below poverty line in the present era.amitash said:
So, u want the answer to be "GOD created it" or "Read Gita/Puran"....hmmm
See, its not me or u.@rhitwick : Its my friendly advice to you. Don't mind, but I think you should reply when I'm debating with @all in general or with you. The question you quoted is for amitash. BTW, even if you had read my past replies and this question carefully, you would have understood my point already.
.
Wrong again!rhitwick said:
Even recommending a book requires correct knowledge of it. Surely a teacher would recommend a thorough reads to a student before explaining something deeper in concept. And, its not about PMing. If you want to quote a question that I asked to someone else, then it requires....
If u say I'm wrong, I must be. As the question was of urs and its a "metaphor"Wrong again!
I'm not an authority on science or logic! Quit lowballing urself.
I'm not gonna entertain you now.
I accept my dumbness but I still could not get that part.
C, I'm used to face yorkers from u, and suddenly u do a slower delivery to main thoda wo ho gaya"Only you think" that I have asked something conceptually very deep.
Ummm...mujhe thoda thoda hi samajh aya...
Lets take a formal debate for example:
)...The opponent quotes an article at you and you are supposed to verify it? Why? your opponent is the one quoting a text and so its him who should have the right facts...As ive stated, science tries to solve a problem and that solution might have very bad side effects, but the main intent is to solve a problem...You say science has screwed the earth and nature....now you can ponder "why science screwed the earth"...Because it was trying to solve human questions and need, it has not screwed the earth but made it an infinitely better place....If these questions and needs did not arise in our heads at all, we would be the same as lower species of animals who crave for just food, shelter, mates survival....I am not saying that we are better than these animals, they too have something unique of their own, i respect and admire that.
You are misunderstanding control with fighting...And you answered the question yourself...the corrupt pandits/preachers have power to teach young minds, which they can control and its not always the case that hindus are aware of their scriptures....I doubt the majority are aware of their scriptures and hence proving themselves easy to control.
Ok, I Do use the fridge, BUT its giving something good out of it too, not only CFC's....I store leftover food that i eat some other time...without the fridge, food would have got spoilt and gone to waste...food requirement is much more than production and the fridge helps...so do things like the oven, AC and vehicles...you are forgetting the good things that are also very much helping the world a long way and the cfc's for eg are the side effect which, with more advancement in our knowledge, will be solved....like the advent of hydrogen powered cars for eg...although some problems may be found on new tech, remember that it was meant to get rid of the old problem.
for 1 and 2, i used the word "will" not out of faith but because of the definition of science itself...science is defined as: "knowledge attained through study or practice"....Now can you tell me a sollution to any problem that has come about without knowledge?
Ill make myself clear....by using cavemen i actually meant living without any science/knowledge.
Yes and i stand by it... as i have said earlier its only the bad things you are looking at....and as i have said earlier, its in the quest to make the world a better place...but a better place for one might not be so for the other...everything should be looked in to... when the car was invented, nobody cared about the pollution created, they only cared about the transport problems...when the pollution became an issue, we are trying to remedy it now...that remedy might cause another problem that we will further have to fix...its a never ending cycle.
Yes i do, because if we had the sollution to everything, then what is it worth living for? there are problems everywhere, you can never get rid of them, rarely does a problem have a foolproof sollution, unless that solution is to stop solving evry problem that exists.
I have never mentioned that i am superior to others, in the arguements previously given by others i did feel they were narrow minded...just like you have said that i say stupid/illogical things, just like you assumed that i didnt follow the link you gave me? i am not a follower of other scientists, i merely treat their works as theories and only when sufficient proof is given, do i accept their statements...and i did read the link you posted(not totally through all the articles yet) and i found it irrelevant as they were, as you said opinions of certain scientists, not conclusive proofs....
I did read, I did talk details, and i do feel that science will find solutions because firstly if anything can find solutions it is science and knowledge and science has been finding solutions since its inception in our brains i dont know how many thousands of years ago...as i have mentioned before, problems are endless because a solution given, in all probability will give rise to more problems in the future. science has already proven time and again that it solves these problems so in all probability it will find solutions to more problems...its probability, not faith, hope or prayer.
I did not quite understand what you meant...is it that the scientific student doesnt know the answer? Or that he blindly believes, without reading darwin, that he(darwin) knew how life had originated? Please explain and i shall answer accordingly
You mean everybody can check whether you are a fool? Now what would your reply be if the opponent says "Science proves the existence of God" and agains shows some "inappropriate" evidence or premises"?? Will you opine straight away?amitash said:Lets take a formal debate for example:
I sit at one table, you sit at the other and theres a mediator (no pun intended
Do you even realise what the point was? It seems you are totally circumventing your point and throw light on the similar logic I put forward. Read again your golden words...amitash said:
amitash said:
mediator said:
I believe every approach in science should have a thorough view of side effects and a proper way to handle those side affects. So what approach did scientists develop to handle the "global warming" when generation of electricity through coal was becoming a norm a few decades back? Did they really think it won't affect earth? What approach did they take to handle nuclear wastes? To dump it into the sea? What about plastics? Do you realise how much of the marine life and soil has been affected by the use of "non-biodegradable" substances? Also, questions and needs does not mean we screw up the nature. Again you are only potraying how "evil" science is.amitash said:
1. Fridge is not only giving out CFC, but also a huge amount heat outside the box and heat which used to provide electricity.amitash said:
1,2) Science dos not "gurantee" you anything or has a to-do things list. Newton didn't know he would see a falling apple! Even the definition of science doesn't mean that you would automatically have high hopes of it so as to insert "will". Clearly you are "only" going by the definition of science.amitash said:
There are people in remote parts of India and the world who are living "without science and knowledge". Do cavemen exist in modern world?amitash said:
If you apply similar logic to religion, you will realise yourself that not all religions are same and not all kill "1000s of people". You have an illogical hatred towards religion because of extremists, but not towards science exploited because of "corporate greed" that is killing people (weapons, bombs etc) and the earth "on much larger scale"? That is called hypocrisy!amitash said:
First you rape the mother earth and then you try to make it a better place by "high hopes" from science that doesn't gurantee those "wishes"? You know you are only acting a religious extremist now. And yes, many the attempts of screw ups is a never ending cycle. The temperature is getting hotter, polar icecaps are melting and water level is rising, deforestation on large scale for urbanization and other reasons, dumping of toxic chemicals straight into the sea and rivers.... and the earth is becoming a better place?amitash said:
And you think you becoming a "customer" will solve that problem? I think enjoying nature is something that "enhances" your living. So is the exploitation of science, enhancing or degrading our living?amitash said:
You are generalising on the "whole" category of "agnostics and theists" whereas I'm neither generalising on atheists/theists/agnostics nor you. I'm simply marking your "statements" as illogical and stupid with appropriate logic to back up my statement.amitash said:
amitash said:
amitash said:
Treating their work as theories means you are not readily accepting it. And waiting for sufficient proof means you are not rejecting the earlier either. You are simply in a condition of doubt. Does this premise make you any less than being an agnostic yourself?amitash said:
Wrong! It is not irrelevant. Either you have not read it or you have not understood it. Neways, leave it if u can't comprehend it.amitash said:
If its probability, then the probability of science screwing the nature is very high. What makes you think then that science will find a cure before the occurence of tsunamis? Do you find the contradiction in your own post? Bringing "probability factor" has itself weakened your point.amitash said:
mediator said:
The point is simple and shows that you don't understand the basics of evolution. If you had, you would have taken the note immediately. And the point is that evolution doesn't talk of origin of life. So answering a question like "how life orginated" with answer as "evolution", talks clear about one's ignorance. And let me tell, this has become a kind of "trend". Many science student/fans/fanboys I ask this question "how life orginated", reply with "evolution"!amitash said:
Problem that nature had? every creature in nature has problems....a lion needs food so it solves it by killing other beasts and eating them...Man who is physically inferior to most other animals, uses his brain to outwit the hunters and to also hunt for his living and so on....and i think a part of science is explaining the unexplained but another part is to use knowledge to solve problems.
I did think this through and yes need in this context doesnt look much different from greed....and man i feel will always be greedy...But somehow, i like this greed and thee quest for fullfilling it... unforeseen side effects do occur when we pursue them, but effort must be put to stop it hurting the environment, agreed.
I do not know what those scientists were thinking...maybe they thought it wouldnt harm the earth...just like so many things that we use today are thought of as not to harm the earth....maybe they will com back to haunt us, i dont know...or maybe they didnt care either way...im not defending them, but i do value the contributions they have given and i admit i view these contributions more than the negative effects they have produced....but they are the same scientists who are trying to fix it arent they? and what if another problem persists from the solution they find? nobody can ever foresee each and everything that might occur, that doesnt mean we have to stop trying.
Yes i do think im doing better than a theist, because innumerable problems have been solved by science, science doesnt threaten me to damnation if i dont believe in it, it encourages me to think and reason and question everything...Do i have hope that science will do something? yes i do, because it has already done many things, it continues to do so, no false promises and as far as i can see, I dont see the alternative, religion doing good things or encouraging you to think....As far as i can see, it gives you a supreme "god", and when proof is asked of the god, none is to be given, no miracles, no evidence, i have never denied the good things given by religion like the morality it tries to inspire, but i despise the way it tries to enforce that morality on you.
Hmmm...yes, i guess i am only going by definition...I guess i was wrong to expect something all the time...I admit to it and will try to find a new explanation.
3.I would say it has to be the people who are exploiting science.
agreed, not all religions kill thousands of people...But another point that bugs me, is that any religion as far as i can see, gives a concept of a supreme being, with no evidence offered and expects us to believe it...some try to scare you into believing it, the others, still say things like: "pray to the God and you will get happiness" which, intentionally or not, may be interpreted as "dont pray, and you wont be happy"....my point is, that it doesnt inspire free thought and questioning, but rather imprisons your mind.
Firstly, in my opinion, the earth is becoming a better place to live in...again i ask you to look at the problems that the inventions were meant to solve, and they did it(solving the old problem) quite efficiently whereas, created new problems....so i say we are better off than we were before.
I havent said that becoming a customer would solve these problems...But i admit i cant not be a customer, i do have the greed of wanting something...I dont believe that the sollution to this is to live like hermits and give everything away and stay "basic"...On my part? i can be responsible with the use of the things i have bought(which i think i am) and, after i become more qualified, try and find a solution to some of these problems.
I see now where i went wrong as i have al already admitted, i take back how i totally generalised agnostics, but i do stand by, that: by the statements made by the ppl who i commented too, i now feel that those statements were illogical and not the person himself, i was wrong.
I dont see science as screwing the earth...just the irresponsible use of things given by science, is screwing the earth and not the concept of science itself, the problem of screwing nature can be solved if everyone lives responsibly or if science itself comes up with something that heal's the screw up....I have admitted that science does not guarantee that it will solve the problems...but i still say that its probable that a solution will be given more than the probability that it will screw us all...
I did not expect such a naive arguement...I know that Darwin doesnt explain the orrigin of life...thats why i stated:
I stated that the student had blindly believed that Darwin knew how life orriginated....That doesnt mean that i stated that: "Darwin knew how life came to be"
I dont see the probability being that we will screw the earth...I see it in favour of a solution being offered, and as for corporate greed, everything is owned by them thanks to our monetary system...you cannot get the resources you need to perform more experiments without resorting to buying their products, as they control the resources...The corporates and the terrorists exploit science yes but not in the name of science, science is not at fault...Religious extremists exploit religion in the name of their religion and their god(s)...so yes, i think im doing better than a religious extremist...and actually even religious people who use guns and bombs to kill also exploit science.
Is that your logic to explain "nature's problem"? Then even shitting and eating yourself should be a problem for you? How does "lion's killing other beasts" becomes a problem? A man saving himself by using his brain is only doing something for himself and for whole mankind. Where's the nature's problem apart from yourself? Instead, by using science as a tool, the mankind has endangered its own survival.amitash said:
amitash said:
Then who will know? You think scientists "will know"? Who is asking to stop trying? But even trying and experimenting needs to calculate the plausible results first and view them from every engle possible. Do you think the "ideal ways" of science are "practically" being followed?amitash said:
Again, I'm asking bt YOU and you are talking about science in reply and again ranting that "science will do this and that". Stating that religion "enforces" stuff on you and discourages free thinking, you are again putting all religion under same banner. It also means that you have READ ALL the holy books of ALL the religions and have come to a conclusion "after reading" that they discourage science and "free thinking".amitash said:
Don't you think in similar light that, it has to be the people who are exploiting religion?amitash said:
May be it means nature is GOD? May be it means care for nature and you will be happy, since "praying" is analogous to showing respect?amitash said:
May be religious "hatred" and intolerance which is not propogated by many religions, but by the followers, is leading to deaths? I agree it is not science who is doing it, but the mad people. Such people use religion too. Why don't u despise science then?amitash said:
With temperature rising and nature getting depleted of its beauty in terms of trees, animals, fresh river/sea water etc?amitash said:
1. You admit you are a customer.amitash said:
amitash said:
1. YEs its not the science but the greedy men and the mindset.amitash said:
My point was to show the trend and how many of the self-proclaimed science fans tend out to be. But, I admit I didn't read your reply completely.amitash said:
Now, Why would they terrorise in the name of science? Religion and science are different things. A religion may or may not talk science while generally it talks morality. Whereas science doesn't talk morality. Isn't it just sufficient to show how science is being exploited?amitash said:
If one thing harm human society most that is RELIGION
You cant know everything...you can try your best to understand every possible problem that may occur, but some might always slip through the net....Ideal ways were not followed in the past few centuries but i see that there is progress in that regard today.
they wouldnt terrorise in the name of science as science does not provide a difference between people like religion, race, borders, etc do.
And where exactly you see that progress? In medicine? Where a lot is ignored, where drug companies promote their drugs even if they have plethora of side effects? Or where a drug is tested on rats to develop a drug for humans who again have different immunity levels? I think I discussed this in past on "how science deviates from its ideals". Care to read?amitash said:
Many famous scientists were theists and religious or did you forgot that? Which religion enforces who? AFAIK, only corrupt pundits try to spread distortions who themselves do not know about the scriptures. Those who shout in the name of religion are mostly "ignorant" about scriptures. Even science fans are no less. See for the one who interrupted our discussion and putting statements in huge font. So how can you say religions enforce? You are again opining on a book by its editable cover that is printed rather than its actual content? Judging by seeing how the followers of a religion act, instead of reading the scriptures? That is again not-so-scientific!amitash said:
God is supposed to be illogical. But is that any point/logic to "despise" God or religion? Its an illogical point. It seems as if you just want to "hate" religion no matter what. Religion has whole lot of other things to like in Hinduism => "morality", karma yoga in Gita, yoga, ragas, vedic maths etc. Aren't these reasons enough to look at them or not to despise them?amitash said:
You are wrong. Drug companies are often under competition. It seems you do not know anything about drug companies and how their medicines are promoted via unethical means.amitash said:
And so what makes you think that religious people, who are aware, care any differently? If vast amt. of morality is preached by religion that tells you to respect the nature and people around you, be tolerant towards others, do you job diligently wheares science doesn't even utters a word on such subjects, then don't you think religious people have a upper hand in "caring" for the nature? Again this example comes from Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jainis etc since all religions are not the same.amitash said:
The difference is created only in the mind. I don't care if someone abuses Hindu gods. I'm more interested in Hindu philosophy that helps in dealing with everyday life. Like wise many christians make phun of their own God. A hindu is not telling a jain that my religion is better than yours. Generally you will find sikhs celebrating holy/diwali and visitng temples. Similarly you will find Hindus celebrating other's religious festivals too. You are only judging the religion by the "difference" which is created by a "few" extremists?amitash said:
Isn't that what I stated?amitash said:
That science "may" find a solution. Whereas you'd been stating that "science will find a solution", reflecting "hope" in ur statements.It does in terms of "corporate greed".amitash said:
You seem to have misunderstood me...i didnt judge anyone....I admitted i was wrong:
You misunderstood...I dislike religions because they offer god as an explanation without any evidence or any findings....Even when science talks about the univers or life or anything it doesnt know yet, it does it in the form of theories, it tells you: "this may have occured" not "this is how it is".
What?
Again they are companies that abuse science and i would say they are fighting for money, fighting to sell their drugs...not fighting in the name of science.
I mean fights in the name of science, not in the name of corporate greed for money...and as for budhism, i have already said that for me, it is a way of life or a morality lesson rather than a religion...It does not portray a God...thats the reason i have no quarrel with it, it does not create differences in people.
I didnt say that they dont care... I already said i was wrong to generalise all relegions as bad....However i do view religions that offer a god without any proof with dislike because they are lying.... I would have no problem if all religions did was preach morality and only sensible morality and not lie....some do that i have already said, i view them as morality lessons not religions....thats why i said SOME people fight in the name of religion...and where does it all start? because they(again not all theists) think their god is superior.
The point is that you dont care if someone abuses hindu gods, you are more interested in the morality it teaches...All people as you yourself said, arent like that...for most (not few) actually if you go and insult their god, they will be highly offended and retaliate....it is an unnecassary difference...all created because each religion preaches a different god and eventually quarrels arise...I would have no problem if all the religions did was preach sensible morality as i have said earlier...that would not have created a difference.
I had been stating that science will find a sollution, i realised my error and later said there is a high probability that science will find a solution...its the same as may, i admitted it...why say the same thing again?
corporate greed is a difference in companies wanting to make more money over the other, not in actual science
I have no quarrel with the people who dont care... I do dislike the part of them that says there is an almighty supreme being without proof and, there are few extremists that cause harm yes but even to the majority of the religious people, when you insult their god, or for many of them, just say that you dont believe in any god, they might not do anything to you but there is dislike that is rooted there...all unecassary.extremist fight...majority of the people dont fight but some small actions of hatred may arise...A teacher for example, purposely being partial to the religious students answer paper and intensly scrutinising the atheists or other religion believers answers just because they disagreed with wat the other had to say, or a doctor who doesnt want to cure a patient who argued his religion with him...Im not generalising all religious people into this category.
I already said that i was wrong for generalising everyone into the same category!...I have said in the case of extremists not all theists...do you want it in writing or something?
What is the definition of "science".
Like I asked, is it religion's fault that people have become "intolerant"? Three teachers A,B,C preach wisdom. Their guidance and teachings are compiled as Aism,Bism,Cism. Now is it A,B,C's fault that when follower of A abuses B/Bism, quarrels happens?amitash said:
Don't you think you are becoming "intolerant"? May be everyone is not as intelligent as you are?amitash said:
Corporate greed, abusing science etc whatever you want to call it, is it any different than abusing and exploiting religion? If a few people fight in the name of God, then many corporates "abuse" science. Aren't these drug companies trying to "control" the pharma. sector? On one hand you have different religions and on other you have different corporates. Science is not used by just one corporate you know.amitash said:
My point was different this time. Why so serious? Read again...amitash said:
And I'm not talking bt you this time, but in general where people in this "science vs god thread" itself are abusing and generalising on theists. Read carefully and reply.mediator said:
amitash said:
First decide what you want to say! Earlier you were not clear about "all religions", then you were not clear about "killing of 1000s of people", then you generalised. I know you admitted and agreed on this. My point is, are you really clear in what you are trying to say? Buddhism is a religion, so may be finally in all your logic and various filters of hatred based on logic, you can finally love atleast one religion? Can you love buddhism?amitash said:
You missed a lot. I'll show you one by one, since you have shown some interest in my posts and quoted missed statements......amitash said:
2. Gut instinct is not science.mediator said:
mediator said:
mediator said:
mediator said:
Actually it is. One problem with religion is that it promotes nonsensical prejudices, either implicitly or by implication. It creates a sense of exclusivity among the sympathizers of the specific religion, a sort of spiritual “us and them” in the minds of the followers. This further creates a sense of superiority among the followers of one religion over the rest. The religious schism in our society is entirely based on this, and curiously, it is not just an inter-religion phenomena but also intra-religion as well, e.g. Christianity vs Isalam or Islam vs Hinduism, but then again Protestant vs Catholics within Christianity, or Shia vs Sunni within Islam or Vaishnav vs Saiva in Hinduism (not to mention the unique caste system) etc. It is true that this “Us and Them” is particularly naked among abrahamic religions like Christianity, Islam or Judaism, but is hidden behind a façade of philosophy, in East Asian religions, most of which wouldn’t even be considered as religion in the first place (e.g. Confusiasm, Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.)
What you are discussing is Capitalism and although different from religion, they operate much the same way. While religion preys on spiritual needs, capitalism on material needs.
I do not understand. Please elaborate on the “difference” between “morality of science” and “morality in life by science”, whatever that may mean. Morality, as far as I understand it, is a faculty of human mind. Science, being an endeavour to gather knowledge, and the knowledge itself, can’t be either moral or amoral. It is moral neutral.
Once again, what is “moral science” ? Do you mean “morality in science” or the “science of morality”.
No. Not really. You have made plenty of posits and assertions, but haven't really explained why. You have asked lots of question, but haven't answered them yourself.
mediator said:
So I guess, that means a YES. That leads to some more questions. If morality can be independent of religion, why would we need religion at all ? What else does religion give us ?
You may have your viewpoint. Some call hinduism as a way of life and some call it a religion. But I feel, when "hatred" is innate in a religion, i.e specified by the holy books themselves, which specifically gives itself a name (for religion) and asks its followers to glorify and embrace itself etc, then the meaning isn't short of an "organization".karnivore said:
You simply are not replying to my one "basic" question. Is that God telling to hurt other people who have "diferent viewpoint", "different understanding", "different faith"? I guess the question i not that hard! Yes or No?amitash said:
"Disliking" is lower than "not caring". May be upper than hating.amitash said:
Please reply to above statements.mediator said:
And I already said that science and religion are not the same so as to even make a statement like "in the name of science". If for God we have various religions, then for science we have various corporates, but again not in the same context. If differences might arise because of the followers, then huge problems might arise out of corporates and the competition between them that "exploit science".amitash said:
You got my point and yet you say "because of God" differences are rising, when in this thread alone the differences are actually based on the "viewpoint"? Athiests are abusing and generalising on theists. Those who don't believe in God are attacking those who believe in God. So how can you say God is creating difference? In your logic may be its the "viewpoint" that the humanity should get rid off!!? What do u say?amitash said:
Like you yourself said, its not the science that is leading to corporate greed. Science would simply explore a way to convert one form of energy to another. Nuclear energy is a form of energy . Are scientists telling to make nuclear bombs? In future they might even perfect "controlled" nuclear "fusion" reaction. Scientists are simply exploring, while military is employing them and exploring the tools that could be made. The work of the science and scientist is too "explore" and "Explain" the science. If the employed scientist "questions the military" about the ills, which is related to "conscience" rather than science, then military will employ someone else. So the conscience and morality factor aren't really a part of science, but the human society. So who is responsible for the global warming? "Who explored" the tools and "who exploited" the tools?amitash said:
Do you really think that science is involved in the first place? Don't you think it more about philosophy? Do you really think science has something to do with "why one should stand when an elder or female comes on a dinner table, unconditional love etc" and other examples I stated?amitash said:
Fair enough! So its basically god that separates from atheists and agnostics, where athiests have given up on God and agnostics are simply doubtful on everything.amitash said:
My point is simply that we are made up of "lifeless" chemical elements like carbon, oxygen, phosporous, calcium and compounds of these. The cells in our body die and generate "wihout" our knowledge. We do not know "how many" cells are dying every second. WE cannot feel them. These cells make up for the higher organs like lungs ,heart etc that function on their own and unconsciously. WE cannot "stop" their functioning. Even in a sleeping state they continue to function and nails continue to grow. So we are composed of lifeless chemicals and cells are having life.amitash said:
Presuming that god is true, no its not telling them, but it creates a difference between the people none the less.
If someone abuses my parents, of course i will be angry and i will rebuke them, even if my parents havent asked me too...And i think 99% of the people will say that...But the same thing goes for religion and on a much larger scale...since you have compared religion to parents...you can say that each child has 1 religion (parents point of view)....If abusing occurs then only that one person will be affected...On the other hand millions of people follow a handfull of religions...one abuse will likely affect many many others...and anyway you need your parents mainly for your needs as your defenseless when your young...Because they give you all your needs and protect you, you listen to them and in most cases obey....Religion doesnt give you any of your basic needs...It just tells you its point of view...think of it like you following someone elses parents as closely as yours and you getting offended because they insulted that "someone elses parent".
I wouldnt abuse him (atleast not from now anyway)...Its his point of view, i wouldnt care, i would try to correct him if he says something extremely wrong but thats about it.
The way i see it, in this thread differences are arising because of God...some people believe and abuse the others, some dont and abuse the believers...Its still another differences created by god but i also agree that it has escalated too much as to lead to judging other people.
You misunderstood, scientists of course "explore the tools" as you said and as you said its the "use of tools" that matters...But the tools may be exploited, yes but not for scientific reasons so science is not at fault...I already agreed that its the people who exploit it who are at fault...the science of making the tool or exploring the tool itslef is not at fault, same way the people are exploiting the religion and in most cases not the religions fault, but there is God A, God B, God C and even if the gods dont tell anyone to fight, it still creates a difference...on the other hand there is just science, a single thing that doesnt cause differences....But even if you do take that the people learn to live with these different Gods in peace, I still wouldnt like it because there is no proof for this "god" even if it teaches only good things, there is still no proof or evidence, and it is just offered to the people...and that i think, is a form of brainwashing the people and stopping free thought....now do you think that this god is the right way to go? to teach?
I never refused that there are bad things in science, but i do refuse to mark that against science as a negative...because science IS concerned if its doing good or bad...Science tries to solve the questions and problems of the people so it is looking for the good of the people...even when its trying to solve these problems, it tries to eliminate all the problems that might occur because of the solution it gives...do you think you can see everything bad that may occur? some other problem may arise out of the solution which you term as "bad" and that also science is trying to answer...whether it will find an answer or not is secondary but atleast it tries with all the knowleedge present, to fix it...in religion, that is not the case...Its fixed and never changing...the religious scriptures never change, never amend themselves...what if there is something that is wrong or "bad" in the case of a religions philosophy? Will it ever be fixed...will anyone alter or amend the writings? will they accept their mistakes? change is an essential part of life and if there is no change, its either a bad thing or its perfect....do you think all the teachings in all the religions are perfect?
So you think that in all cases science should think of all the consequences? If science had to think of all the consequences, science had to know everything, but it doesnt so how do you expect it to see everything? BUT even if it does lead to unforeseen consequences, science tries to amend it, to fix it, its even a part of science to fix it...I dont see the consequences that have arisen from religion being fixed or amended do you?
No i dont think its the survival of the humans that makes them think about it, its our natural curiosity to learn things, to explain things, to solve things....do you think, that we would have stopped questioning and thinking if our survival was guaranteed?...Imagine you were the last living thing on earth, you had plenty of food, shelter, luxuries that we see today etc and that you had no chance of being killed....in that situation, will you stop questioning and trying to find the answers?
Now dont you think you are being close minded? what if science IS involved? what if there is an explanation but not found yet? One theory the scientists have given is that: "Evolution and natural selection modified some X,Y,Z things in our brain so that we pay respect to elders etc etc" now it may/may not be true, but isnt ruling that possibility out makes your statement more of a theistic one? where you are sure, you "believe" that science has nothing to do with it and its all phillosophy?
I may start to "love buddhism" or follow it if i learn everything it has to say and reason it as being correct...
Im still confused...so the universe is composed of lifeless stuff...we are made of lifeless things, we cannot feel them dying etc, but so what?
Essentially what you seem to mean by “moral science” is the morality of science and that of scientists, in application of scientific knowledge. (Off the top of my head, two of the notorious applications of science by the scientists, was eugenics, practiced by Nazi Germany and weaponizing germs by genetically modifying them). Indeed, expecting scientists to be moral and ethical, in application of their scientific knowledge, is not at all unreasonable. Being human beings, they can’t deny their responsibilities to the society at large. However, they are expected to be guided by the same scruples, that any other, non-scientists, are guided by. In that sense, there isn’t any specific set of “morality” for the scientists to follow.
What you are essentially saying is that a person is responsible for his own actions, and blaming religion, for his individual actions, is disingenuous. This, appears to be a fair assessment, but only on the surface.
One may follow up on the scientific discoveries, but one can’t “follow” science, in the same way as one follows religion. If by “follow science” you mean believing in scientific discoveries, then it is same as being on the side of rationality and logic. Not to “follow science”, is to reject rationality and accept illogic. It is hardly a choice.
Having an opinion different from you, and be vocal about it is not “intolerance”. Criticizing something, in a manner which is not to your liking, is also not “intolerance”. Ridiculing something is rudeness, but not “intolerance”. For example, the idea that “earth is flat”, doesn’t need to be respected, or even entertained, just because it will hurt someone’s feelings and criticizing or ridiculing the idea will certainly, not be “intolerance”. Similarly, the notion that “eating eggs on tuesday is bad”, needs to be mocked and ridiculed, if all reasoning with the person, holding this notion, fails, but the person, himself, shouldn’t be “hated”. “Hate” is a pretty strong word.
Actually, of whatever little knowledge of Sanskrit, I have, the word “dharma” doesn’t have an equivalent word in English. Although we generally translate it as religion, it is far from it. (Curiously, again, the word “religion” doesn’t have an equivalent in Sanskrit). “Dharma” roughly means attribute, something inherent to something or someone. For example, it is water’s “dharma” to be wet. It is fire’s “dharma” to burn. You can’t exactly translate this word as “duty” either.
No religion asks its adherents to kill, at least not implicitly, neither is “hatred” innate in any religion. They simply provide justification for “hatred”. Meaning, religion doesn’t ask its followers to hate. But if a follower wants to hate, s/he will find enough justification in his/her religion, if s/he looks for it. What if I say, entire Gita is justification for war, sugar coated as good against evil, dharma against adharma. (In fact if you read Gita critically, you will find, Krishna hasn’t exactly been able to answer Arjuna’s question) As long as one is of the view, that his/her cause has merit and is on the side of the good, nothing stops him/her to engage in his/her private “dharmayudh”. This is where religion fails. It defines “good” and “evil” in its own terms.
It is NO and YES, both. NO, because, something which probably doesn’t exist, probably doesn’t have any influence on anything. YES, because, hurting other people is justified in the name of that god and the religion associated with it.
What are you saying. Doesn’t even make sense. In what context does science become to corporate, what god is to religion. And how ?
The work of the scientist is to “explore” and “explain” the nature. The act of “exploring” and the “explanation” itself, is science.
Maybe. Kyoto protocol has kick started the effort. It’s a long way from here, but not impossible.
and if u want the bibliography too, here are some,
and
A few sites, I've found interesting.
*planetgore.nationalreview.com/
*mediamatters.org/research/200703230007
*www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-a-myth
*abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1
How is "it" creating diff. when the its really the people that is the cause? One one hand you agree religions are not the source and then you say "it" creates difference? It is like you understand the logic, but innately you dislike religion and hence refusing to "accept" the logic so as to override that dislike.amitash said:
In the world's largest democracy...amitash said:
What if he abuses you really bad? Remember not everyone is same. You may or may not react, but someone else might react if faces the same situation.amitash said:
Why do you say it is created by God, when it is us stupid humans who indulge and create chaos? How is god even "remotely responsible"? Is it darwin's fault that there is a verbal battle raging between evolutionists and creationists? Would it be Buddha's fault if someone abuses buddha and people get angry over it? What is Buddha doing himsef in such a situation? Remember, nude Hindu goddeses are painted all over the world. Hindu Gods are "abused" all over the world. Are most Hindus saying anything? Some do get angry and forget it. That is called tolerance. But only a "few" react violently. And even with those "few", you cannot say "God" is telling or creating a difference. To add it is much of the politics that is exploiting religion than anything else.amitash said:
Like I asked, do you know how many famous scientists were religious themselves? How many of em were theists themselves? Did God change their "freedom of thought"?amitash said:
You keep saying the same thing over and over. Can you tell what well devised strategy science has planned "which is not without flaws" and "guarantees" toamitash said:
1. Manusmriti which was being misunderstood as a part of Hinduism, is now being corrected and people getting aware of it.amitash said:
Exactly my point of view. It is simply exploring. Where's the conscience then? But yes, I do think science shud gather all the possible cases so that everyone understands the ills of tomorrow and thats what becomes "moral science". Even then, even after knowing the ills, are we still willing to give up on our own comfort and luxuries? Ofcourse not!amitash said:
I think you don't understand the difference bet. science and philosophy. If a scientific "explanation" is given then don't you think it needs to be "uniform"?? Some pay respect towards elders, some rape, some kick out elders from their homes and all sort of crimes. Random behaviour and acts "explaining" uniform human nature is not science!amitash said:
My question was on "global warming" which made the world to think upon it, not science's curiosity. And it is based upon your premise that tells "science fixes afterwards" and hence my statement that "conscience is not something that comes "afterwards", but in present and before taking an action and learning from the past". And hence science does not contain conscience. Read it again...amitash said:
mediator said:
Here again, treating the earlier work of science as a "mistake", you are directly implying that "science" did something bad. On the other hand, you say science is not at fault since it is explaining and exploring the stuff, which is my point too.amitash said:
Good!amitash said:
Leave it. The question is deep actually.amitash said:
confusion?amitash said:
I think you said something about "abrahamic religions" earlier. I'm not debating bt "abrahamic religions", but eastern religions from the start. And hence I've been asking where are the "my god", "my religion", "my texts" in eastern religions? And since you have said about religion too that amitash said earlier and discussed before, I wud only repeat and ask you to tell where in "all" of these religions is self-glorification mentioned? I expect you to understand the meaning of "all" of their scriptures and then post it. Where is sikhism telling that sikh texts are the best? Where is Hinduism telling that something called "Hindu" texts are best? What about Buddhism etc?karnivore said:
And thats the part where "blind believing" comes in that I discussed before. Does that mean the topic of philosophy should be removed? If religions don't preach it, then someone else will like Sri Sri Ravisankar who get huge fan following. It is the same thing that we quote the philosophical statements of different people and scientists once we agree to it for some thought povocation. People might agree with or disagree with it.karnivore said:
Blind believing happens everywhere. And hence as far as "following" is concerned both fall under the same category. A few "explore science" and the rest follow until the earlier is modified by the science explorers and a new explanation comes in refuting or modifying the earlier. If that is not "following" then what is it?karnivore said:
You are only saying that becoz you are not religious yourself! You don't have the unbias when it comes to religions.karnivore said:
I disagree. "Attacking" or "abusing" someone on the basis of difference in opinion or viewpoint is intolerance, i.e "intolerant of a different viewpoint" and not "rude over a viewpoint". Rudeness is acting on the person (victim), whereas intolerance is acting on the viewpoint and "leading to" rudeness, hatred, abuses etc. Hence I have stated it as "intolerance of viewpoint" from the start and that it is basically a difference of viewpoint that we are talking of and intolerant mindset of people rather than religion that leads to hatred. It (intolerance of viewpoint) is irrespective of being verbal or physical. Do you really think all these people putting up big fonts and abusing theists here can do the same "physically"? What if a theist, is a 6+ feet body builder? Do you think they can attack his religion, parents, sister etc on his face? When it comes to reality the situation changes dramatically than what we ideally percieve as. Many would only attack from "behind" and abuse in his absence. Here people are simply being "intolerant verbally".karnivore said:
"Attacking and abusing" is not really being "critical of one's opinion". I have already said I find illogic in God. Thats my opinion. I'm not doing name calling, abusing or attacking bullshitting it. I simply don't care. And yes the "how" part that you described here can be called "intolerance". But this time it is "intolerance physically".karnivore said:
That again is "intolerance of viewpoint" that is leading to "hatred" and "rudeness" and please don't talk about abrahamic religions or mix them in the discussion! I hope I was clear about difference bet. an organization and religion. Like I said all religions are not the same. You are only making me repeat my words. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc do not have any problem with science, the evolution theory, the stem cells etc. The members of eastern religions live far more tolerantly together and that my friend is "tolerance of viewpoint"!karnivore said:
Religious is something that "dharmic" can be translated to but may be not a perfect match. Although the term "religious" is percieved by many as following like "religion", but I think another meaning of religious is "extremely scrupulous and conscientious".karnivore said:
Wrong! What I feel is that you have never read Gita completely. And next, you may or may not agree to what it says. Its your understanding and your opinion.karnivore said:
No mistake. Thats how "greed, lust etc" are defined when translated from sanskrit to english. I hope you know sanskrit terms have precise meanings and a set of rules to define the words whereas English words are often having a lot of meanings. Like discussed before, the term "You" is used to other second person. Whereas in Hindi "tu, tum, aap" are used to represent if in terms of age and respect. Sanskrit goes one step beyond!karnivore said:
What you didn’t realize, is that, I have interspersed, with examples of abrahamic religions, the glories of eastern religions as well, particularly Hinudism.
Neither is “pagan”, to a Christian, to whom it simply means, someone, who is not a Christian, nor is “kaffir” to a muslim, to whom it simply means, someone, who is not a muslim. I knew, you would come in defense of the word. By doing that you have proved what we have been trying to tell. These words, appear acceptable, if you view it from within your own religion. But if viewed from outside, suddenly they don’t appear so acceptable.
First you equated religion with science, then with corporations, then with parenting and now with philosophy. Where does it end ?
This is not a clever argument. Williams or Griffiths are not the only one’s who translated the Vedas. Better translations of veda and other texts exist. Translations of late 19th centuries or early 20th centuries are indeed a bit skewed, and this goes for Indian translators, e.g. Aravinda, as well. Current translations take into account the Avesta, and other contemporary texts and linguistics, thereby making it more accurate, textually. Of course, true intentions can’t be exactly translated. You can translate a Picasso in your own way, but only Picasso knows what he was thinking when he was painting.
Ok, now I remember. You said something like this before as well. I see, you haven’t actually been able to move on. Anyway, there is a difference in “following” science and “following” religion. What you say is following science, is actually accepting something, which has been repeatedly demonstrated through empirical evidences, not by one but by many and is open for us, the lesser mortals, to further verify the results. For example, the “theory” that the earth is round or that the sun is at the centre of our solar system. On the other hand, following a theistic religion starts by believing, “god did it”. The scope for verifying its core belief is absent.
No. When it comes to Hinduism you can continue to be a hindu, by being a proponent of one sect while not being of another. I narrated two examples, beef eating and yajnas in certain manner, which are common to most of the sects and subsects, but clearly mentioned that you cease to be a hindu to some school of Hinduism, not “Hinduism” per se.
Opinion about self doesn’t matter. Perception to the outsider matters. The same Sikh will cover his hair while visiting his Gurudwara. Guess why ?
I have read this passage quite a number of times and still don’t know what you are saying. All I see is that you are now redefining words. Anyway, lets agree to disagree.
“Abusing” is certainly not the correct manner of criticizing. But criticism itself is “attacking” one’s opinion.
No. Not really. You simply told us that you find some religions with certain characteristics, to be not more than organizations. You didn’t exactly explain, the connection between those religion and “organization”.
1. I do know a thing or two about the major religions but, not as much as I know of Hinduism. Being born into a religion, has its own perks. Of course, it is not possible to know all the religions. But knowing theism, is enough to know what to expect of a theistic religion.
No. It is religion’s fault. Because evolution flies straight into the face of a certain religious belief, they just deny it.
Mr Hussain, doesn’t, read can’t, live in India. You want to call that tolerance ?
Actually it is culture, with roots in religion, and not ethics. Hindus have a tendency of alleviating everything and anything they revere to the level of divinity.
It is about convenience, and where there is a dress code, then it is due to that dress code.
Like I said earlier, you have not read Gita.karnivore said:
1. I did not come in the defense of the term, but only explained its meaning to you.karnivore said:
You did not get my point bt ravisankar. go figure? Again these are your viewpoints.karnivore said:
here's a recent article on newscientist.karnivore said:
Please reply to the above....mediator said:
And what if many of the sects are not a part of Hinduism, but either pure human imagination or confusion? It is not that all ancient Indian works could be called a part of "Hinduism". Manusmriti was one such example. It was part of ancient India, but not a "base" of Hinduism.karnivore said:
And thats somehing of a faith, just like one believes in God. It is not that others will kill him if he doesn't cover his hair. This example would be a repeatition of the viewpoint again.karnivore said:
I disagree. There's a difference between "attacking, insulting etc" and "criticising" for criticism can be constructive too.karnivore said:
There's really not much connection between a religion and organization, for I believe a religion is one which provides morality and conscience and doesn't preach bt hatred and self glorification, whereas when propoganda, hate, self glorification is mixed, it simply cannot be called a religion anymore, but more like an organization. Thats all I can tell, nuthing more to explain.karnivore said:
And hence, if your next post contains repetitions of the entire discussion of this thread, then I may not reply as well for I'm already getting bored.karnivore said:
Again, not religion's fault. That would mean all. But yep, may be "certain" religous beliefs not all religious beliefs.karnivore said:
That "intolerance" as I said earlier is a work of a "few". That "few" cannot be mapped to "all" hindus or even "most" hindus. Kamasutra is a part of ancient India and depicted on the walls of many temples. So I can only guess that these "few" people are ignorant about it. And again, Hindu scriptures are not telling to exile those who paint nude hindu goddesses. here's an example of toerance...karnivore said:
I'm only debating, just like you are accusing religion even when it is not at fault.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Like I said, people of diff. faiths visit temples, gurudwaras etc. If the seed of "intolerance" is in their mind alone, then why will they even "eat" with the people of other faiths? And how do you know that they don't "openly" show?amitash said:
Racism is an inherent part of human nature. The feeling of superiority is not based on religion alone, but country, cast, color, sex, "logic" etc. Don't you think many people here are thinking of themselves as intellectually superior just because a few "follow" God? Remember even many scientists followed God.amitash said:
I think you should first understand the definition of science and then read the entire discussion from the start.amitash said:
But the mistake lead to that "bad". Btw, why are you calling it a mistake neways? And if you want to continue on that incorrect logic, then yes scientists should have predicted everything that they could.amitash said:
And so we should screw the nature...everyday? Our conscience is telling us not to, but what can we do?amitash said:
Can it drive in lawless Indian roads too where people jump on traffic lights, beggars keep blocking the roads etc? Remeber there are a few things that AI can never match humans and one of those things is "gut instinct" and "road experience" and knowing in your heart where the car ahead of you is going to turn even if it is giving the wrong signal. It is experience of knowing how the biker behind your car is going to take over and from which direction. It is the experience of knowing how someone can suddenly pop out from behind the wall while talking on the phone.amitash said:
Similarly buddha did not ask to create "buddhism", nor did Rama/krishna etc said to created Hinduism.amitash said:
amitash said:
So how is science looking for the good of people if the problems keep arising continously leading to large scale sufferings for animals, soil, people,....i.e nature? For what I see is the scale of problems is much more than any conscience which only appears to be imaginative. You only keep saying that science will do this and that ( in terms of good ) for the reality speaks in your face in terms of accidents, global warmings, nuclear disasters etc etc.amitash said:
1. & 2. Indeed so.
Certainly not, at least not today. There is evidence of such animosity in the past though. But my argument of Shaivism and Vaishnism was not regarding intolerance but regarding the misconception that Hinduism is homogeneous, or that the mere floating of the term in the air would mean anything at all. Hinduism is a sum greater than its parts. So please do me a favour and don’t conflate everything into tolerance v/s intolerance.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. Opinion about self is irrelevant. I can think of myself as superman. But I wouldn’t be perceived as superman, unless I really show, what a superman is supposed to do. Personal faith or practice is not a matter of concern, as long as it remains personal.
Nope, you don’t have to. I remember how he rejected “smriti” as scriptures, not realizing that Gita is a “smriti”. Actually that link was a huge turn-off, cause I have seen better arguments.
And you keep on proving my point. Now you are defending the word “mleccha”.
Lets see…
O no. Not again.
Actually no religious text says that it is the best. What they do say, though, is that their godhead is the only godhead and rest are a nullity or inferior. Bible does that. Koran does that. And your Gita does that too. Some samples from your Gita. (Translations by Swami Sivananda)
First, Kamasutra is medieval Mills & Boons, (read it to know it) and has nothing to do with divinity. Sculptures at Kahjuraho, also do not depict divine in the nude or in sexual act.
Thanks for the clarification.
Please tell us what you think, science is.
Buddhism, is what Buddha taught. One who follows Buddha’s teachings is called a Buddhist. Hinduism is a way of life, reflected in certain ancient texts. One who follows that way of life is a Hindu. What Krishna taught, rather lectured, came to be known as Gita. One who follows that, is called a Vaishnab.
on its reply u posted this
Today when Amitash, Karni refers u some book, quotes, links, u just forget what u told already. U r contradicting urself. (as I've already said u r confused). U ask us to verify/experiment ourselves all theories that science have provided with proof till date. Why would we do that.
Thats new! I hope you know what vairagi and sanyasi is. When I was discussing science, you did not discuss science and now when the topic is more about "Is religion at fault in killing", you are generalising on me and putting up emotional statements. Oh well, guess that u. karnivore said:
You got it wrong! I couldn't get "pravupada's interpretation. Can you give me the source?kanrivore said:
I don't know where you got that from, for what I know is actually the opposite i.e all the other gods i.e Indra etc took the help of the supreme one i.e Vishnu when their thrown was at stake. Further, I think your translation of "trivikrama" is wrong.karnivore said:
I really don't know much about Ganesha, Durga, Kali or even Shiva for I'm still learning what is distorted and what is not. I disagree about Ram though, reasons already given!karnivore said:
AFAIK, Manusmriti was practised much intensely in the past. So again, we need to clear out what was the real thing.karnivore said:
It is not irrelevant. By exluding me, you ignoring the part of statistics that you are basing your judgement on and hence your judgement is bound to be flawed. And further, you will find plenty of people like me. My opinions have not come from meditation, but reading the reads suggested by other people and after much inspection "agreeing" with them. And hence you will find plenty of people who are more knowledgable than me. I guess you are only biased. Besides, superman is an incorrect analogy!karnivore said:
AFAIK, he didn't "reject" smritis, but only called em as "commentaries" on Vedas, and "not Gita". Further he said that Ramayan, Gita and Vedas are the only supreme Hindu scriptures. I guess you did not understand what he said.karnivore said:
May be the stress on the "meaning" of the name that you quoted yourself?karnivore said:
Like I said, keep abrahamic religion out of the debate. I'm not willing to even read on them.karnivore said:
Like I said you don't have the unbias when it comes to religion. Let me show you your flaws...karnivore said:
mediator said:
1) My point was not about divinity. Go figure?karnivore said:
I won't!! First you agree we are going round and round in circles, repititions etc. Second, you did not read the discussion from start and now you are devising a strategy to kill me? I'm done with repitions!karnivore said:
Again reading a reply to someone else requires......do I need to tell again? or go figure?karnivore said:
I know what a Vairagi is, do u know? Don't go by the meaning of the word, u'll be mislead, know why they are Vairagi ?^Vairagis and Sanyasis fighting??
I didn't discuss?!!!When I was discussing science, you did not discuss science and now when the topic is more about "Is religion at fault in killing", you are generalising on me and putting up emotional statements. Oh well, guess that u.
U want "prabhupada", let me give u enough links with his audio interview which will make ur day.
Yes, its important. If he can do it for 9 of his, then he should have mentioned about that too.
as I just wrote above.
First, krishna did never told about "Buddha" avatar, he can never tell as "Buddha" was not his avatar.
I guess u'll agree "prabhupada" being more knowledgeble than u in this topic.It is not irrelevant. By exluding me, you ignoring the part of statistics that you are basing your judgement on and hence your judgement is bound to be flawed. And further, you will find plenty of people like me. My opinions have not come from meditation, but reading the reads suggested by other people and after much inspection "agreeing" with them. And hence you will find plenty of people who are more knowledgable than me. I guess you are only biased. Besides, superman is an incorrect analogy!
Read the translations of veda. Krishna is also an avatar of Vishnu. so he can't claim none is greater than him.
*krishna.org/sunday-feast-lecture-the-higher-science/
for this I want to quote Prabhupada again2. "Surrender to me" does not mean "you are doomed". I certainly wasn't expecting this kind of view from you.
Further "surrender to me" has various aspects like from worshipping, "karma", "spiritual knowledge", "love" etc.
At the beginning of the process u r discouraged, so how do u see a success in pessimism. U r told to stay with the flock, else very hard to get to the goal.
And u go read the proofs on Newtons law, relativity, quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, DNA structure, RNA structure etc.
No religion tells to kill. Its how u interpret to defend u certain activity which in turn becomes a distorted truth in near future. Remember I told u how history proves that a long practiced false ideology becomes truer than the truth. It happened with them too.4) The fallacy is in your judgement. Check the statistics and acquaint yourself with the reality to know yourself. Next, read the scriptures to know which religion is telling to kill. You certainly did not entertain my request to do that in the first place.
What about the recent news on the controversy on "Charlie Chaplin" statue in south. which was removed from its place due to oppose of some hindus.
First, the link to Prabhupada’s translation.
Look around more.
Missed the point again. What I showed you is that, whatever you are saying, can exactly be said, by anyone, about his religion. Abrahamic or not.
you said:
me said:
Remind me please, who was it, who filled pages after pages on a thread about how people “reject without considering” or some sh!t like that, and how that makes them rigid.
First you have already proved my point:
No problem. Don’t worry, I won’t harangue. But, it appears a bit dishonest, when you repeatedly judge someone, while you yourself refuse to show your own understanding on the subject.
Asked some uncomfortable questions, didn’t I ?
Wrong! The point from the start was that all religions are not the same. You yourself categorised two i.e jainism and buddism under a category.karnivore said:
3) Yes, but AFAIK, Vishnu purana is the oldest purana and it has prophesized the avatars in it.karnivore said:
Do you understand how the words of the self proclaimed buddhist are simpy not conforming to buddhism?kalkipurana said:
What you are quoting is only getting absurd.karnivore said:
Again my point, that all religions are not same and from the start I have mentioned only a few religions to talk on with amitash until when you showed up and tried to take it to new directions without even reading what was being debated and expecting something more. So in simple terms, you did nothing but trolling.karnivore said:
Yes, you can "assume" from "your" side that your point has been proven!karnivore said:
Here's another verse...commentary said:
Nope, IMO, only amitash has put the most logical and genuine arguments so far if a comparison is made.karnivore said:EDIT: Damn you rhitwick for comming up with better replies.
Nope, about 90% of your posts, IMO, are repeated everytime and that question was a part of the posts that you missed while I replied to amitash everytime. Further if you think I'm being uncomfortable, then think again. I didn't ask you to quote on eastern religions for no reason! And further, I'm not just debating with you. I think you do not understand these lines I put in most of the debates.karnivore said:
3. Vishnu Purana mentions, Maurya empire, which automatically makes it a post-Buddha, post-Mahavira text. Prophesizing the past is pretty easy. If you want to pretend to know something, at least google about it for 2 minutes.
Firstly, you have now started justifying calling another religion, “enemy”. See you prove us right once again. We kept on arguing, that religion doesn’t specifically ask one to hate anyone, but provides justification for “hatred”. You have found your own justification. Perhaps you are not “hating”, in the stricter sense of the word, but the battle lines have already been drawn in your mind. That’s what that matters.
One last shot: What if someone claims that he is the MOST intelligent person on the forum. Where does that place you ? Please explain that without resorting to unnecessary sarcasm.
Says the one, who didn’t even know, till today, who Prabhupada was. Hilarious.
I had retained the word “Me”, because it means the godhead (i.e. the supreme god with all his avatars). I had put “Krishna” in the bracket, as a reference to the context, which is Krishna speaking to Arjuna. Your penchant for picking up the peripheral issues and ignoring the main point, is now approaching the bizarre.
You are fighting a loosing battle and you don’t even realize that.
Pruabhupada, translates the same verse (BG 7.15) as:
Karni is right. U always defend urserlf under meaning of words. U didn't even understood what "all religions are same" means. It does not mean that all the verses, quotes from their Gurus (I'm generalizing the source of that religion) have to be exact word by word, letter by letter, punctuation by punctuation (font color, size, smilies etc)
First the internet source of Vishnu Purana
Book III, chapter XVII, Vishnupurana
BOOKIII, Chapter XVIII, Vishnupurana.
(already proved how those two buddhas are diff. but couldn't resist to reply this post)
Already told about Buddha, so no point discussing again.
So, what? Just because it was mentioned in their works it does not mean this Buddha is that Buddha.
FYI, Krishna avatara was in Dwapar yuga. The order of Yugas are like this: Satya, Treta, Dwapar and Kali.
I've already described how all religions are same and just because we are differing with your opinion, does not mean we are trolling.Again my point, that all religions are not same and from the start I have mentioned only a few religions to talk on with amitash until when you showed up and tried to take it to new directions without even reading what was being debated and expecting something more. So in simple terms, you did nothing but trolling.
So, u accepted mathematics. Wow! Phew! So, from now on at least u won't mind if we refer u some links which requires some level "basic" knowledge. Whoa, that’s a breather.
Its not we, its u (theists) who pointed to science. U asked us to verify, re prove all those theorems (calculus, quantum physics in ur language) by ourselves.
To be correct it would be "Every theistic religion has their supreme god."
That’s ur interpretation.
LOL!!!
SO u tell how was it told?
Lol! Divide and rule, eh?
Ur metaphors are not understood by most of us (lesser human beings) including AmitashNope, about 90% of your posts, IMO, are repeated everytime and that question was a part of the posts that you missed while I replied to amitash everytime. Further if you think I'm being uncomfortable, then think again. I didn't ask you to quote on eastern religions for no reason! And further, I'm not just debating with you. I think you do not understand these lines I put in most of the debates.
@rhitwick you are only wasting your time. I already said I'm not gonna entertain you. Why even bother then? Accept you own statement one more time.rhitwick said:
The point reflects pretty well on you, "that if you want to know something then google it". So all this time I believe you've done nuthing bt googling instead of genuinely reading GITA. You are repeatedly at flaw on Gita and googling is a naive solution to finding such answers!!karnivore said:
article said:
You seem to be jumping to conclusions very quick. Now where did I "justify" another religion as "enemy" which is considered a "part of Hinduism" itself by many? You seem to contradict your own point. Please tell us in "detail" where's the "hatred"? And no, battles lines are not drawing on my mind, but I believe its your hatred for religion which is making you impotent to understand my posts and jumping to all sorts of illogical and wierd conclusions.karnivore said:
My nature doesn't contain filters of hatred to accept or reject something. I simply wont care if someone says he is a dumbass or intelligent. Intelligence is not shown by mere mumbling but by showcasing it and AFAIK, arjuna's every sorrow, confusion and grief was removed afterwards. I happen to agree with most verses of Gita after deep thoughts. But like I said I have not seen a god and I don't pray. I hope you already know that.karnivore said:
Is it important to know who all "translate" and "comment" about Gita, then just reading GITA yourself? I don't even know who all major Hindu preachers are.karnivore said:
And that "me" is not a person, but the supreme nature, the supreme reality. And don't forget the verse 9.23.karnivore said:
So, with hatred towards religion mixed with emotional psyche just becoz you have been proved wrong on the verses, you are now further treating this is as a battle?karnivore said:
Thats again quoting without understanding. Like I said, the defintion of him has been clearly mentioned by "him"karnivore said:
IMO, Indians are hindu, since it was a term originally used my mughals to identify Indians. So originally Hindu meant all those living in India "irrespective of faith". I believe you simply did not ask the correct question. Take your time.karnivore said:
I certainly didn't attack anyone so far, did I? I may "question" (not attack) in future, who knows? But it wud be the logic not the credibility! Whereas most of your posts can be predicted now. The only random factor remains where I expect intelligence from you and you do the opposite. You still haven't read GITA genuinely without any bias, but only doing little "googles" n then quoting out of context.karnivore said:
IMO, Indians are hindu, since it was a term originally used my mughals to identify Indians. So originally Hindu meant all those living in India "irrespective of faith". I believe you simply did not ask the correct question. Take your time.
@rhitwick you are only wasting your time. I already said I'm not gonna entertain you. Why even bother then? Accept you own statement one more time.
Replying to someone is your prerogative so I can’t ask you to reply to rhitwick. But, just to let you know, he is making some really valid points and avoiding him is like avoiding his points.
If you think, just by googling you can come up with verses from Gita, that would support your view, then my friend, you do not have a clue about the enormity of the text. It is almost impossible to pick up verses, unless one has some sense of the arrangement of these verses, the chapters and the nature of these chapters.
Wrong. First, Rg Veda, the sanctum sanctorum of the vedic texts, do not talk of reincarnation. Second, in Hinduism, reincarnation is when soul takes birth in a new body. (Sort of old wine in new bottle type stuff) In other words, soul is central to reincarnation. Buddha rejected the idea of soul and so reincarnation in Buddhism is entirely different from that of Buddhism. Buddhism believes in transmigration.
Nirvana, in Buddhism, is, when body transcends the (earthly) miseries e.g. the cycle of birth and death, by following the 8 fold path. Besides, Nirvana is attainable by anybody. Moksha, in Hinduism, is when, one realizes the Brahman, the One. Only a Brahmin can attain Moksha. Two entirely different concepts.
Yes, but again with a difference. In Hinduism, its all a maya, and the suffering is because we do not realize the Brahman. While in Buddhism, misery is inherent to birth, a reality.
Physical world is illusory in Hinduism, but in Buddhism it is a reality.
So ?
Buddha never claimed to be a god, in fact he rejected that there is any god. He rejected idol worship or any objectification. The relation between the Buddha and his devotees is more like a teacher and disciple, and not like a provider and receiver, like, for example, Krishna and Vaishabs. In fact, influence of Buddhism in Hinduism has been profound. The most notable influence has been the concept of “Ahimsa”.
“Many” believe that modern Hinduism is part of Islam and “many” other believe that it is part of Christianity. I hope, you are not going to go into some sort of seizure now.
By that you mean, from your Hindu perspective.
I am touched by your concern.
I had read about dating of ancient Indian texts, a long time back, and in it I came across the fact that the Maurya empire was mentioned in Kalki Purana. (If I recall correctly it was a name of a king of Maurya dynasty). It escaped my memory until you raised the topic. To be certain I googled and found my confirmation. Googling is easy, I know, but you have to know “what” you are looking for. This “what” part is the hardest part.
And by using it, you are yourself telling us, what it is supposed to mean.
Regarding abrahamic religion:
mediator said:
And if one searches this forum, many such gems would be found.mediator said:
Nice way to sidestep the point. But, finally you have realized, the stand an agnostic/atheist take with respect to religion. That wasn’t too hard, was it.
Not “all” but at least the ones who are considered as authority. Why ? Because - one, most of us are not as intelligent as we think we are; two, academic study, something different from religious mass consumption.
What I said was: “I had retained the word “Me”, because it means the godhead (i.e. the supreme god with all his avatars).” Which part of the “godhead”, you didn’t understand ?
If you are saying it, then it must be right. But I agree, dismissing Prabhupada is beyond you. I am glad that you haven’t used your typical ad homenims against him, just to score a brownie point against me. Wise decision.
Yes, ONE such definition, but not the ONLY definition. You accused me of being selective, and here you are, being selective in choosing “his” definition. But its OK, except that you got the meaning of BG 7.8 wrong (because you are making literal interpretation), which actually speaks of all-pervasiveness of the godhead and extends beyond the physical “nature”.
Your obsession with the Mughals is now getting a bit irritating. The word “hindu” makes its appearance, for the first time, in Persian texts. It meant, those who live on the other side (east) of the river Sindhu. Ancient Persian didn’t have a “S” and was replaced by “H”. Thus from Sindhu to Hindu. The word is also found in Greek texts as well. Much later Mughals started using the term, for administrative purpose, to make a distinction between the Muslims, Sikhs and the rest. This was followed by the British as well, and it was them, who gave an official recognition to “Hinduism” as distinct religion.
If it makes you feel good, I am cool with it.
That means u don't even know who were Hindu...
Is it so? How about skipping those two words "LOL and hilarious" and read the whole post. If u ask I'll edit my post for ur smooth read.
Well, I accept again that in certain topic when my opponent claims that he/she has much much more knowledge than me, then I assume that I'm a noob in comparison to him/her. I then ask to make me understand, enlighten the poor soul. Guess what, those knowledgeable persons totally ignore this request. Either they they don't want to share their knowledge or they don't have anything to share.
) which I made after reading the first 3 pages (My post even mentions it). After making the post I read the whole thread till that page. And came to know about ur "pink unicorn" and "clock". If I were from the beginning of this thread u would have find me posting more.
This is dangerous! As his claims won't be verifiable. Science discards anything which is not verifiable, he id doing nothing better than a theist who just goes and claims something "putting his own views".
Well, u google and provide comments that suits u (now, don't say u didn't google as u own "those" sites/blogs) and I googled and provide comments which suited me best.
Guess what, u refer a book to prove ur auguments are proper and I use the same book to show that ur arguments are false.
Intolerence is not mentioned in any book or verse.
And thats your problem. Explaining to you is like "bhains ke saamne been bajana". Your troll tells that you r ignorant on the enlightenment I gave long ago. i.e Read the complete GITA.rhitwick said:
You should be concerned bt yourself rather than your "friend" in a debate. Besides, you did not read Gita completely or the commentraies I put up. You are neither giving your "own" views on the different verses of Gita but only "googling". That is like "avoiding" the discussion with your opponent.karnivore said:
Exactly what reflects on you and what I'd been telling you. With 9.22 you forgot 9.23. All the verses are somehow connected and wisdom lies in reading them all unbiasedly instead of a mere googling for a few.karnivore said:
Deviation from the point has become something of your interest isn't it?karnivore said:
Like I repeatedly state now, you say something without even understanding it. Understand if you can...karnivore said:
Why digress again? In simple terms it means materialistc attachement.karnivore said:
Who is talking about the physical world only? I think I discussed spirituality in some thread at length. Spirituality deals with the state of mind, nature also. e.g nirvana that you quoted yourself.karnivore said:
I never view anything from a perspective for even perspective might lead to a bias, but I view like a student who has "no tags" on him.karnivore said:
For their belief they should conform tokarnivore said:
Quoting the scriptures and facts is not called "Hindu perspective". Like I said Buddha was more like "removing" "distortions in Hinduism" though not entirely. So just like you, these buddhists happen to quote manusmriti and cast system "by birth" and seem to have something against the brahmins. Did you understand anything remarkable?karnivore said:
Like I said you jump to conclusion very soon.karnivore said:
What if I say I understand GITA without the guidance of any 3rd party authority? You don't always need tuition do you? Commentaries are for those who can't understand the verses themselves. You fit the case perfectly. You are only googling and quoting a few verses for your own agenda.karnivore said:
And like I said Krishna is merely an avatar, like his other 9 counterparts with "names". Avatars merely had roles in establishing the righteousness. I also said behind the "name" is the true definition of that "Me" that also maps to the supreme "nature" in which you are living and breathing and providing you food to live on. This nature is functioning on its own and we are not controlling it. Sun is emitting light and you are surviving on it. Sunlight is essential for human bones and for sustaining "warmth" on earth. It is this nature that pervades everything. It is this supreme being/nature which is different from avatars.karnivore said:
Like I said read GITA urself, for explaining this now will lead to massive repeatitions.karnivore said:
I accept my fault. But it was not completely wrong! My meaning was Sindhu only and where I was at fault was at "persian" I believe.karnivore said:
I'm honoured! So please take my friendly advise and read Gita completely.karnivore said:
i think it goes the other way before the invasion of the British there were no clear idea about Hinduism
Calm down. Loosing a debate is not the end of the world.
You are my friend too, I suppose.
If that thought makes your day, I have no problem.
How do you think I knew, that verse 9.22 is what I am looking for. Rest assured Krishna didn’t whisper into my ears.
1. If Buddha preached something, that is not attested by veda, does that make him pro-veda.
The reply lies in this question: How do you suppose, a sudra will attain moksha ?
“Maya” in Hinduism refer to the dream dreamt by the Brahman, the One. Thus we are all animated characters in his dream and what we see all around, is illusory, even our suffering. But Buddha, rejected the idea of the One. Therefore, the sufferings are real.
Read the above first. Now, since the whole world, that is our world, is illusory, even the attachment to materialistic pleasures is also, an illusion. Spirituality for Hinduism, is transcending this illusion. Capische.
People who have argued, against your point of view, will disagree. But then again, can any opinion be without perspective. Even, neutrality is a perspective.
They actually quote verses to support their theory.
First:
And then later:mediator said:
Not withstanding the childish assumption that China will remain communist or Buddhism will survive for the next 427,000 years (Kalki is set to appear 432,000 years after the beginning of Kali-yug and only 5,000 odd years have passed since the beginning), the point is, that the mention of the word, “Buddhist”, as enemy, has led you (not you, personally) to look for attributes that appear like Buddhism, which is a “nastik” concept, ergo communism. In other words, you have defined your (i.e. Humanity’s) enemy, in terms of “Buddhism” and its attributes. Hence, the justification.mediator said:
Everytime you imply that Buddha is Vishnu’s avatar, or is somehow part of Hinduism, you are using a “Hindu perspective”. Period. You are regarding Hindu texts as something axiomatic. Guess what ? It is not.
And more often than not, they turn out to be right.
I agree, I am not uber intelligent like you are, and I do need some authority to clarify things. But then again, what is it that Gita says about “ego” ?
Guess who is repeating and clutching at straws.me said:
One repetition is not going to kill us, would it. So do explain, why we should consider “nature” as “his” only definition, and not consider those that defines “him”, as the “cause”, the “creator”, the “ruler”, the “enforcer of rules” ect. of Universe. And also, explain, what “taste of water”, “light of the sun and moon” and “Om” in BG 7.8 represent.
Do I believe in nature ? Don’t I believe nature works without human control ? Of course I do. Do I think Sun has anything to do with “human control” ? Of course not.
At the core of the Vedas is the concept of the One, called the Brahman. Everything in Hinduism, gets explained in terms of the Brahman. Buddha rejected this idea of the One and therefore the very heart of Hinduism. How does that make him pro-Vedas. As with “intolerance”, scroll back and read the verses from Gita again.
Not really. The undercurrent between Vaishnavs and Shaivites is pretty strong. You will never see a Vaishnav visiting a Sahivite temple and vice-versa. Also, the birth of these religions came along as criticism against Hinudism or as protest against Brahminism, and all had to withstand the onslaught. Can you explain why Buddhism, which was once the majority religion in India, is virtually non-existence in India.
I agree, and always do, that eastern religions are not as bellicose as the abrahamic religions and I have given a very brief reasoning as well - among other things, lack of central authority in most, and influence of Buddhism, as some say. In any case, Vaishnavs actually say what you are accusing other religion of.
Actually, Hinduism is also Monotheistic. Just that it hides under several layers of polythiesm, deism, pantheism, henotheism and for an average Hindu, it is virtually impossible to reach to the monotheistic aspect of hinduism. In any case, realizing this monotheistic aspect of Hinduism is all about attaining "moksha".Monotheism was a great gift from Gods
Only if it were that simple.
Well, u've efficiently replied to ichi, I've nothing to add more.
Yeah, wrangle do happen in a family. But all of them are Hindus only.
Well...you do know that Brahmins have used Hinduism to their advantage for many centuries. They secured their inheritance with caste system (distorted version of Varna) and other means.
It encompasses various school of thoughts (there is no single authority over it). There have been people who disregarded beliefs in Vedas and those who believed in it. Duality and non-duality has been in debate by scholars. Some supported materialism and some opted for spiritualism.
Oh, I am an atheist
I believe in materialism.
Agreed. But the problem is, if you are inherently bigoted, religion will give you more ammunition. That was my basic argument. It will show you whatever you want to see.
If muslim invasion was one reason, then the question would be, why didn't Sikhism disappear, or for that matter Hinduism. Actually, even before, the muslim invasion, Buddhism was languishing. The muslim invasion drove the last nail.
Yes, most of the rituals that you see today, originated during that period when the Brahmins were running amok. However, I do not think that caste system is a "distorted" version of verna. I would say, it is ONE interpretation of verna. Maybe someday, I will post something about it.
Agreed. But the rise of fanatics like RSS is also a matter of concern.
I would say, that it is more or less a fair assessment.
And that makes you a rational person.
I guess you meant atheistic (or is it aesthetic). I don't think, the principle that went into the concept of Ayurveda and Yoga are atheistic. Of course, these can be easily disassociated from their spiritual moorings, and in that sense, yes, these are atheistic. Sulabhsutra is not exactly a book of science. It is actually a do-it-yourself guide book to build fire alters needed for yajnas. The acceptence was only natural. Kamsutra was a novel, and sex always sells
. Charak Samhita, is full of superstitious ways of treating diseases. Not exactly atheistic.Welcome to the club.Oh, I am an atheist
rhitwick said:
"bhains ke saamne been bajana" is a proverb. Dunno why you highlighted the "bhains"karnivore said:
I hope you understand what a proverb is. And why didn't you knew 9.23? Actually there are more and I know Krishna won't whisper them into your ears. Googling is an easy way to find from critic sites the "one liners" which make assumptions from one verse which is clearly reflecting from your posts. Normally a critic would think that Krishna is glorifying "the person".karnivore said:
1. That doesn't make him "anti-veda" either. So running away from the original logic isn't a good idea. Instead simply accept he wasn't "anti-veda".karnivore said:
Verify that both are buddhist sites. Further I believe it is useless to talk on Buddhist view on soul since we both do not know much on Buddhism as much as we know on Hinduism. The topic started from proving "where Buddha is preaching intolerance or saying I'm the best", then it was about "Buddha being anti-veda".firstlink said:
article said:
Shudra is not a species that he can't attain moksha. Before assuming anything, just remember that dronacharaya, kripacharya became "kshatriya" the moment they set foot on the battle ground in Mahabharata. So, Shudra can attain moksha just like any other class through yoga, through enlightenment etc.karnivore said:
It doesn't mean it is "animated" or we are "animated characters"karnivore said:
Please ponder...Like I said do they conform to the various conditions? Further do they have much sanskrit connection? Remember, buddhism has profound sanskrit connection.karnivore said:
Your justification is flawed and is very poor. No one is looking for "attributes like buddhism". Not believing in God can also refer to Jainism. Then why not jainsim?karnivore said:
Like I said, care to read GITA urself? I have started feeling more like a preacher, correcting you on every single step.karnivore said:
Like I said you may agree to its verses and you may not. You are an atheist yourself. So why even bother? The point still remains "where is the intolerance"?karnivore said:
Hence, you directly agree that you believe in the supreme nature or the definition of that "Me" that u consider only as a part.karnivore said:
Here’s a Bengali proverd for you:
As usual, peripheral arguments. This time around, it is the word “anti”. Anyway.
Not sure, what you intend to say through those highlighted parts. The first bold talks of “continuous change”, not same as the continuity between changes. (For example, you may continuously put on a shirt, take it off, put on another and so on. So there is continuous change of shirt. But the continuity between these changes of shirt is the self, since you are putting on that shirt on yourself. This is how, Hinduism use the concept of soul). In the last paragraph, though, the author makes a distinction between rebirth and transmigration, saying, “in Buddhism we do not believe in an abiding entity, in a substance that trans-migrates”, clearly rejecting the concept of soul. He continues that they “do not believe in a self that is reborn.” I have no problem with that statement, either.
Buddhism has several schools within itself. So it doesn’t matter if the sites are both Buddhist ones. What matters is, what they are saying. Your first link only defines rebirth. Read it. But then again, your frequency is so high, it might not even register on your radar.
1. Please show me where, Buddha claimed that “Gayatri Mantra” is the premier mantra.
Before making tall claims, read about your own religion a bit. Only Brahmins and Kshatriyas are allowed to go to gurukul (roughly speaking school), to study Vedas, applicable to Brahmins or to study art of war, applicable to Kshatriyas. Vysas and Sudras are not allowed to do so. Sudras, on the other hand are supposed to serve the Brahmins and Kshatriyas, all their life. They are not allowed to study Vedas. So how will they know of yogas and be enlightened. Who will teach them these important aspect of their religion. Its one thing to say they can. Its another thing to ensure that they can.
“Animation” as in “Suspended Animation”, not hand drawn, computer generated cartoon characters.
Yes, with some mental gymnastics, like you often do. And Sanskrit is a language. What has language got to do with religion ?
I said “attributes of Buddhism”, didn’t specify what attributes. And if Buddhism and Jainism were same, why would we call them by separate names. Here’s something you had said earlier:
Then later clarified:mediator said:
Confused ?mediator said:
First, I quoted those figures, using the phrase “not withstanding”, meaning ignore it.
Because, people like you make literal translation of words, and the word “Buddhist” is mentioned in your purana. Hence, everything seems to you like a “symptom” of Buddhism. If Jainism was mentioned, the same symptoms would have appeared to be like that of Jainism.
The reason, why I didn’t quote verse 9.23 is precisely because, it is not as boastful as 9.22. Verse 9.23 has a different connotation, which, we can now safely conclude, you don’t have a clue of.
That’s the best you could do (or should I say come up with, after much googling ?). Which part of “taste” and “om” is energy and/or elements. Lets forget it for the time being. If that’s what it is supposed to mean, why not stop at those words only ? Why go on to add “water” and “sun and moon” ? What is the connotation of “water” here ? How does “water” even have a taste ? Is it sweet, sour, salty, bitter ? Oops I just gave away a hint. If it were all about examples, then why “water”, why not “food” ? After all it is very easy to associate a taste with food.
So basically, if I believe that nature is not within “human control” it automatically means that I believe “in the supreme nature or the definition of that Me”. Because, hey, if it is not under “human control” it has to be under something’s control.
1. The very core of Hinduism is Vedas. Where did he "reject" Vedas. Why are you ranting and not showing where he "rejected" Gayatri mantra which is also at the core of Hinduism? Further many of the teachings of Vedas resemble that of Buddhism. "Rejection" of something means "rejection" of its teachings also not the term only. And so learn how buddhists chant vedas.karnivore said:
And so, where is the "intolerance" in the Buddhist scriptures for Hinduism, where is Buddha saying "Buddha is the best"?? I hope you still remember the topic of the discussion that started with @amitash.karnivore said:
1) Do I need to show you everything? First the Gita verse by verse and now this? Know yourself the life of Buddha and how buddhists chant the Gayatri Mantra.karnivore said:
He simply puts a premise and then reasons i.e presmise => reason!article said:
I dunno how much you will keep glorifying your ignorance. But neways, in a school a student "irrespective" of his cast "by birth" was allowed. A student has no tags. He is not a shudra or a brahmin. A brahmin means a teacher, knowledgeable one. And no one is born knowledgable and hence no one is a born brahmin. Again you have started repeating your full fledged ignorance on "varna system" for an umpteenth time.karnivore said:
I believe you know, but you are not accepting it because of your hatred towards religion and that is why you keep on speaking the same thing everytime Hinduism is discussed, The following 2 are prominent in your repeatitionskarnivore said:
The clarification was given in the same set of statements for the confused souls who might get confused after reading "Kalki Puran" and get excited by a mere mention of buddhists and not the symptoms like of the King I already showed. kalki Purana has whole lot of symtoms. It doesn't say those who "are spiritual", "believe in rebirth", "karma" etc will be attacked.karnivore said:
Ok I think we can play proverb game in chit chatkarnivore said:
O'reilly?karnivore said:
Your hatred towards religion is obviously obstructing you to see the bigger and the real picture. The energy is the sunlight and "Om" means both knowledge and sound energy." The elements is again an example of the "all pervasivess"karnivore said:
I believe the nature is cause, the ruler, the enforcer of the rules itself. For a proponent of Big Bang like you, it shouldn't be hard to understand. We didn't have all the physics rules at t=0 did we? Further, why even bother on "theistic" meanings when you are an atheist yourself? And hence, consider the nature as "his" only defintion for that might be easier for you.karnivore said:
1. Why are you intentionally digressing. The core of Hinduism is Vedas. The core of Vedas is the Brahman. Buddha rejected the Brahman, the whole concept of One god. Therefore, rejected the core of Vedas, therefore the core of Hinduism. Comprende. It doesn’t mean one has to reject every single verse of the Vedas, every single philosophy enshrined in it. Rejecting the core is enough. Most of the corollaries will automatically become redundant, some won’t.
What has “Buddha is the best” got to do with that reply of mine. I was supporting my stand on transmigration. Conflating everything into everything else, is not going to earn you any brownies. I do remember the topic of discussion, but pity, you don’t remember which point led to what argument and mixing it all up. Here’s what I had said before:
karnivore said:
1. If you have made a claim, then its your responsibility to prove it. Not mine. Since you haven’t proved that Buddha said something to the effect, that “Gayatri Mantra is the premier mantra”, the point, therefore stands rejected.
First, I see, now you have edited out the Brahman part. Good. You are learning fast.
Oversight. Apologies.
Since we are in Mahabharata, lets see what Krishna says about the duty of a Sudra: (Udyoga Parva, Chapter XXIX)
Give it a rest. Just because you have made a mistake, it doesn’t mean you have to keep on justifying it, by making more mistakes.
Then, what about this:
mediator said:
Again conflating.
Never mind. Beyond you.
You prove two points then.
Lets see. Nature is the “cause” and nature is the “effect”. Something which is the cause, is also the effect ? You are talented.
This is just a debate, for crying out loud. Loosing it isn’t the end of the road. As with the walk in the park, hey, I am the one who follows science, who doesn’t understand Hinduism, needs guidance on Gita (as per your assessment). Nothing is walk in the park for me.
Yes with a naive understanding, one can only tell what he understands. Like you didn't understand Gita, you don't understand Vedas also. The vedas clearly define the supreme reality like krishna does in Gita. "Om" is also one of the basic mantras in Vedas. It defines the energy and knowledge like I stated earlier and use your only source i.e google to know more about "Om" in Buddhism.karnivore said:
Again the topic was about "intolerance" and the point because of which you hate religion. So where is the religion preaching about intolerance?karnivore said:
Here's a list of Buddhist mantras.karnivore said:
1. Edited?karnivore said:
You know, having been a sanskrit student has its own perks. One good thing about sacred texts.com is that it also keeps the orginal sanskrit verses. Here's the original sanskrit for the thing you quoted.karnivore said:
Try to find these in K.M ganguli's work...verses said:
Yes pravupada's right. And do note it is the definition/"actions" of shudra and vaishya that is being explained, born out of their own nature. It is not having anything to do with "by birth".karnivore said:
Sorry for not reading this. Yes you are wrong. The basic sanskrit is wrong in the first case and your comprehension in the latter. I believe we should stop this verse by verse battle.karnivore said:
1) Hmmmm!karnivore said:
Still lingering on this one? Tell me seriously, is this how you gain knowledge via online tuitions? Why just quote a part of line again and again and why not quote the complete thing?karnivore said:
And you prove one thing => thats you hatred towards religion that is "assuming" such things!karnivore said:
Yeah rigid ideologies will always bring out more fundamentalists. Nazism and communism is quite similar.
During vedic age women enjoyed a major authority over rituals. Indus civilization head were women deities.
Well there is a richa in Rig Veda where the sage says:
Well neo-liberals consider them as Hindu Taliban
Thanks to our media too. IMO they can be defeated by one sure weapon - vote.Spelling mistakeI guess you meant atheistic (or is it aesthetic). I don't think, the principle that went into the concept of Ayurveda and Yoga are atheistic. Of course, these can be easily disassociated from their spiritual moorings, and in that sense, yes, these are atheistic. Sulabhsutra is not exactly a book of science. It is actually a do-it-yourself guide book to build fire alters needed for yajnas. The acceptence was only natural. Kamsutra was a novel, and sex always sells
Oh, btw I saw some unicorns on Harappa seals:
If I recall correctly, what I have said is:
karnivore said:
What took you so long to come up with that. In fact, it is all over the intertoobs. Yes, correct, he rejected the animal sacrifice part as well. Since you do not read my posts with much attention, here is what I had said earlier:
“Brahman” is not same as the “Brahmana”. Rejecting “Brahman” means rejecting the god. This god, has nothing to do with animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was inherent to “Brahmana” culture. “Brhamana” represented the priest class.karnivore said:
You know this is an open forum and anybody can check who said what. You implied that Buddha was one avatara of Vishnu (Post #1002). I argued (in your words “ranted”) it can’t be. The argument branched out of the main argument and that led to where we are now. I have myself delimited Buddhism from the main argument, by reminding you that Buddhism isn’t a theistic religion. Why are you dissembling ?
So a site, which is advertising CDs is an authentic source. Hari Om.
1. Never mind
Again conflating. Where did I quote these verses to prove that caste was from birth. I quoted these to remind you what Gita says about the duty of “sudras”, to backup my point that sudras weren’t allowed to study, as brahmins and kshatriyas were. Why are you being so dishonest.
Correct, I still don’t understand. Lets see now:
mediator said:
Give it a rest, now. Will ya.mediator said:
Your wish is my command. Doesn’t make too much of a difference. Does it ?
Hari Om.
Indus Civilization was not hindu.
Caste of Shivaji is a matter of contention. Everybody with an axe to grind, claims him to be of his caste. However, there is evidence to prove, that Shivaji believed himself to be of Kshatriya caste and before his coronation, he convinced his courtiers about this. However, the point is not if one Shivaji or another, belonged to the lower caste. The point, is what happened to the mass, who belonged to the lower caste.
Count me as a neo-liberal then. Btw, RSS do not fight elections. More importantly RSS represents an ideology, which, I find reflected, in some of the members of this board.
It depends how you would define “contrary to science”. In old times, science came not as a separate branch, or as quest for knowledge but as religious need. When to have yajnas, how to construct alters, when to have sacrifices etc. This trend prevails even today. Hence, all this mental contortion about how modern science was already known to the sages etc. If today I say the basis of Ayurveda is bunkum, you can expect some resolved protest, right here on this forum.
Naughty you
. It is still not pink or invisible. Is it.
Oh, then those baseless comments were ur explainations and I refused to be agree with it and I got this comment. Hmmm....
So, this is how you enlighten people. What about ur task? I asked you to prove math wrong?? Or read those topics, mechanics, newton's law etc.??
Hence, you directly agree that you believe in the supreme nature or the definition of that "Me" that u consider only as a part.
Now, I got it why you take time to understand some logics provided by us.
Yep a bit tedious. But there's not much of verification that can be done of K.M Ganguli's translations. Further, Gita has been verified and translated by different people. Krishna clearly tells about equality to all and hence stating another verse from mahabharata's udyog parva in which he says something opposite only points to the obvious mistranslation. Your verse from udyog parv is simply in contradiction to those of GITA. And since you quoted mahabharat here's more from it....karnivore said:
Oversight again? I know you can do it.mediator said:
Still repeating? Neways, where is the "non-acceptance" of OM? I hope you did not forget OM is the part of the core also and so is "karma".karnivore said:
Exactly my point. First you bring up a definition of "moksha" you didn't know about, then you ignorantly defined maya as some "animated characters" and constantly ranting afterwards that "I meant this and that", even said Buddha was anti-veda, then ranted illogically that "this doesn't mean he was pro-veda", bringing single verses of Gita and generalising on that.........So yes everyone can check!karnivore said:
Like I said its common sense based on what has been practised on the past. I believe you will need a "source" on whether buddha and his relatives were buried or burnt after death. Google my friend!karnivore said:
And hence you prove my point that you don't understand "varna system" even after repeated explanations. A student, a child when studies automatically "frees" himself of "shudra" definition. He may become ksahtriya (soldier) or brahmin (teacher) or anything depending upong his actions later. So a "shudra not allowed" is out of question and simply a childish statement.karnivore said:
Do you even understand the defintition of kshatriya?karnivore said:
I haven’t come across any severe criticism of K.M.Ganguli’s work. There have been a few, though. But you can always verify his work against the Sanskrit texts. While doing so, always remember that the arrangement of verses in KMG’s work will not tally with the Sanskrit version, which, I believe, is generally accepted among scholars as the better arrangement of the verses.
You are trying too hard. I have already mentioned, that when I start making arguments, that caste is based on birth, you can then, make merry, by quoting these verses. Do not show your cards, even before the game has begun.
No, not a case of oversight. I was under the impression that the real “homework” was to find, the word “suthra” as “sudra”. I also thought, in the excitement of fooling yourself to think that you have nailed my dick to my notebook screen, you have asked this, as an equivalent to popping your champagne. Funny part, is you still think, you have a case, because, you are still not paying attention to what I am saying. Remember what I said about KMG’s arrangement of MBH verses ? Here you go (3.179 as per KMG’s arrangement)
Actually HyperSnap v6. But the real question is, did you learn anything worthwhile ? (And no I am not talking about how to put a rectangle around a word.)
You are making me.
You are just clutching at straws. Don’t scratch the surface. Dig it. On the surface a whole lot of things seem similar, but only when you have dug in, you will start to see the differences.
Keep on deflecting arguments. See if that gets you anywhere close to “moksha”.
You are using “common sense” to narrate history ? Hari Om. In this debate alone, members have proved you wrong so many times over, that any other person would have actually been slightly humble. Offense is not always the best defense.
And I am asking, how do you ensure that the sudra gets to study ? Gita, specifically says, they are supposed to serve. Krishna, in MBH, even more bluntly says, they are not supposed to study.
You have in your previous posts, argued, by highlighting quotes from Gita, that caste is based on “nature”. Now you are saying, these are “defined in context to how they served the society.” So basically, if a person, who has the nature of a brahmin, and yet serves like a kshatriya, he becomes a khsatriya.
Yep, I must apologise to KM Ganguli for acting like you and generalising on one verse without even knowing the true nature of shudras.karnivore said:
Now thats what I call "Ignorance can be bliss!". Neways OM in hinduism represents energy, knowlege, trinity etc and remember knowledge is bliss.karnivore said:
YajurVeda is also known as Karma Veda. Shocking isn't it?karnivore said:
You really had me in splits.karnivore said:
Nuff said, I think I'm already bored.
A quick question though, why was Karna called sudra ? Which of the above criteria did he fulfill ?
Coming from someone, who is on record, claiming that he was better off not knowing his own society’s evils. Bravo.
Feeling the heat, aren’t we ? Here are two quick questions for you:
Voila, what took you so long:
Here’s what you had said earlier:karnivore said:
No profession here…mediator said:
No profession here, either…mediator said:
OOPSIE DAISY, still no profession…mediator said:
Bingo. Some hint of profession.mediator said:
And I was thinking that we are here, because I showed you something to that effect. Anyway, here it is again:
…and so begins the infinite loopkarnivore;post#999 said:
Where do I collect my gift vouchers ?
Just to remind you, Mahabharat is an Indian story which tells "how low" the Indian society became at some time in dvaparyuga wherekarnivore said:
Since you brought up Gita so here it is ....karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Me feeling heat? Nah, I'm bored by ur rants and repetitions and off-topic trolls. And this is my facial expression most of the times =>karnivore said:
Yeah again a situation similar to "verse by "verse"?karnivore said:
mediator said:
The infinite loop was obstructed by my "asterisk made power point presentation" for you, where I told you their meanings, more verses and commentaries which explain it and the complete meaning of "lowest of men, evil doers" etc that is "concluded" from whole GITA and not just these single verses that you quote repeatedly out of your hatred towards religion. Again you write these verses, single verses to generalise on whole GITA? Brilliant, Remarkable!karnivore said:
Have mercy on me, stop your repetitions and trolls! And you can have it.karnivore said:
ok.
We cannot categorically deny it and here is some evidence:
RSS cannot win without their pawns in politics. Remember this time commies got a kick on their balls
Even Shiv Sena lost its value in significant areas.Ok. So it proves that science can co-exist with Indian religions.
According to science, Universe itself is an accident. Life is also an accident. Penicillin invention was also an accident. Benzene structure was also an accident.
I wish there was color photography then. And may be a video camera tooNaughty you
…and the award for the best contortion goes to <drumroll>……
Ergo, non-theistic. Ergo, rejection of core of Hinduism. Yes I know you have done your best to prove that rejection of “typical God definition” doesn’t mean rejection of Vedas. That’s why here’s a homework for you. Remove all “typical God definitions” from your Vedas. Now tell us, how will you define:
What, you become maroon ? Deep breathing is the need of the day. Hari Om.Me feeling heat? Nah, I'm bored by ur rants and repetitions and off-topic trolls. And this is my facial expression most of the times =>
So “karma” is reaping what one sows. Ok. Then how does it relate to past lives, O teacher.
Yeah ok, I will “forget who called it karmaveda or where”. This is fun. I will make a claim. Then, when asked to support it, I will ask my opponent to forget it. I guess you were using your “common sense” here as well. Yes teacher. Whatever you say.
Now read on…mediator said:
Picking up a stick and fighting off a thief => “by karma become kshatriya, contributing to the society”.
“The intent in the mind is not a single statement. It proceeds with the action of "picking up a stick and fighting off a thief"”
Of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas, as also the Sudras, O Arjuna, the duties are distributed according to the qualities born of their own nature! (18.41)mediator said:
Nice projection but. Lets see now.
Exactly how do you suppose the god will say something.
Something I had said before:
karnivore said:
First Mahabharat is not a person that you are absurdly saying => "you do realize that many of the “qualifications of sudra” on the list of qualities that you had earlier compiled, come from the MBH itself."karnivore said:
The same way I defined the "ME" in GITA. You don't realize that what you are discussing goes the same way it went for GITA and much further since Vedas consists of scientific knowledge too.karnivore said:
Both are considered religions. So is Hinduism. Read my friend, and comprehend what happened bet. me and amitash.karnivore said:
You r the ONE!karnivore said:
I don't get you, after a two-three page long fight, providing verse after verse from Mahabharata and Gita, u suddenly started claiming its an epic and its not "THAT" believable
Again, how are these two questions related to the "problem statement"?
I'm compelled to do this, "LOL".
Now, if you still didn't recollect that GITA is an effect of Mahabharata (as told in the "EPIC") and as "Not everyone was correct", can the whole Gita be incorrect as someone from the "everyone" (all characters of Mahabharata) is imagined to be dictating The Gita.
Well, let me post another part of ur evolution or, this time its more of a chameleon act. here it goes,
Well, at this phase of debate [means when Amitash started with someone else and u (like me) started poking in his posts] u start ur first with this blunt comment.
Then u go against it the next post.
And u support ur previous ideology (r u suffering from Alzheimer's? )
And u continue defending it.
Then all of a sudden u go back to ur first claim (Hey, get an appo with a doc, I don't want my friend to forget me)
You are walking backwards, ichi
Not really. But yes, as long as it doesn’t come in conflict with the hindu ideas. Ayurveda is one good example. The so called holy texts of hindus are more often than not, prayers and rituals, unlike the holy texts of other religions. Only Gita comes somewhat close to being of the same nature as those holy texts, intellectually speaking. That’s why I quoted from Gita, not from any Vedas or Upanishads or Purana.
I have no problem with stupid logics in any texts as long as, these don’t come in conflict with societies’ freedom. As with science, yes, it has been wrong many times over. But the best part is, it changes its ideas in the light of new evidence. It doesn’t try to force anything into it.
A source will be much appreciated. Preferably an academic site and not a hindu site, please. Thank you.
Correct. The point still stands though. You may also want to know a bit about Incas as well. Hindus were not the only ones who made accidental prophecies.
You seriously don’t think there were Unicorns. Do you.
Not sure I got that part. “Itself” is certainly not a pronoun for a “person”. So where exactly is the absurdity ?
Yeah, the age old, GOOD v/s EVIL. Or was the concept lost on you.
So when was the time, when “verna system” was practiced correctly ? O teacher, support your argument with cites from history. Or maybe, O teacher, you are again using “common sense” and I should “forget” it.
Who gave the “true” meaning of Sudra ? Which book contains the “true” meaning of Sudra ? Where can I find it ?
Nice sense of humour.
“ME” in Gita is all godhead, however you want to see it. So, instead of telling me what Vedas contain, please answer the question in bold.
Damn, I missed the memo.You r the ONE!
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image20.gif
I will take the bolds, one by one:
Surely you dont have the courage to either read GITA completely or the Vedas. You prove my point by repeatedly quoting the various verses of GITA even after my explanation to you by quoting the successive verses you missed and from commentaries. So, why don't you just keep on reading from the "critic's" site??karnivore said:
Its again like going by "words", plaguirizing what the "critics site" tell you, or hitting the dig.com articles like we witnessed in this thread ages ago.karnivore said:
Why are you so concerned about what Europeans think? You think they are better than you intellectually?karnivore said:
What conflicts? Can you state them all? Please do state "from their scriptures" where Buddha told his disciples that he disagreed on various science, mathematics, morality, karmic principles etc. If Buddhism does not talk of theism or previous births, then why did Buddha remembered his past lives or Kalki's mention in Buddhism? I think talks of other religions cannot be really continued without the active involvement of well read students of their respective scriptures.karnivore said:
Thats a naive way of putting it.karnivore said:
I believe it is a few illiterates on scriptures who hate religion so much that they have firmly decided to spread rumours and falsehood about a few religions. It seems non-religious parties create more intolerance, that also arises from rumours and lies, than religious ones over religion. Hence, proving my point again, about how athiests and religion haters are behaving in this thread alone.
How can u define a religion/phillosophy? I never said i know everything about it...just alot more than what i had asumed before...If you read what mediator had replied to me before, you would have understood....this same question i had for him.
I said "I GATHERED MAINLY" before it which you chose to ignore...Its what I see in hinduism, its merely my view......The religions you mentioned say you will go to hell if you dont believe and things like that which i am yet to find in hinduism...Although I wont judge those other religions, i dont know anything much about them.
From what i have gathered i dont see many prayers or rituals as you have stated...I am not all learned in the vedas and i dont know everything they say, but i made an attempt and read alot and from what i gather, everything in the the vedas are all very poetic and metaphorical, and they have been misinterpreted as prayer.
if its accepting the vedas and rejecting god, then its the same as accepting the phillosophy taught by hinduism and in past posts you have stated that you didnt have a problem if hinduism stated only phillosophies...The vedas that i have seen have alot of logic and science in them..If you can accept those and not accept god, arent u still a part of the vedas?
I didnt quite get your point....are you saying that, IF there was a struggle for land when the vedas were written, then it would propogate all sorts of nonsense like the abrahamic religions? which also you cant really judge without understanding them.
isnt it that when the vedas say that there is room for atheists, then they are admitting that there might be no god?
*sigh...plenty of things are changing...So many superstitions are being rejected today, like putting watter around a plate before eating for eg, was a thing done to ward off ants as ppl used to sit on the floor and eat, which now is redundant and has been stopped to a great extent.
No substantial counter argument. Therefore ignored. I knew that you would now reply. The page has flipped, and therefore, your idiotic misadventure is now not under direct view. But its funny, how you project yourself.
1st bold: Only you can argue like that. Last time I checked, “atheist” is an English word, derived from the ancient Greeks, which happen to be in Europe. “Nastik” on the other hand happens to be a Sanskrit word. It is therefore important to make a distinction, particularly when words are being thrown around like confetti. I had pointed this out earlier, but, as we can see, it just fell on deaf ears.
1st bold: No. It is not possible for me to state ALL the verses that talk of conflicts.
1st bold: Yeah, carry on nitpicking. What we have is all we have got. What we don’t have is outside the scope of discussion.
This actually shows the intellectual vacuity of yours. Rg Veda alone consists of 10 books and a total of 1028 hymns and some 10,500 odd verses. You are quoting ONE hymn and asking me where is ritual or prayer. I think you have finally given me a reason and an opportunity to call you an IDIOT.
1st bold: LoL, really LoL
Fair enough. But if I were you, I would be careful enough to comment on something, that I can’t actually back up.
The phrase “I GATHERED MAINLY” doesn’t alter your argument. Anyway, I am sure you have heard of something called “narak” and what ensures your free pass to that holy place. Btw, where did the pandavas go after the great battle?
OK. So if you do not know something then stay away from commenting.
1st bold: If only it was that simple. How much of Hindu philosophy can be accepted, without first accepting the brand of spirituality that the Vedas peddle ?
In a sense yes. But “space” didn’t mean land, but spiritual space, influence among other people.
This is exactly the reason why I made a distinction between the word “atheist” and “nastik”. You are actually defining the word “nastik” in European sense. That is incorrect. In any case, the specific hymn will be appreciated.
SIGH indeed. You managed to come up with that only ? How disappointing. Even then that is erroneous. Actually, the practice is not for ants. But for dirt particles. Previously people ate on grounds. Water was sprinkled around the plates to make sure that the dirt near the plate didn’t blow into the plate. The practice is actually quite hygienic, if you are eating on ground. But if you do that in a restaurant, then well, its superstition.
I know your type of atheists. Your atheism stops where your religion begins. Boring.
Nastik basically means "not believing". It is usually used in relation to God. Study some 8th class NCERT Sanskrit books to understand this basic fact instead of googling ur way all the time.karnivore said:
1st, proves my point yet again on how only religious haters and illiterates spread more intolerance than literates on sciptures. They make some casual comments and then say "not possible" to back themselves up "completely". Spreading lies is their favourite hobby.karnivore said:
1st, I'm not the one who is nitpicking. Its you who started it and I only advised you repeatedly to read and understand what discussion happened between me and amitash and that yours was only a troll and a repeatition.karnivore said:
Don't limit yourself to rigveda now or did you forget that you stated that "entire vedic corpus" is about rituals and prayers? I only stated one for you. But since you narrowed yourself to rigveda this time here is another verse ...karnivore said:
And my point strengthened once more, that religion haters and illiterates start lolling and give examples of their little "civil discussion" when the gornd from which their hatred sprouts is obliterated right in front of them. i.e enlightenment snaps their own psyche.karnivore said:
I understand the difference between “hell”, a physical place and “hell”, an allegorical reference to mental state. Unfortunately though, “narak” is more often than not referred to as a physical place. That is why I gave the reference of Pandava. Now don’t say, that Pandava’s visit to “narak” was all metaphorical. Then a huge part of MBH will fall apart.
Shifting your goal post already. That was fast. Inserting the word “illogical” will not change anything. Upanayana is actually declaring the coming of age of a child and start of studies, not the end of it. (All castes were eligible for upanayan, though only Brahmins were allowed to do brahmanic studies). Basically what you are saying is that, parent going out to the world screaming, hey my kid is adolescent now and will start his schooling, is not illogical.
What about “karma” or "dharma" or “reincarnation” or….
This time around, I want specific reference to those specific parts in Vedas that deal with “maths, astronomy, physics etc.” No, this time you can’t get away by saying, “I do not know much about vedas”. If you can suggest me to read something, I would expect that you have already read it and know it as well. So, until you find those parts, don’t bother to reply.
“Fight for existence” sound familiar ?
“Proved math, science” ? In Vedas ? Are you high ?
Nope, that’s not change.
Yes, you got that right, and it comes with experience. Anyway, I don’t give a flying fukc to what religion you belong or whether or not you are religious person. You are just a pseudonym to me and your posts are all that matter. Your personal life has no relevance to me.
Mental gymnastics. Unfortunately you are not too good at it.
Is that how you have learned Sanskrit. That explains your suicidal faux pas.
1st bold: Nothing really. It only shows that you and your “religion” are no different from those religions.
1st, no need to get that serotonin, or what remains of it, soar so high. You missed the stress word “ALL”.
Typical. The so called vedic tolerance, was raised with regard to other religions. This argument is in itself a strawman, because, there was no other religion to be tolerant, or intolerant of. But there were tribes and there were tribal conflicts. And accordingly, they found mention in the Vedas.
1st bold: No, it is not possible to read entire “Vedic corpus”, unless you are a Ph.D student or trying to author a book. I have indeed read a significant portion of it, and numerous commentaries on them. You are basically making nonsensical argument. Since a part of Vedas was lost, even you can’t say what was in it. You are just trying to prove a negative. And you pretty well know, what I have meant by “entire vedic corpus”. If you haven’t start from kindergarten.
How ?
My blood pressure is fine, thank you very much. Which part of the following sentence is devoid of understanding and logic?
Yep it is a joke indeed. But your astonishment over the fact that people, some 3000 years ago knew of VIBGYOR, was a little comical.
You posted from Rg Veda. So I mentioned of Rg Veda.
O goodie. Now we have the license to use Griffith’s translation. You have only quoted verse 4. Here is the entire Surya hymn for your (in)convenience.
There are some writers, who are like plague to the human sanity. Mr Frawley, a.k.a Vamadeva Sastry (yes converted to Hinduism) is one such scum. Therefore ignored.
Here is a pop quiz for you: What is so significant about hymn, RV 10.85.
Can we have the verses please ?
A big LoL. You talking of civility. That’s rich.
I dunno from which site you plagiarized such stuff now to support your "earlier" frantic rigmaroles. I asked you to "quote" "from the scriptures", from "authentic buddhist sites" where buddha told his "disciples" such things. Let me ask, do you even understand the meaning ofkarnivore said:
1) M glad, you have only strengthened my point then that religions are not the ones which seed terrorism, but only humans. One such atheist human, who specialises in generalising people who disagree with him, is trying to analayse me, my religion and other religions. Well done!karnivore said:
2) then quote those texts too. If buddhist texts don't talk of conflict, then it strengthens my point even further that religions are not creating wars and massacres, but humans.karnivore said:
Deja Vu! Let me ask, do you even understand what the topic was, that began between me and @amitash? Atleast learn the topic before intiating your trolls.karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Oh they knew more than that! Google my dear, use the only tool that resuscitates your life.karnivore said:
I thought u'd say I posted from some "chapter of rigveda" instead of "rigveda" and hence further narrowing me down to that chapter then.karnivore said:
Like I said plenty of times. YOU ARE PREDICTABLE. Seems you didn't understand the metaphor even in griffiths translations. INTELLECT FAIL, yet again!karnivore said:
A brilliant example of your idiocy! And again, anyone who you do not agree with will face the consequence of your inspection of his background, whether he is a convert and then generalised and ignored?karnivore said:
Why do I get such dumb apprentices? Atleast complete your first stage of primary education by reading the GITA first before asking me to educate you further.karnivore said:
Are you kidding now? Don't tell me you don't even know what ayurveda means or vedic mathematics is. First you asked on GIta 9.22, which I enlightened you with more verses and explaining it. Then I explained how the nature of Vedas are and that what we have is a fraction of it. You just keep dumping the entire critic's compilation don't u? And then you think you are learning about Hinduism? I guess thats either lie or a joke!karnivore said:
]
First we have a genius, claiming MBH can’t be trusted all the time. Now we have another genius claiming MBH is not “hindu scripture”. Amazing.
Please come back once you have learned a little bit about Hindu rituals, particularly upanayana. It is neither a “birthday” party nor is it an event equivalent to “showing marks card”.
If you reject reincarnation, you reject Hindu concept of Karma. Unlike Buddhism, they go hand in hand. [A clue: Human in this birth, cat in the next. Guess why. This is the exact problem mediator had. Couldn’t realize the nuanced difference between Buddhist Karma and Hindu Karma.] In any case you just typed a sentence, and a self-claimed “atheist” still didn’t notice the fallacy. Here is what you wrote.
I am not predicting. Bible and Koran are freely available texts. Read those texts to get an idea of what I meant.
“Ayurveda” is not part of the 4 vedas. The basis of ayurveda is just as bunkum as homeopathy. I have said this before and I will say it again. Every ancient civilization had its own medicine based on plants and trees. The Incas too had them. No big deal.
Something in the lines of abolishing “sati” or introduction of “widow marriage”. Abolishing “caste” system can be very very good start. Abolishing of Brahmanical priest system. Stop rewriting history, or retrofitting everything into Hindu texts.
Nope. Not at all. The thing is, if I am doubtful about something, or have not much read/ researched on something, I simply wouldn’t opine.
Unfortunately, dear, that is quite enough for you.
1st bold: You have accused me of plagiarism for so many times, that I have lost count of it. Not once, could you prove it. Not once. This time also, for reasons that you very well know, you won’t be. But it is comical how, you wish that I had plagiarized some site and you could find it out and plaster it all over the forum. Nice wet dream.
Now you are saying, that “nastik…usually means “not believing” and it is “usually” used in context of Gods.” But atheist is the one who doesn’t believe in god. Now if nastik “simply means an atheist”, where does “usually” fit in?mediator said:
I have to give it to you. The pot that you are smoking is of top class. Your replies have started to become unrelated to my quotes.
2) What texts ? You are kidding me again. Buddhism came into being as a protest against hindu Brahminical practices, which got authenticated by the hindu texts, particularly notorious of which was Manusmriti. The very existence Buddhism is the proof of Brahminical tyranny. Here’s one more quote:
How does that even come close to being a reply to that quote of mine ? Still smoking ? Naughty you.
1) Sympathy ? Yes I do need some. I am getting tired of correcting your faux pas. Can I have some. Please. O teacher.
You are the worst kind of a fukcing liar that I have ever come across.. What you said was:
The hymn is actually from Rg veda, Book 10, Hymn 129
Learn how vedic rituals are performed. Learn also, that each hymn represents a complete mantra which, in most occasion, is to be chanted in entirety not just a particular verse. Where do you think the mantras that are chanted during the homas come from. Your arse or mine. I know its not mine. Go to a priest, sit with him and learn.
Yes I know, you will have to take birth twice over to know why RV 10.85 is significant. The entire hymn is recited during hindu marriage, even today. That’s why.
You can paint a scum with whatever colour you want, a scum continues to be scum. I have read plenty of David Frawley, Stephen Knapp, N.S.Rajaram, Koenraad Elst etc. to know, that these are insult for human beings. No. Not because they disagree with my point of view, but because these are swindlers (Frawley, Knapp) and liars (all of them). N.S.Rajaram was even caught red handed in faking an Indus seal. The more you quote from them, the more you lower your credibility (not that you have any to me).
The basis of “Ayurveda” is bs. “Vedic Maths” is bs.
commentary said:
And now the troll whines! Here's my question for the 3rd time that u miss deliberately.karnivore said:
"Usually" fit in the cases like you.karnivore said:
1) Whinings ignored!karnivore said:
Wat a waste of time and intellect. This must the umpteenth time you have brought manusmriti to support your hatred towards Hinduism.karnivore said:
mediator said:
That must be the joke of the day. An atheist, a religon hater who generalises on those who disagree with him telling "how vedic rituals are performed".karnivore said:
karnivore said:
mediator said:
karnivore said:
karnivore said:
GTFO, Buddhism doesn't have the concept of "infidels". Buddhism is a somewhat of atheistic/agnostic religion. I'm Buddhist and also an agnostic.
But of course. You, accusing me of plagiarism, without providing any proof, makes for a perfect debating point. I, disputing your accusation, automatically become a “troll” and a “whiner”. Wonderful. And I guess this is also a whine.
Nastik.
me said:
Theorem: Prove that mediator is suffering from cognitive dissonance.
1st bold sentence: Lie. What you said, in post #983 was: “Some call hinduism as a way of life and some call it a religion” and then went on to assert that you prefer to call it a religion. “I call my self religious coz basically Hinduism is percieved as a religion.” In other words, YOU perceive it as a religion.
You just called Krishna boastful. Besides, like the word “plagiarism”, you should also look up the meaning of the word “chauvinism”.
1st bold: You know wrong then. Thank you for clarifying. Brahmanic tyranny was indeed the catalyst, which finally ended up in Buddha’s rejection of Hindu theistic principles.
Anything that makes you uneasy, automatically becomes something extraneous to Hinduism. MBH, I remember, became unquotable because, Karna couldn’t be wished away by you.
I should have checked that link that you had provided earlier. I regret that. I could have ended this stupid debate then and there only. Anyway. Its never late. What say you ?
You are not as good a spin doctor as you think you are. You selectively quoted the part where he claims to be “the creation”. What about the parts where he claims to be the “creator” and “destroyer”.
Strawman. I didn’t quote the verses that you have done in this post. I had quoted Verse 7.7, 7.15, 9.11, 9.22 and now I add one more, 9.23. These are indeed boastful and supremacist. And I have already explained, why the verses that I had quoted earlier are boastful and disgustingly supremacist.
LoL, the same whose-dad-is-Sita ? I have given a complete sequence of our conversation. Nowhere, did you come close to proving me wrong. You only got busy with 9.22 and 9.23, and forgot that the other verses continue to hold fort, and continue to forget.
1st bold: Shocking, isn’t it. Don’t see any rule where it says that atheists can’t learn about the religion.
I have replied to that at least twice.
Actually my fingers hurt. My brain hurts too.
me said:
Fun? Really? You are probably the only person in the whole wide world who is amused, when he is being proved wrong. One more confirmation of your cognitive dissonance.
Given the fact that this “helpless illiterate” proved you wrong, not once, not twice, but many times over, puts you in an even worse position. Anyway, I thought, you thought, that I got “help” from “critique sites”. So you see, even in your punch line you make logical error (that is expected of someone who is suffering from cognitive dissonance), and I, the “helpless illiterate”, again, point that out. Really embarrassing, isn’t it. O wait a minute. Embarrassment is also not your “cup of tea” either.
Celebrating accomplishment is not illogical, neither is celebrating a day on which one or one’s kid is born. But celebrating puberty, or beginning of education is illogical in any way you want to look at it.
If you do, then you are doing a Buddha. You are actually rejecting the Hindu principle of Karma, and accepting the Buddhist principle of Karma. It is not as easy as you think it is.
You are now redefining the whole Hindu karmic principle. Hindu karmic principle is not about your mental disposition, it is very much about materialistic and of course, spiritual gains, rather returns for your good deeds. What you have described, is again, the Buddhist principle of karma.
What you have done is again ended up redefining concepts. How do you suppose you will select one part and reject the other, particularly when all are inclusive. In Hindu, theistic philosophy, the concept of “righteousness” is very much intertwined with the concept of “dharma”. Without resorting to “dharma” you just can’t define “righteousness”. Example, for a sudra it is “righteous” to clean toilet, because, serving is sudra’s dharma. For Brhamin, it is a “sin”.
Except that it happened to your Hinduism as well, with the advent of Buddhism, and before that, Jainism. If you read the treatise written in post-Buddhist period, till the advent of Adi Sankaracharya, you will realize, how, these religions were demeaned.
1st bold: I guess I know, what Atharvaveda is, thank you very much. It mostly talks of magical healing etc. Ayurveda has its own treatise.
Only you know, where I have agreed with you. Anyway. Sati was abolished in one generation, actually a little less than a couple of decades, by a certain Raja Ram Mohan Roy, and a certain colonial power, through enactment of a certain Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act of 1987.
Can you make a wild guess, who claimed not to know about certain things and then go on arguing on those certain things, and committing one faux pas followed by another.
*www.hinduwisdom.info/articles_hinduism/283.htmarticle said:
Korrect! But what did Manu really say? It would be stupid to imagine that entire Manusmiriti is a reflection of Manu's own words! Manusmriti was compiled at a time when brahminism was at rise. It was rejected by dharma sansad and it gives authority to Vedas in case of conflicts.karnivore said:
Italics => more like generalization from a critic's site. If its your comprehension, then you continuing with your own mockery!karnivore said:
article said:
May be!karnivore said:
You first call the texts of manusmriti as most racist, casteist and sexist and then say it is not contradicting Vedas?karnivore said:
Purusha sukta discussed already! And you should understand what it means instead of posting griffith's articles to add to your misery. There's a difference between the two translations. Read it again and since I know you would be adding the "you said I and me said I debate later" so here it is one more time.....karnivore said:
The nature of arms has give rise to "kshatriya", the nature of "mouth" has given rise to Brahmin and the nature of feet has given rise to Shudra. i.e by karma.article said:
Your hopes to divert the topic to manusmriti and your nature to prove manusmriti as a part of Hinduism have already been annhilated before and this time too.karnivore said:
Are u trying to find comparisons to escape from ur sorry state?karnivore said:
Not giving an answer was a better option for you coz u just proved ur idiocy.karnivore said:
1) Why are u crying? The second bold speaks clear how I term myself as religious i.e religious becoz Hinduism is considered as religion. Whereas, 1st bold, I stated is a broader picture. I also stated in the past that "religious" means being "dharmic" and hence in true meaning I call myself as "dharmic". This "dharmic" term in itself denotes "philosphy of life" and hence hinduism is a philosphy of life!!karnivore said:
U actually comprehend my statement in the bold as "a lame way of saying, my Gita is better than their holy books"?????karnivore said:
1) I stated the wrong before too. Seems like u were in the state of constipation unable to understand it all.karnivore said:
1) Please address the source the quote!karnivore said:
First, Where have I rejected his commentaries? I know lie is ur innate nature, but still please enlighten us. On the contrary, I actually agreed with his commentary you linked by asking which part of his commentary u didn't understand!karnivore said:
I thought wisdom might have blessed u. But since u continue with ur illiteracy, then do tellkarnivore said:
Like I said, commentaries are meant to help. And so let me state you my understanding first putting the definition of "him" in complete GITA.karnivore said:
Actually, I asked u to read complete GITA and you are talking of a few verses?karnivore said:
Again the signs of ur desperation and frustration are getting visible clearly.karnivore said:
IN ur dreams? I guess you can play ur trademark i.e "u said this and I said this" debate once more to show where exactly did you show that Buddha is saying I'm the best or these religion stating to kill people of other religions! I don't even feel like toying with u now.karnivore said:
And where exactly are these words copied from?karnivore said:
Opining on ancient medicinal system and its terminology on the basis of "modern terminology" which came much much later is again the height of illiteracy, hatred and narrow minded bias. Let me ask do you even understand what "terminology" means?karnivore said:
karnivore said:
karnivore said:
Generalizations galore!karnivore said:
karnivore said:
And lol!karnivore_to_amitash said:
"Mediator Puran"! That was nice.
First, I have myself quoted Patrick Olivelle regarding its authorship. That should have been the end of it. Second, Manusmriti was never rejected by any text or any authority. I have quoted Sankaracharya and Vivekanda on this. I have mentioned of several ancient texts that actually either directly quoted Manusmriti or echoed many of his laws. Third, reference of Manu in TS and TMB are not to the Manu of Manusmriti, but to all Manus. Idiot.
Can’t see the italics. Therefore can’t comment. But rest assured, that no web site, except for sacred-text.com, for referencing MBH, is involved in my write up.
Manusmriti can be all of that – and so it is – and yet not contradict the Vedas. In fact, what Manu does is, give his midas touch to everything, that the Vedas are silent of. Silence is neither confirmation nor contradiction. Manu was a clever dick, more clever than your favourite author.
Actually, there is no difference between the translations, except for their style of writing and choice of words. “Immolation” is probably a better choice of word for “vyadadhuh”. Stephen Knapp, interprets it as “sacrifice” (see below). However, there are many other sanskritist, who apparently prefer to translate the word “vyadadhuh” as “that they divided” (refer Purusha Shukta Bhasya by Ranganatha Muni). In any case, both the translations, end up implying the same thing – creation of 4 varnas. But first a clarification: this debate has nothing to do with caste. You are turning it into one. The reason is obvious. The web page you are using is a critique on caste, and hence, almost all the arguments are made with caste on mind. Anyway.
When the gods decided to (mentally) sacrifice the Viratpurusha (and produce further creation), in how many ways did they do it? What became of his face or mouth? What became of his two arms? What became of His two thighs? What were (the products of) the two feet called?Once again, missed the forest, to hit the tree. The reason why quoted Gita is not to debate on Gita or caste, but to show, how Gita has echoes of Manusmriti. As with “annihilation” of my arguments, you are many orders of magnitude far from it. Anyway, I will now respond to this BS, by quoting another Sankaracharya. This time, of Kanchi. You will find the references HERE and HERE
I rest my case. Given your penchant for completely ignoring direct quotes of Sankaracharyas and other “holly” men, I won’t be surprised, if this quote is completely disregarded. O, btw, THIS is the official web site of Kanchi Math, not a critique site – in case you are confused.Late Sankaracharya of Kanchi said:
I stand corrected. The point, continues to stand though. Echoes of Manusmriti in Gita.
1) I know u r frustrated a lot but learn to quote the source. And it better be not "sacred-texts.com"karnivore said:
karnivore said:
karnivore said:
U missed the start of my previous post itself...karnivore said:
article said:
Again generalising on the basis of one statement? Summer heat, frustration and desperation must really be takin a toll on ur fragile brain.karnivore said:
1) Vivek Ananda is addressing something.vivekananda said:
You generalise on people like Stephen Knapp and frawley, call them insult to mankind and "scum" and then bring up their translations? Mocking urself again and again!karnivore said:
karnivore said:You seem to quoting half parts all the time and generalising on those parts. Like they say "Half a knowledge is a dangerous thing"! And our helpless illiterate wins in such a talent.late_sankaracharya_of_kanchi said:
1) What sankaracharya says is his own opinions and understanding
2) He already knows the supremacy of Vedas which talk of class by nature, reflected in Gita.
3) here's the continuation of his speech/opinion .....
late_sankaracharya_of_kanchi_speech_continued said:
What Sankaracharya has added is even more broader picture!
1) WE all know that Vedas and Gita talk of "by karma" definition of the class
2) What Sankaracharya has added is that when a person is born he takes those "gunas" automatically from his family and environment which is so true! A person born in a doctor's family will obviously be knowing more about medicinal field by default! A person born in a business family will obviously be knowing more about business terms and environment more than any other field and might take it as a profession also
3) He says "Parasurama and Dronacarya were Brahmins but they were Ksatriyas by nature" which is again true since they were brought up in a brahmin family but their nature was more like that of a 'kshatriya'. We all know the story of Parushrama and Dronacharaya, their revenge and battles!
4) The last line is again true, since a person who is born in a brahmin family should tell clearly (owe) of where and in which family he was born. Krishna himself was a "cattle grazer" in his childhood.
5) He says, "These two factors - heredity and environment - were greatly instrumental in shaping a person's guna and vocation." which is again true and implies that a person born under any class can move on to any class. i.e A child born in a Sudra family and under the influence of knowledge and teachers can become as knowledgable as them, and hence a brahmin.
6) Like I said, it seems u continue to give less importance to the scriptures themselves instead "googling" what others think about it. "Herd instinct" still reflects on u in full glory!
As I already said, I neither follow science blindly nor even the scriptures of my own religion. And so, I don't care who is "holy" for even the holiest of the holy might be wrong on an opinion.
And now, lets see what post of mine you missed and quoted gibberish....
1) The complete article that I highlighted in bolds for a helpless illiterate like you who only knows how to generalise on people who disagree and opine one the basis of single verses and statements instead of the complete reads and conversations!
2) Rejection of manusmriti by dharma sansad!
3) The rigvedic verse talking of sex equality.
4) The explanation, difference between wilson's and griffith's translations
5) Your idiotic reply on "Buddhism and Jainsim" exposed!
6) Exposition of your hatred and your opinion of "boastful" nature of verses.
7) Not telling where I disagreed with prabhupada. I'll give cerelac to u if you do tell.
8 ) Not telling who called Karna a Shudra and where with exact verses!? And finally....
9) verses from buddhist scriptures where Buddha is saying he is the best or against Vedas
10) verses where all the religions i.e sikhism, hindism, buddhism, jainism etc are asking to kill people of other religions and again where gurunanak saying is the best etc!
Reply to it ALL, if wisdom succeeds in blessing you by fluke at anytime in future.
You mock urself, you ran naked and now you chicken out, defining and redfining ur troll that remained non-adherent to the topic bet. me and amitash. Well done!
Your wish is my command. I will make replying to your gibberish my day job, if you want.
1) The Vedanta Sutras, commentaries by Sankaracharya, translated by George Thibout, pg 291-292.
No I didn’t miss any part. I just didn’t know what you were trying to imply. Thanks for clarifying.
Far from it. In post#1072, I had observed, “There is a growing trend among a bunch of Hindu apologist, to deny the veracity of Manusmriti. Surprisingly, VHP happens to belong to those deniers.” What do you think I was referring to.
Post#1072.
1) to 4) How in freaking hell does the context of his speech change the fact, that he is asking to follow Manusmriti.
1) Because you have a certain thing for scums.
Links to both the chapters were given.
So whats the fuss. Birth and upbringing result in the so called “Guna”. Now, since this “Guna” is the apparent key to determine caste, therefore, “birth” and “upbringing” in effect become the key to caste. Now, since, it is only in rare cases that a person born in one caste is brought up by another, e.g. adoption, ultimately, “birth” becomes the key. This is because, a person “born” in a caste, will be “brought up” in accordance to that caste. So, all you have to do is take birth, in a caste. Dang!
O yeah. You got me.
Poor lil mumble bee, is this the best you can come up with? Like I said, know what 'mahabharata' is. You already stated yuddhistir before i.e someone who was considered a Dharma Raj and yet staked his own wife and 4 brothers. Now you quote Bhishma who too could not do anything during draupadi "vastra haran"? I hope you know that Hindus neither follow Bhishma nor draupadi. It seems you didn't see my point. I was never after the point whether karna was called shudra in Mahabharat or not!karnivore said:
How infinitely idiotic. *i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/smilie/image20.gifPoor lil mumble bee, is this the best you can come up with? Like I said, know what 'mahabharata' is. You already stated yuddhistir before i.e someone who was considered a Dharma Raj and yet staked his own wife and 4 brothers. Now you quote Bhishma who too could not do anything during draupadi "vastra haran"? I hope you know that Hindus neither follow Bhishma nor draupadi. It seems you didn't see my point. I was never after the point whether karna was called shudra in Mahabharat or not!
My premise?karnivore said:
Last I checked, it was Shankaracharya explaining on the basis of that and I explaining what Shakaracharya said where you half quoted him to add to ur shame.
The gentleman correctly implies that it is not the duty that determines the caste, as some people here have tried desperately to prove, but it is the caste that determines the work. In other words, if a person is born into a certain caste, he is expected to do a work, which is exclusively allocated to his caste. But then, he goes on to create a wedge between "being of a cast" and "work allocated to his cast", in a way, so as to create an impression, that somehow, "work allocated to his caste" is independent of "being of a cast". It certainly is not the case. If a person is being refused a certain something, whatever it may be, on the basis of "work allocated to his caste", then to know what his allocated work is, one has to first know, what caste he belongs to. This is akin to judging one, by his caste alone. Let me explain this with Karna's example only.
Lets first assume that the gentleman is correct (which he is not, and I will get to it, in a second). The question still remains: why did Drona refuse Ekalavya, on basis of his low caste ? This remains unanswered. The answer of course is, that, it was convenient for Drona to use the excuse of caste, because it was an acceptable reason in the society then. This allowed him to hide his true intentions.
Yes I am aware of the verses in Gita. I am also aware, that Gita imposes restrictions on inter-caste duties i.e. one should do the duty of one’s caste even if he is more capable of doing the duties of another caste. The whole point is not of duty allocation, but of caste one belongs to.
The whole concept of priesthood is built around this. No one else can be a priest, except for a Brahmin, regardless of his ability to perform the priestly rituals better than a Brahmin. Recently, probably sometime in 2007, SC gave a landmark judgment, whereby the people of lower caste can become priest.
I am not an idealist. For me, “supposed to be”, etc. matter very little. Once again, discrimination on the basis of caste duties, is same as discrimination on the basis of caste. These are not mutually exclusive. Besides, why should anybody be discriminated, in the first place, even if it is “for their duties.”
I told you, MBH, at least the version most of us refer to, is very clear about Drona’s decision. You can read Section 134 of Sambhava Parva in Adi Parva. Allow me to quote relevant areas.
Too optimistic.
Then you have a long long long long way yet to travel.
Fair enough. We can agree to disagree.
No can do.
.
Please elaborate with step by step guidance to do "serious deep meditation"
What will happen after successfully replicating the process. HE/SHE will show up? The color tone of world for our eyes will change (from Auto to Sepia, b/w, fluorescent etc).
U r always slow to reach something which is not there.
(no offense meant to u on personal level, don't sue me!)
Please elaborate with step by step guidance to do "serious deep meditation"
What will happen after successfully replicating the process. HE/SHE will show up? The color tone of world for our eyes will change (from Auto to Sepia, b/w, fluorescent etc).
U r always slow to reach something which is not there.
Its like u r told to meet me at "Rhitwick Chowk" in mumbai. Now how will u do that, if there is no such place in Mumbai. As there is no such place in Mumbai, I can't be there hence u can't meet me. It means I lied to u, to get rid of u
Just because u r talking something for a long time doesn't make ur claim true. Provide proof.
So, to understand God u've to be God. And meditation would make us God. Hmmm....good logic...
Let me help u open ur eyes. U R NOT THE FIRST ONE TO CLAIM THIS. A lot, and a lot of believers are shouting this for decades and still nothing.
.
And, what does this even mean???
Quantum Theory has answer > String theory has explained this behavior.
These are my views.
Science is still in its early stages.It says that there is a reason for everything.But there are certain things that cannot be explained by science.
For example,
Why should a proton attract an electron?
Why should matter posses gravity?
No one can explain these things and so science takes them as 'laws' or 'properties'.Science is something which is derived from these laws and
properties.So whatever caused these properties to come into existence created science.
Coulombic forces?
Gravitational Forces exist even in Sub Atomic levels. It's actually the weakest force among Strong Force, Weak Force, and Gravitational Forces. I think Scientists are researching on concepts of Gravitational Waves...
No one can explain these things and so science takes them as 'laws' or 'properties'.Science is something which is derived from these laws and
properties.So whatever caused these properties to come into existence created science.
. Even if i don't want to go to temple, they didn't leave me and they just yell at me like i am a traitor and just drag me down to temple. That is awkward.
because I believe in God and spirituality, I can say that it can answer all the questions. They might seem quite illogical to you, but that doesn't mean that they really are.
I am talking about the mental, not physical yoga.
what about the divine hindu scriptures? Can u prove them to be false?
People means who? I call these people arseholes who dont know what God actually is. Visiting a temple doesn't mean that the person believes in God. And now a days the young generation use temples to have personal meetings btw.
I never associate these people with god. They are the biggest evil to humanity and spirituality.
first of all.....meditation...not medication.
so you want to define God with scientific logic.
ok I agree to this point. Well I pray, but not in the typical manner i.e. never demand anything like dumbs or making foolish requests.
No comment.
I think you need to throw that computer down right away and take sanyas. You cannot preach what you urself don't practice
(Juz kidding)
When indians were not materialistic, there was a lot peace, there was humanity, people live very happily. It was the time when Tansen lit up the lamps by his divine singing. It was the time when Freedom Fighters fought without caring about their life, for their nation.
When did I say I don't support science?? I say science is essential, but if we forget everything and evaluate everything on scientific basis, that's idiotic. And for soul and spiritual power, Its not for replying to the idiots like you.
. Not to hurt, just kidding)
). I agree that you applied your mind to judge the good and the bad but it was mostly fear which makes you not do something wrong. It is in human nature of having one's own way, I mean who among us doesn't?
I agree to that point but it works ichi and that's what it matters. It is another thing that this fear is often misused.
Have you ever thought why do we have law and order for? You don't murder another person because you have the fear of getting caught and punishment. You don't jump a red signal because you fear that the traffic policeman present there will fine you for that (apart from the fear of getting hurt in a freak accident
.@gagan007
Atleast you got some valid point to post here, not like others who simply post some stuff and call others as idiots.
ok I admit it was a mistake. BTW I am not frustrated
Now comes the ancient indians and every ancient race....
They didn't even know what a god is????
What make you think that dude.
Every human civilization strongly believed in God, their Aradhya. Do some research and come back.
simply post some stuff, great, shows your level of thinking
first of all its my own written thing except for one post.
and All the points that I posted are valid Mr. Rajkumar, its another thing that your are not willing to read or understand them.
ok I admit it was a mistake. BTW I am not frustrated
Now comes the ancient indians and every ancient race....
They didn't even know what a god is????
What make you think that dude.
Every human civilization strongly believed in God, their Aradhya. Do some research and come back.
Whether it were Egypts, Romans, Mayans, Aztecs or more....Their spirituality and religious views are amazing.
you do not make any sense at all, do you. Now don't blame it back to me.
)
you do not make any sense at all, do you. Now don't blame it back to me.
lets come back to topic dude, no offense intended.
How do you say that they didn't use to listen to devotional songs..? At least in India, music was the medium to worship the God. Every court used to have qualified musicians. The most popular example would be the Miyan Tansen, the one among the Nine Jewels of Great Akbar. He is considered as the greatest singer in 1000 years, and is the father of current Indian Classical Music. There are many Music Gharana(s) whose ancestors belong to our ancient India. What I want to say it, is that music is the soul of our Country, our Culture.
Indians developed great Instruments like sitar, sarod, tabla. The world loves our music, and you say they didn't listen to music.
If we are listening and crying to music, we are showing the future generations a wrong way? What are you saying man, at least think twice. Music has nothing to do with that, please don't blame it.
Actually we are paving a wrong way for future generations by making Nuclear Bombs, by Developing deadly viruses for battles, by destroying our mother nature for our materialistic greed, aren't we?
.
.
.
Enjoy~!
Yea.. akbar was there in indus vally civilization and late harappan civilization goofin around and he use to play with his nine jewels.. and Tansen was the best player of all. knock yourself dude.
I'm talking about ancient india and you are talking about a thing which happened 500 years ago.
There is nothing wrong in listening music. I'm a great listener too. Ya..I am not blaming the music but the very idea of finding the outer body experience that you said.
Yes.. science caused some severe damage to world. So does every thing in the world...So, do you blame nature for it's calamities? Every thing will have it's flip side. And yea.. if science is laying a wrong pavement for the future.. giving you a computer, mobile, tv was a big mistake made by science. They could have given you a sitar or tabla using which you could have paved a way full of tears in the name of outer body experience.
Call me a spammer or whatever......but I could not resist myself. This post of u deserves clap....
I think I'll post something later which u won't call a spam.
Call me a spammer or whatever......but I could not resist myself. This post of u deserves clap....
I think I'll post something later which u won't call a spam.
Did i post something wrong?
LOL...man.....
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/873068-post651.html
Yes I really admire their posts. Will try to take care next time.
No, not at all. If science denies something it makes sure that it provides enough reasons, facts, proofs behind that denial. So, there will be reasons for sure.
Agreed, that science still has some limits. But God (and stupidity, as Einstein once told) has no limit. Everything that science can't explain can be explained by some simple phrases "Miracle of God", "God knows", "Gods wish" etc.
(Plz, don't call me ignorant, I still fear the subject like hell):sigh: if only you had the habit of reading newspapers. Well check out the 22nd May's Times of India of this year, its in the front page.
Do a google search on "Synthetic Life" and you will get more details.
(on the bold part, does not it sound similar to ur post? "do not mention evolution here, because evolution itself need some basis" )
Well, what did I just say, science has already answered and for one of ur queries has actually played God
)
^^
Man, that was some good explanation. Lets see what he is going to say (I guess he'd say GOD created Craig, to achieve this task
I mean cant you reach a ceasefire agreement?
you people are still debating about this? dont you grow tired of this?
^^]
Maybe the opponents considering about surrendering.
So, what does that mean?
Are you an believer of GOD? (Just kidding )
^^
You still alive in this forum. Nice
Man, i've seen you active in TE but why not in TDF?
rhitwick said:
JCVI: First Self-Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researcherslink said:
That is again, what we can call, is abrahamic and western conditioning.rhitwick said:
rigveda said:
] One would understand why secularism started in the west, what religion is, what theism is.
. Differences of the past aside, please don't miscomprehend me on my differences between abrahamic and non-abrahamic. You may correct me anywhere you like
So life and artificial life is different?
When you ask "why", then it becomes philosophy. You cannot understand these things if you are just stuck to material science. Modern science cannot find the depth of universe as it would become a recursive question for boundaries and the 'source'. By source I don't mean a white bearded god playing dice with our lives!rhitwick said:
I am not asking you to accept abrahamic faiths (like God's will) which force their "belief" on you. Since you asked questions about "why life", you can ask similar questions at macroscopic and microscopic levels too as to why reflexes work, why harmones work like that? Can you verify the m-theory, string theory? can you verify the universe itself? Thus material science has its limitations as the tools we use are only an extension of our senses.rhitwick said:
Yes the experiment shows about self replication. But you haven't understood the experiment. It doesn't say it creates life, but a designed/chemically made genome transplanted into the recipient cell and cell is the smallest unit of life! It is analogous to properties being transplanted into a 'working life'.rhitwick said:
May be or may be not! When you start "believing" in science, it becomes analogous to "theism" and when that attachment to knowledge comes into picture, a person starts losing his objectivity. You need to read the articles I linked before, decondition yourself from the western world views to understand the Indian concepts better. Some terms like dharma, astik, deva etc have been grossly misunderstood and even negate the meaning of the established english terminology when translated into english.rhitwick said:
....lets bury it againBeliefs don't increase your "vivek". Had it been the case, Indians would be free from superstitions and blind beliefs today. Following are some of the resulting statements because of some of the beliefs :utkarsh said:
On one hand you say you are a hindu and on other your belief is borrowed from abrahamic religions. According to Hinduism (shruti), Indra, surya, agni etc are not beliefs but manifestations of the ultimate reality for different roles and bhraman the underlying concept which encompasses the field of consciousness and everything. Its not a belief! Why don't you read the upanishads alone?utkarsh said:
mediator;1357405 What is the guarantee you were the same person before? A second before mentally said:Well science explained it as cell division. So, philosophically and scientifically a human body does not stay the same it was in the beginning.
Some informative links:
Cell division - WormBook - NCBI Bookshelf
And, how do we still remember things if our cells are replaced constantly,
Telomere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
The moment I saw u highlighted "recipient cell" I knew what you would come to next.
YES, they used recipient cell, in ur terms a pre-existing cell which was "alive". Well, can you say if a cell is dead or alive by any means? A cell is just a cell. a non-living object. (Even leagally speaking, abortions is allowed till the embrio is less than 4 months old as its scientifially proved that till 4months the embrio does not gain consciousness, hence abortion is not killing till its 4months.) Well I've gone way off-topic. I just wanted to tell you that you can not claim a cell as alive. What you can claim and I would accept that they have not created the reciepient cell too in lab artificially. Agreed.
What they did is they designed the genome artificillay from all abiotic elements. Placed it in the recipient cell.
LINK
In philosophical terms, they have put soul to an empty body. Soul (genome) is what controls the body (cell).
I was arguing with one of friend (a very very very much believer in God). He also came up with this "beyond sense" thing. He was so sure and so convinced that the ultimate object (God) can not be experienced by our limited senses, I asked how could he say so? Has he experienced beyond sense? Can he describe it? (well I'm auguing with him since last 9 years, he never buzzed from his point of view and neither me
Why does it always have to be like this, if you can't explain something related to God, you say this can't be explained by our limited vision, knowledge and sense? How do u say so? What is the base of your comment? "I say if there is, it has an explanation". And the explanation has to be done with the means and help by the tools we use or senses we have.
Some philosphers equate this universe with the human mind. In deep sleep state (dreamless), there is nothing. Its total emptiness. You cannot measure its depth, the start but only experience it. But when you get a conscious thought, that thought multiplies and you can create a whole dream. You may be a part of that dream or may be not. Sometimes, when the dream gets out of control you manifest "will" to control the dream or perhaps wakeup which destroys that dream.
Similarly, in Indian context we have the concept of bhrahman (not the "modern white bearded diety") who is a personification of supreme consciousness who is said to have sprung from Vishnu's navel i.e the unconscious aspect of the universe, dreaming of many other bhramans. Its only a concept. Can we go back and read the string theory, m-theory and the parallel universes?
Total Inception!!! Did not get any head or tail of it.
b/w found all these theories related to dreams.
Why Do We Dream - Theories of Why We Dream
The expectation fulfilment theory of dreaming
Hmmm, this is something serious. I started with an open mind. I made it clear to myself that I would accept things only if they come with strong background info and logic. My motto became "I'm right till I'm proven wrong". I don't know if I anymore possess the open mind, I sometimes wonder am I turning into a science "believer" which is dangerous too.
I don't know what or how would I react if someday its proved (with logic and reasons) that GOD do exist? Would I able keep my cool, accept with open mind or be stubborn to buzz from my old beliefs.
What would you do if its proved that GOD does not exist? Everything is and can be explained, can be put into a pattern and made a formula to replicate. Accept or retaliate?
Seriously, the debate was never western beliefs vs. indian beliefs. Neither I ever told my opinions are influenced by wetern beliefs. If my providing links having western origin made you do such conclusion, then I would like to say that I did not find a suitable link explaining properly things originating from India.
To me it was always GOD(one or 34 crore) vs. Science. I hate the concept of one God as much as I hate the concept 34crore gods we have in India.
I did not get it! What is the distorted view here?!!!
Agreed. Even I believe this is how God has started earlier. But soon, some highly imaginative person started telling stories containg the different Gods and later those became scriptures or base of God system.
Sun, moon, water, wind, fire were unexplained to men (not only in India but everywhere men inahbitated). They wondered about the unmatched and unexplained power of these objects. Not only did Indians imagined these as some highly powered beings look at Greece, Mayan, Inka etc. They all do pose or contain Gods related or symboling such objects.
The general curiosity and fear of unknown made men to develop such stories which as time passed by became the foundation stone of such bullshits.
Disagreed.
Very weak logic. Do you really think you wrote those on your own. I consider you providing very strong logics and reasons. But those are....
I didn't see the date, so sorry for bumping this thread
Oh, come on!!! My idle brain gets some excercise in it. (Like I re-read about miosis and cytokinesis, telomera today
Someday I would write what I think on why we do things we do.
Your argument shows that it remains fictitous. How can you ask to describe something that is beyond senses? Thus even your question is logically flawed or casually drawn! You can't even prove your own physical existence as scientifically and philosophically "it changes" every second like I stated before. You see material objects and everything around you, but how can you prove their existence? The ultimate reality encompasses everything i.e consciousness, universe, material objects which are to be known through senses. Material Science doesn't explain thoughts, intelligence etc as we have debated before. It doesn't understands universe or the cause of life. Do you have any explanation for it? How can you say you have known something if you haven't understood it completely? Thus the ultimate reality encompasses mental, spiritual as well as physical paramters.rhitwick said:
Again you are talking abrahamic! BTW, I'm not trying to prove or force anything on anyone.rhitwick said:
I was only trying to present how indian concepts get distorted when you view them from a western conditioned mindset and hence how Sanskrit ets reduced when you map it to English. I don't know if you know sanskrit, but from debate its probably no. The notion of 33/34 crore god (from anti-hindu sites) is again an abrahamic conditioned comprehension of the Indian concepts and so is one god. I guess you haven't understood my previous replies. The devas are not isolated from the ultimate reality, but part of it!rhitwick said:
1. You are trying to question the existence of something which you yourself are a part of. Questioning is good, but when done through the goggles of judgemental denial, then is bad.rhitwick said:
Yesrhitwick said:
Many of the stories in Indian context are metaphorical riddles and hence called cryptic in their language. The Vedas are presented as a cryptic poetry. But again in you above reply you are putting abrahamic and non-abrahamic on the same platter, a clear distortion due to abrahamic conditioning.rhitwick said:
. no offense intended.
This is the problem buddy... these guys just don't want to understand anything, they are just stuck to the theory of Abrahmic god, and delving into Indian Scripture and their eternity is beyond the limit of their senses
) will never got that.And try to introduce a new un-known, unable to feel things into picture. And stating that that will be the reason for everything happened till today. Be it a marriage or funeral, everything is that mystery man's decision from your POV. This is what you are going to say for your life time and teach your kids.
A lot of people are stuck and have put on abrahamic and material science goggles which is limiting their scope of understanding. When attachment to those goggles comes into picture, it becomes dangerous.rishabh said:
Not that simple. You have to understand why Vedas are called as "revealed". It doesn't mean that any god as in abrahamic sense came and dictated it to the humans. For that to understand, you need to know the relation between consciousness and spirituality first.furious_gamer said:
....
that is bcos cute lil kitties arent supposed to be carnivores. they are supposed to eat grass not hajmola
Agreed. Everything stands to be questioned and hence the rigvedic hymn of creation and detachment, a major principle promoted by Vedas which leads to questioning of ones own beliefs.amitash said:
Thats like denying the interpretations without even reading them based on an assumption that old is rotten. Indians knew about the roundedness of earth and motion of the planet long before west came out with the flat earth theory which was imposed on the whole world and preached in our NCERT that "everybody thought earth was flat". Thats a gross insult to the Indians and ignoring of Indian knowledge!Faun said:
this is why the whole concept of religion was created by trolls so they could troll while they troll, and make money out of it. religion is the oldest, richest and most unproductive job in the history of mankind. i dont need a god to tell myself that im safe. i dont need a god to survive. i dont need a god to help me eat, see, talk or sh!t.
this is like the redeemer, one hit, over 9000 kills
seriously, WHAT?!?!
Not generally,only in the case of singularity.It can't be touched 'coz it has zero volume.You cannot touch something with zero volume.
the universe is never devoid of logic, my friend!!! logic is the one thing holding the universe together. inability to understand something is because we are not on that "level" of awareness.
they discovered the effect, but
how can you touch an atom?
productiveness like inter-tribal(from now on, ill call religion, tribe) warfare. and if someone requires an imaginary friend to console him, i feel very sorry for him, and i think he serious take some psychiatric counselling and a good round of the electric chair.
who is this god person anyway? what has he done to deserve so much of our time?
A God may be many different things to many different people.. Is he an all powerfull diety? Is he just a psychological cure? Is he just a fast-moving beam of energy which caused creation?
the very definition of religion creates this divide. the world would be a better place without it.
im not talking about killing them. i just said that they should get their heads checked.
is it not illogical? imagine a soldier going to battle, he calls upon all gods to aid him. then he removes all his armor and weapons, and goes into an enemy bunker. what do you get? a martyr. for all his "bhakti" and devotion, he gets a bodybag. if he had used logic, he would be alive kicking the enemy's butt.
conscience is in NO way related to cells, neurons or otherwise. it is just a judgement of what a person believes to be right or wrong. its a part of consciousness and sentience.
to be sentient, the "group of particles" would have to be larger than the solar system, and as dense as thick fog. highly unlikely.
where did i say that?
The truth is that i mistook the meaning of 'conscience'.I was intending 'consciousness'.Replace 'conscience' with 'consciousness' and read that again.
Why?Is there a law stating the same?
Well,if the year was AD1000,and your ideologies where same as of now,if I had told you that "There is an entity with zero volume and infinite density",your bs meter reading might go past the tbs mark and explode.
I wasn't telling you otherwise.
That nobody knows for sure.May be this is when we should analyse what that is said in the Vedas etc. rather than following the all the religious traditions blindly.
Don't you know that every living being is formed of non-living particles.These non-living atoms join in various proportions to form indifferent living forms.
The particle system i suggested has consciousness and conscience.Just like mass possess gravity,this system has the property of causing events that depends on one's deeds.
Could be ,could not be.But its not like that every one around the world is in agony.There is a random mixture of both sadness and happiness.
Sense/detect what i said applies for both.
yes, the units have to interact with each other with sufficient frequency. the thick fog was a low estimate. i'd say something with density like shaving foam would do.
yes, i see where this is going.
what if the vedas are wrong? the vedas say to divide the society into castes. bravo.
umm, thats elementary, watson. what is your point here? it goes right over my poor tiny brain.
so its like a vending machine? put a coin(bad deed) you get 1 can, kick it(good deed) u get lots of cans. also, the "property" which you talk about is not INHERENT. else everything, including the clouds and the stars, would be sentient.
more like frustation, anger and sadness. have you met someone really happy with life? like all rainbows and sunshine and lalalala? positive emotions are completely overwhelmed by the negative ones.
umm, I said that you cannot touch/feel/sense/detect an atom with your regular senses
i dont think so. the quantum effects come into play with something so small. and the weak force and strong force too. there will be detection. that is how electrons were detected in the first place.
Again,which theory/law states this?
There are already plenty of arguments going on about if this is the case or not.Ancient texts like Upanishads describe 'Yoga' practices.These practices are accepted scientifically.Then why should the remaining part be fatuous?
You stated that the particle-system cannot be regarded as a living being since its components are dead-particles.I said every living being is made of dead-particles at the core.
Why shouldn't?Why is it illogical?
So when you look around, you don't see a single one living happily?All are in eternal misery and pain?
^ that should be fictitious
as is said "sad eclipses happy. there is happiness, but more sadness"
Definitely someone with a higher neuron count
These are only the particle related properties detected till date.Now this is from ME2 but it could be a possiblity.What if the state of one particle is in correspondence with the other.There is no question of mutual communication
Yep,what i said is that yoga practises are valid,not that they are the only way to find happiness.What should be fictitious?The fact that yoga practices are scientifically accepted?
Except a few of those possibly misinterpreted ideas,you don't have anything to argue about,do you?
Those who were able to predict the spherical shape of earth as well as the structure of solar system during when there were no modern facilities are well,definitely heroic.Those who carried out Sati by misinterpreting vedic hymns and those who compiled the Vedas,Upanishads etc are entirely different people.You are supposed to understand this.
I don't care if its living or not,as long as it has consciousness and conscience it can sense and act in proportion to the thoughts.
I will rely on probability of actuality of a fact.If the probability is more than 49% ,i'll take it.
There can't be a 'must' but there can be a 'can' since all particle systems aren't the same.
You cannot implicitly state such a thing unless you meet everyone in the world yourself and understand there exact state.But however lies this particular matter it isn't by any means against the existence of the so called 'GOD' since he isn't defined as someone whose job is to keep people happy.
you wrote "fatuous", it should be fictitious.
you too, are misguided, because you dont see what is written in them and just go with the general idea that "yeah, its written by ancient indians, who died out a long time ago, and we should adopt it as standard practice for todays world". why should i take a moldy old book at face value??? it was written a long time a go, and times have changed a lot. please toss the book into the "ancient books containing excellent advice for a bygone age" box.
they just said that sun is the centre of the solar system. good job, please give the man a nobel.
how would you classify something like that. where would you find such a thing?
so you are willing to worship anything, if someone tells you to do it? without thinking logically?
so according to you, some particle systems "can" have some property(like angular spin) and others cannot?
then why worship him??? what can he do??? whats the use???
it has to be do or die. religion is like a cancer, you must remove it from the core to finish it. im not talking about killing people.
did i not say man is responsible for all evils? lets remove evils in the order of least to most productive.
what is ethics? how do you know if a dead person deserved it or not? i will not say that it is always unethical to kill(there are some exceptions), but where is the the line dividing ethical and unethical? lets leave ethics for some other time.
what good did that do? the english only left india because they could not keep up with the logistical demands. the golden bird had shed its feathers and revealed black feathers. the brits didnt leave just because of non violence. ok, quick poll : choose between your burning wallet and your burning house.(both blazes are very small, but increase over time. you can choose only one) as i thought, your house. same thing with the brits. their economy was in shambles, and the allies were pressing them to give independence to us, and their government had just changed.
why, dont you think this is true? im not talking about spiritual "believe", but the "im trying to put across a common sense thing" believe. there's a difference. and you should know it. now go and re-read the post to get it in perspective.
does your "almighty god" tell you anything about the universe? what exactly does this "god" thing do that you are calling him "almighty"???
no, my dear hominid, your "opinion" is PURE BULLSHEET.
Carefully read what I explained.Its nothing like resonance.
Why should it be fictitious?
You don't have any idea about the contents of the Vedic texts.Dhanurveda explains in depth about weaponry and martial arts and you are going to run out of nobel prizes if given one for every medicinal technique adopted from Ayurveda.
Now like I said before if I had introduced to you the idea of black holes your reaction would have been no different.
Thats not what i proposed.The conscience of the *system* can sense not just the thoughts of those of same kind but also those of the living.
Probability is derived by applying logic.Everybody knows that.
More like every particle of a type has a spin number ,but not all spin numbers are the same.And when they form a system they develop new, unique properties.
I've never substituted the system with a 'him'.I'd prefer 'it'.
These I've explained several times before.
If the concept of GOD was developed to frighten some random dumb freak,then why go and write an entire series of books like the Vedas and explain the concepts like Brahman and all??
");
phew......i took me around 25 min to read just this page..............
ok....related to topic
its simple
i wrote a c program for it
double god; //
float science; //
int humans; //
if (prediction_2012==true)
god++;
else if (prediction_2012==false)
science++;
else if (prediction_2012==postponed)
humans=n00bs ;//
else
printf("move over to next post
PROVE IT!!!!
glad to agree. now tell me, you pray to god. what makes you think that he will have anything for you?
no he didnt. the first bacteria were anaerobic, then certain other smaller bacteria combined with them (which could use an oxygen pathway) and they became aerobic, and the smaller bacteria are now called mitochondria. this is supported by scientific evidence, because the dna/rna sequence and structure of a cell and its mitochondria are very different. and the mitochondria's structure hasnt changed in several million years. after that, some bacteria grouped together for protection, forming basic multicellular organisms, like slime molds and volvox of today. so, while some part of the 'animal' would be responsible for sticking to a surface, another would move using flagellae or cillia, and others would be in charge of breaking down the food. so such organisms became larger and more complex, the bacteria became more specialized.(im going to call them cells now) for example, fat cells store fat, so they have large vacuoles and very little mitochondria, while muscle cells have large and numerous mitochondria and long microtubules.
Yup, he does. From my personal experiences (which you will probably call coincidence even if it happened like thousands of time or you may even call me delusional.) I've pray to God mostly all the time, in times of need, or when I am free and willing to achieve something in my life. Most of the time when I was even in a trouble (BIG TROUBLE, WHICH WAS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID) I got surprisingly got out of it. Before that period I just prayed to God cause I was told to, not because I wanted to. Slowly and slowly questions started arising in my mind and some things made no logic to me at all. I gave it years of thinking and reasoning which finally led me to this. From, now on I seriously feel like I am talking to God, and there he gives a beautiful smile after saving me from a trouble. I HAVE FAITH IN GOD (try to think about this sentence and relate to my above post, If you don't get it ask me.)
Sometimes I laugh at the word natural selection, nature's intelligent enough to make evolution possible..hehe (no offence). What you guys call natural selection (by the natural selector) we call it God who is much more capable of things you can't even imagine, he is not just a natural selector.
I meant God has created life but it is scattered along long distances because
THEY ARE DIFFERENT SENTENCES, DON'T TWIST OR MIX THEM..oh god!
I've been thru that phase, bro. Take your time
Yeah right, If you'd actually done that, then your question (and your reply) might have sounded less stupid.I've been thru that phase, bro. Take your time
god gave me life? how? was i grown in a vat in some super dimension and then *magically* transported at the time of my birth? so god gave me the ability to help people, right? so why did he give me the ability to hurt them too? he could have taken that away. if he does not want to take away the ability to hurt, that means he is evil, no?
will you call quantum teleportation "natural" phenomenon? superconductors? electromagnetism?
what the benefit? we live for questions!!! the first creature that thought 'how do i gather food more efficiently' asked a question too!!! if you dont ask questions, you are no better than the farm animals, who are driven by others and dont ask a question.
you have a concrete roof over your head, you travel in mighty steel chariots, some of which fly on wings of fire across the sky. you travel over water in metal behemoths, whom no sea creature can hurt.
I don't agree with this bro, science has had a huge impact on our life, and it was always meant for the good of the people. But like always, we started misusing science which has lead to many problems in the world..but that doesn't mean don't try to discover something new just out of plain curiosity.
Yes, "God gave you life", that sentence doesn't mean that God just transported you to the world just like that. Noo...It actually means that you were born because It was God's will, but if you look at that sentence in an arrogant way that probably means what you said above. We all were born through the natural way of reproduction AND IT WAS GOD's WILL THAT LET US BORN.
God gave you FREE WILL bro, you can either use it to help people or misuse it to screw up the world even bad. God gave us many abilities but to a limit (Think of many other things you could have done and God took it away from you, countless possibilities).There are many other creatures that haven't got free will, forced to do the same thing (like ants).
why pray to a god who does not care? why? why pray to a god which does not exist? why?
i dont want a plain life, no excitement. but life is waaaay easier than before.
pffft!!!
you can get rid of god, its got no use in today's world
Look at the other side of the coin dude. Look around you, all the development in the world, all the luxury around you, almost everything is a result of science. You got a computer, nice. It helps you communicate with others and spread out your opinions, Now do you call that a bad consequence of science. Almost everyone uses computer for productivity work but only a few of them misuse it. So does that mean we shouldn't have invented computer. If you agree with yourself then please shutdown your computer and throw it out of your balcony
??? Do you mean:
no, i mean for every invention there HAS to be a less complicated predecessor. like pentium 2 came before 3, before 4, so on, so there must be middle ancestor.
forgot
I mentioned that in my theory, that there might have been apes first and God made MAN based on them.no, i mean for every invention there HAS to be a less complicated predecessor. like pentium 2 came before 3, before 4, so on, so there must be middle ancestor.
if god created a "perfect" man, why do we have all the different kinds of ppl today? black, brown, yellow, white? why the diseases? there is no perfection in this world
if god created "perfect" life, then why do we have mosquitos, bugs and other cr@p? what purpose do they serve?
scriptures are nothing but transcripts of a trip. how else do you explain them? men coming from sky, blah, giant mutant monkeys, blah, mutants with 10 skulls, blah, flying carpets..... oops, chariots
what if the event was such that we dont have the means to observe or theorize about?
like, would you expect a medieval knight to theorize about microscopes and lasers?
we just have to keep looking for more knowledge.
that living in the present thing goes into the virtual reality shelf, buddy
thats a debate for another time "[poll] are we really sentient???"
Well, how? It is your arrogance that you see it in that way.
) dies. The more the complex the organism is the more it's lifespan is. No, I'm not saying the world is an organism (pffft) just an example.
Why? Don't you believe that there can be someone much more complex than us (most complex) who can provide us with what we have today. Just like we being a more complex organism in respect to a lower organism, like dog, provide it with shelter, food, etc.
*sigh* You are just too used to it to notice it.
I never said stop trying to discover the unknown, just because someone MUCH MORE COMPLEX is the cause for it (the creator of it, God). People who believe that we should not discover the unknown just because they know that someone more complex (God) has made it, are just ignorant.
Are you aware of the Mesopotamians? They are probably extinct now but we have alot of their inventions as artifacts and we have even tried to know about them. There have been problems translating their language but we are still trying. Now do you call that disrespecting someone else's creation by trying to know about it even more, even if we know that the Mesopotamian were responsible for it? If someone creates something for the others to use, does that mean we can't tinker with it to our liking just because we know that he has already invented it.
It is a miracle of the God to save a person just by miliseconds, in the sense that it wasn't his time to die yet and God wanted him to survive, it is not usual though (people getting saved by miliseconds). But because it happens so rarely we call it a miracle (people are not used to it). The people who die, are dead because it was their time to die, no power of the universe can stop it.
It is not mind games. Why would someone above our level of complexity, aware of our existence not care about us. God wants us to do the right things BECAUSE it will lead us to a better life (our advantage, not his). Some people say live life to the fullest and enjoy till you can (party all day and night, drink, smoke and do "bad stuff". But in the end it is them who die early and don't get to live life the fullest).
Yes I did, I was too lazy to explain it all in a full paragraph unless you know what I mean.
Just look around you, it is something that makes sense. God has planned everything in such a way that would all lead to the divine plan but yet we have free will.
You're talking about accidents, aren't you cause that's a whole different case. The good will share good consequence after death. Even if the Bad survives more than a good person, he/she will share a much worse consequence after death.
Experiences force you into deep thinking, looks like the ratio of Bad experiences have overlapped the ratio of Good experiences leading you into negative thinking
.
way to go, we need more rational and logical people like you.
yes, jesus is complete load of bull$hit. that book, bible, will make a hollywood blockbuster.
Some more:
thank you, thank you, it was nothing at all
eh, whats that mean? kala akshar bhaais barabar?
BANNED FOR OFFTOPIC!!!
How do you know that the prayer did the trick?
It's just your imagination.
Can you prove that? At best it's just your assumption.
Can you prove that or atleast have any lead which made you think this way.
Brrr......in the term nature's selection , Nature doesn't have a functional brain or way of doing . Please understand what it means.
Can you prove that or atleast have any lead which made you think this way.
Many problems with that.
Sorry but wrong. Absolutely wrong. It tends to zero, but is not zero.
But saying "God did it or made it this way " just gives you a reason to give up your responsibility to find out more .
Hope it helps. The basic questions of life are the most mind boggling.
Glad to helpYep.This might be the truth.But still confusing.
I'm not really that kind of a theist.I don't totally believe in a GOD however i do believe in the high probability for the existence of one.With such amount of confusing and crazy facts and phenomenon going on out here why is it so improbable to find a supernatural being?
Anyway thank you for trying to clear my doubts ,unlike some doomgivers out there
...it is again you assumption ) .
that is one worthy god, as long it doesnt leak personal info
dont worry, i'll get them as soon as i get some cash.
It was all going good and funny until you said this. Science is not a religion to believe in, neither it is like a relationship with Jesus to commit to."Will tell you people the truth. It was God himself who made me an atheist. He was like:
- Thou shall be smarter than a great percentage of the world and shall not believe in Me. Use knowledge, common sense, logic, intelligence and shall realize I am just a hoax. Amen, my son. Let yourself be with thee. Thou can do things for and by yourself."
Atheist from 4 years and committed to Science till death!
It was just an example.^lol, Jesus ? It wasn't even mentioned in his post.
Our reality is pretty much different from God's. Miracles and such accidents are pretty much equal to God. Most of the time our thinking is falsified that God is all loving and will save you from all the troubles.
Even though this is sarcastic, it's true. Just like the TDF mods, God is not answerable to you, because our reality is highly falsified and it's pretty much dynamic at times. But the true reality (the one which we haven't discovered yet) is pretty much God's reality.
), save people, don't cause quakes. Its like a child who never grows up. All your life instead of doing good to you and humanity in general, you keep praising and praying, while completely laying waste the life that has been given to you.
It is not necessarily good or bad. MORE OVER, you're talking about free will, not accidents which come in unexpected.
The world has to finish at some point, the balance has to be maintained. But, the humans are failing at it in every single way. It was destined to be this way which will eventually lead to the divine plan.
What balance?
What is free will?
Ya, this is how its done. Everything that is not explained by science must be an act of god. If its explained by science, well, lets move on to next topic which is not yet explained by science.
Well, since bbirth we are taught to believe this imagination. We can do this any time. But, what if I ask you to believe the opposite for at least 5 mins. Where do you see yourself?
Oh, got your point... you know co-incidence but are too mesmerized by it to open your eyes to acknowlledge your own reasoning for it.
So you actually believe in evolution? Why do you think there is evolution or you have some godly explanation for evolution too (you know, if you do really have a godly explanation of evolution, you would be the first person in the world to do that. Others just deny of evolution.)
And, you are well aware of God's reality? If God's existence is still under debate (oh, not you. You already accept. So your and our reality is different) how can God's reality be real?
I do not agree with this point.
Yeah I heard this is "Om Shaanti Om".
Survival? Why does he have to kill me for him to survive. Please use normal people as examples.
That was not my intention. I meant to say that look, terrorism takes place because of the freedom each individual has. God is in no way responsible for the freedom he gave you , its upto you how you use the freedom.Esp when you are trying to say that god killed those people at temple because they killed vegetable
, of course some may interpret it wrong as killing even the chickens but that is what we humans do. We may choose not to or we may do it. Its our intelligence that tells us that we have to kill plants to survive. Humans created strict laws against killing tigers in recent years as their species are getting extinct. These all come with our intelligence, they weren't written in Bhagwat Geeta.From Google:point to be noted rhitwick
Again the point which im trying to talk about. There is a word called "somehow". Whenever we talk about god we HAVE to use terms like "somehow", "may", "would", "believe" etc etc. Such words itself say that you are not certain with your arguments.
About killing humans and chickens
Enjoy~!
).
@Sarath: If your statement on Dawood was sarcasm then I salute you. If it wasn't, then do not make a silly comment(no offense intended; too many ban-happy mods around
yes, perfectly reasonable, citing recursively. genius.
this is SO wrong. i dare you to try and "condense" gold out of a soup of elementary particles.
SCIENCE IS ANYTHING & EVERYTHING.....
I've something for you,
From wiki
SOURCE
And I always failed to understnd how "homeopathy" is relevant in this debate. Never ever the homeopathic doctors claimed that the medicine they provide contains 50% of "God particle", hence such cures without any reason.
))
I think he means science exists in everything. I mean if God exists there must be some science to him as well.^^I think we are discussing to clear the confusion.
You don't know that, do you?
Why should I?Don't use that line during examinations
Please don't discuss over my statement. I am a human being...let me err
Whatever side you are on, if you cannot help a person in need, whom you could have easily aided without (or with some) handicap to yourself, then all the scientific prowess you have or the religious inclinations you have are of no use.
That..doesn't make sense :/Is it really weird that I cannot understand my own post and as a result the replies you guys are posting. Seriously I am totally blind and baffled.
I guess I will retire.
Bye peepul
BTW after God of War 3, how many Gods remain?
Is it really weird that I cannot understand my own post and as a result the replies you guys are posting. Seriously I am totally blind and baffled.
I guess I will retire.
Bye peepul
BTW after God of War 3, how many Gods remain?
Lol you right
science vanished miracle?? Lol.
Science created the chance to find more miracles.
U think 'black hole' could totally be explained by scienbf?
U think 'human mind' could be explained by science?
U think 'start of the universe' , 'time' could be cleared by science?
Hell , science couldn't even discovered the smallest particle of matter.
Those 'star system' in each galaxy and those galaxies in a universe are maintaining their route , don't u see miracle?
Hell, even ur body is a miracle.
Science is expanding and making own corrections. But never would reach any absolute highest point,where it will be flawless and u can explain everything clearly with science.
Rather science is giving birth to new confusions.
And u answer my question that iasked first.
science vanished miracle?? Lol.
Science created the chance to find more miracles.
U think 'black hole' could totally be explained by scienbf?
U think 'human mind' could be explained by science?
U think 'start of the universe' , 'time' could be cleared by science?
Hell , science couldn't even discovered the smallest particle of matter.
Those 'star system' in each galaxy and those galaxies in a universe are maintaining their route , don't u see miracle?
Hell, even ur body is a miracle.
Science is expanding and making own corrections. But never would reach any absolute highest point,where it will be flawless and u can explain everything clearly with science.
Rather science is giving birth to new confusions.
And u answer my question that iasked first.
Yes, black hole is easily explained with science. Despite being very complex, scientists have really discovered a lot about black holes. Not a miracle.science vanished miracle?? Lol.
Science created the chance to find more miracles.
U think 'black hole' could totally be explained by scienbf?
U think 'human mind' could be explained by science?
U think 'start of the universe' , 'time' could be cleared by science?
Hell , science couldn't even discovered the smallest particle of matter.
Those 'star system' in each galaxy and those galaxies in a universe are maintaining their route , don't u see miracle?
Hell, even ur body is a miracle.
Science is expanding and making own corrections. But never would reach any absolute highest point,where it will be flawless and u can explain everything clearly with science.
Rather science is giving birth to new confusions.
And u answer my question that iasked first.
science vanished miracle?? Lol.
Science created the chance to find more miracles.
U think 'black hole' could totally be explained by scienbf?
U think 'human mind' could be explained by science?
U think 'start of the universe' , 'time' could be cleared by science?
Hell , science couldn't even discovered the smallest particle of matter.
Those 'star system' in each galaxy and those galaxies in a universe are maintaining their route , don't u see miracle?
Hell, even ur body is a miracle.
Science is expanding and making own corrections. But never would reach any absolute highest point,where it will be flawless and u can explain everything clearly with science.
Rather science is giving birth to new confusions.
And u answer my question that iasked first.
hey, mate, i thought we lost you back there.
answers in blue italicsscience vanished miracle?? Lol. no, science showed that what were called miracles were just the applications of the human mind in creative ways. like, a laser or a bulb would be a "miracle" to a cave-man
Science created the chance to find more miracles. i have NO idea what you mean
U think 'black hole' could totally be explained by scienbf? go talk to stephen hawkings, he is your god who answers such questions. and science discovered black holes, if it was not for science, then one day, a poor sod would have disappeared down one, and it'd have been called a effing "miracle"
U think 'human mind' could be explained by science?
U think 'start of the universe' , 'time' could be cleared by science? stephen hawking
Hell , science couldn't even discovered the smallest particle of matter. each "smallest particle" we discover has a smaler particle inside it. and what is the smallest particle according to your "god"???
Those 'star system' in each galaxy and those galaxies in a universe are maintaining their route , don't u see miracle? what route? a circle is a route? ever heard of "force"???
Hell, even ur body is a miracle. and this stupidity is a miracle too
Science is expanding and making own corrections. But never would reach any absolute highest point,where it will be flawless and u can explain everything clearly with science. yes it can. it is believed there is a set of equations governing everyhign in this universe. they are called TOE(theory of everyhting) or GUT(grand unified theory)
Rather science is giving birth to new confusions. no it is not, its just clearing confusions caused by religion and mankind's *****ing. solutions like nukes exist solely for this purpose. and is it not good to clear confusions?? and if new confusions are being discovered, is it not better that we found them?? or would you rather that we lie in ignorance and just exist for the heck of existing?
And u answer my question that iasked first.
"Whole World Deceived... Except the Very Elect" (Dec. 1977)
Lemme ask one question...Who is all behind this science ????
C'mmon! If God can be created outta nowhere, then why can't the universe be.
answers, as always, in blue italics
And forgot...right?
Its done!
And this is something which you mentioned for your assurance. You wanted yourself to be reminded that whatever happens you would not open your eyes.
I won't...science will. Wait.
you dont have to "learn" to combine together.
in 3000 BC, the sumerians had reached, and exceeded the climax of their civilization, and were on a sharp decline.
You must first read Urey-Miller hypothesis - class 10 biology I suppose
That is probably the funniest thing I've ever read. Go anywhere in India, especially in South India, to update your knowledge, then come back. There is no architecture in the world that can be compared to (and there is no sense in comparing huge pyramids with meticulously crafted architectures. They both have their own significance) South India temples like of RajaRaja temples, Meenakshi Temple, Ajanta Caves, Khajuraho and so on, the list is Huge! I hope you are not living with tribals..
Who ran for lives? Maharana Pratap, Who fought ruthlessly till his last breath against Akbar?? Or Rani of Jhansi, who despite of being a women, showed the height of courage? Or those millions of Patriots who fought for the independence including Bhagat Singh, Rajguru? Are you talking about them?
These are civic problems, and can be solved unless people like you come and blame it on religion.. I hope you do not treat anyone as slave..
Thanks for showing me your intellectual level, I'd rather debate with somebody with guts of writing...
Very good, I expected no less..
What do you want to say? Comparing Hindus to DINOSAURS??
Don't be so desperate bro, find some debatable content and come back
) and some think modern is better. Some even have the audacity to fall into the traps of western missionaries to call the Vedic knowledge as religion and then use the same tag for their own motives based on presumptions and tags based on the terminologies they themselves dislike.istorting Hinduism (Part 1) | The Chakra News.
)
out your entire room and at-last you come to know that you've wasted you life.
Glad to acknowledge your respect towards Indian Civilization.
What you cannot answer about is the when i pray for anything is solved!!!! And there have been so many situation's where hE himself showed me that he EXIST!!!!! There were so many situations were i felt his presence as support!!!! So i think he does exist!!! But one thing for sure is that he's beyond our reach!!!!
I think god is treated by the non-believers as SciENCe!!!
, do not participate in this 'God vs Science' debate, which is more 'Religion vs Science'.
Problem is in 'Exclusivity', when you are not willing to respect the other, just like 'you' people are not willing to respect 'God-Believers' (Yes, that is also a kind of Extremism)
You know, I was wondering, what happened to you?! You have posted in this thread but never in this tone. I was wondering if you encountered any miracle yourself or got a visit from any god. But, well, this will do too.
How is this being selfish? Whereas your parents kept an open mind to not force you into family tradition, you are feeling guilty for not being in family tradition. Be a mridangam player or a yoga teacher or whatever you want but saying that you are doing this because your ancestors did it is wrong. Its like you are doing a favor to them and they should be thankful to you. In your mind you would always knew you could have been anything but you "chose" to be a yoga teacher. Choosing your family tradition is your option, don't make it a sacrifice.
You have used "many" twice, now i really like to know all those benefits, may be after listening I might turn into a believer!
Atheists do not throw things away just because the thing is attached to some God related issue. The basic funda of atheism is questioning. We question all ideas. We crave for logic, reasoning and facts. If an incident can be measured in these yardsticks we will accept it but if it can't be well be happy with your beliefs but spare me.
A prasad is a food too, and at time very delicious one. We just fall prey to our very basic primate instincts and eat 'em.
Exactly!
On one hand you think others shouldn't talk about a "particular religion" and then you are fancying with Islam.speedguy said:
Bhagvad-Gita said:
}
Turkey as it stands. Socially and culturally superior to India in every way possible.
Quran_chaper_5 said:
bhagvada-gita said:
bhagvad-gita said:
Perhaps, we should put Islam/Quran in a shelf and tell that to the muslims so that they shoud wait for another few hundred years so that extremism doesn't happen?whitestar said:
Quran_chapter_33 said:
Without questioning and rational debating things will remain in the backyard. Unless people change the books for better, they will still follow the teachings headlong without much thought, resulting into unwanted conflicts.
Every human lives with some prejudice in his head. Questioning and rational debating won't change this.
my statement was particularly about religious texts & if i am not mistaken Dayanand Saraswati gave his call to return to Vedas specifically to address the issue of religious/spiritual corruptness in hinduism over time.btw about vivek anand & aurbindo you just need the "right man" for the "right job".i am very certain that with right amount of information & resources(including knowledge of psychology)it is easy to distort any religious/non-rational/based on views text to convert certain persons to extremism.
Doesn't really matter now even if someone chooses to post a thousand times. May be it made sense for 600 AD because of hostility from the Jewish and Christian cult. Muhammad also went out to form a political entity rather than only a cult. And you need propaganda for this.
Just because majority decided something is wrong it can't be wrong. Even if the verses were correct or were relevant at 600AD, if Mediator's argument is based on 'em, the counter argument is also relevant. The context and reasons are relevant.
My actual point is, all of this is irrelevant in the 21st century. I don't even care about whether this was relevant in 600 AD or not.
couldn't have said it better.this is the reason why i don't post mini-essay posts in such threads.
Applies to Mediator's post too about hindu scriptures
I guess you'll figure out this as well over TCP/IP.
Anorion said:
Anorion said:
i disagree.just wait for a few hundred years & there will be a pill for everything.
Faun said:
That is exactly what I said in my first post here. Actions. Doesn't matter if they are dictated by a hilarious pile of text or not. Actions are actions.
yup, really better if ignored. We get rid of prejudices and corruption. Back to the vedic age.
I know what I read when I wake up each morning and I'll keep that to myself. One doesn't even need to show off/flaunt what all hilarious pile of texts he has read or not. If this implies that I lack an e-penis, then yes I'm impotent.@Rhitwick : Everybody is free to agree or disagree with me. I understand your point, but I have debated this on hardcore muslim forums as well with the same result. The persians called the people of aryvarta as Hindus, i.e a name imposed by foreigners and then wiseguys are calling it "Yindoos" unable to discuss on the substance. Like I said, does it matter what you call an ocean?
IMO, the people who don't take the texts seriously are even bigger idiots. History is meant to be repeated if ignored. It is for this reason there was a stress on smritis as well i.e the texts which are to be remembered. Only if the people are educated about the texts of Satyakama Jabala, the Bharata, Mahabharat etc which provide an insight and wisdom as well and the essence of varna and compare it to the ideals of shrutis or an objective mind , there wouldn't be any division or discrimination in the society regarding OBC/SC/ST in the first place. The studies of texts in the west is called "comparative studies". It is from the studies of sanskrit literature that westerners have known the scientific and integral essence of sanskrit. It is from the studies of these shrutis which has actually influenced the world's most revolutionary scientists like Nikolas Tesla, Heisenberg etc.
Straight from the horses mouth : Eminent Supporters and Upholders of Hinduism
Had people foreigners behaved and concluded on sanskrit with the same attitude, then obviously it might have been similarly called the language of monkeys. Whatever one wants to call as hilarious is subjective to him. But unawareness about shrutis is certainly a pityful state of ignorance where the people impotent to discuss on the substance have shown that their intellect is limited to only namecalling and judging, like calling the texts as only "hilarious" or calling Hindus as "Yindoos". The role of admins I guess has evolved in the past 5 years from ethically and objectively adminstering to namecalling, asssuming and judging subjectively. These people don't even understand what they are missing on and like many other people are lazy enough to read and quick enough to judge a book by its cover or by the acts of human beings in society as we discussed previously.
Anyways, I have read the Quran and many of the Upanishads, Secret of Vedas and thats why I'm discussing on it and I'm not quoting Quran from any critic site either, but straight from muslim.org which you can verify anytime. If any other person wants to discuss the same, he/she is free to put forward any version of Quran in front. But obviously, I request him/her to read the Gita, Upanishads and Vedas by Aurobindo.
I guess I'm not asking for too much and I haven't surveyed this forum as to who has the upper hand. If anyone has better knowledge, then it is much better or advantageous for me. But reading a text before commenting on it comes under the basic ethics of a discussion which is lacking in most of the people busy commenting.
Imagine lawyers arguing without understanding the law and other fence-sitters commenting on the constitutional knowledge and the situation in the court of law as "People arguing about hilarious texts are as foolish as people who take them seriously".
This is the situation in this forum. People haven't read either the Quran or any of the shrutis, but are still busy commenting and opining and some others mocking the basics of intelligence and ethics.
I hope you were not talking about mediator's posts, because I've read them. About studying them myself....I want to very much as in such debates I fail to compete with someone who those things. Like Mediator. But I don't have time right now, till then...I would try to explain things with my limited knowledge.
I know what I read when I wake up each morning and I'll keep that to myself. One doesn't even need to show off/flaunt what all hilarious pile of texts he has read or not. If this implies that I lack an e-penis, then yes I'm impotent.
"People arguing about hilarious texts are as foolish as people who take them seriously." I haven't argued with anyone. May be whatever I am saying concerns him. What he is saying doesn't concern me.
i completely agree with this.
his sense of spirituality is different. lol.. from what i am reading he is talking more sense than you. he has not even taken potshots at anyone. he has not offended anyone and he is not trying to even offend anyone. you stick to your texts. everyone's 'karma' defines them.
may be he touched a painful nerve.
The 'texts' don't matter in the end. Actions and only actions do.
I still don't understand why do you think a religion is necessary to form a moral?
Do you really need to refer a book to do good? I help the needy...why it has to pass a criteria test according to some x y z book to determine if it was good deed by me.
I don't get this ideology too. What is the issue here too? Should you have a problem with the medium if the message is right?
And that IS your logic to prove what?
What you've just told, is what you've imagined right now. What if I say that is just a story, nothing else.
If interested try to read the Source
and that's exactly how I roll. Don't judge/link actions with hilarious texts.
hmm... no because it is a vast epic endless story that no one in the world claims to know fully, and you can reveal bits of it or go on telling it for days, it is more than a complete study set on human behavior, things that are programmed within us, if you do have to teach a kid the intricacies of adult life, these stories will do just fine as any other, donno why search for anything else or invent your own when you already have these. This is totally the purpose of these stories.
I know your reply is regarding Religion in context of @Anorion's understanding.rhitwick said:
bhagvada-gita said:
Upanishad said:
Religion basically divides. Any form of ism that one identifies to and attaches itself to leads to the first step towards the division. While Islam puts it explicitly, definies and divides, Hinduism, Buddhism etc are mere words where the essence teaches to detach and decondition, but most of the followers ignorant about the essence attach to and treat themselves differently. Even atheism is a religion only, where the followers perceive themselves as superior to theists, sometimes abuse the theists, condescend and form atheist groups. Though the atheist proclaim to be scientific, many atheists still follow the science blindly, attach to one angle which is often propogated by the modern scientists and will not even consider pondering over any other angle or anything of their own and will stick to that conditioning, unable to decondition helplessly. This forum alone has provided ample proofs where people, reducing themselves to the tags of atheist, who never read even the Gita presumpuously associated it to a religion, saw Indians worshipping to cows, horses and soma as some alcoholic wine and fell into the traps of the likes of the missionaries like Max Muller and Macaulay whose aims were to distort and demean alone and the corruption of some brahmins who reduced the understanding of the Vedas to a meaningless set of rituals where the meaning of sacrifice was distorted totally and identified by killing .Anorion said:
No I did not read the whole thread or the last two pages as I had started reading from the page 1. I don't think it was necessary to read the whole thread before posting as it is not a thread where we are trying to help someone and the points should not be repeated. It is a thread where i can give my views on this particular topic. My views may have been echoed or ridiculed by someone already on the earlier pages but still I put it in my own words. This topic will never reach its conclusions, not until both sides accept each others view and respect them.^He did not read last two pages...leave alone the thread
. All I meant to say was its us who distort religion for our own benefits. No religion at its core promotes violence.
@Faun Pretty old actually
I can't see the point you are making.It's called a conjecture for a reason. No mathematician would tell you that it's true for all numbers. There is no proof for or against it.
it is not because of science but because of lack of men proficient enough to use science to solve these problems.also "god only helps those who help themselves".
". This was a "flawed scientific practice" until new developments proved it wrong.
My Personal Opinion:
When an equation will prove that god exists; we would reached the pinnacle of scientific progress, no other truth can be greater than that. In the end, both science an religion are attempts to explore the truth, and there can only be one universal truth.
The opinions of science and scientific community is basically limited by the scientific knowledge of the time. As an example, till the end of the 19th century - blood-letting was a scientific medical practice. Basically, if you are ill, doctors would remove measured quantities of blood from your body to cure any disease. The underlying theory in lay man terms is simple: "the bad things are in the blood so removing it will help cure any disease
My point is, we are only limited by our current knowledge, who knows what developments in science may take place in the future that may force us to reconsider the very basic laws of science that we take for granted today. But I will believe in my opening paragraph.
Actually, I believe that every major religion is the world is correct, its the humans who are wrong. They twist the truth meaning to suit their needs and ignore a few rules for their own greed.
someone please quote this in the "religion do we need it" thread
100 billion years are long enough, dont you think?
Honestly i don't know i was 'just' pass in physics ! I do know a bit electrical and electronics stuff but that too just because of the UG Course other than that dimensions and parallel universes and too much an uphill task to grasp for my noob brain .
than this one
the conclusion of this thread is ' there are many things and events going on around us which indicate that it cannot simply occur all by an accident, but also we cannot prove perfectly about the existance of god ' . until god sends us something to strengthen our believes, which will satisfy all of our never ending qouestions.
us "religioned" people still have a majority
*according to poll*
I meant by 'All events and things around us' were the universe, this world, humanrace, nature, animals , even our body, mind... Can u believe these all were product/by products of a big bang (accident) ?? I meant this very well formed universe , this human body cannot be just made by big bang and evolution.
Ok, i am a medical student. The more i get into 'how human body works' or 'what is mind' , the more i realize the presence of a creator.
No, i didn't read what darwin had written. Have u read?
Ok, if someone come back from death it would be 'magical' , isn't it?
Then, after an accident (big bang) ,start of this universe and atleast this earth (as we donot know about any other planet with int. life forms) does not seem to be abit 'magical'? unless the accident was greatly arranged by some one?
And i have a question, what was there, before that bigbang?
And physics law violation? Lol, what physics law? The always changing physics law? Like physics said someday Particles was indestructable and now they can be transformable to energy?
If coming-back of life to an already wellformed human body ( after natural death ) , violates ur always changing physics law, Then , " this large animal planet with human race had been made just from some dust an fumes" does not this break ur never-stable physics law?
U guys when cannot find an answer then use the 'evolution' crap after seeing some adaption or physical changes based upon environmental changes.
That may change a mammoth into an elephant. But no way, it can change fumes/rocks or amoeba into a complete human being.
It was a good decision that you took medicine.
I've something for you.U guys when cannot find an answer then use the 'evolution' crap after seeing some adaption or physical changes based upon environmental changes.
That may change a mammoth into an elephant. But no way, it can change fumes/rocks or amoeba into a complete human being.
but i donot hope, i know . and it would not only me, but also all living things he created.
No potshots.
Just saw on Discovery Science!!Lol there is no science nor god all there exist is Illusion
I meant by 'All events and things around us' were the universe, this world, humanrace, nature, animals , even our body, mind... Can u believe these all were product/by products of a big bang (accident) ?? I meant this very well formed universe , this human body cannot be just made by big bang and evolution.
Ok, i am a medical student. The more i get into 'how human body works' or 'what is mind' , the more i realize the presence of a creator.
No, i didn't read what darwin had written. Have u read?
Ok, if someone come back from death it would be 'magical' , isn't it?
Then, after an accident (big bang) ,start of this universe and atleast this earth (as we donot know about any other planet with int. life forms) does not seem to be abit 'magical'? unless the accident was greatly arranged by some one?
And i have a question, what was there, before that bigbang?
And physics law violation? Lol, what physics law? The always changing physics law? Like physics said someday Particles was indestructable and now they can be transformable to energy?
If coming-back of life to an already wellformed human body ( after natural death ) , violates ur always changing physics law, Then , " this large animal planet with human race had been made just from some dust an fumes" does not this break ur never-stable physics law?
U guys when cannot find an answer then use the 'evolution' crap after seeing some adaption or physical changes based upon environmental changes.
That may change a mammoth into an elephant. But no way, it can change fumes/rocks or amoeba into a complete human being.
how can the universe get more complex when the the third law of thermodynamics states that everything will try to achieve simpler and simpler states... there are many theories about it, including a teleological attractor at the end of time (or god) that is sitting at the end of all time and encouraging stuff to get increasingly complicated... but a more scientific view point will be that although universally things are getting more diffused and less complicated, complicated stuff is building up only locally... and the ultimate fate is getting back to simpler and simpler states... forget life, star systems are also a rare thing in the void
how can the universe get more complex when the the third law of thermodynamics states that everything will try to achieve simpler and simpler states... there are many theories about it, including a teleological attractor at the end of time (or god) that is sitting at the end of all time and encouraging stuff to get increasingly complicated... but a more scientific view point will be that although universally things are getting more diffused and less complicated, complicated stuff is building up only locally... and the ultimate fate is getting back to simpler and simpler states... forget life, star systems are also a rare thing in the void
in all, there are some valid doubts in there, not troll post,
Even though human body is complex but still it's way too inefficient. Not perfect in my opinion.
The formation of living organisms was not from dust or fumes but rather by evolution which follows the "rules of the world" (so to speak). There's a difference between laws, theories and hypothesis btw.
Evolution is not an automagical process, google it up a bit.Oh, another one, peacock tail. U said, that it took that pattern cause of the need to attract female.
I will say, wow how spontaneous and sophisticated automated creation. We need to see, so have a steroscopic binocular vision, we need to think, so we have a mysterious brain...
Oh, now i feel that our life is at great risk having only one blood-pumping organ, lets another heart be automatically created and adjusted through million years process.
Hell no way u/we can answer our all always-expanding-questions with science.
But , will 'the believing in the god' be able to? Well search by yourself guys.
").., there was one recent scene from a show which my parents watch, in which maa durga took birth on earth and some evil was trying to kill that baby, who suddenly was attacked by a lion, who killed the evil and guarded the child (maa durga. ), what i thought was if it was a normal child in real life, it would surely been a good and healthy lunch for that lion, but coz that was maa durga, it actually guarded it, how pity and impartial, on one side, we say that "Bhagwan sabme basta hai", and on the other hand we show that lions only guard "special childs in which durga resides" and eats all other.. ), we label these things are "natural" or "act of god", which no one of us can ever explain"..
we say that "Bhagwan sabme basta hai", and on the other hand we show that lions only guard "special childs in which durga resides" and eats all other..
wow, a nice discussion going on, let me put my views..
i neither believe in god or science, i just believe that the things we can describe tends to fall in "Scientific terms" and those which cannot be explained falls in "Godly terms"..
Coz neither science nor god can justify that how we were created, how this universe is created? (big-bang is just what we humans have assumed to have happened, but none of us are 100% sure about it..
I just believe that there's one form of energy, which drives this whole universe, but don't consider it as a god, who keeps balance of good or bad, or anything like that, i consider it just to be an energy, which came into existence by unknown sources..
Actually, i really laugh off those "bhakti" shows, which have flooded our TV sets for as long as these TV's have existed in india..
Back to the point, we humans are just a very small part of this universe, what all theories and proofs we have "invented" in the name of science are actually just assumptions, which limits to the extent which we see, daily many theories changes, modifies and many scientific laws are broken in the name of natural acts, coz we humans just can assume what we see, we say that life can only exist on a habitable climate, which earth possess, i think what if sun has it's own form of life, any bacteria or organisms, that are not found on earth, but can only survive in high temps like sun (not in our earth core/lava), and we humans don't have enough equipments to find that, but we deny it, i've heard many reports in newspapers, in which scientists say: "Life needs a habitable climate to survive", but that's evolution, earth organisms evolved to live in earthly climates, some other organisms might exist in a climate, which we humans could have labelled "inhabitable" or "poisonous", coz it's what it is for us..
I know my views are quite confusing, and that what i believe, i am somewhere in my mindset, in the middle of the "science" and "god", i don't blindly believe in either one of them...
Wrapping up things on my side with the lines that describe my thoughts: "The things which we can describe, we label them as "Scientifically proven", and not "Some act of god" coz it's explained, and then there are some things that we cannot describe (like life after death, we can't prove it by science, so we labelled them in our ways, some saying the concept of "soul" getting freed, some saying that re-incarnation process follows after death, but we should see that these all are again "assumptions", no one knows if there's a soul or not, we have just assumed it to be a form that drives our body, that we cannot explain, for me, dying is just like what we feel when we sleep, but for forever, coz we won't wake up once we die..
which i wrote above..
)), life on earth started with some meteorite with some living samples striking the earth, and that sample evolved to live in this climate..
total energy of the universe has to be zero.
now that's a scientific logic, and i 100% agree with it.. (saiyans..
yeah, coz acc to me from what i have read (and from the movie "Evolution", really loved the concept..
And that meteorite might have been a part of any other living planet, which bursted in parts, whose one of the part struck the earth.. (assumptions)
So we can say "GOD" to those creatures, from whose samples we evolved..
that's what i mean to say, we think this because we don't know any organism which can survive in that temp, but we are not the masters of the universe, we constitute 0.00000001% of this universe, how could we possibly know each and every organism, how they can survive, in what conditions they can survive???
3000K is sure enough to eliminate any living creatures we know, but do we really know that no organism can survive that temp, are we sure about that???
It is still allowed.
Human imagination.
), you yourself says it's a fundamental error, but that's on the basis of what ranade presented to you, what if he's wrong, what if our puranas are wrong, after all they too are written by us mortals on the basis of our research, not on the basis of what is written by nature, you getting my point??? and if they say that before universe was born, the thing was timeless and space-less or massless, how these things came into existence, how does anything like time came into existence when it did'nt existed at any time?? all these fundamental errors are created if we see things the way our puranas and ranade want us to see, why not break the ice, try to go against whatever it's written in there, and research on what you think, what we think, and conclude something considering it not to be timeless, what's the harm in that??? after all what's written thousands of years ago does'nt mean that it has become nature's law, it's still a research by the beings on a planet which constitutes 10^-31 % of the observable universe, it's the part of evolution dude, we can't stop on just one thought, if one door closes, we evolve ourselves to use the other one, if they say it's timeless thing, let us see what's the output if we consider it the opposite...
dude, you did'nt understood what i meant to say, my thoughts are very clear, i never said that how universe was born is timeless or spaceless, i just said "timeless things cannot be defined", and philosophy says it's timeless, what i mean to say is that if ranade or any other philosopher or our purana said it's timeless thing, it should'nt mean that we should stop taking it the other way, they did their research and concluded it's timeless and spaceless, let us do our research and let's see what we conclude...
Your thoughts seems to be contradicting to me (and see it's human nature, we both are trying to prove and think that we are right
I support neither of them, neither pure science nor pure philosophy, ranade is just mumbling what he has experienced or has learned, he has'nt researched himself and wrote those puranas, he's just a presenter who is presenting his views on what he concluded after reading those puranas, let him do what he's doing, let us live our lives the way we want to...
You've read them?
Wouldn't comment otherwise. Gave up after a while.
what i understood from your thoughts had been conveyed in my previous posts..Rishabh_sharma1990 said:
), better luck reading our history bro, you like that it's cool, hope you'll be the next big ranade for our country.. 
.@Ratul : Though i appreciate your views. But can you tell me where is the boundary of the universe? How far? If it has boundary, then whats beyond that? Does that has a boundary too? If it has a shape, form, boundary, then is it rotating itself and revolving around something higher. Does that has a boundary too? Is that also revolving around something higher? If you understand these questions, then you'd understand as well that these questions will go on recursively. Hence infinitely. Logically, universe is infinite! Now not many people actually understand infinite, even though they have read about it. If you understand infinite, then you'd understand that infinite "cannot be analyzed". You cannot divide, multiply, add, divide it by a finite number to get a different result. Once you understand that, you'd also understand that infinite has no beginning, no end. There the question comes, when did this infinite come into being? A different aspect concerning time has come into picture which by the same reasoning, makes it timeless. If you go by the shape, then also, by the same reasoning, it becomes shapeless, formless. Hence upanishads say, it is timeless, yet seems to exhibit time, formless yet seem to exhibit forms. Why?
How much can your senses analyze? Understand that your eyes are like HD widescreen, but yet limited. They can only absorb a limited environment. Same goes for ears, they cannot hear highest or lowest frequencies, sounds from distant places etc. This limitedness is absorbed by the senses and hence giving an illusion of limitedness.
Your body is a collection of energy and matter, uses energy and matter and dissolves into energy and matter. Thus, what makes us think that we are apart from the nature?
When a man liberated, free from attachment, with his mind, heart and spirit firmly founded in self-knowledge, does works as sacrifice, all his work is dissolved. Brahman is the giving, Brahman is the food-offering, by Brahman it is offered into the Brahman fire, Brahman is that which is to be attained by samadhi in Brahman-action. ( BG 4.23-24)
Therefore, understand that there is a reason behind why it is called eternal, timeless, infinite, unmanifest etc.
I can keep writing, but instead of boring you I'd suggest you to read Aurobindo to go to the profound depths of science and a scientific mind. Mind is just one of the lowers realms, why don't you explore that which speaks to you even in dreams? What is that which gives you ideas even in a peaceful state? That which is beyond all division, taggings, beyond mind, unlimited, infinite and giving us infinite possibilities, different ways to work? Won't you like to experience a thoughtless state? Most cannot control their thoughts even for a second. Aren't you curious, to know the "side effects" of the state that "transforms" if you could control your thoughts and make yourself without thoughts for even 10 minutes freeing yourself from slavery and attachment to senses and sense-objects e.g lust, greed, power etc?
How can you know that 'eternal' by dwelling just in time and space (perceptions of mind), when "that" is beyond "time and space"? Remember, time and movement go hand in hand together. How will you know time if there everything is static (sky doesn't change color, or celestial objects do not move)? Please ponder and experience this! Why is it that when you sleep, you lose all essence of time and space? Yet, you can still experience a world where time and space lose their significance. Does "that" which speaks to you also die when body dies? Can our material science, particle physics ever verify that? The questionings can go and grow more and more, which will enable you to understand "that" which you seek cannot be known by tools of limitedness i.e language, tools based to analyze limitedness, in a limited framework, to establish a limited aim!
Shraddhalu Ranade, only speaks on how then, it was possible for the Vedic seers to know the various sciences, the various levels of matter, consciousness, energy, body, plants etc. You cannot now french, if you assess it using german. Similarly, you cannot know this science that the seers present or used, if you use "modern science" as base or don't decondition or empty yourself from it. If you spent 18 years studying "modern science", then why a quick judgement on vedic science? Don't you think it would be fair if you give it atleast 2-3 years to absorb and understand with the same devotion and concentration (bhakti) you showed for "modern science" or any other area of you expertise?
@Rhitwick : Science and philosophy aren't separate from each other. Philosophy is the mother of all sciences, just like you got your dream car or dream job because of a simple thought of it consciously or sub-consciously. Similarly, the highest experience of "that/he/she" which is explained through riddles in upanishads is coherent and explained through different ways with the "same conclusion". This experience of "rising consciousness' runs through the vedic poetry like an experience, imagery, visualizations. Just like you cannot lift heavy weights in gym on the first go, similarly meditation or consciousness also goes in steps.
1. Indra: It is not now, nor is It tomorrow; who knoweth that which is Supreme and Wonderful? It has motion and action in the consciousness of another, but when It is approached by the thought, It vanishes.
2. Agastya: Why dost thou seek to smite us, O Indra? The Maruts are thy brothers. By them accomplish perfection; slay us not in our struggle.
3. Indra: Why, O my brother Agastya, art thou my friend, yet settest thy thought beyond me? For well do I know how to us thou willest not to give thy mind.
4. Indra: Let them make ready the altar, let them set Agni in blaze in front. It is there, the awakening of the consciousness to Immortality. Let us two extend for thee thy effective sacrifice.
5. Agastya: O Lord of substance over all substances of being, thou art the master in force! O Lord of Love over the powers of love, thou art the strongest to hold in status! Do thou, O lndra, agree with the Maruts, then enjoy the offerings in the ordered method of the Truth
The above is a metaphorical conversation between "devraaj Indra" and seer Agastya who tried to go without the proper steps of raising consciousness to merge into the supreme reality of which the sages describe as "that" or Vishnu or Shiva in Tantras or Shiva Purana, or sat-chit-anand. The above stresses on the "ordered method of the Truth". In my last posts, I already gave the symbology for Agni. Again, it would be better to read Aurobindo!
Once you understand this science of "self" or atma-gyan, you'd also understand it is a tool for detachment from what call as "faith and belief", and path towards realization, or transcension from the world of dynamism to seek the permanence. How can anything which is based on questioning, perfect mind control and detachment be having any subsets for "faith and belief", a religious sense?
Just like science and religion are poles apart, similarly philosophy and religion are poles apart for "questioning" is basic essence of philosophy with "why, what, where, when, who, if, but" etc.
--------
RigVedic hymn of creation :
There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?
There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.
Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.
Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.
Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know.
---------
Anyways, you need to understand the basic meaning of Yoga. It simply means to unite or perfect. When used with bhakti i.e bhakti-yog, it means perfection in devotion/surrender. Like I stated before, how can you learn let alone perfect playing a guitar or any science if you do not devote to it? Similarly, karm-yog means perfection in actions. Actually, karma is terminology which is much beyond actions. Similarly, gyan-yog means perfection in knowledge. Again, Gyan is a terminology which is beyond the usage of science today.
The physical excercise that you speak of is just a small part of various "asanas". It is not a physical exercise that one has to sweat over to self-assure that he has done great. Instead, once you understand of what you call as physical exerice, it actually rejuvenates and replenishes you with abundant energy. Its not a "physical exercise" because
- It involves breath control, which is a basic foundation. In gym we are out-of-breath most of the times. Do you call that breath control?
- It involves pure concentration, bhakti as well as gyan as well as karma yog. Hence in Gita, Krishna says, no matter which path you follow, the result is the same, for edison failed 999 times to create a bulb. Karma yog is a side effect of bhakti which ultimately results in gyan yoga. Similarly, gyan yoga perfects bhakti and karma yoga.
Thus, while doing asanas, one has to surrender all his thoughts!
- It Involves "knowing" every experience and snapshot of time and space that your body goes through
- It involves static as well as dynamic elements which may be done sequentially.
Again, you need to know why it has been called "timeless" and the basic meaning of yog to understand the concepts which are based on it.
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu9Sq1RvuoA
The realm of "matter" and senses are lowest in the scale of consciousness. So please don't casually judge yoga and meditation as "physical exercises". Please understand th terminologies they are based on, the usage and science which derives them!
Once again for the umpteenth time : Links between Vedas, Upanishads, Tantra and Puranas | Integral Yoga of Sri Aurobindo & The Mother
Let us not judge, rather let know what we are talking and devote the same time to the different subjects we debate! 18+ years to modern science and physical exerice. Atleast we can devote 5 years to yoga, meditation, vedic science?
saying it to be infinite just means that we don't have any idea (like if i give you a room full of rice, and tell you to count the no. of rice grains in that room, for you it's infinite, but it still has a definite quantity, it's just we are not capable of counting it), but it does'nt mean that it's truly infinite, it has to have some boundaries, but currently it's out of our league to measure it..
Because as I posted above the babas chanting prayers haven't done any of the above mentioned things, and the same happens to their followers.
this is not gonna happen even in next 1000 years simply because it is beyond any mere mortal human being.
are you saying those things were never there or were godly?
??? elaborate please.
you yourself answered this.if these things were never there then no doubt at all & if these things were there then by extension they are godly & as such beyond the reach of mere mortals.you can't selectively pick certain parts of vedas to make your claim & if you took the whole then it is obvious they were godly.best example of this is the supposedly infinite nature of sun which now we know is not true.sun is a simple yellow class star which has a limited life span & it is theoretically possible to destroy it.i don't think anywhere in vedas it is mentioned that "surya" can be destroyed/killed.
The reason why it is good is because it was fixed/standardised by Panini. That standardised Sanskrit has survived till date. When it was actually spoken by people earlier, obviously it had dialects. This old Sanskrit would not have been good.
I don't even see the Vedic culture being still around tbh.
completely false.according to mythical scriptures the holy trinity is immortal as they were not born but always in existence(one who does not have a beginning also does not have an end).
Then you better get this page scrapped Hindu cycle of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
wiki is not a good source for indian mythology unlike,say,greek mythology.who do you trust anyway?a foreign site run by people 99% of whom don't know about hindu mythology or your own indian mythological stories/tv serials/articles/people/.....i don't even consider it worthwhile to put a request for correction.even the page says "The neutrality of this article is disputed".maybe some religious scholar who can quote exact texts to counter such claims can put up a request but most likely such persons too will not consider it worth their time to put such a request.
satyug, tretayug,dwaparyug,kaliyug subcycles?
Wikipedia is a site run by data submitted from people, if you have a valid source go ahead and the changes will be made,
So religious texts like vedas,puranas,upnishads are useless in matters of religious mythology?
This is again an instance where the Indian science is being looked through a narrow abrahamic framework or something we call as "widely accepted" religious text.whitestar said:
Oooo!!!, then all the gods might be fighting with eachother.....
On a lighter note, I would hate it if I found out that the whole universe is just a copy of a SimCity like game being played by some being higher up in the simulation chain.
then Indra might be fighting with Zeus, or Ganga with Amphitrite..
btw, universe indeed runs itself..
and our all powerful god(s) has not found a proper solution for this. yet. *l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/24.gif
Hey, I just read that. How is this related to this thread?
Can the formless and timeless come to the rescue?
-Machiavelli, Niccolo
You can't be sure that is going to help. How he is going to react to your prayers is beyond the grasp human understanding.It does. It is not good to pray to god to get rid of all problems, instead you should pray for the strength to solve the problems.
wow, people aren't intelligent so give them religion to make them even more ignorant.
I think you forgot to grammar
Killing, fighting in the name of religion. How many people can you count.
Religion is just a tool to control the masses, which is evident even from your comment, if you could see it.
Got sidetracked...
)
IMO,
by that money , many factories could be setup in which the poor people could work and earn.
and India will atleast not remain in this condition of non employment.
since i live in bengal, i have seen crores spen into decorating (IMO, Wasting
and I seriously feel, that Maa Durga will be much much more happier with what i stated in my first 2 lines.
Shiva Temples in Rajasthan Helping to Conserve Water | www.reset.org
Don't follow through, posting link only for src The misplaced.
when the sentiments themselves are based on a flawed and imaginary premise, its safe to assume that hurting them will only cause a virtual hurt, ie, it wont affect the world.
What paranormal activities? Are you talking about the movie?
And who said Lord Ram built it?! Did you see him building it?
What pics? If any valid links are available, please post them here? We can then discuss further on them.
Again, how are you so sure of this?
We are doing that for past 64 pages of this thread. Go read that first.
Yeah, sure. Spiderman and Goku too.
Yaa may be thats y i was away from this dark side of TDF......
Science can actually Explain some type of Paranormal activity. like Some paranormal activity can be seen as accumulation of Electrostatic and Electromagnetic Fields which together and give us a feeling of Ghostly Activity, Ghosts may do exist, but they ar nothing but
Replies in blue italics, as always.
Sir, are you a newb? Or are you under 13? Butthurt over this slight matter. Thicken your fragile hide. This guy is being extremely nice to you. Now say sorry to him.^^^^
With such language & rudeness I will prefer not to talk with you. Go learn to be polite first.
yes, my family knows and even they have matching views.
I guess they should also vouch for this then: 6000-years
yes
The condition is that iff the entity exists. "If it bleeds, it can die".^^how can you find something which in the first place you don't even believe exist?
no fear of rejection or social stigma, i don't care about the views of the society who just don't wanna see beyond their GOD... I have my life, they have their own, if they have problem with mine, i'll deal with it myself, no need of any god here..
)
And that'll prove?
Because every answer (if not all) exists in those texts.
What was the point in bringing this up, I didn't understood. You added the word "nonsense" after a long timeI read something on the similar lines somewhere on Times of India, "Our vegetarian atma-gyani yindoo warriors were no match for the invading meat eating moslems.
. To quote you:
There are many things considered sacred in the Hindu religion. You just "wiped" them off by one single line including the many in your mind while writing that line.
yup. Completely true.
this is the most inaccurate information anyone has ever posted on these forums. there are more 100 billion galaxies that have been observed, and thats only 1/3 of what we can see. goldylocks theory assumes that life will be similar to our own, so its parameters may be waaaay off.
aliens DEFINITELY exist. if life is as random as it is, i'd put my bet on alteast ~10k planets in the galaxy having life supporting planets (read : life supporting, NOT earth-like)
^^^ This..
I always think that what if our own sun has some form of life, which are evolved to live in those extreme temps, we obviously don't know about every lifeform in this universe.. :
If what u r saying is true an there are 100 billion observable galaxies and thats just one third. That says there maybe 300 billion galaxies(approx). Our own galaxy has 200 billion stars. With many earthlike planets in our galaxy(in atmospheric sense only). So if we take conservative approach and say that there is just one planet in our entire galaxy with intelligent life. Then there maybe 1 planet in every galaxy like ours. And by simple mathematics, there can be 300 billion earth like planets with intelligent life. SO THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTREME INTELLLIGENT ALIENS WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN WHAT U SAY.
Also what @bhavsani said is there maybe billions of planets with earthlike condition in milky way itself. This report backs it up 8.8 billion habitable Earth-size planets exist in Milky Way alone - NBC News.com
. But glad to see the war is still ON. 
God is certainly not there to answer your million dollar question.
Just one question! What if aliens dont obey DNA and they have something different like GHK, KKDKKK, JJG? If they don't need carbons to start life? If they can live with Helium? Might be in core of sun there is life!
I'll give you another chance.Another atheist, recently i came up with another theory, my mind just thought that we might be living in a world like a hybrid of The Matrix & Avatar. Like we are actually just a simulation like the matrix, but not from future, but from some aliens like in avatar. Like some aliens are controlling our bodies and the world like a simulation from a distant world, and those aliens are what we call god, and when we die, we just wake up in that another world in our true bodies, what we say as heaven/hell (don't ask who's controlling those aliens)..
And those aliens are the one's who has programmed our world with limitations like not able to travel faster than light, so not able to reach very far in the universe, coz still we don't know how this universe was formed (and probably never will unless we are able to create something from nothing)..
Another atheist, recently i came up with another theory, my mind just thought that we might be living in a world like a hybrid of The Matrix & Avatar. Like we are actually just a simulation like the matrix, but not from future, but from some aliens like in avatar. Like some aliens are controlling our bodies and the world like a simulation from a distant world, and those aliens are what we call god, and when we die, we just wake up in that another world in our true bodies, what we say as heaven/hell (don't ask who's controlling those aliens)..
And those aliens are the one's who has programmed our world with limitations like not able to travel faster than light, so not able to reach very far in the universe, coz still we don't know how this universe was formed (and probably never will unless we are able to create something from nothing)..
Another atheist, recently i came up with another theory, my mind just thought that we might be living in a world like a hybrid of The Matrix & Avatar. Like we are actually just a simulation like the matrix, but not from future, but from some aliens like in avatar. Like some aliens are controlling our bodies and the world like a simulation from a distant world, and those aliens are what we call god, and when we die, we just wake up in that another world in our true bodies, what we say as heaven/hell (don't ask who's controlling those aliens)..
And those aliens are the one's who has programmed our world with limitations like not able to travel faster than light, so not able to reach very far in the universe, coz still we don't know how this universe was formed (and probably never will unless we are able to create something from nothing)..
this is great. keep going.Another atheist, recently i came up with another theory, my mind just thought that we might be living in a world like a hybrid of The Matrix & Avatar. Like we are actually just a simulation like the matrix, but not from future, but from some aliens like in avatar. Like some aliens are controlling our bodies and the world like a simulation from a distant world, and those aliens are what we call god, and when we die, we just wake up in that another world in our true bodies, what we say as heaven/hell (don't ask who's controlling those aliens)..
And those aliens are the one's who has programmed our world with limitations like not able to travel faster than light, so not able to reach very far in the universe, coz still we don't know how this universe was formed (and probably never will unless we are able to create something from nothing)..
In cosmos, by Carl Sagan
Billions and Billions by Carl Sagan
The Magic Furnace by Marcus chown - this one later on has details on sub-atomic scale of what went on in the first few moments of the big bang, and how we came to know each of those things, but that's 4-5 pages long.
I have. She is known to push logic too far, making her writing dry and boring.
Rationality dictates he fight on for his country, even if he flees now, he will eventually die. That what keeps him fighting
Typical overused line by theists since the beginning of time. Screw reason, lets believe in magic man in the sky! What is the phenomenon? We cant explain this sh*t, it must be God's miracle!! "
..but does that makes us invincible ? the fate of everyone seems the same in the end..birth-death..repeat.
I didn't try checking multiple options but was it just a single choice or what ? Because [MENTION=22610]hsr[/MENTION] voted twice ?
(Unsubscribed)
lol, if somebody re-started NOTW - n00b of the week, we have a winner here.No buddy, I'm on the right forum. Could be that there are no rules for mods/admins. That fight is pointless IMO
(just joking)
You didn't mean the"god paritcle" or the higgs boson, in any way. Did you?we are not invincible but we are definitely immortal..
what you call "god" has been found long ago by ancient scientists and each of us carry the "god particle" inside of us which makes us immortal ... western science will reach the same realization after a few thousand years..
Science or god both are the same things ... just like night and day/ hot and cold are the same thing
you can wait for a couple of thousand years with many births for the western science to confirm or you can be smart and check out for yourself in this lifetime
We arent immortal. When we die, POOF, game over. No afterlife, no heaven or hell. All these concepts exist because of ONE thing : man is afraid of death.
What is this immortal soul? What proof is there that we "live" after "death"?
Indian scientists were masters of subjectivity? How?
^ subjectivity is almost equal to religion. please take a moment and read up on the definitions, kty.
ahahaa, lol, do you know how funny that sounds?
your last part is completely false.
ok, so "western science" is "strict materialistic"? then what is psychology? psychiatry? philosophy? humanity sciences?
god isnt like a phd. its more like a nursery pass.Can a 5th class student understand the concepts of class 12 th ?
No unless he is trained to do so and his consciousness is sufficiently developed .. then how can one understand GOD which is like PHD degree
what material scientists are doing is taking class 5th books written by every author and have mastered mostly every aspect of it .. while indian scientists have already reached the level of intelligence of PHD degrees
who is the real authority then ?
oh no, you ARE here to prove something. you;re here to bash modern/western science because you mistakenly believe traditional indian science is better.First - i am not here to prove anything , and i am not claiming anything
did you read the above link provided by Anorion ? that was the largest case study done .. and people showed objective results they were able to see hear the events everything even though their eyes were closed and were heavily drugged totally unconscious , their heart beat stopped and there was no life in brain..
this is a great proof .. there are other objective proofs as well
i dont even know how to properly respond..... what the ****? give me an example how it'll "invalidate everything science believes in"?
you totally forget the point : science looks forward. it'll change its theories to match new evidence, or make new ones.
( i couldn't link these theories at that time .. so here is some food for thought ..
actually Modern Science is very close now, i'll use the terms ancient scientists which includes all yogis,buddhists,chinese,egyptians etc..
Claim 1 by Ancient scientists - the world is duality
this has already been proven by quantum physics in the Double Slit Experiment .. .. all matter and light are both particle and wave..
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Claim 2 - there are other realms and dimensions than our physical plain
See we know that Relativity theory of einstein works beautifully for our planets and our material universe but it falls apart at the quantum level at black hole..and quantum physics works beautifully at quantum level but falls apart at the larger level .. hence both proven theories are incompatible with each other
there is only 1 theory that works well with both quantum physics and relativity theory and that is String theory ( a subset is M theory )
String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but it hasn't been proven yet because of limited technology for experiments .. now this theory states that there are 11 dimensions..
the theory supports duality as well..
Claim 3 - Reality is an illusion
Simulations back up theory that Universe is a hologram : Nature News & Comment
this gives evidence in support of string theory..
Claim 4 - consciousness is outside our physical body
compelling objective evidence has been given in the link by anorion and 1,000s of testimony/anecdotes/case studies are there in medical literature..
those who are well versed with quantum physics please point out the holes in it and if i am saying anything wrong or relating anything wrong.. not copy pasting it from anywhere just linking them in my tiny brain ...
Not the pyramids BS again :\
Hogan cautions that theidea that theuniverse is a hologram is somewhat misleadingbecause it suggests that our experience is some kind of illusion, a projection like a television screen. If the Holometer findsa fundamental unit of space, it won't mean that our 3D world doesn't exist. Rather it will change theway we understand its basic makeup
^ this is the main point. its not a "mayajaal" or illusion as you've expected.
you see those Chinese martial artists and zen monks doing crazy stuff with their body and mind control deemed impossible by science( these are effects of experiments ) and then when those people tell you they did it by energy and chi and then it is labelled as pseudo science..
no, its outside the NORMAL range of the human body. there have been extreme cases of an old woman (around 40-50 yrs old, i think), lifting a car to save her daughter (was stuck under the car due to accident).
are you saying that highly praised string theory is crap without even waiting for experiment results ? no scientist will deny the possibility of another dimension ,.. I am sure if it is proved there is another dimension then every scientist on this planet is going to study and explore that dimensions
i personally believe string theory is quite invalid, main points being : A) How do strings individually "resonate" without affecting the overall structured model of the universe, ie, if strings have infinitely many possible frequencies,why do we only see certain specific "quantum" of them, like the subatomic particles.... if it was truly "unique" frequencies, there'd be infinitely many types of particles. B) Same problem as quantum physics when applied to black holes : how do strings react when they meet a black hole? even worse, sheets or branes interactiing with singularities. we cant even solve it in 4 dimensions, let alone 6/11 dimensions that are required for string theory.
Sir please explain the placebo effect and please also tell us how do some incurable diseases like cancer sometimes just magically disappear .. and problems like arthritis are cured by fake surgeries ? why do these kind of miracles keep happening all the time in the so advanced medical science ?
"magic", you keep using that word. could you explain why cancer has gone away in some patients? if you cant either then no use blaming science. cancer is just a wild population growth of cells, nothing else. it depends on many factors (many of which are not even properly studied, let alone categorized). which arthritis surgery is "fake"? you get a full joint replacement, nothing fake.
all I am saying is that science doesn't understand everything yet .. so you see those homeopathy medicines ( it is mostly water ) and chinese traditional medicine that have been healing people for milleniums may all along have known the secret of mind .. modern science renamed it to placebo effect and spontaneous remission...
^ yea, science cannot explain everything NOW. just wait and watch
Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real - Science - News - The Independent
.. I don't know ask these NDE survivors why most of them have had similar experiences despite difference in race , nationality and other differences .. they say they have a soul or consciousness outside of their body and it isn't a hallucination
^you'd expect a white man to have different reaction to a black woman? kinda racist, imho. BTW, this still doesnt prove existance of a soul in any form. and when a person is close to death, they'll believe anything. plus, the most potent memries at this time (like, "life flashed before my eyes" sort of thing) are of childhood. and what are we taught? that "ek bhagwan hota hai, pooja karo", etc. i'd like to see how many of those people were highly religious and how many were athiests or agnostics.
but then does science fiction gives experiments and techniques and are they practiced by millions of people without any results for thousand of years ?
could you please explain better? i dont understand this phrase...
ohh pyramids .. please explain that as well how did they build that in that time .. and how were those pyramids able to withstand those countless catastrophies and still stand erect ..while moderns cant even build 1 with all their tech right now let alone through simple tools...
pyramids were built of SOLID stone. like, try to destroy a huge stone cube the size of a truck, really, try to. thats how thick the stones were. for your point : modern buildings are much more stronger compared to anything else. do you live in a high rise building? my 15 floor building has 4 homes in each level, around ~2.4k sq feet each plus 1k lobby area, all that load is supported by ~36 pillars of ~1-2 sq feet cross section and 4 square enclosures (think hollow square pillars) of ~200 sq feet each, with normal wall thickness. all that wieght on such a small area. thats how strong buildings are.
People have fought wars on the pyramids. the sphinx lost her nose/face because british/french (forgor which) used her for target practice.
try hitting a modern building with bullets of that era, it wont do much damage. please ask any architect how much force is required to break a modern wall, vs a random sandstone block.
also, pyramids are the most stable shape in nature. we build long rectangles. if WTC was a pyramid, you could've dropped 15 airplanes on it, and it'd not have collapsed.
oh just so you know in case you aren't aware... 1 guy claimed he knew all the secrets of ancients .. and to prove he alone built that structure without anybody's help singlehandedly and without modern tools not long ago .. he never revealed that secret to anybody .. so you know ancients weren't fools .. ohh did I mention he cured himself of tuberclosis without any doctors help ? interesting chap
"never revealed secret", ie, he didnt have any. as i said, no proof, no entry. sorry :/
.
reply.name said:
okay. thanx 4 sharing.
that man is a charlatan and a fake. he isnt even a proper doctorate holder. all his "achievements" have been given by religious universities (those which award random stuff for saying any kind of religious stuff).
doenst give a SINGLE reason to support his argument.
what are natural resonant frequencies? but wait, this guy isnt even properly educated lol!! who authorized him to make such far-reaching decisions?
pure and unadulterated nonsense. tell me this : what was the first cause of computers?
none exists for god either. and there is a much better empirical chance of being a gazillion other universes than that of being a god.
^Irreligion by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
feminism and communism are misguided attempts to right the wrongs of THE MASSIVE CLUSTERFK that has been the last 4000 years.
WTF did I just read ....
Atheists don't. 99% theists do.
Good to know. BTW I'm not scared of atheists. They're just people with different beliefs. Its the fanatics that are dangerous.
Actually it is a good argument if you look at it from their side. They only use it because it takes care of 99% of theists. Doesn't it?By looking at the questions atheists put, it seems that it is their assumption as well.
I am a theist but that's not my thinking. So there.
No, humans have been FORCED to NEED to believe in something. this is why EVERY SINGLE CHILD IS BRAINWASHED, by these few words "Acche kaam karna, beta, varna bhagwaan dand dega" (Do good deeds or god will punish you). Nobody reqires a god. If you NEED a god or something to believe in, to keep in you in line, and behaving good, then im sorry to say, you are a terrible human being. ergo, all theists are terrible human beings.
every single human is capable of all that. those who have done it, have RENOUNCED god. each and EVERY single point you have said is never followed by theists. let me break it down for you :
XD. and I proclaim myself the ruler of the whole universe! Everyone bow down to me!!
He knew it, his post has a razz smiley
He knew it, his post has a razz smiley
Oh my mistake then. Apologies
Agree.
sentences like this in your otherwise somewhat decent arguments is like those small stones found in daal/pulses dishes served in poor quality restaurants.If you really believe Nikolas Tesla was a telepath then it makes you no different from those who believe in prophets walking on water.
hi buddy you still think this is a fighting debate ?
[MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION] sir brilliantly put up in words ..
i agree that's the case with most cases but extrapolating it to all and every case isn't logical in the case of the growing evidence...
i am assuming you haven't read up any of my previous posts and hence this explanation ...
tesla's case isn't even a case its just a 1 anecdote out of millions of anecdote out there .. like i told you before i just mentioned him passingly..
there have been far more conclusive evidence than that under controlled environment although repeatability is a factor and hence widespread acceptance in mainstream science is still hard until further conclusive repeatable evidence in double blind studies is found .. in next 30 years it might become a mainstream fact as well..
regarding your confirmation bias
confirmation bias can only work when brain and heart is alive it cannot work when brain is dead and flatlined .. read up the research on NDE please and that totally renders that argument invalid
totally wrong and a very dangerous philosophy indeed..
if that was the case then nobody would be able to get rid of addictions without using any drugs or medications..
if that were the case strict materialist atheists believers would still be fearing gods which isn't the case... most of might still do but others dismiss god as a nonsense joke and continue to live happy lives until they die without any need to believe,worship or fear ..
please read up on "placebo effect "
people can insert 10 inches of nails in their arms and not feel any pain or drop even a single drop of blood ..
please don't mix all religions in 1 basket .. practical religions like buddhism,yoga, Chinese martial arts , qigong aren't even theoretical , they are all based on practical exercises , theory is just a guide and an explanation just as we have in science ..
tell me what is the probability of a tradition or a religion that is not based on money/fame/theory /faith/fear / an easy way out to busy people like you said / something for foolish people to believe in for etc...
and is totally based on practical experiments would last .. ? 10 years - 50 years ... 100 years ?
thousands of years ? impossible
i can come up with a religion or a tradition with an experiment like jump in a certain way 100 times and claim you will fly.. people will follow the exercises first and when they don't fly they are at somepoint going to say its bullshit man it doesn't work (no matter how gullible or foolish they are ).. and after getting pissed off for wasting their time they are sure going to kill me .. and this practice or religion would have fallen out of time..
the very fact that it exists today is a great indicative proof in itself that it has worked for people practicing it for thousands of years.. is open for anyone to try it out and see for themselves
most practitioners devote their entire life perfecting these exercises , stay away from societies and live in areas like hills and mountains, hardly talk to general public , give up their families , money , fame etc .. unlike these religious leaders , popes and tv babas who sit and sleep in cash , gold and fame and rule over gullible people ..
we can say ohh these old people were dumb and foolish in believing sun as their gods and thinking rain , thunderstorm as an act of god .. most of it might be but all of them ? mayans had precise calenders that work with marvelous precision and was very scientific community... egyptians had batteries more than 2000 years ago .. while we discovered only 100 years ago..
egyptians had great knowledge of reverse magnetism and other laws and they were able to cut these tons of rocks with great laser like precision with simple tools and build these great pyramids which we don't understand yet
take for example mahabharata
1 ) assuming its Fake
this is so detailed and describes fine scenery in its details that no fiction tale of modern day writers can match or write up a similar story . they explain things like after effects of nuclear wars , multiverse theory , flying airplanes , all are real places , and many other things
if this is all imagination then imagine the intellect of the imaginator who made up that story in that time .. even davinci was only able to imagine airplanes in 1500 ad ..while mahabharata is dated around 3000-5000 bc
and why would he be the only 1 possessing this high intellect ? there should and were many like him as well
so not all of them were fools and dumb ..
2) well if its real then
i can write more stuff on it but i'll be repeating what i have already said in past posts..
hi buddy you still think this is a fighting debate ?
all i can say is then congratulations on winning .. well done
as for me i never even cared..
bye won't be posting for long time now
Yeah, I'm also getting confused....
[MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION] dude you are mixing God with telepathy and all other thing ...
Bingo ... we are on the same page
ohh and if you think its due to some gene .. almost all buddhists monks can do this and not only this they can increase their body temperatures enough to evaporate wet sheets at will .. slow their heart beats, pulse etc some can even stop that at will and achieve a flatline of brain with 0 activity .. its consuming my time too much , wasted 5 hours on this .. can we delete our ids
What it means is that even several minutes after onset of clinical death there is still some active brain cells or in other words anyone who recovered from clinical death did it with some % of brain still functioning,there is no recovery once 100% brain cells are dead.
so beside the contradicting statements the summary of this is you will only choose what sounds logical to you,the ideas of quantum mechanics like being in 2 places at once sound illogical to even many educated people doesn't mean it is wrong..
well, you shouldn't do that. Why are you getting so emotional?
You are free to criticize me or even [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION](i think he is even a bigger supporter of freedom of speech judging by his patience on med....or's posts in the past).
[MENTION=138559]rish[/MENTION],why do you think your posts will be deleted,because i can & i disagree with you.As long as your posts conform to forum rules i will not touch them even if i don't like them.This is called freedom of speech which sadly is diminishing in our country.
You are free to criticize me or even [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION](i think he is even a bigger supporter of freedom of speech judging by his patience on med....or's posts in the past).
you wouldn't or any good administrator wouldn't which i knew rabooo sir won't , that's why i took the initiative myself ... criticizing is never useful whether justified or not .. ..
I love how you say that then go on to try and refute everything I say
Take a stance, do it openly, without fear or embarrassment, but admit that it's a stance, not a part of a righteous cause and the only acceptable way to think, and everyone who matters will respect you for it.
I don't assume it exists, I said it might exist, as might a God (despite increasing proof against it). However, in order to make theories and take leaps of faith (as science does often), a base is needed. A base that holds its own against a test of logic and scientific probing.
Again, you lose me at "mainstream". This is the age of the internet, where cats go viral. Actual proof of telepathy in action would run amock and eat aforementioned cats for breakfast. Look at the big deal they made of that silly brain dead study, with crappy articles written about people being brain dead and then coming back and describing events such as white lights, etc. Brain dead = dead, no one's come back from being "brain dead". They talk of under 3 minutes. That's the average drowning victim who's stopped breathing. Lifeguards save people like that on a daily basis. Of course life guards aren't sitting around asking the survivor questions about their experiences, but something tells me a human mind, especially a religious one, would tend to experience a holy experience when approaching death. Even if they didn't, they'd make one up after awakening...
Perhaps, or perhaps you haven't got what I'm saying. There are cases where people "wake up" despite anesthesia being administered. Surely you understand that the brain is complex and more subconscious than conscious. All that "use only 10% of your brain" stuff comes from that.
Of course, it takes something drastic...
By definition an NDE is during a traumatic time. WAY, WAY, closer to death than I got, for example. If that doesn't change them I'd be shocked. Plus, since it's all chemistry anyway, maybe being dead for 3 minutes does that to people. That's another study waiting to be done, the before and after of people who are dead before being brought back to life...
watch it on superhumans for demonstration
again are we slaves of chemistry ?
Yes, they have. It's the simplest way to build tall. Kids do it, with small blocks. The advantage they had then was making it a national obsession. It was how cricket is to India in Egypt. Thus they were the best at it. Plus it helps to have a million slaves.
No one said they were dumb. However if they came to our world they would not teach us, they would die of mental overload trying to understand way too many new concepts that kids of today take for granted. Thus in that sense, and only that sense, they are dumb comparatively to today's scientists, but still brilliant in their own time.
That's wonderful and rare if you can pull it off. But it's important to not remain a fence-sitter if you want to get somewhere. No harm in heading down a wrong path and digging deeper, that way if you're wrong, at least you learnt what NOT to believe... Most people become atheists this way, fyi. I haven't met an atheist who hasn't first dug deep into the religion of his/her upbringing looking for answers and eventually finding disappointment... of course some go on to just join science and treat it as a religion, which is also wrong... However, use logic, try simple answers before complex ones, and demand proof and repeat-ability, and you will generally be happier with the answers you get... or so I have experienced for myself...so lets just say i am an open minded outsider , wherever that leads me ..
i agreed with that statement.. but not with the rest of the post because it is contradictory on the basis of current evidence that is there..
Logic dictates that these people have seen too many episodes of Grey's Anatomy, and done a lot of research on things, and describe things in generic ways the way shows or research videos depict them. I am yet to read a very convincing tale of doctors and nurses filing an official report with a video of the ER (all good hospitals have monitoring equipment, especially those conducting such fantastic research and studies), and a video of the patient in the recovery room waking up and going, "OMG I remember EVERYTHING!" Blur out faces and show us these research videos, they'd go viral. If send this prayer to 10 people things can go viral, I'd surely expect a whatsapp message informing me when god is found...
Of course, it takes something drastic...
By definition an NDE is during a traumatic time. WAY, WAY, closer to death than I got, for example. If that doesn't change them I'd be shocked. Plus, since it's all chemistry anyway, maybe being dead for 3 minutes does that to people. That's another study waiting to be done, the before and after of people who are dead before being brought back to life...
What you just described doesn't need near death or out of body experiences. Sometimes it comes with emotional experiences, sometimes with age and a change in chemistry (maturing), etc. Bill Gates is a prime example, and I don't remember reading about any drastic experience with him, or him becoming super religious or whatever...
I know many atheists who don't "fear death" and are happy, many religious people too... heck even terrorists don't fear death, it's not that rare a quality, really. It's just a chemical state that arises out of being assured internally of one's righteousness.
I'm glad my misery is "great" to you
(I'm kidding I know what you meant, but I am picking on what you typed, because that's what a$$es like me do)
Let me give you another theory based on logic but with no proof whatsoever. This is the one thread on the internet where people who argue against me should allow me that liberty, since that's all they do anyway.
Brainwashed science believers please close your ears and go "la-la-la" loudly for the next 10 minutes.
Like I said before, the brain has two components, conscious and sub-conscious, and they're connected. Think of them as a client-server relationship (this is TDF after all). The client is the conscious, the server the sub-conscious. Both run different OSes, but talk to each other often. They're not as seamlessly connected as our real-world computers are with, say, defined protocols and precise coding.
For creationists: This is because God is actually a stoner geek who likes to code life in his spare time when high, and has thrown in about 2% proper code and 98% of Easter eggs and memory hogging rubbish - which you can call JAVA, if you want.
For evolutionists: Because our brain still has so many remnants of all the evolutionary species we once were, there's a lot of birdsongs and monkey mating calls still rattling about up there...
Despite this imperfect connection, still, somehow things get done. Of course there are glitches galore, and people can sometimes forget even basic things like the spelling of "the", or forget the name of a popular character in a book, and then 1 hour later in a totally random situation shout "Aha, now I remember, her name is Clarice!" -- not the best thing to remember during your own wedding ceremony, but, well that's the way the stoner coded it...
The client tries to constantly control the server, and the server always tries to control the client, and in this tug of war, sometimes one wins, and other times the other. For some things, there's no competition. You cannot read when sleepy. You cannot unlearn how to ride a bike.
Thus, with all this imperfect chemistry at play, sometimes weird things happen, and people go nuts, some become more rational and almost everyone matures. Men become better as the testosterone levels drop slightly after the teens. We call it getting serious. Men and women fall in "love", differently, because the chemistry of our brains are slightly different (sorry feminazis, it's true, we are different).
So basically, we're all different, but all still the same, because you may have different fu**-ups in your head than me, but the truth is we're all fu**ed-up and yet all still "sane". We agree on many things, and disagree on a few. We all agree that rape is bad (majority, not ALL), freedom is good, etc. But that's because of a common upbringing. Someone who has lived in a country with a dictatorship forever might feel that's the best way to live. Billions of Chinese might feel communism is the best way...
How do we find what's right? Expose everyone to everything, try everything, experience it all, travel, see the world, bring differences of opinions together like here and let people decide on their own...
When you click a create new folder button, why is it always called "New Folder", or "New Folder1". You know what folder you want, why doesn't the OS just do it? Because your connection with the OS is through a limited means. A button, a mouse and a keyboard. If it were wired to your conscious brain, it would just create what you thought, as you thought it... the connections between conscious and sub-conscious are different from what we can achieve physically, for now.
However, without doing anything drastic such as cutting up your brain or using electro-shock therapy... think of the movies... You may be a cold and lifeless rock, so I won't assume 100% success, but I can say with some surety, that almost everyone has been moved to tears at some point in their life by some movie. Yes, yes, even macho men who never show feelings have had their eyes well up, and then they push down and bottle up emotions as "real men" should. That's chemistry, making you lose control and do what you normally wouldn't.
Everything is a theory, even with proof. That's the beauty of science, it isn't perfect. It's a work in progress, based on physical findings, and extrapolations made off of those findings, and often wrong. Just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean it's inexplicable, or cannot be found. We didn't find out just about anything until a thousand years ago (millions of years after existence), yet in 20 years we've gone from postal communication to this... give it time. Don't consider "not knowing" as a "failure", it's merely an "opportunity" to learn even more.
Want to bet? I can make you kill yourself. Assuming you don't want to do that at some level already... it's a 180 on your life philosophy. You might say you would "Never commit suicide" and yet I can make you do it using only chemicals. That's me choosing FOR you. You don't spend 60K on an iPhone unless you've been coaxed into it by some external force.
i never said my heritage is great .. infact believe it or not i was far more conditioned to western oriented thinking than you think .. ( you can give credits to internet, hollywood movies,tv shows etc
) it is assumed everywhere.. yes they would be mentally overloaded now seeing all this development..
seriously!you are countering some scientific studies with wikipedia quotes.You are contradicting yourself again.when brain stops functioning 100% it is brain death else clinical death,as simple as that.It also means that all those resuscitated persons did it with some kind of brain activity(aka not 0% brain activity).You claim scientists don't understand brain completely but yet you seem to believe 100% the accuracy of brain activity recording machines & i am sure you know all machines have a limitation of some max & min value.We are talking about neurons inside brain here which emit electronic pulses & who knows what can happen when a few dozens fire simultaneously in a clinical death(human brain has trillions of these neurons) but we do know that there were some active neurons because 0 active neurons=100% brain death.
What you did is something detrimental to what forums stand for. Wrong thing to do actually. Misuse of the right to edit and delete.i was not emotional
far from it .. i actually wanted to have a way out, because it was starting to disturb my plans and taking too much time .. this sounded like a great exit..
doing this way i can fool my subconscious into not visiting and breaking the pattern of visiting digit.in .. no past posts /no id = no desire to visit or indulge into further interaction
so you see my evil plans
This is brain/total death not clinical death because there is no electrical current running through it,it can be turned on again because it is a machine unlike brain.Clinical death would be a dead cpu but rest other working parts meaning you can replace the part & turn on the laptop.In both cases it can be turned on after being off.This is completely wrong analogy.You are the one who is not getting it.
again with wrong analogy.do dreams come with some sort of HD certification telling this dream image you are seeing is 4k & this is 360p so you are having "larger than life experience at 4k"?
how do you know how many neurons it takes to create a white figure floating in sky but we do know that it takes a lot more neurons to do anything that can withstand a serious scrutiny(aka thinking to figure out solution of a complex differential equation that can be verified by others).As for gestalt psychology again why do you think it needs detectable brain activity,do you know someone who has figured out how many minimum no. of neurons it takes to use gestalt concept to create an image?that just means drugs induce similar chemical reactions in any human brain resulting in similar dreams & now you are equaling normal sleep dreams with drugged state,really not helping your case.As for doing it at will as they say think about something hard enough & you will probably get dreams about that thing,if somebody wants to be visited by lady in white hard enough he will be visited by lady in white in dreams,many such cases of mental patients are there.
I hope you know that dna is the building block of every living cell & every part of humans consists of those cells.In fact you can say that survival instinct of these cells make them work harder than an average person's cells to compensate for the loss in quantity by increasing quality.
if this is true then it means either Einstein,considered by many as the greatest scientific mind,chose to neglect the "soul power" which is again considered by many as something of a holy grail of religion & science(those who believe in both god & science) or it was a fake/mistake.I(& any other rational person) will place his bet on latter not former.
go back 200 years ago & you would still find people claiming to possess telepathy & soul power.
who can read when you deleted it?
you arent "out of your body". thats why all these things are false.
[MENTION=140405]Hrishi[/MENTION] Do, there is no try.
[/quote]
Playing devil's advocate, I can say that although walking a little would explain method, it wouldn't explain sustained effort. If i explain the door, you will say now explain the castle, if I explain that the castle took 10 years, you will say but explain the balancing rocks, if I explain that you will find something else.
Fact: No one saw him work.
not a fact .. think logically ..
coral castle was totally mysterious when it was being built , neighbors used to peep while he was working.. with this much hype it was impossible to hide those secret workers or army ..and if it was the case don't you think any of the crew members would have come out and spilled the beans, ?
yes no can prove .. i said the witness said it he levitated stones.. the witness is not a scientific proof , and can be accurate or flawed as well.. but you are outrightly dismissing it as nonsense because the witness were teenagers and there were many , not just single 1 who saw it.. eye witness are counted as evidence in court .. levitation or anti gravity theory is just a hypothesis and the reason is not because of the eyewitness alone ,its also because of the 4 papers he published on magnetism .. i have already told you his view on magnetism is totally different and proposes a different theory and as a proof he gives experiment to show some things like perpetual motions holder and other things .. which i have shown you youtube videos earlier of those experiments working .. you are not looking at him neutrally .. and outrightly assuming him as a crackpot..
and no he didn't do it with chi , i never said that.. you can clearly see he has a black box attached to pulleys and wire running through it ..
in his theories he views gravity as a magnetic force and not a seperate force .. thats the reason for that hypothesis and not the eyewitness and its stil possible even that is wrong
nobody has explained it yet.. and even i never use to give much thought on egypt pyramids until i read about coral castle..
and secondly maybe you aren't aware .. that coral castle was moved from its place to another location.. the truck driver was asked to leave the truck and comeback next morning .. but he came after half and hour and saw that those heavy stones were already placed in his truck .. and again while offloading the truck , the truck driver was asked to leave
fact is nobody knows how he did it.. this is an old documentary .. it is presented in a very spooky mysterious fashion and i don't like it about that so avoid that and focus on details and points given in the doc
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=o15_DQUm94s
please watch this documentary first .. request you not to skip this one please
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=V14aW2UpgvU
this question was raised by whitestar999 as well regarding einstein ignoring reich
this makes me doubt even einstein.. no offence to the brilliant scientist, i am big fan of einstein as well for his relativity theory ( please think neutrally )
reich made a claim that he can increase the temperature of the object without a heating source.. einstein agreed that if he is able to do that it would be "a bomb"
einstein and reich both discussed the experiment in detail.. then einstein performed the experiment for 10 days
there was a rise in temperature and einstein was puzzled over this , he couldn't think of an explanation and then one of his students pointed out and said it was due to the convection of the room ... then Reich performed experiments and ruled out convection as well by doing the experiment in air , burried under blanket and suspended in air.. in all 3 cases convection was ruled out
the temperature rise effect was still their , but einstein didn't respond or listened , even after repeated mails by reich regarding the details of his findings and experiments .. if you think neutrally that's backing off
einstein was a genius no doubt but he could have simply disproved reich rather than ignoring it outright, especially when einstein previously agreed with reich on his experiments.. he backed off later that actually gives credibility to reich.. had it been any other issue, he shouldn't have accepted and did performed the experiment in the first place.. he also criticized quantum phyiscs as well .. so its not like he was never wrong
some replication of reich theories
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwxKB9IY3Js
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PVnS72IIY8
*www.academia.edu/5848396/In_Defens...ntific_Medical_Community_-_James_DeMeo_et._al
his cloudbusters are easily replicable , as explained by him and people are replicating it google it,
this is from wikipedia
"Some of Reich's observations have been replicated by other researchers. Stefan Müschenich, in his Master's thesis, demonstrated effects of orgone accumulators on test subjects in keeping with Reich's original descriptions, while subjects exposed to a known "dummy box" showed no such effects"
these is a modern Life energy meter that is based on his older theories
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBwyNdGKl_I&list=UUKrZrQ0bJvcDQC9Et6NFU0w
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlDgWYiogeQ&list=UUKrZrQ0bJvcDQC9Et6NFU0w
reviews are there on internet
His theories and experimentation were never even given a proper chance.. just opinion of 2 doctors was enough and published in newspaper.. his books were literally burnt ( the only man in history whose books have been burnt by govt in science community) , and he was jailed .. he was wrong about some things ( UFO etc )and right about somethings( orgone energy ) which can be tested and experimented
and this chi/orgone/prana is not new .. it has been practiced for 1000s of years by kung fu masters,monks , yogis ,
this is not just a bunch of theory that people just simply believe like a religion or brainwashed into.. its a practical science .. perform exercises and get results
not right since you assumed 2 people to be 1
See there is no 100 % objective proof right now .. but that doesn't mean there is not any evidence.. there is too much empirical evidence , legitimate theories , because these things cannot be studied under a laboratory until our technology reaches far far advanced to detect other fields or dimensions
if you are not cynical then its enough to atleast make you open Minded about it, and definitely points in the direction of why materialist dogma of science is false...
you already know i am not defending any sort of god or religion .. like i have previously said my thoughts on religion is just that it has truths in it but its a complete mixed up man made Mess, ,manipulted in its present state, made up to control masses out there .. i consider myself to be anti religious myself .. Panpsychism suits me much more
so you and whitestar want some hard science stuff ?
here it is for you a legitimate theory ..
*www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyEjh6ef_8
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d5RetvkkuQ
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WXTX0IUaOg
Sir Roger penrose is not your average physicist .. see his credibility and achievements
And now coming to the point of Telepathy
see after 100 years of research and with already many positive results(Stargate,sony,PEAR) , despite the pseudo skeptics and debunkers claim its all bullshit , see how research is getting bigger and more and more researchers are doing this stuff
*journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/full
simple thing if it was all bullshit as the debunkers and pseudoskeptics claim .. then why is the research in this stuff growing despite there is no funding ? 100 years research already done and still it is not stoping , fbi using psychics for their investigation ?
And No telepathy is not theoritically possible with the Materialist Brain point of view.. that is why there is a big taboo against it and its still not in the mainstream yet
the electrical charges in brain aren't strong enough at all to transmit thought to another person... without invoking some sort of quantumness like in orch or theory
have you looked at reincarnation/past life memories studies ? look at the work of Dr.Ian Stevenson
*blogs.scientificamerican.com/berin...-afterlife-are-we-skeptics-really-just-cynics
there are cases of children remembering their past lifes at age of 2-3 years with distinct recall ... some with birthmarks defects .. like a person shot in head in previous life as a birth mark in his head
person born with half fingers because his fingers were cut in a machine in his past life..
James Leininger
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy1KVuAaKww
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz-fOKoehX8
and many others..
look at NDE experiences .. i know there isn't 100 % objective proof as of yet.. but we already have so many anecdotal evidence reporting they saw their own body , described what was happening in the operation room
what doctors were talking, these people testifying that it was all real and in no way a hallucination or dream
and not only from religious fanatics but from atheists,doctors as well
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8j2g-IsBPQ
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3adbayvKWA
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vj0qKthCgg
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l-nbk_8EII
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSfNSTB-Xd8
No eben alexanders case hasn't been debunked ( that esquire article was pseudo skeptic journalism , which was later criticised)
see the reasearch done on DMT ( this is not just a drug , its a Reality shattering , consciousness expanding drug .. its found in mostly all plants , animals , humans ..
watch the documentary the spirit molecule ..
combine all of this stuff ( NDE , teleapthy, consciousness theory, past life memories/reincarnation,DMT )
and think neutrally where is all the data pointing at ? at least its enough to consider it as a possibility and be open minded about it i am not saying start believing in God or follow religion , heck i myself don't do that but definately there is more to life than just matter and biological robot stuff thats my viewpoint .. whats out there i don't know
Closing thoughts
thanks and hats off to you too it was nice discussing with you ..
I already have said it before i was never debating here .. just wanted to have a simple discussion , although i admit it later got turned into a debate(human nature) but it wasn't my intention at all
this is my last post on the forum probably ( want to move on now already wasted too much time , maybe comeback later someday ), its just that i was and am myself exploring this stuff when i started discussing ..
call me gullible /ignorant / dellusional whatever you want to me call me .. i don't really care and was never here to win an argument.. it was just a reflection of personal exploration in this stuff ..
Anyways thanks [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION] , [MENTION=102842]doomgiver[/MENTION] [MENTION=126812]whitestar_999[/MENTION] for discussing
hope you have a great time ahead
bye
Old ID merged into the new ID and you again have to use a valid e-mail ID to verify yourself. You won't be able to post until then. So, go to your preferences, enter a valid e-mail and verify.
jeez [MENTION=300899]rish1[/MENTION] why are you so afraid of hearing other ppls view? It's like you don't wanna change your mind and want things to be mysterious/ambiguous even if the proof is there, you post your views and say you don't want any debates/discussion? Atleast [MENTION=102842]doomgiver[/MENTION] reads and replies however brash his replies may be.
i hate doing this but you are on and on constantly attacking .. i ignored you 2 times already
ohh no i am actually too lazy myself .and it never really bothered me before as i used to do it in my free time as it interested me.. its just this when i got into this thread into posting long arguments that messed up my time and schedule... lesson learned will be careful from next time
Well i never intended to attack you personally rather your views, so apologies from my side if u got offended
nice talking with you ..
Well being a Christian i'll give a Christian point of view.
A Conversation with God
Grab a cup of coffee, sit back and enjoy!
Its long but worth your time
I met god the other day.
I know what you’re thinking. How the hell did you know it was god?
Well, I’ll explain as we go along, but basically he convinced me by having all, and I do mean ALL, the answers. Every question I flung at him he batted back with a plausible and satisfactory answer. In the end, it was easier to accept that he was god than otherwise.
Which is odd, because I’m still an atheist and we even agree on that!
It all started on the 8.20 back from Paddington. Got myself a nice window seat, no screaming brats or drunken hooligans within earshot. Not even a mobile phone in sight. Sat down, reading the paper and in he walks.
What did he look like?
Well not what you might have expected that’s for sure. He was about 30, wearing a pair of jeans and a "hobgoblin" tee shirt. Definitely casual. Looked like he could have been a social worker or perhaps a programmer like myself.
‘Anyone sitting here?’ he said.
‘Help yourself’ I replied.
Sits down, relaxes, I ignore and back to the correspondence on genetically modified crops entering the food chain…
Train pulls out and a few minutes later he speaks.
‘Can I ask you a question?’
Fighting to restrain my left eyebrow I replied ‘Yes’ in a tone which was intended to convey that I might not mind one question, and possibly a supplementary, but I really wasn’t in the mood for a conversation. ..
‘Why don’t you believe in god?’
The Bast*rd!
I love this kind of conversation and can rabbit on for hours about the nonsense of theist beliefs. But I have to be in the mood! It's like when a Jehova’s witness knocks on your door 20 minutes before you’re due to have a wisdom tooth pulled. Much as you'd really love to stay… You can’t even begin the fun. And I knew, if I gave my standard reply we’d still be arguing when we got to Cardiff. I just wasn’t in the mood. I needed to fend him off.
But then I thought ‘Odd! How is this perfect stranger so obviously confident – and correct – about my atheism?’ If I’d been driving my car, it wouldn’t have been such a mystery. I’ve got the Darwin fish on the back of mine – the antidote to that twee christian fish you see all over. So anyone spotting that and understanding it would have been in a position to guess my beliefs. But I was on a train and not even wearing my Darwin "Evolve" tshirt that day. And ‘The Independent’ isn’t a registered flag for card carrying atheists, so what, I wondered, had given the game away.
‘What makes you so certain that I don’t?’
‘Because’, he said, ‘ I am god – and you are not afraid of me’
You’ll have to take my word for it of course, but there are ways you can deliver a line like that – most of which would render the speaker a candidate for an institution, or at least prozac. Some of which could be construed as mildly entertaining.
Conveying it as "indifferent fact" is a difficult task but that’s exactly how it came across. Nothing in his tone or attitude struck me as even mildly out of place with that statement. He said it because he believed it and his rationality did not appear to be drug induced or the result of a mental breakdown.
‘And why should I believe that?’
‘Well’ he said, ‘why don’t you ask me a few questions. Anything you like, and see if the answers satisfy your sceptical mind?’
This is going to be a short conversation after all, I thought.
‘Who am I?’
‘Stottle. Harry Stottle, born August 10 1947, Bristol, England. Father Paul, Mother Mary. Educated Duke of Yorks Royal Military School 1960 67, Sandhurst and Oxford, PhD in Exobiology, failed rock singer, full time trade union activist for 10 years, latterly self employed computer programmer, web author and aspiring philosopher. Married to Michelle, American citizen, two children by a previous marriage. You’re returning home after what seems to have been a successful meeting with an investor interested in your proposed product tracking anti-forgery software and protocol and you ate a full english breakfast at the hotel this morning except that, as usual, you asked them to hold the revolting english sausages and give you some extra bacon. ‘
He paused
‘You’re not convinced. Hmmm… what would it take to convince you? May I have your permission for a telepathic link?’
'Do you need my permission?'
'Technically, no. Ethically, yes'
Might as well play along I thought. 'OK - you have my permission. So convince me'
'oh right! Your most secret password and its association'
A serious hacker might be able to obtain the password, but no one else and I mean
NO ONE
knows its association.
He did.
So how would you have played it?
I threw a few more questions about relatively insignificant but unpublicised details of my life (like what my mother claims was the first word I ever spoke – apparently "armadillo"! (Don't ask…)) but I was already pretty convinced. I knew there were only three possible explanations at this point.
Possibility One was that I was dreaming, hallucinating or hypnotised. Nobody’s figured out a test for that so, at the time I think that was my dominant feeling. It did not feel real at the time. More like I was in a play. Acting my lines. Since the event, however, continuing detailed memories of it, together with my contemporaneous notes, remain available, so unless the hallucination has continued to this day, I am now inclined to reject the hallucination hypothesis. Which leaves two others.
He could have been a true telepath. No documented evidence exists of anyone ever having such profound abilities to date but it was a possibility. It would have explained how he could know my best-kept secrets. The problem with that is that it doesn’t explain anything else! In particular it doesn’t account for the answers he proceeded to give to my later questions.
As Sherlock Holmes says, when you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Good empiricist, Sherlock.
I was forced to accept at least the possibility that this man was who he claimed to be.
So now what do you do?
Well, I’ve always known that if I met god I would have a million questions for him, so I thought, ‘why not?’ and proceeded with what follows. You’ll have to allow a bit of licence in the detail of the conversation. This was, shall we say, a somewhat unusual occurrence, not to mention just a BIT weird! And yes I was aleetle bit nervous! So if I don’t get it word perfect don’t whinge! You’ll get the gist I promise.
‘Forgive me if it takes me a little time to get up to speed here, but it's not everyday I get to question a deity’
‘The Deity’ he interrupted.
‘ooh. Touchy!’ I thought.
‘Not really – just correcting the image’
Now That takes some getting used to!
I tried to get a grip on my thoughts, with an internal command - ‘Discipline Harry. You’ve always wanted to be in a situation like this, now you’re actually in it, you mustn’t go to pieces and waste the opportunity of a lifetime’
‘You won’t’ he said.
Tell you! That’s the bit that made it feel unreal more than anything else - this guy sitting across the table and very obviously accurately reading my every thought. It's like finding someone else's hand inside your trouser pocket!
Nevertheless, something (other than simply having given my "permission") made me inclined to accept the invasion, I had obviously begun to have some confidence in his perception or abilities, so I distinctly remember the effect of his words was that I suddenly felt deeply reassured and completely relaxed. As he had no doubt intended. Man must have an amazing seduction technique!
So then we got down to business…
‘Are you human?’
‘No’
‘Were you, ever?’
‘No, but similar, Yes’
‘Ah, so you are a produc.t of evolution?’
‘Most certainly – mainly my own’
‘and you evolved from a species like ours, dna based organisms or something equally viable?’
‘Correct’
‘so what, exactly, makes you god?’
‘I did’
‘Why?’
‘Seemed like a good idea at the time’
‘and your present powers, are they in any way similar to what the superstitious believers in my species attribute to you?’
‘Close enough. ’
‘So you created all this, just for us?’
‘No. Of course not’
‘But you did create the Universe?’
‘This One. Yes’
‘But not your own?’
‘This is my own!’
‘You know what I mean!’
‘You can’t create your own parents, so No’
‘So let me get this straight. You are an entirely natural phenomenon.’
‘Entirely’
‘Arising from mechanisms which we ourselves will one day understand and possibly even master?’
‘subject to a quibble over who "we ourselves" may be, but yes’
‘meaning that if the human race doesn’t come up to the mark, other species eventually will?’
‘in one.’
‘and how many other species are there already out there ahead of us?’
‘surprisingly few. Less than fourteen million’
‘FEW!?’
‘Phew!’
‘And how many at or about our level?’
‘currently a little over 4 ½ billion’
‘so our significance in the universe at present is roughly equivalent to the significance of the average Joe here on planet Earth in his relation to the human race?’
‘a little less. Level One, the level your species has reached, begins with the invention of the flying machine. The next level is achieved when a species is no longer dominated by or dependent upon it's own primary – your Sun. They are able to prosper away from their own, or indeed any other, stellar system. Humanity is only just into the flying machine phase, so as you can imagine, on that scale, the human race is somewhat near the bottom of the level one pack’
‘Do you mean we will one day control our own Sun like Kardashev and Asimov talk about?’
'quite the opposite. Those are the visions of an evolving mechanical species who imagine that bigger machines are better and stronger and that we will always need more and more energy to achieve mastery of the universe. The truth is the exact opposite. The more advanced we become, the less energy we require and the less impact we make on our environment. You manipulate matter, which requires enormous amounts of energy. We manipulate energy, which requires none. As a consequence, you would not, for example, even recognise a level two species as a lifeform unless it chose to let you '
‘ all these evolving species; they are your "children"?’
‘I like to think of them that way’
‘and the point?’
‘at its simplest, "Life Must Go On". My personal motivation is the desire to optimise the intelligence of the Universe. In your own terms, I strive to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. A great deal of pleasure, however, arises from communications between separate entities. Once you’ve achieved my level, we tend to cease to be billions of separate entities and become one ecstatic whole. A single entity that cannot die unless it loses the will to live. Advanced and self contained though I am, or perhaps, more accurately, because I am so advanced and self contained, one of the pleasures we lose along the way is that simple joy of meeting new and unpredictable minds and either learning from or teaching them. Thus, in large part, the point of the exercise is to provide company. I am the first eternal in this Universe. I do not intend to be the last’
‘so you created a Universe which is potentially capable of producing another god like yourself?’
‘The full benefit will be temporary, but like most orgasms, worth it.’
‘this being the moment when our new god merges with you and we become one again?’
‘don’t play it down, that’s the ecstatic vision driving us all, me included – and when it happens the ecstasy lasts several times longer than this universe has already existed. Believe me, it really is worth the effort.’
‘Yes, I think I can see the attractions of a hundred billion year long orgasm’
‘and humans haven’t even begun to know how to really enjoy the orgasms they are already capable of. Wait till you master that simple art!’
‘So it's all about sex is it?’
‘Sexual ecstasy is merely a reward for procreating, it is what makes you want to do it. This is necessary, initially, to promote biological evolution. However once you’ve completed that stage and no longer require procreation, you will learn that ecstasy can be infinitely more intense than anything offered by sex’
‘Sounds good to me!'
'How direct is your involvement in all this? Did you just light the fuse which set off the big bang and stand back and watch? Or did you have to plant the seeds on appropriately fertile planets?’
‘The first significant level of the intelligent self organisation of matter is the arrival of the organic chemistry which forms the precursor for biology and the first primitive life forms. That chemistry evolved, mostly, in deep space, once the stars had created enough of the heavier elements, and purely as a result of the operations of the laws of physics and chemistry which your scientists have already largely understood. All I did was to set the initial conditions which triggered the bang and essentially became dormant for nearly 5 billion years. That’s how long it took the first lifeforms to emerge. That places them some 8 billion years ahead of you. The first intelligent species are now 4.3 billion years ahead of you. Really quite advanced. I can have deeply meaningful conversations with them. And usually do. In fact I am as we speak’
‘So then what?’
‘Do I keep a constant vigil over every move you make? Not in the kind of prying intrusive sense that some of you seem to think. Let's say I maintain an awareness of what's going on, at a planetary level. I tend only to focus on evolutionary leaps. See if they’re going in the right direction’
‘And if they’re not?’
‘Nothing. Usually’
‘Usually?’
‘Usually species evolving in the wrong direction kill themselves off or become extinct for other reasons’
‘Usually?’
‘There have been one or two cases where a wrong species has had the potential of becoming dominant at the expense of a more promising strain’
‘Let me guess. Dinosaurs on this planet are an example. Too successful. Suppressed the development of mammals and were showing no signs of developing intelligence. So you engineered a little corrective action in the form of a suitably selected asteroid’
‘Perceptive. Almost correct. They were showing signs of developing intelligence, even co-operation. Study your Troodons. But far too predatory. Incapable of ever developing a "respect" for other life forms. It takes carrying your young to promote the development of emotional attachment to other animals. Earth reptiles aren’t built for that. The mammals who are, as you rightly say, couldn’t get a foothold against such mighty predators. You’ve now reached the stage where you could hold your own even against dinosaurs, but that’s only been true for about a thousand years, your predecessors didn't stand a chance 65 million years ago, so the dinosaurs had to go. They were, however, far too ubiquitous and well balanced with the ecology of the planet, and never developed technology, so they weren’t going to kill themselves off in a hurry. Regrettably, I had to intervene.’
‘Regrettably?’
‘They were a beautiful and stunningly successful life form. One doesn’t destroy such things without a qualm.’
‘But at that stage how could you know that a better prospect would arise from the ashes?’
‘I didn’t. But the probability was quite high.’
‘and since then, what other little tweaks have you been responsible for in our development?’
‘None whatsoever. I set an alarm for the first sign of artificial aerial activity, as I usually do. Leonardo looked promising for a while, but not until the Montgolfier brothers did I really begin to take an interest. That registered you as a level one intelligent species’
'If the sign is "aerial activity", how do you identify technological bird species?'
"Same way. Intelligent flyers rarely become technologists though. They tend to evolve into adaptors rather than manipulators but the few exceptions develop flying machines rather more quickly than species like your own because they have a natural understanding of aerodynamics."
'but why would a bird need a flying machine?'
....
Source: RTP - Home Page
Actually mikael, I was about to stop reading after the first 4-5 sentences but it got more interesting after that. Whosoever have written this, have taken utmost care to keep it relevant to todays technological advancements and sounds believable for an atheist.
Well, as a short story it was not that well written. Feels very amateur to be honest (I have so many criticisms but this is not the thread for that). Most of the ideas he wrote have already been discussed plenty of times in philosophy. Although I will credit it for being thought provoking.
Who created the creator?
What if there is super intelligent & advanced alien species who has created or caused our existence? or it happened due to the play of multiple energies flowing within universe? In that case, those species or energies are the real god. As humans don't know the truth [yet], we created them as per our own imaginations or on the basis of long gone people who did great things for mankind.
Take sai baba for instance. today he is considered as one of the gods even when he was of 1900's. Talk about 200-300 years from now when this idea will eventually grow and people will start drawing him with aura behind his head..after 500-1000 years, maybe with multiple hands or heads with a ride of buffalo or cow (as its done for many gods today).
So both ways, there is god (as per definition). Once we come to know the truth, our gods will eventually change.
and Science...dude..its everywhere. It is the basis of everything (even the 'real' gods)
Being drunk is another level of consciousness.
Not much probability of a reply any time soon ;Deepak Chopra was last seen June 12.
What if there is super intelligent & advanced alien species who has created or caused our existence? or it happened due to the play of multiple energies flowing within universe? In that case, those species or energies are the real god. As humans don't know the truth [yet], we created them as per our own imaginations or on the basis of long gone people who did great things for mankind.
Take sai baba for instance. today he is considered as one of the gods even when he was of 1900's. Talk about 200-300 years from now when this idea will eventually grow and people will start drawing him with aura behind his head..after 500-1000 years, maybe with multiple hands or heads with a ride of buffalo or cow (as its done for many gods today).
So both ways, there is god (as per definition). Once we come to know the truth, our gods will eventually change.
and Science...dude..its everywhere. It is the basis of everything (even the 'real' gods)
Anybody can interpret anything just to answer their questions or beliefs. e=Mc^2 is not karma. Nobody seen karma, hell I have seen degraded people with successful life.
I don't know, so "Karma", pretty much sums up.
at the event horizon.
where religion starts
i hope you travel beyond event horizon like they did in that time.
When humans become stupid.
The God in God particle is just for namesake. Research is being done to find the origin of everything.
Yes, in the same way comic book characters exist.
The term came from a book called "The God particle". The author wanted to name the book "The Goddamn particle". The publishers of that time did not want a swear word on the title. So author changed to "The God particle".
Forget gadgets, if you take Harry Potter books or A Song of ice and fire back 500 years and threw out copies, today there would be religion based on Wizards of Hogwarts or Old Gods/White walkers :O
I thought it is a religion worshiping Pasta.
+100 to this thought process...
No, the failure is that human beings are not interested in wisdom like this. Learning and applying this in your life requires a certain degree of intellect that no one is willing to apply. Everyone is more obsessed with identity than values.
Were you supposed to post a hyperlink and forgot?
Spammer now banned.
Latest update after 2 years of research?
Nah just a reminder to the uninformed & delusional people.
